From julie.strangfeld at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 00:00:18 2007 From: julie.strangfeld at gmail.com (jastrangfeld) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:00:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Godfather - Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174035 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jastrangfeld" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > --- "pair_0_docks" wrote: > > > > > > > >>Carol: > > > >> > > > >> DD had tried to disable the Elder Wand via Snape > > > >> so that LV couldn't use it against Harry (or > > > >> anyone). << > > > > > > > > > pair_0_docks: > > > > > > I'm still confused...so had Snape disarmed/killed DD > > > on his orders the E. Wand wouldn't have worked? Why > > > wouldn't Voldy have just then still killed Snape > > > under the theory that he was the Master of the > > > Wand and been right? > > > > > > How could DD not have seen that he was ultimately > > > putting a bulls-eye on Snape? > > > > > > pair_0_docks > > > > > > > bboyminn: > > snip > > > > If Snape is in control of the Elder Wand, and Voldemort > > still knows nothing about it, then Dumbledore can > > be reasonably assured the wand will never be used against > > Harry. > > > > snip > > So, I think the plan was for Snape to say he didn't > > know what happened to the wand. > > > ACTUALLY - Dumbledore is allowing Snape to kill him, thus giving > permission, therefore never losing control of the wand. If all had > gone according to plan, Dumbledore would have been the last master of > the wand, as Snape would not be master as he had permission to kill > Dumbledore, therefore, not taking the wand by force. > > My understanding is the wand has to be taken without the owner's > permission. > > Julie > I'm so sorry, I forgot to reference myself! DH US version p721 "If you planned your death with Snape, you meant him to end up with the Elder Wand, didn't you?" "I admit that was my intention," said Dumbledore, "but it did not work as I intended, did it?" "No," said Harry. "That bit didn't work out." DH US version p742 "You still don't get it, Riddle, do you? Possessing the wand isn't enough! Holding it, using it, doesn't make it really yours. Didn't you listen to Ollivander? The wand chooses the wizard....The Elder Wand recognized a new master before Dumbledore died, someone who never even laid a hand on it. The new master removed the wand from Dumbledore AGAINST HIS WILL, never realizing exactly what he had done, or tha thte world's most dangerous wand had given him its allegiance..." emphasis mine. Now, I know on p741 of DH US version, Voldemort states that Dumbledore meant for Snape to be the true master of the wand. But he isn't taking into account that Dumbledore asked Snape to kill him (even though Harry just explained so on p740 of DH US version) Julie From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Aug 1 00:15:42 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:15:42 -0000 Subject: Locket and Umbridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174037 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: > On reflection, I think it's hard to support my original reading, but I > am a bit disappointed, as I liked the idea of having that loose end > about the detention tied up.... > > -- Matt > Allie: At the same time as the pain in his scar, Harry has a "peculiar sensation in his midriff" which he later realizes is one of Voldemort's extreme emotions. Happines if I'm remembering correctly, the breakout from Azkaban happened shortly after. Just coincidence that he was with Umbridge at the time. Although I did also like the idea of the locket making her even more vile than she was. From kjones at telus.net Wed Aug 1 01:03:32 2007 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:03:32 -0700 Subject: Snape finding Lily's Letter Message-ID: <46AFDBE4.8040501@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174038 va32h wrote: Personally, I think it's the author's responsibility to make sure her own story makes sense - and not our responsibility as readers to go thinking up explanation after explanation for questionable continuity. This is just one of good dozen small, easily fixed continuity gaffes. Which means either the editors were lazy and sloppy or JKR was lazy and sloppy, or they all thought fandom would just be too grateful to get the last book to care if it was any good or not. KJ writes: Exactly! None of us are asking other posters to come up with increasingly unlikely explanations for these glitches, particularly not with a suggestion of "duh". The fact is, that there should not be such glaring, obvious flaws in the plot. Other minor things, like names and curses, can be excused but when it is a necessary part of the plot to show characterization or timing, or movement of characters. That is unforgivable. Pardon me, no pun intended. KJ From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 00:51:31 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:51:31 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Moments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46AFD913.10108@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174039 va32h blessed us with this gem On 31/07/2007 09:59: > DH was really Ron's finest hour. He got all the best > lines "Sometimes Death gets tired of running up to > people, flapping his arms and shrieking" I know "me-to"s are against the rules, but while this line didn't make me laugh out loud, it did make me smile. Two other moments from the same general vicinity were Ron's "Are -- you -- MENTAL? What the HELL didn't you take this thing off before you dived?" followed by his I also mini-epiphany after pulling Harry from the pool: "That makes me sound a lot cooler than I was", Ron mumbled. "Stuff like that always sound cooler than it really was," said Harry. "I've been trying to tell you that for years." I earlier said my vote for favorite character goes to the entire Weasley clan, from Mr. Weasley as the easy-going-but-slightly-henpecked husband, to the Fred-and-George show to Molly's perpetually about-to-erupt volcanic temper. And I agree, Ron showed by far the most character development in DH. CJ, Taiwan From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 01:07:45 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:07:45 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Many responses (Molly's age, Hagrid, JKR stuff, unforgivables, etc) - also, Moody's Eye In-Reply-To: <46AEAFA1.7020901@fastmail.us> References: <46AEAFA1.7020901@fastmail.us> Message-ID: <46AFDCE1.2090402@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174040 Random832 blessed us with this gem On 31/07/2007 11:42: > It's a human assumption that working without payment makes them > inferior. An excellent point. By way of personal example, I'm an American living in Taiwan. In Taiwan it is common to hire southeast Asians (Malaysians, Indonesians, Vietnamese, Philipinos) as servants. We currently employ an Indonesian woman who has been with us about six months. She doesn't work without pay, but she does work long hours. She's basically on duty from 8 in the morning to 10 or 11 at night, seven days a week. It's an issue I've struggled with. In favor of the system are the arguments that unemployment back home is high, she has no education, and the money she's making here, while fairly trivial to us (amounting to about $650 US a month), is a small fortune to her (in three years' time she can return home, buy a house and settle down with her family), which is why she chose to do this. We have also somewhat mollified her working conditions. Most household servants start work at 5:30 or 6:00. And she chose the option to work seven days for more pay. So while, from our perspective it seems almost like indentured servitude, she doesn't seem at all dissatisfied with the conditions. Still doesn't mean I'm entirely comfortable with the situation, but it's hardly black and white. I don't think the elf situation in the WW is cut and dried either; Ron had some good points to make. > It would seem this is no run-of-the-mill magical eye. "Run-of-the-mill magical eye"? You mean there ARE run-of-the-mill ones? Where can I get one? Now this may just be because I'm an ex-teenage boy, but has anyone else considered the multitude of nefarious purposes such things as an invisibility cloak or a "magical eye" could be put to by a teenage boy with raging hormones? No girls' dormitory would be safe, I assure you.... CJ, Taiwan From prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 01:19:19 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:19:19 -0000 Subject: Deathly Hallows thoughts etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174041 > Well Harry did try to "Accio Hagrid" when Hagrid fell off the bike but > instead of pulling Hagrid to Harry it seemed to pull the bike to Hagrid. (of > course that could be due to Hagrid's size) So in theory it might be possible but > I think it would have serious size and distance limitations. > > Melissa I think it has lots and lots of limitations - from things that are spelled, to size issues... if I were renaming this book, I think I would call it "Harry Potter And The Accio Charm That Failed" or perhaps "Harry Potter And The Improper Useage Of The Accio Charm". I think sometimes JKR, like all writers, falls into a pattern - you'll notice a certain adjective being used a lot of times within a short span of pages - she obviously has it on her mind. And for this entire book, I think she was obsessed with Accio! I read this book outloud to my old roommate, Jenn - something we did with HBP, and enjoyed so much we did again w/ DH, and we were cracking up. Any time the trio needed something, it was 'Accio whatever' - and it invariably failed. Jenn started to chime in while I was reading, as a joke, guessing when there would be an Accio charm - and more often than not, she'd be right! Overused and ridiculous, especially considering how much it failed, but it wound up being a source of amusement and entertainment for us. Accio response! ~Prep0strus (Adam) From mariabronte at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 01:26:32 2007 From: mariabronte at yahoo.com (Mari) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:26:32 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's redemption In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174042 > Carol, who thinks that the blinders are off Harry's eyes at the end of > the book and he at last sees Slytherin clearly. Mari: Carol, I agree with your analysis totally. Like you, when I read HBP and DH, I don't see JKR 'copping out' and making Slytherin irremeemably evil at all. In fact for me, by the end of DH, if Harry has learned anything it is not to assume that people are good or bad based on the House they are sorted into or the qualities they start out with. Tom Riddle, Severus Snape and himself, as he recognises, all found a home at Hogwarts. It was their choices over a long period of time that determined their final fates. I see all this as an extension on Dumbledore's statement that it is our choices, not our abilities, that determine who we are. The beauty of it is that the 'villainous' Snape and 'saintly' Dumbledore have both been shown, by the end of the series, to have made wrong choices, and one of the things JKR explores is the process of reparation, atonement or redemption for different people. We all make wrong choices; we all have the option to get our feet back on the right path. The relationship between Dumbledore and Snape by the end of DH is much more complex, multi layered and real as a result of these elements in the narrative. From redwooddawn at hotmail.com Wed Aug 1 01:27:13 2007 From: redwooddawn at hotmail.com (redwooddawn) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:27:13 -0000 Subject: The Real HP for GrownUps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174043 Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald > In the Seven Potters chapter I thought it would be interesting if > when Harry was embarrassed he had said out loud what JKR tells us > was going through his mind, "Hey, treat my body with a little more > modesty". If Harry had said that, I'm certain that Ron or Fred or > on somebody would have said what we were all thinking about our > hero, "I don't see what you're so worried about Harry, you're > hung like a horse". And yes, the fact that Hermione and Flur > were among the six fake Potters is a bit kinky, but I didn't > write it, JKR did. Since reading that scene, I've been marvelling about how comfortable with sexuality the wizarding world must be, because I can't imagine ANY girl transforming into a guy and not being completely obsessed with their new anatomy. I know Hermione has disgression, but she didn't even take a peek, much less a leak. And Fleur, well, she was horrified by how her face looked..... Any muggle would have been tripping out to be the other gender for a few hours, and I'm sure the transgender mystique of our ancient Greek oracles or native shamen don't even register with the wizarding world. redwooddawn From bloggertracy at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 01:30:45 2007 From: bloggertracy at gmail.com (Tracy Woods) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:30:45 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Moments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19f52d580707311830u70bf8c3en105cc74659c24b7f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174044 I like this thread! Tough though....really, every bit of this book was a "moment" for me. On a side note, I wish I were enrolled in college to discuss things like this....our local CC offers a themed lit class every term, and this term the theme is HP! Most 'Hell-YEAH' Moment of Awesomeness: I tell you, I am so torn on all of this....there are so many, but I will join the pack....Molly did it for me!!!! Creepiest Moment Oh easily the moment in which Harry started his walk into the woods....don't know if this qualifies as "creepy" but it terrified me that I might finally have to read about Harry's death. Most Entertaining 'Stage Directions' Since 'Exit, Pursued By a Bear' I'm such a follower....but yeah, I liked the whole mismatched jumbled up crowd that showed up to fight in the RoR Most Heart-Tugging (Non-Death) Moment Harry and Ginny's kiss....that really hurt me (I've always been a lover of that storyline) Moment That Allows the Reader to Most Identify With Previously Primarily Loathsome Character Kreacher leading the school's house elves, or Dudley...this is really a toss up for me Finally... Most Difficult Moment to Describe in All It's Awesomeness Except That It Exhibits Tension-Relieving Humor, Character Consistency, Poetic Justice, & the Word 'Bemused' "Harry stunned the Death Eater as they passed: Malfoy looked around, beaming, for his savior, and Ron punched him from under the Cloak. Malfoy fell backward on top of the Death Eater, his mouth bleeding, utterly bemused." (pg 645) ***I like this one too.... Tracy From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 02:05:08 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:05:08 -0000 Subject: The Real HP for GrownUps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174045 redwooddawn: I've been marvelling about how comfortable with sexuality the wizarding world must be, because I can't imagine ANY girl transforming into a guy and not being completely obsessed with their new anatomy. I know Hermione has disgression, but she didn't even take a peek, much less a leak. And Fleur, well, she was horrified by how her face looked..... Juli: Polyjuice effects only last for one hour, every minute of that hour was going to be spent during an extremely dangerous travel. I don't think there was any time to take a little trip to the bathroom and check out Harry's anatomy. Hermione probably wouldn't even dare, their relationship has never been sexual. I have good guy friends and I wouldn't like to see them naked, that is the difference between men and women. Men take every opportunity they have to take a look at the oposite gender, the fewer clothes the better. I honestly don't see her (or Fleur) wanting to see how 'big' Harry really is. The twins might have liked to take a peak, but in a non sexual way, just to get something to tease Harry about. It would have been an almost never- ending source of jokes if Harry was 'petit'. I think they only stripped to their underwear, why change underwear when you're putting on clothes on top, then in a short turning back to yourself? I don't know whether in the UK girls wear thongs or regular panties, I've worn thongs since I was around 15, what I'm thinking is how uncomfortable it must have been for the girls to have a male equipment packed into their panties. LOL As for the innuendos, well they are 17-18, do any of you guys remember what it's like to be that age? Hormones and hormones. I'm surprised we didn't get more sexually charged conversations and scenes. I think it must have been extremely hard for Ron to live with his crush for almost a year and never slip into her bed. The boy has a huge amount of self-control. I remmeber when I was 17-18, me and my girlfriends used to talk about boys 24/7, we didn't have a war to worry about, but still, boys were on top of our priority lsit. The trio had more important things to think about, but still, they are just teenager with raging hormones, I have to give them two thumbs up for their very mature behavior. Juli From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 02:07:40 2007 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:07:40 -0000 Subject: Snape's death scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174046 > Krista: > Oh, I think Snape was indeed prepared--and his "preparation" > was a decision to stick with his cover, to try to deny > anything that would alert Voldemort's suspicions, and *then* > to get himself out alive, if possible. Jack-A-Roe: His cover? The final battle is being fought right outside the door. If the good guys lose there is no regrouping, there is no place to gather anymore and there probably won't be any leaders left. Voldemort tells Snape that he is expecting Harry to show up. If nothing else, Snape believes he knows Harry and the one thing that Gryffendor will do will be to show up and face Voldemort. Knowing this and knowing that he must get this last piece of information to Harry he decides to do nothing but die? If this is a man who has been guarding Lilly's son, are you saying that he's just going to quit? I think he just froze up for a minute. He's gotten out of most situations in the past by his wit/words or by being a bully. Neither is going to work on Voldemort. He's a double agent, he should always be expecting the hammer to come down on him which means he should always have a way out. He is supposedly a great wizard. If so, can't he defend himself long enough to make it to the door? Instead he is killed by the snake. His poor planning/reactions are saved because the reckless Harry decides to try and get to the Shrieking Shack and gets to see this unfold before his eyes. If Harry was any less of a man and didn't decide to check on Snape himself, Snape's mission would have failed. From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Aug 1 02:30:34 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:30:34 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Many responses (Molly's age, Hagrid, JKR stuff, unforgivables, etc) - also, Moody's Eye Message-ID: <24190204.1185935434377.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174047 From: Zara >I assume Rowling meant a few generations back, far enough to ensure >that the family is no longer aware of the witch/wizard ancestor. Bart: There have been some rather interesting genetic descriptions on this board as to how magic works (genetically, the way that JKR does it makes a single recessive gene impossible; what has been theorized was a combination of two genes). But here is another possible factor: People with magic in their genes give off different pheremones than Muggles, and tend to be sexually attracted to each other, and repulse those without magical genes. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Aug 1 02:32:26 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:32:26 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Moody/Invisibility Cloak Message-ID: <29169911.1185935547086.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174048 From: Cathy Drolet >"Harry stared at him [Moody] in amazement....'Can your >eye -- I mean, can you --?' 'Yeah, it can see through >Invisibility Cloaks,' Moody said quietly. 'And it's >come in useful at times, I can tell you.' " (Can Ed pg 282-283) Bart: Real theory: JKR decided it was a special invisibility cloak later on. JKR is right theory: While Harry is invisible, in the cloak, he is NOT soundless; perhaps the eye has passive sonar capability? Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Aug 1 02:39:16 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:39:16 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Danger in designating an Message-ID: <28759112.1185935956559.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174049 From: pippin_999 Pippin: >Whoa! JKR doesn't give us the reason none of them were in the fight. >Why assume that it's because they're unworthy? There are emotional >ties between the Slytherins and the DE's that Voldemort could have >used to great effect. Harry rejected using the children as hostages >against the parents, but Voldemort wasn't squeamish about using >parents as hostages against their kids. To me, every house has its positive and negative traits. A simple starter list: Slytherin: Good: Clever, ambitious. Bad: Haughty, self-centered Gryffindor: Good: Brave, Leadership. Bad: Impetuous, foolhardy Ravenclaw: Good: Intelligent, insightful. Bad: Overanalytical, given to discussions of the ifness of the what. Hufflepuff: Good: Trustworthy, hardworking. Bad: Overcautious Now, of course, it is obvious that each student tends towards the good side or the bad side of his or her house. And, frankly, not joining in on a fight to the death is not necessarily a sign of evil. Bart From sassykat1121963 at aol.com Wed Aug 1 02:27:41 2007 From: sassykat1121963 at aol.com (Kathi) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:27:41 -0000 Subject: On Patronuses In-Reply-To: <607575.33310.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174050 Okay, here's my question. A patronus can change due to trauma or emotional distress, but does that mean the prior patronus is lost forever? Could a person possibly still have the old patronus in "reserve"? Kathi From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Aug 1 03:03:29 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:03:29 -0000 Subject: Harry and Snape's Salvation/Danger in Designating the Other In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174051 > > Magpie: > > Again, not exactly a sophisticated examination of compassion at all. > > It's a perfectly good development in the story, but no, I don't read > > this section and think it's a great lesson in compassion. Kreacher's > > psychology sounds a bit more canine than the average human to me. > > Carol again: > I think maybe you don't like the whole idea of house-elves wanting to > serve human beings. You probably hated that line about wanting to ask > Kreacher for a sandwich at the end! Magpie: It's true it seems weird to me to have Harry as a slave-owner. But in this case I just mean I don't think it's a particularly meaningful message about compassion--although I agree that kindness is a good way of dealing with people in general. I thought Dumbledore's speech in OotP was incredibly condescending to Kreacher but of course it turned out he was right--he may look like sentient being, but it really does just come down to being nice to him and all his supposed beliefs and loyalties go up in smoke. As a House-Elf, he's just what wizards have made him--wizard supremacy in this case is real. Carol: I was a bit surprised by it, but > what I meant by Hermione understanding the psychology of house-elves > is that (as I read it) something in their natures makes them want to > serve wizards. Not that they're inferior in loyalty or courage or > intelligence or magical ability, just that it's their nature. Magpie: They're a lot simpler than humans if this is their psychology. By which I don't mean wanting to serve--I used to think that Kreacher was a far more interesting character, like a human with a certain personality who was proud to be a servant. He's really not like a human, or at least the kind of human I thought he was. Would Mrs. Danvers have switched loyalties to the second Mrs. DeWinter if she'd given her one of Rebecca's old gowns? I don't think so. Carol: > Also, Harry has to understand not only to be kind to Kreacher (which > is not enough initself to transfer his allegiance) but to respect and > honor Kreacher's devotion to Master Regulus. Giving him the locket > acknowledges that it's okay for Kreacher to love and honor the > Slytherin turned Death Eater who turned against Voldemort and died to > avenge Kreacher by subverting Voldemort. Magpie: I am glad that there was the Regulus respect there. But Master Regulus was "one of us" by that point. Of course it's okay for Kreacher to love and honor somebody who's fulfilled all the criteria for love and honor Harry himself holds. Carol: > At any rate, it may not be the attitude that you want Harry to adopt > toward house-elves, but surely giving a dog a clean kennel and > treating it with kindness is better than letting it live in filth and > treating it with contempt? Magpie: Of course it's a good thng to do, but I believe (iirc) that I brought it up to say basically that giving a dog a clean kennel and treating it with kindness rather than letting it live in filth and treating it with contempt wasn't exactly an example of exceptional and Christ- like compassion to humans. I mean, it's great Harry doesn't treat Kreacher as Lucius Malfoy treats Dobby--but I would assume anyone reading the book would do the same. > Carol: > Sorry about that. My own complex sentence structure, wanting to bring > in the people to whom I think he's shown compassion or empathy, > tripped me up. What I meant to say is that I don't think ist's his > compassion per se that makes him a Christ fiugre if he is one. It's > his willingness to sacrifice himself for the WW. Magpie: There I agree. I think that's Harry's thing, and what JKR is focusing on. It seems to go along with the way death is dealt with in the series. Personally, I think Harry (of the "saving people thing") would have done that in PS/SS as readily as he does in DH. Compassion that he shows for people like Neville and Luna can come into it in the way I think Harry usually sees the battle with regard to them, but I don't think Harry's compassion for either is too exceptional in itself. He is, I think, very committed to ridding the world of Voldemort even if it means his own death. He does have some moments in the series where he improves in the area of compassion, but not to the point where he becomes particularly exceptional to me. Not because I'm the great bastion of compassion, but because even with the average amount I have I'm always far beyond Harry. This could make Harry even more compelling of course, watching someone not naturally that compassionate have to learn it, but because of the way its done I never feel him having to struggle for him at all. To the point where it doesn't seem like what I would consider a real lesson in compassion isn't JKR's real point in what she's saying. It always stays within a comfort zone. colebiancardi: well - Phineas Nigellus is of a different era - it wasn't like he was headmaster within recent memory. What was commonplace to use to describe *people* back then are slurs today. Just look at a few decades ago - The US had a border program where it caught illegal Mexicans and sent them back to Mexico in the 1950's - I won't mention the name, but you can google it to find out what they called it. Operation W......(you can fill it in). Today, no one unless they are racist, would call Mexicans that. But in the 1950's, it was perfectly acceptable. Magpie: I don't feel like I can really write that into Phineas' words there. First, he's a Slytherin again associated with the word. The word seems like it was always derogatory, given the word "mud" in it. I don't get the sense it's like Phineas saying "colored." We're not hearing it from any other portrait. -m (who respects parenthetical asides!) From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 03:21:04 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:21:04 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174052 bboyminn: > > This is my appeal for perspective on the matter of > Houses, especially with regard to Slytherin. JKR > said herself that all Slytherins are not bad; that > we are seeing the worst of them. A view that I have > also held for a long time. Montavilla47: The problem is not what JKR says, but what comes through in the books. The message regarding Slytherins in DH is that they 1) don't do anything to resist oppression when it threatens their fellows (there are NO Slytherins who join the D.A. forces during the school year); 2) will actively aid Evil by handing over the champion of Good (Pansy Parkinson yelling for Harry to be turned over to Voldemort, Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle coming back to capture Harry in the RoR); and 3) will flee rather than fight when push comes to shove (the ENTIRE Slytherin House leaving the castle just before the fight. The Malfoys actually get points for running around like chickens instead of fighting for either side.) The only good Slytherins we get are Slughorn and Snape. Slughorn begs Harry not to hold his Slytherinity against him, and Snape is complimented obliquely when Dumbledore suggests he was sorted too soon--implying that if he had been older, his bravery might have earned him a spot in another House. Moreover, both Slughorn and Snape belong to older generations. The students, overall, represent the future of the Wizarding World. The underlying message is that none of the Slytherins are worthy to share in triumph of the good. When Phineas Nigellus shouted, "Slytherin did its part" (or words to that effect), what part did you think Slytherin House played? It wouldn't have taken much to show Slytherin "playing a part." For example, we could have had a Slytherin Flag in the RoR. We could have seen 1 students remaining when Slytherin left. (How much would we have loved Theodore Nott if he had stayed at that table?) We could have seen some of the Slytherin students returning with Slughorn for the final battle (with their families). Any one of those details could have given us a sense that there were "good" Slytherins. I think JKR didn't put any of that in because she wanted to give maximum impact to Snape and Narcissa's actions. But even so, she could have simply mentioned the "returning" Slytherin students when everyone is sitting in the Great Hall. Instead, we get the lonely Malfoys huddling together, wondering if any one is going to kill them for simply existing. Montavilla47 From trog at wincom.net Wed Aug 1 03:22:49 2007 From: trog at wincom.net (Dennis Grant) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:22:49 -0000 Subject: Jo's OWN Words about Political and Religious Overtones in... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174053 > anigrrrl2: > She didn't keep her spiritual stuff secret because Harry was a symbol > for Jesus - Y'know, I just don't buy this. There's a major difference between the Christian sacrifice and Harry's sacrifice - Harry has no real choice in the matter. Jesus, in the garden the night prior to being crucified, has a choice: he can go through with the plan; suffer and die. Or he can walk away - Pilate keeps giving him opportunities to do so almost right up to the very end. Or he can utilize his Godhood, work some miracles, conjure up a little pillar of fire and smoke action, and save himself. And there's no real downside - if he walks, he walks. Lives out his life building furniture someplace. OK, so Original Sin isn't redeemed, but what's that to Him, really? His choice is a painful, horrible death in the service of others, or a quiet and peaceful lifetime. He has an out, if he wants to take it. Harry has no out. As long as he lives, he bears that little bit of Voldy's soul with him as a de facto Horacrux, and Voldy cannot die. Defeated, yes, but he'll be back again and again and again until Harry finally accepts the inevitable and allows himself to be killed, or until Voldy finally figures out what is really going on and figures out some way to counter it. So Harry has no real choice to make, save accepting the inevitable. It's a mechanical sacrifice, not a spiritual one. Harry's sacrifice redeems no-one; it is a means to an end. Indeed, it is an act of finality that precludes Voldy's redemption - once that sacrifice is made, Voldy is irredeemable. The much ballyhooed "twinkle of triumph in Dumbledore's eye" is the realization on DD's part that Harry may actually survive his mission, which up until that point, was purely a suicide mission - and Harry is innocent of that fact. MUST be innocent of that fact, if Voldy is to make the ultimate mistake that results in his final defeat. Harry's sacrifice isn't Christlike at all. Instead, it is the resolution of a soldier to do his duty no matter what the personal cost, even the ultimate one. In a way, Harry has been manipulated and forged into the ultimate anti-Voldy weapon by DD, and at the end, Harry both realizes this and embraces it. DG From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 03:29:47 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:29:47 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wasted potential in Pettigrew and my overall disappointment with DH In-Reply-To: <3cd952930707311627l53fda7b3m3e336e433fdf1762@mail.gmail.com> References: <3cd952930707311627l53fda7b3m3e336e433fdf1762@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0707312029t407ae3a4u78219481b7bae25a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174054 Melrosedarjeeling: This is the one that struck me the most: after all the build-up in book six, along come the Deathly Hallows to derail them as a major plotline. It was almost like trying to listen to a radio tuned halfway between two radio stations. Lynda: During the interveening time between books 5 and 6 I would read the posts on this and other HP forums and think to myself, "there are an awful lot of people who are convinced that the next book is going to being Harry and Co. chasing/hunting the horcruxes and I think that they are going to be sadly disappointed because I have a nagging suspicion that there is still more to come!" And there was. The Hallows. Well, maybe one reason I'm not as upset with some is that I never expected this book to be one endless hunt for horcruxes, so when finding and destroying them turned out to be relatively easy and there was some new material for them to work out, that is, the hallows I was not so surprised, but rather glad to see the new storyline develop. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From va32h at comcast.net Wed Aug 1 03:29:35 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:29:35 -0000 Subject: Moody/Invisibility Cloak In-Reply-To: <29169911.1185935547086.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174055 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Real theory: JKR decided it was a special invisibility cloak later on. > > JKR is right theory: While Harry is invisible, in the cloak, he is NOT soundless; perhaps the eye has passive sonar capability? va32h: Or it detects body heat? Sort of like Geordie's banana clip from Star Trek:TNG. (Heaven help me, I am such a dork). Secretly, I have to go with theory #1, Bart. va32h From erikog at one.net Wed Aug 1 03:34:28 2007 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:34:28 -0000 Subject: Snape's death scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174056 > > Krista: > > Oh, I think Snape was indeed prepared--and his "preparation" > > was a decision to stick with his cover, to try to deny > > anything that would alert Voldemort's suspicions, and *then* > > to get himself out alive, if possible. > > Jack-A-Roe: > His cover? The final battle is being fought right outside the > door. If the good guys lose there is no regrouping The phrase "final battle" is hindsight. All Snape knows is a major battle is shaping up at Hogwarts, and Harry is somewhere out there. (He already believes Harry was actually in the castle earlier.) > Knowing this and knowing that he must get this last piece of > information to Harry he decides to do nothing but die? If this > is a man who has been guarding Lilly's son, are you saying that > he's just going to quit? No. I am saying quite the opposite. I am saying he deliberately chooses to maintain his position as a double agent, rather than dropping his cover and potentially destroying Harry's cause by revealing information about Dumbledore's planning/Order info. If he starts to run, if he strikes out at Voldemort, Voldemort will know Snape did turn on him. Voldemort will then extract from Snape any info he likes, and use that against Hogwarts and Harry. Snape's ultimate goal-- the security of Harry and his side--will therefore be lost. What good is it for Harry to know of Dumbledore's plan, if Voldemort knows it as well? > I think he just froze up for a minute. He's gotten out of most > situations in the past by his wit/words or by being a bully. > Neither is going to work on Voldemort. Apparently, Snape's words had worked well enough with Voldemort to keep him alive, in Voldemort's service, for years now, even when Voldemort had every reason to distrust him/AK him on sight (upon returning to DE service late). > He's a double agent, he should always be expecting the hammer > to come down on him which means he should always have a way out. > He is supposedly a great wizard. If so, can't he defend himself > long enough to make it to the door? I think you have made your point: If living had been Snape's goal, he had the talent, intelligence, and experience as a double-agent to do so. But he doesn't do that, and he doesn't even attempt to do so--which to me, says again, he chose to die as he did, a pawn sacrificed in Dumbledore's chess game. Krista From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Aug 1 03:38:01 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:38:01 -0000 Subject: Patronuses (was Re: Dumbledore: Patronus and Dementors (specifically Snape's) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174057 > > Carol responds: snip (McGonagall, who apparently never fell > in love, has a Patronus to match her Animagus, but that doesn't seem > to be usual. And it's a bit disturbing that Umbridge's is also a cat.) Potioncat: Oh, that bothers you? How do you think it makes me feel? ;-) Come to think of it, do we know it's Umbridge's Patronus? I'm really surprised she can cast one---stubby little fingers and short wand! But for McGonagall---how do we know she's never been in love? Besides the Patronus doesn't always reflect a romantic source, as we see in Harry's case. So the cat could reflect herself--as you and I both seem to think, though for different reasons---or it could reflect a different witch/wizard who also has feline attributes. OR, she could have been in love, but he was weak... Carol: > Anyway, I think Hermione's otter Patronus reflects Ron, not her own > playful spirit! :-) Potioncat: You're probably right, but I thought it might reflect the whole Weasley family. > Carol: snipping an excellent section about Snape's views. Totally agree.< > I do wonder what other form of communication he used to communicate > with the Order. Potioncat: I know JKR said Snape didn't use the Patronus with the Order, but that just doesn't make sense. I'm still wondering if she meant he didn't communicate after he killed DD. Has anyone found the comment about Lily's Patronus being a doe? Do we know for sure that anyone other than DD would recognise its symbolism? It would make as much sense for the doe to represent a mother or grandmother or some other witch. (I know "we" know it's Lily, I'm just questioning whether they knew.) Carol: His students, however, would not have > understood that a Patronus does not represent the caster, and I can > see why he chose not to teach that spell. Potioncat: JKR said at her site that the Patronus spell was not taught at Hogwarts. I took that to mean it was beyond NEWT level. Harry only learned it because Lupin taught him privately. Now, Snape wouldn't want to add it to his lessons because it would give away too much to the DE children. I don't think a Dark Wizard is supposed to be able to cast one. But I don't think its form would be a problem. > Carol: quoting DH "... Her presence had meant safety" (367). Potioncat: Isn't it interesting that Harry is so drawn to Snape as the HBP and to his Patronus, but not to the man. And for 6 books some of us have known Snape was trying to keep Harry safe. > > Carol, tantalized by our glimpses of Snape's magical prowess and > wishing that he could somehow have lived Potioncat: I think that was one of the reasons I was so sad. JKR wrote him as a gifted wizard, and it turned out to be so much wasted potential-- partly because of his early stupid decisions! Marion11111 wrote in ---946 (Forgot the first 3 numbers) > marion: > Yeah, well, we all have our little ships. Do suppose the filmmakers gave Ginny a horse because it's a hoofed animal? Or weren't they thinking about that at all? Potioncat: I've long sense given up on what film-makers do with the material. Oh, and I should quickly add, I do not endorse Black/Lupin ship. > > marion: snip I imagined them as representative of the person and unchangable. I was willing to accept Harry having his father's as maybe a "passing on the tradition" thing, but I wasn't sure I liked that Tonks' had to change over Lupin. Potioncat: Well, it's canon that the form can change under certain conditions, but I didn't think Lupin did a good job of explaining it. Of course, he had good reasons not to be too clear about it. > > marion: > At the time, I though he was being spiteful. And he was, but now I wonder if he was making a comment about himself also. Potioncat: I don't think so. His Patronus seems pretty powerful based on the quoted and snipped section. I once suggested that Tonks's previous Patronus had reflected Snape and he was upset at her transfer of affections. (It was a joke!) I'm not sure why I've latched onto Patronus canon as my pet project-- perhaps the other threads are too sad or too deep--but this is the one issue I keep pounding on. One more point: I think the rule is: If it's important to the story, the Patronus reflects someone who is the source of the caster's strength. If it isn't important to the story, the Patronus is chosen at JKR's whim. I think Ron's Jack Russell Terrier is the type of dog JKR has. Unless someone can come up with a character it could represent? Potioncat, it's late I'm tired, and I know there must be a million spelling errors. Very sorry. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 03:51:22 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:51:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jo's OWN Words about Political and Religious Overtones in... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <236487.11266.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174059 Dennis Grant wrote: > anigrrrl2: > She didn't keep her spiritual stuff secret because Harry was a symbol > for Jesus - Y'know, I just don't buy this. There's a major difference between the Christian sacrifice and Harry's sacrifice - Harry has no real choice in the matter. Jesus, in the garden the night prior to being crucified, has a choice: he can go through with the plan; suffer and die. Or he can walk away - Pilate keeps giving him opportunities to do so almost right up to the very end. Or he can utilize his Godhood, work some miracles, conjure up a little pillar of fire and smoke action, and save himself. And there's no real downside - if he walks, he walks. Lives out his life building furniture someplace. OK, so Original Sin isn't redeemed, but what's that to Him, really? His choice is a painful, horrible death in the service of others, or a quiet and peaceful lifetime. He has an out, if he wants to take it. Harry has no out. As long as he lives, he bears that little bit of Voldy's soul with him as a de facto Horacrux, and Voldy cannot die. Defeated, yes, but he'll be back again and again and again until Harry finally accepts the inevitable and allows himself to be killed, or until Voldy finally figures out what is really going on and figures out some way to counter it. So Harry has no real choice to make, save accepting the inevitable. It's a mechanical sacrifice, not a spiritual one. Harry's sacrifice redeems no-one; it is a means to an end. Indeed, it is an act of finality that precludes Voldy's redemption - once that sacrifice is made, Voldy is irredeemable. The much ballyhooed "twinkle of triumph in Dumbledore's eye" is the realization on DD's part that Harry may actually survive his mission, which up until that point, was purely a suicide mission - and Harry is innocent of that fact. MUST be innocent of that fact, if Voldy is to make the ultimate mistake that results in his final defeat. Harry's sacrifice isn't Christlike at all. Instead, it is the resolution of a soldier to do his duty no matter what the personal cost, even the ultimate one. In a way, Harry has been manipulated and forged into the ultimate anti-Voldy weapon by DD, and at the end, Harry both realizes this and embraces it. DG KATIE REPLIES: I agree. I was saying that Harry ISN'T a symbol for Christ. I son't see Christianity in the books. That's what I was saying. ; ) KATIE . --------------------------------- Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmoshier at prodigy.net Wed Aug 1 03:28:27 2007 From: jmoshier at prodigy.net (Juanita Moshier) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:28:27 -0000 Subject: Moments In-Reply-To: <19f52d580707311830u70bf8c3en105cc74659c24b7f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174060 A funny moment: Fleur as Polyjuiced!Harry "Fleur walked over to stand beside (Bill Weasley), giving him a soppy, slavish look that Harry hoped with all his heart would never appear on his face again." (Was that a nod to slash fan fiction?) Moment That Allows the Reader to Most Identify With Previously Primarily Loathsome Character: Kreacher's appearance after he described what happened to Regulus Black in "Kreacher's Tale". "...Kreacher began to sob so hard that there were no more coherent words." p. 197 Most Difficult Moment to Describe in All It's Awesomeness Except That It Exhibits Tension-Relieving Humor, Character Consistency, Poetic Justice: Ollivander states that the Elder Wand exists. "Harry glanced sideways at Hermione. She looked flabbergasted. (DH, p. 496 Most touching moment: "The Forest Again", where Harry uses the Resurrection Stone. "Lily's smile was widest of all...her green eyes, so like his, searched his face hungrily...His (Harry's) eyes feasted on her..." Juanita (who want a roomy, beaded bag like Hermione's) From donna_staub at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 03:38:08 2007 From: donna_staub at yahoo.com (Donna Staub) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:38:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Jo's OWN Words about Political and Religious Overtones in... Message-ID: <737882.5013.qm@web57509.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174061 As I recall, the rumor of Rowling being a Wiccan was started by The Onion, a satirical publication (see Onion.com), much like a Mad Magazine for adults and contempory issues. Going off of the concern of conservative religious groups shortly after HP originally came out, the Onion published an article with a fictional interview (and fictional quotes) with Rowling who supposedly stated that she was a witch, her goal in life was to convert the children of the world to witch- and warlock-dom. As with Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," the target audience didn't get the fact that the piece was satire, and many continued to boycott and use the "interview" as fact and support for HP boycotts, when it was really meant to be humorous. As a result, a lot of kids weren't allowed to read HP because their authority figures had it on "good word" that Rowling was the devil in disguise. I use this as an example when I teach satire to my senior English classes -- always check the sources before deeming something as fact. Donna S. ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ From juli17 at aol.com Wed Aug 1 04:10:50 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 04:10:50 -0000 Subject: Snape's death scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174062 > > > Krista: > > Oh, I think Snape was indeed prepared--and his "preparation" > > was a decision to stick with his cover, to try to deny > > anything that would alert Voldemort's suspicions, and *then* > > to get himself out alive, if possible. > > Jack-A-Roe: > His cover? The final battle is being fought right outside the > door. If the good guys lose there is no regrouping, there is no > place to gather anymore and there probably won't be any leaders > left. > > Voldemort tells Snape that he is expecting Harry to show up. If > nothing else, Snape believes he knows Harry and the one thing > that Gryffendor will do will be to show up and face Voldemort. > > Knowing this and knowing that he must get this last piece of > information to Harry he decides to do nothing but die? If this > is a man who has been guarding Lilly's son, are you saying that > he's just going to quit? > > I think he just froze up for a minute. He's gotten out of most > situations in the past by his wit/words or by being a bully. > Neither is going to work on Voldemort. Julie: I agree for the most part. I think Snape did freeze up, when he saw Nagini being kept close to Voldemort. He realized that NOW was the time he had to get to Harry. And I think he realized something else. Harry sensed Voldemort's fury and wondered whether Snape sensed danger too. I believe he did, and he was focused on getting Voldemort to let him go to Harry, rather than focusing too closely on Voldemort's exact words about the Elder Wand and why it wasn't working for him. Thus his initially somewhat vague answers to Voldemort. As the scene continues Snape is looking more at Nagini than at Voldemort, still focusing on Nagini being present at Voldemort's side, the exact sign Dumbledore told him to look for. When he does finally look at Voldemort, whose fury Harry feels spiking, Snape's face is "like a death mask. It was marble white so that when he spoke, it was a shock to see that anyone lived behind those blank eyes." I think the blank eyes indicated Snape was probably trying to practice Occlumency--keeping his intent to give Harry information rather than bring Harry to Voldemort occluded while trying to placate Voldemort--and probably shock as he had to be sensing on some level that the situation had turned very badly against him. And when Voldemort does finally say that Snape is the true master of the Elder Wand, and that while Snape lives that wand can never truly be his (Voldemort's), it is then that Snape protests "My Lord!" and *raises his wand.* So Snape at that moment, realizing Voldemort is going to kill him, does move to defend himself. But when Voldemort swipes the air with the Elder Wand and nothing happens, Snape is momentarily taken aback, presumably as there is no spell aimed at him to defend against. It's at that moment Nagini's cage rolls down on him and "before Snape could do anything more than yell, it had encased him, head and shoulders..." So I wouldn't say Snape just accepted his death, but I would say he was in desperate circumstances and knew it. And if Harry hadn't been there to get those memories as Snape lay dying, Snape would have failed indeed, in part because Dumbledore told Snape he had to wait until he saw Nagini being kept close to Voldemort before he gave Harry the memories. Odd that neither Dumbledore or Snape thought to contain the memories in a vial instead of leaving them in Snape's head, but perhaps they both believed doing so would be too risky, as Snape might not be able to retrieve the vial when the right moment comes. If he's face to face with Harry, with the memories right there in his head, they are sure to be given to Harry at the exact right moment. (Though Snape could have carried the vial with him, and protected it magically, one would think...) Okay, there are still flaws, but what it really boils down to is that JKR wanted Harry to get the memories from Snape in this particularly dramatic manner, rather than having Snape simply toss a vial to Harry from across the room or something. And Snape dying allows Harry to feel some measure of sympathy for Snape, enough that he is compelled to approach this man he hated, no longer even sure what he feels, and to accept Snape's memories without argument or scornful dismissal. Julie, who appreciates a nice dramatic moment, even if it's not arrived at in the most logical manner From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Aug 1 03:48:30 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:48:30 -0000 Subject: On Patronuses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174063 sassykat1121963 wrote: > > Okay, here's my question. A patronus can change due to trauma or > emotional distress, but does that mean the prior patronus is lost > forever? Could a person possibly still have the old patronus > in "reserve"? Potioncat: I think it's like outgrowing a teddy bear, or a blankie---on a higher level. Something would have to cause a change in one's source of strength. I don't think everyone's changes. And I don't think you would need the old one in reserve. The Patronus form is just a shape, it's not a creature. Personally, I just wanted to slap Tonks upside the head. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 04:05:19 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:05:19 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jo's OWN Words about Political and Religious Overtones in... In-Reply-To: <236487.11266.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <236487.11266.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0707312105y7c4beefdh518e86aaef7f288d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174064 DG: So Harry has no real choice to make, save accepting the inevitable. It's a mechanical sacrifice, not a spiritual one. Harry's sacrifice redeems no-one; it is a means to an end. Indeed, it is an act of finality that precludes Voldy's redemption - once that sacrifice is made, Voldy is irredeemable. Lynda: Oh, Harry has a choice all right. To accept that he has to die to destroy the part of Voldie's soul that resides in him and do just that or to go on living and let Voldie come back at a later date. "Neither can live..." Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Aug 1 04:16:27 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 04:16:27 -0000 Subject: Patronuses (was Re: Dumbledore: Patronus and Dementors (specifically Snape's) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174065 Potioncat: I'm sure it's bad form to reply to one's own post, but I just finished reading JKR's webcast interview. She does confirm that Lily's Patronus is a doe---which doesn't make sense, yet does. And here's the quote about Snape: ******************************************************************* jenny: How did snape keep his patronus secret from the rest of the order? J.K. Rowling: He was careful not to use the talking Patronus means of communication with them. This was not difficult, as his particular job within the Order, ie, as spy, meant that sending a Patronus to any of them might have given away his true allegiance. ******************************************************************** So it looks like to me that he may have sent the doe silently, and no one knew who it came from. (So how it asked if Black was safe at 12GP, I cannot say.) or maybe Carol is right (and not for the first time) and he did use other methods. Potioncat From va32h at comcast.net Wed Aug 1 04:30:01 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 04:30:01 -0000 Subject: Accio! (was Re: Deathly Hallows thoughts etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174066 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: >if I were renaming this book, I think I > would call it "Harry Potter And The Accio Charm That Failed" or > perhaps "Harry Potter And The Improper Useage Of The Accio Charm". > I think sometimes JKR, like all writers, falls into a pattern - >you'll notice a certain adjective being used a lot of times within a >short span of pages - she obviously has it on her mind. > And for this entire book, I think she was obsessed with Accio! va32h: I had a similar discussion in a livejournal group - and we ended up in fits of laughter. I expressed my surprise that the trio did not attempt to accio all the remaining horcruxes, and Voldemort himself, and just wrap everything up right there on the steps of the Burrow the morning of Harry's birthday. Another poster began a round-robin fanfic in which Voldemort awoke rather grumpily to find himself zooming across the countryside, slightly mollified by the fact that he had made his last two horcruxes out of a pot of coffee and the morning's paper. I do have to agree that JKR seems to have her favorite words or phrases in each book. In HBP it was all blazing looks and chest monsters, in GoF she was obsessed with navels. va32h From laurel.coates at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 04:35:22 2007 From: laurel.coates at gmail.com (Laurel Coates) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:35:22 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I am about to rant.... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3cd952930707312135u6b26bb70p80247d09a49f5bab@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174068 Donna wrote: Another reason I now have appreciation for the camping and the camping and the camping, is, similar to what Dan has written. The long, tedious camping is congruent with 1. The use of The Journey in literature, from everything from mythology to folklore to modern literature (LOTR, The Wizard of Oz, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, etc) 2. The camping is also reflective of pilgrimages that are seen in many religions. Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and even Christianity embrace sites of pilgrimage, and the older, eastern religions also embrace pilgramage for the sake of the spiritual growth one gains from the journey 3. HRH's camping can also be seen as a reflection of several psycho-social and psycho-moral development models. Outside of the microcosm of DH to include the entire series, Harry certainly follows much of Erik Erikson's model throughout the books- one could relate the camping and camping and camping to Erikson's Generativity Vs. Stagnation crisis, except Harry isn't working towards having a family and establishing himself as socially valuable, his work is a bit more specific and desperate (find and destory the horcruxes). But certainly this camping phase leads directly into Erikson's final stage, Integrity vs. Despair, and certainly Harry has resolved and found meaning in his life, has overcome doubts that his life will have had meaning even if only with his death, and as he strides out to the forest he has certainly conquered his fear of death. Laurel: Donna, I just want to say "I LOVE YOU!" Thank you so much for writing this. I have been trying to sort through the posts to find a discussion of the Trio's traveling into the woods, into the darkness, etc. I thought this was a key point of the plot. I think it's the most important part of the book, actually, and ties in very nicely with the Quest theme. Donna: And I rather suspected that JKR wouldn't require Harry to end up being a murderer, per se, I hoped it would be a device where he would be responsible for LVs death but not through a direct act of murder Laurel: Yes, that was my thought, too. JKR is very clear that murdering someone damages souls and I felt that she'd want to portray Harry as having a pure, undamaged soul. Donna: I LOVED that JKR wrote Harry as maintaining his moral fiber throughout the book, I am sad that other fans might not see how hard it would be for Harry to do some of the things he did, if they have really considered what I believed JKR has intended his true character to be. Laurel: Thank you for your thoughtful post. This is why I am subscribed to the list. I feel that DH really shows JKR's growth as a writer. DH is definitely my favorite of the series. Cheers, Laurel [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Aug 1 04:46:01 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 00:46:01 -0400 Subject: Fred and George, was Re: Lupin and Tonks *Was: Deathly Hallows: My Review ) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174069 Anyone who knows anything about the Kings and Queens of Great Britain would have known that with two brothers, twins or no, called 'Fred and George' that Fred was doomed. King George III 's elder brother was Frederick, Prince of Wales, who died from being hit on the head by a cricket ball. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Aug 1 04:46:01 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 00:46:01 -0400 Subject: Funny lines Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174070 One of my favorite lines was, "Are you a wizard or aren't you?" -- referring back to "Are you a witch or aren't you?" And that Ron used one of the very first spells he had learned to levitate the stick to open the Whomping Willow. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Aug 1 04:46:01 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 00:46:01 -0400 Subject: Who came to magic late in life? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174071 JKR has said that that particular plot point fell by the wayside. I'm sorry. I SOOO wanted it to be Uncle Vernon. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Aug 1 04:46:01 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 00:46:01 -0400 Subject: Headmaster portraits (was Re: DH - unanswered (and irritating) quest Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174072 After all, strictly speaking Ubridge's picture should be there too. I think that Snape was as much a 'usurper' as Umbridge. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Aug 1 04:46:01 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 00:46:01 -0400 Subject: Harry and Voldy Related Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174073 If you go back far enough, everyone is related to everyone else. In the case of HP and TR, the relationship was too far to matter. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 05:46:53 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 05:46:53 -0000 Subject: Jo's OWN Words about Political and Religious Overtones in... In-Reply-To: <2795713f0707312105y7c4beefdh518e86aaef7f288d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174074 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > > DG: > > So Harry has no real choice to make, save accepting the inevitable. > It's a mechanical sacrifice, not a spiritual one. Harry's sacrifice > redeems no-one; it is a means to an end. Indeed, it is an act of > finality that precludes Voldy's redemption - once that sacrifice is > made, Voldy is irredeemable. > > Lynda: > > Oh, Harry has a choice all right. To accept that he has to die to destroy > the part of Voldie's soul that resides in him and do just that or to go on > living and let Voldie come back at a later date. "Neither can live..." > > Lynda > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Prep0strus: I agree - for something to be considered christ-like, it doesn't have to be analagous in every single way. I think JKR has made it clear enough in interviews what her beliefs are, and that they have influenced the HP series. But that doesn't change the fact that this is fantasy, it's fiction... it's a story for children (and adults). A character without sin isn't especially interesting - Harry's flaws seem to be a big reason why people think he can't represent christ. But I don't understand why a story can't reflect certain themes, without being rejected outright if it doesn't follow everything to the letter. I think Harry's march to the woods... it does show a certain inevitability of it. But only because it is so obvious what Harry's choice will be, as we know Harry. He makes the choice to save everyone's lives. Harry is filled with love for the people suffering pain, and he makes the choice to face that, not run from it. You may as well say that Jesus didn't have a choice - faced with the suffering of people who are not redeemed. God sent Jesus to do this, asked him to do it... I think his say 'no' to that is just as likely as Harry not doing what he needs to do - perhaps less so. Harry did make a choice, consistent with who he is. It is not their souls Harry is redeeming - JKR doesn't go that deep into the spiritual morality of her world. But I think his sacrifice for their lives and pain is certainly analogous. He certainly believes it, as he thinks his love of them has protected them from Voldy as his mother protected him (which is a point i have some issues with, but it's not the focus of this post, so i digress). If everything Harry did was too close to the bible story, it would be flat... a retelling. This isn't a retelling of the bible; it is its own story, which reflects themes of sacrifice and love that JKR has gleaned from her faith. Personally, I am not religious, or spiritual. But I was raised in Christianity, and I have respect, and even envy of those who are (rather than the sometimes bitter antagonism that can develop in some of us who fall away from faith). I think this book hit the point home harder that JKR was sending a christian message than any previously - almost to the point of eye-rolling frustration for those of us who don't believe. I think if she had truly mimicked in all senses - had Harry actually been a savior, a redeemer, had put even more bible nuggets rather than following the true paths of THESE characters... then she would have lost much of her audience, and sacrificd a great story. I feel the core morality of most religions is often the same (and boils a lot down to the golden rule), and stories are great ways of portraying aspects of religion, of morality, of faith, of ethics, of society... and to expect it to always follow it to the letter while doing so cheapens both the message and the art. I think I may have gone a little off topic here... I tend to do that - forget what my point is. All this is my opinion, of course... but I do see Harry's sacrifice as a christ-like one, but appreciate that it came out of Harry's story, and what was in Harry's capacity to do. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 1 06:04:11 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 06:04:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Godfather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174075 "justcarol67" wrote: > Voldemort would discover that his > Horcruxes were being destroyed and start > keeping Nagini beside him And Dumbledore was right about that, he was also extremely lucky. For all he knew Nagini could have been the first Horcrux Harry managed to destroy not the last. > DD has not told Snape that the scar > is a Horcrux, only that it contains > a soul bit that must be destroyed. I don't see your distinction; it seems to me that is the very definition of a Horcrux. > Neither Snape nor Harry must know > that Harry has a chance for survival Why? I don't see why he couldn't tell Snape that Harry had a chance of survival, it would certainly stem a potential mutiny when Snape is angry at Dumbledore for leading Lilly Potter's son to slaughter like a pig. > a chance that depends on the Hallows, > as I understand it I don't think that had anything to do with it. > Harry, as DD anticipated, has taken > the precaution of telling a friend to > destroy the snake. No that can't be right. Dumbledore says, "If I know him he will have arranged matters so that when he does set out to meet his death, it will truly mean the end of Voldemort". So if everything had gone according to Dumbledore's plan then both Harry and Voldemort would have died in their first encounter in the forest that night. But as Harry says Dumbledore overestimated him, he was unable to dispose of the snake. Poor Harry, he didn't even think his sacrifice would mean the end of Voldemort; it would just destroy one more Horcrux, himself, and make it a little easier for somebody else to kill him someday. Dumbledore had to make some cold hard unemotional decisions as any war leader must, it is necessary for the greater good, but I was a little disappointed in the man when he taunted Snape when he expressed reservations about leading a 17 years old boy to slaughter like a pig. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From maccanena at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 07:31:54 2007 From: maccanena at gmail.com (Maria) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:31:54 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Snape finding Lily's Letter In-Reply-To: <46AFDBE4.8040501@telus.net> References: <46AFDBE4.8040501@telus.net> Message-ID: <1f40e2480708010031r7f6b1b35u5e91a4ea8a473dc2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174076 On 8/1/07, Kathryn Jones wrote: > > va32h wrote: > > Personally, I think it's the author's responsibility to make sure her > own story makes sense - and not our responsibility as readers to go > thinking up explanation after explanation for questionable > continuity. > > This is just one of good dozen small, easily fixed continuity gaffes. > Which means either the editors were lazy and sloppy or JKR was lazy > and sloppy, or they all thought fandom would just be too grateful to > get the last book to care if it was any good or not. > > KJ writes: > > Exactly! None of us are asking other posters to come up with > increasingly unlikely > explanations for these glitches, particularly not with a suggestion of > "duh". The fact is, > that there should not be such glaring, obvious flaws in the plot. Other > minor things, like > names and curses, can be excused but when it is a necessary part of the > plot to show > characterization or timing, or movement of characters. That is unforgivable. Maria: Well, you may find it unforgivable, but personally, I don't find some of these possible explanations neither impossible not even unlikely. We have all imagined a number of different very plausible situations that could have led that letter there, as we are in the example of the letter. Any of those, or perhaps a different one, could have been what happened, and I am ok with that. I can use my imagination to fill the gaps, which is what I expect JKR wants. She can't write everything, or else the book would have a few hundred pages more. I agree that some things are really contradictory or impossible, and while I am not a LOON member, I do enjoy discussing them. But with a story as complex as this one, I can perfectly well forgive and understand JKR for them. There was a time when finding a "flint" was very entertaining, now it seems to make people want to burn JKR and her editors at the stake. As to why Sirius never showed the letter to Harry, I find the idea someone has suggested that the letter was inside a book and not even Sirius remembered it quite good, although it does put down my theory that Sirius found solace in reading about James's dispair at being locked up. However, he could have found it in the book by accident after Xmas, which would also explain why he never showed it to Harry before. Not having much to do at GP, he might have been re-reading old books and eventually came accross that one. Who knows. But all these explanations, fit well in the story, don't break any laws of physics, and I find them perfectly acceptable. Maria From autr61 at dsl.pipex.com Wed Aug 1 08:04:10 2007 From: autr61 at dsl.pipex.com (sylviampj) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:04:10 -0000 Subject: The Real HP for GrownUps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174077 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "redwooddawn" wrote: > > > Since reading that scene, I've been marvelling about how comfortable > with sexuality the wizarding world must be, because I can't imagine > ANY girl transforming into a guy and not being completely obsessed > with their new anatomy. I know Hermione has disgression, but she > didn't even take a peek, much less a leak. And Fleur, well, she > was horrified by how her face looked..... > > Any muggle would have been tripping out to be the other gender for > a few hours, and I'm sure the transgender mystique of our ancient > Greek oracles or native shamen don't even register with the wizarding > world. > > redwooddawn>>>> What strikes me is how physically and mentally resilient wizards and witches are. Using polyjuice potion to transform into someone else, even someone of the same sex, wuld be seriously traumatic for a muggle- for instance when Harry and Hermione transform into a middle aged couple to visit Godric's Hollow. Imagine being 17 and suddently acquiring a late middle age body! Tonks is forever transforming into different people and animagi like Sirius and Mcgonagall become animals. Wormtail lived as a rat for 12 years. Fred and George's concoctions turn people into chickens and make their tongues grow. Pupils hex one another for fun, making boils and tentacles appear on other people's faces, - Hermione's teeth grew enormously long in GoF and Pansy Parkinson sprouted antlers in OOTP. In CoS Hermione's polyjuice potion went wrong and she sprouted cat hair and a tail but it didn't stop her studying! As you say what would make a muggle 'trip out' Wizards and witches just take in their stride. Sylvia. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Aug 1 08:13:00 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:13:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Godfather In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174078 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Voldemort would discover that his > > Horcruxes were being destroyed and start > > keeping Nagini beside him > > And Dumbledore was right about that, he was also extremely lucky. For > all he knew Nagini could have been the first Horcrux Harry managed to > destroy not the last. Valky now: Well.. the chance of that was virtually zero, Dumbledore also knew Harry and I don't merely doubt he thought Harry would be so stupid as to give the game away in the first round, Dumbledore simply *had* to be right about this, save the very slim possibility of a random freak accidental killing of Nagini. Harry could not positively target her until the end if he was to have any chance at all of getting his hands on the Cup and Tiara, 99.99*% probability that Harry would not kill Nagini before last was the easiest and most reliable assumption DD could have made. I think most of us here at HPFGU assumed it also when speculating about Book 7, it was just so clearly that probable. > > > DD has not told Snape that the scar > > is a Horcrux, only that it contains > > a soul bit that must be destroyed. > > I don't see your distinction; it seems to me that is the very > definition of a Horcrux. I see the distinction in the sense that Snape may have not known about Horcruxes specifically when DD first told him about Harry, then again it's possible he did. But, if he didn't know, I doubt that Snape would stay ignorant for long if he could help it. By the time Snape was headmaster of Hogwarts, I would presume, he had a fair concept of what Harry's scar was. > > > Neither Snape nor Harry must know > > that Harry has a chance for survival > > Why? I don't see why he couldn't tell Snape that Harry had a chance of > survival, it would certainly stem a potential mutiny when Snape is > angry at Dumbledore for leading Lilly Potter's son to slaughter like a > pig. I'm in agreement with Eggplant, here. I know DD said that it was essential that Voldemort killed Harry, but my take on this is that DD didn't tell Harry or Snape about his chance of survival because he simply wasn't sure *enough* to do more than hope. As good as DD's guesses were it would be just plain wrong to march Harry to his death without preparing him for the very real possibility that it would be final. It was still a real possibility and it was entirely unavoidable for Harry who would never get his life back as long as Voldemort walked the WW anyway, to succeed at his task. In the end Harry's love for his dearest friends would overcome and he would submit to death for their sakes, somehow. From DD's perspective the only thing to do was give Harry the news in the best possible way, that is, after he had successfully landed a big enough blow to LV to put him on the back foot and force another mistake. Only DD knew that Harry had a good chance of surviving the destruction of his horcrux, but as it was not a good enough chance to share, he kept it close to his chest. Things could go wrong and no matter how you bend it Harry was facing up to real death, it wasn't right to tell him otherwise. > > > a chance that depends on the Hallows, > > as I understand it > > I don't think that had anything to do with it. > > > Harry, as DD anticipated, has taken > > the precaution of telling a friend to > > destroy the snake. > > No that can't be right. Dumbledore says, "If I know him he will have > arranged matters so that when he does set out to meet his death, it > will truly mean the end of Voldemort". So if everything had gone > according to Dumbledore's plan then both Harry and Voldemort would > have died in their first encounter in the forest that night. But as > Harry says Dumbledore overestimated him, he was unable to dispose of > the snake. Poor Harry, he didn't even think his sacrifice would mean > the end of Voldemort; it would just destroy one more Horcrux, himself, > and make it a little easier for somebody else to kill him someday. As DD said, Harry did make arrangements to ensure his death was the end of Voldemort, he went so far as to deliberately mimic Lily's willing laying down of her life to leave his friends the same defenses that she left him. This was the best he knew how to do, it was, at least, the end of Voldemort killing his friends, three of whom knew about Nagini and were ready to take her out. So Dumbledore wasn't overestimating him, it was Harry's own idea to strike Voldemort a devastating blow with his death by creating many more Harry's to take his place. In my opinion Dumbledore's guesses were very good but he wasn't counting on everything falling into place, and he was never sure how Harry would face the sacrifice he had to make in the end. What Dumbledore was sure about he put stock into, he was so sure about Harry's ability to earn the right to wield the Gryffindor sword he left it in his will, he was so sure that Harry would know what he meant by sending him the snitch from his first Quidditch game that he hid a very valuable object inside it and passed it safely through the hands of adept wizards, he was so sure Ron would not want to stay separated from his friends he gave him a way back, and of course, he was so sure that Voldemort would defend his snake when Harry was succeeding in destroying the horcruxes he instructed Snape to take it as a sign. What DD knew, he backed, what he wasn't sure of, he hoped for, of course, but he didn't put it out where it would just get in the way of things. JMHO Valky From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 09:41:18 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 02:41:18 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jo's OWN Words/Harry using Crucio/I am about to Rant/Danger Designating the In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40708010241u1cfb69ddr7b6187a6cb530fb1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174079 > Magpie: > It is hard not to notice the difference between Slytherin and the > other houses even without the clear distinction between it and the > rest of the school in every book including the last one. Not only > has it apparently always been based on blood Purity, the other > houses are all Sorted for virtues...and Slytherin isn't. I don't > think "cunning" or "ambition" have ever been really considered > virtues the way courage, wisdom and loyalty have been. Kemper now: Cunning and ambition are human (not heavenly) virtues as are courage, wisdom and loyalty. Cunning is an admirable word. The Sorting Hat did not say Slytherin valued deceit. Hermione is cunning (Timeturner). Ambition is what pushes humanity to its dreams (even though those dreams might not be for humanity.) Ron is ambitious (secret, keeper practices). > So > it's not a surprise that one is at a loss to really think of it > integrating along with the other houses, or that non-Slytherins > displaying Slytherin qualities ennoble the Sytherin qualities, while > Slytherins using the qualities of other houses ennoble the Slytherin. Kemper now: Magpie, I think I may not understand this sentence. What I think you're saying is something like: Snape is esteemed because he is brave, and he is not esteemed because he is cunning (I do not see him as ambitious post graveyard scene) I understand how this is perceived by the reader. This is Harry's story, we see through his eyes. He values bravery and admires Snape for his bravery. It is Dumbledore's perception as well, he being a Gryffindor. The reader is not close to any Slytherin to see their take on Snape. Similarly or on the side, we see that Luna admires Hermione's brains, wondering why she wasn't in Ravenclaw. Luna, the only non-Gryffindor student we have any real contact with. Does she say anything about any Gryffindor's bravery? No. She values wit beyond measure. Would it be in her character to admire Snape for his courage? No. Going back to Snape. He doesn't seem to admire courage in others. Why would he? What we do see in HBP is Snape remarking that he underestimated Harry knowing such Dark Magic as the Sectumsempra. There seems to be surprised realization that he, Snape, was duped by the cunning Harry Potter mastering Dark Magic under everyone's crooked or broken nose. A year later, and it is Voldemort who learns that he's been duped as he listens with 'rapt attention' to Snape's cunning as told by Harry. If Voldemort could admire the virtues in another, I think would admire Snape and not for his courage, wisdom, or loyalty: all of which he has in spades. Oh... what about Draco? Nineteen years later and what does he think about his old Head of House? "What a courageous teacher"? or something like "the most cunning Slytherin to ever walk Hogwarts"? Kemper From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 08:16:11 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:16:11 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Moments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B0414B.8050701@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174080 Charles Walker Jr blessed us with this gem On 31/07/2007 12:14: > against a door as a herd of galloping desks thundered past, shepherdd > by a sprinting Professor McGonagall. While this was undeniably cute, and I smiled, it wasn't one of my favorite moments, but that's just me. I prefer my humo(u)r a bit more subtle and organic, while this scene was inserted purely for the laugh effect. Moment That Allows the Reader to Most Identify With Previously Primarily Loathsome Character: My vote would have to be Dudley's "I don't think you're a waste of space". I really would have liked a peak at Harry's and Dudley's relationship nineteen years down the road. CJ, Taiwan From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 08:48:13 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:48:13 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry using Crucio In-Reply-To: <000e01c7d380$e0668c00$3a62acce@homesfm01ywa7v> References: <000e01c7d380$e0668c00$3a62acce@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <46B048CD.2070606@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174081 Cathy Drolet blessed us with this gem On 31/07/2007 22:41: > J.K. Rowling: Harry is not, and never has been, a saint. > Amycus spat on McGonagall. Hardly an "extreme situation." Since this is my pet peeve in DH, I have to jump in. I agree that spitting on McGonagall cannot be in any sense considered an "extreme situation", and certainly nothing an Expelliarmus couldn't have equally well solved. If the scene had been written with Amycus waving his wand around threatening, perhaps even with the AK emerging from his lips, THEN perhaps one could begin to justify the Crucio. But a Crucio for a spitting incident just doesn't do it in my book, no matter how offensive. > I think the problem here isn't that Harry used Crucio. It is how much he > appeared to enjoy it. Further, how little reaction it illicited either from Harry himself or from McGonagall, who actually called an Unforgivable Curse "gallant", and then followed on with a UC of her own. It would have done the scene wonders for the good guys to display at least a little moral distaste for the actions they felt forced to perform. The lack of any sort of moral discomfiture was probably the most disturbing part of the incident. CJ, Taiwan From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 08:39:40 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:39:40 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Real HP for GrownUps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B046CC.10704@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174082 va32h blessed us with this gem On 31/07/2007 22:07: > through his mind, "Hey, treat my body with a little more modesty". I can't say I laughed at this, per se, but it was certainly amusing. And I agree, he SHOULD have voiced the thought. > fact that Hermione and Flur were among the six fake Potters is a bit > kinky, but I didn't write it, JKR did. Since it's hard to believe JKR didn't realize just how kinky the scene was, it'd be interesting to ask her exactly how much she expects her audience to infer. I'd expect a smirk and silence in reply. > Well I'm sure the Harrys kept their underwear on. Panties, probably, but without the requisite "fillers", wouldn't a bra be a bit inconvenient. Then again, wouldn't most ladies (particularly those of the teenage persuasion), be embarassed to have their unmentionables seen in public even if it were draped over someone else's body? And just 'cause it's polyjuiced, wouldn't it still FEEL like your body getting all naked? Yeah, I know -- the scene was for laughs, for cryin' out loud. Don't overanalyze it. But then again.... CJ, Taiwan From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 08:55:40 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:55:40 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Real HP for GrownUps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B04A8C.9030509@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174083 Ann blessed us with this gem On 31/07/2007 23:31: > imho, unequivocally, you all have your heads in the proverbial root > cellar, lol, since wouldn't everyone wear dark slacks or jeans and > trainers, knowing the plan before arriving, and only shirts and jackets > would be exchanged for Harry's likely appearance. I won't deny the root-cellar bit :-), however, it's hard to see how Harry could have been concerned about his modesty unless things were being exposed that weren't normally. Exchanging shirts and jackets doesn't seem to do it. > however, i do agree, as it was my first thought, that jkr apparently > inserted a passage referencing his recent play 'Equus' performance. Dunno if JKR had this in mind, but it certainly passed through my root-cellar groveling brain cells. CJ, Taiwan (who's still wondering what a REAL teenage boy would do with an Invisibility Cloak) From keb+yahoo.com at spamcop.net Wed Aug 1 09:32:53 2007 From: keb+yahoo.com at spamcop.net (blazius1) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:32:53 -0000 Subject: DH: How did Luna recognize Harry at the wedding? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174084 In Fleur and Bill's wedding, Luna is able to see through Harry's polyjuice disguise. How? Blazius1 From dvdavins at pobox.com Wed Aug 1 05:00:41 2007 From: dvdavins at pobox.com (barkingiguana) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 05:00:41 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Army - still recruiting? In-Reply-To: <028501c7d38b$59c38850$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174085 montims: > > Wouldn't it be a tremendous acknowledgement of JKR's > > achievements if we channelled this energy and these numbers > > (and we could be an almighty force to reckon with) into > > writing emails on behalf of her pet causes? > > I just feel it would be a shame to let all this > > righteous indignation against the iniquities of the > > Wizarding World dissipate, when we could be > > working as a group to help right the wrongs of our real > > world. Shelley: > I would take great offense if someone tried to take my love > for Harry Potter and then translate that into a political or > social cause that is the pet project for someone else. I can > make up my mind on my own which "pet projects" I should > support, thank-you-very-much. > Having said that, I would not mind if the FANS of Harry > Potter bound together on their own to start a ministry or > support a cause, because then that would be different all > together. Iguana: IMO, an author earns not only money, but an audience. If JKR wants to use her celebrity to proclaim that the values she tried to express in the books and are often repeated by her fans could be well supported by some cause, it's just fine that she do so. You are free to disagree with her choice and still be a true fan of the Potterverse. If she implies otherwise, *then* she'd be stepping over a line. -- Dvd Avins (The Barking Iguana) From jellocat at comcast.net Wed Aug 1 11:41:53 2007 From: jellocat at comcast.net (Jellocat) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 07:41:53 -0400 Subject: The Real HP for GrownUps Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174086 Lee Kaiwen answered Ann's bit: > > however, i do agree, as it was my first thought, that jkr apparently > > inserted a passage referencing his recent play 'Equus' performance. > Dunno if JKR had this in mind, but it certainly passed through my > root-cellar groveling brain cells. I read an interview with Dan somewhere in which he talks about going to dinner with Jo after she came to see him in "Equus." She told him that there's a scene where Harry will be running around naked. He thought it was a joke... I also found it interesting that she pulled from Rupert's RL experience in failing his driving test - or did she? - in the epilogue when Ron talks about taking his driving test and I do wonder if she's playing with Emma in regards to Emma's discussion with her about Ron and Hermione getting together and how weird it will be for her to kiss Rupert. Now, in the movie (hopefully) she'll also have to kiss Dan. Lucky girl... Jellocat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ameritrainscott at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 11:56:39 2007 From: ameritrainscott at yahoo.com (Scott) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:56:39 -0000 Subject: "Albus Potter and the Resurection Stone" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174087 What do you think? Book 1 of a new story? J.K. made quite a point to leave that thing in the forest where any old wizard or creature could find it. -Scott From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 11:56:48 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 04:56:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry using Crucio -- my two cents In-Reply-To: <46B048CD.2070606@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <986300.13101.qm@web55001.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174088 I have a general remark about Harry using Crucio, not one directed at any one comment. Like many, I too was taken by surprise that he used such an extreme curse, an unforgivable no less, when a stupefy would have done just as well. But, one of the things I love about JKR's stories -- her characters are flawed. The situation was indeed extreme and Harry reacted in an extreme way to what was "the straw that broke the camel's back" -- he had just learned from Neville how cruelly the Carrows had treated the students (students who were Harry's friends -- friends who had tried to carry on traditions he started, friends who in doing so displayed not only courage but loyalty to Harry and suffered because of it), he remembers the Carrows from the night Dumbledore died and how blood thirsty they were, Voldemort is on his way so the "clock is ticking," he still has to find the diadem, and his very presence at Hogwarts is about to begin a battle that will decide everything. Even under normal circumstances I think that Harry would have considered a cruel Death Eater (dare I use the word scum) spitting in the face of his regal teacher the biggest insult possible -- and therefore worse than any words or curse Carrow could have used instead. So, given the overall situation, Harry snapped for a moment... Heck, I'd be tempted to use Crucio in rush hour traffic and I'm basically a nice, level-headed person... just trying to point out that we've been there. Christy (who is too dependent on the cliche this morning and wants to sign off as cleverly as the rest of you...) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 1 12:08:47 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:08:47 -0000 Subject: "Albus Potter and the Resurection Stone" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174089 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > What do you think? Book 1 of a new story? J.K. made quite a point to > leave that thing in the forest where any old wizard or creature could > find it. SSSusan: Well, I don't think so. :) JKR said in her online chat on the 30th that she suspected the stone would stay lost... that centaurs' hooves likely squashed it down into the ground and it was buried. So I think we've seen the last, truly, 'til we get that HP encyclopedia. Siriusly Snapey Susan From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 12:16:28 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 07:16:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Danger in designating an "Other" / Slytherins / DH as Christian Allegory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40708010516r6fd42be2ic0847e1e68420a43@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174090 > > SSSusan: > > Alas, the RoR scene during the Battle of Hogwarts erased any > possibility of that (unless I'm misreading Draco there?). I mean, > he, Crabbe & Goyle there, trying to foil Harry, trying to capture > him to take him to Voldemort? This does seem like Draco willingly > going along with the Dark Lord's plans. :( > > So I can see why this is a frustration, if you were expecting Draco > to have taken his own reservations & hesitations to heart, DD's > words on the tower to heart... because it didn't come to fruition. montims: let's put the RoR scen in context, through Draco's eyes. We see in other scenes how fond the Malfoy family is of each other. Narcissa is prepared to lie to LV in order to get into Hogwarts and find Draco. Draco is no doubt worried sick about his disarmed mother and father out in the Forest with the DEs. If he brings back Harry Potter, maybe they will again rise in favour. And yet again - I wonder if we do know the truth about Draco's actions. He is there with Crabbe and Goyle, yes - the pair who "'ung back... decided to bring you to 'im". Do we know that his time with Snape, the shock of DD's death, and his subsequent insight into the realities of LV's violence didn't change Malfoy? Do we KNOW that he wasn't playing a watching game, like Snape? Crabbe starts the violence, and all we hear from Malfoy is not to kill Harry - the Dark Lord wants him alive. Just like Snape. We are only absorbing the scene through Harry's perception, and we know how we have been misled throughout the series... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ameritrainscott at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 12:13:11 2007 From: ameritrainscott at yahoo.com (Scott) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:13:11 -0000 Subject: DH: How did Luna recognize Harry at the wedding? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174091 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "blazius1" wrote: > > In Fleur and Bill's wedding, Luna is able to see through Harry's > polyjuice disguise. How? > I think it was supposed to be due to her "open mind". She believes completely in tons of things she has never actually seen, so for her, seeing is not required for believing. She picked up on Harry's expression or mannerism and just assumed it was him. -Scott From sylviablundell at aol.com Wed Aug 1 12:16:07 2007 From: sylviablundell at aol.com (helmclever) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:16:07 -0000 Subject: Draco's wife Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174092 Sorry if this has been asked before (I do try to keep up!) but is Draco's wife, who we see at the station, someone we know? Sylvia From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Aug 1 12:33:24 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:33:24 -0400 Subject: Snape finding Lily's letter Message-ID: <007501c7d438$27a9b940$15c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 174093 Christy said: "Even if he had no contact with the house before OOTP, Lupin could have cleaned out Sirius's flat after his went to prison and kept things he thought were important, esp. things that reminded him of the good times.." Oh, yes, firmly believe that Lupin, who believed Sirius to be the traitor who caused James and Lily to be murdered, and their son put into the protective custody of his muggle relatives, would go back to Sirius' flat and gather up his personal effects. Not! I expect Lupin woud have had his own mementos of the good times and he never expected Sirius to come out of Azkaban...or at least not in any shape to care about personal effects. Too many hoops to jump through, for me, to make the letter being at 12 GP believable. CathyD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 11:58:52 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 06:58:52 -0500 Subject: The Epilogue Message-ID: <8ee758b40708010458g8c8ce87ve084686c586530c5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174094 OK - I have finished rereading DH again, and realised upon rereading the epilogue that I have been debating a strawman on the Slytherin/Gryffindor issue. In PS, we see primarily a sporting rivalry, led by their domineering heads of house - McGonagall is even willing to break rules to ensure that Gryffindor win back the Quidditch Cup after several years. Twentyfive years later, we see that the Hat still Sorts, but what else do we see? The railway platform, and two quarrelling Potter boys, one of whom is a Gryff. The Potter family has been Gryffs at least as far back as his great grandfather. Another family, the Weasleys, have all been Gryffs for at least three generations. The parents are all renowned for having fought and beaten, as Gryffs, enemies who were predominantly Slytherin, in the last great Wizarding War, and their headmaster through their school years was a Gryff, opposed to the most infamous Slyth. The children of the Potter and Weasley families would have grown up with these facts and allegiances, and James teases Albus that he would be Sorted as a Slyth - a House that none of the family has ever belonged to, in anyone's memory. And what does Harry say to Al? "- then Slytherin house will have gained an excellent student, won't it? It doesn't matter to us." *It doesn't matter to us*. So where is the evil I have been reading about? The intense house hatred and divisions? The "Slytherins are bad, Gryffindors good" depiction that is supposed to be there? The idea that Slytherins are being portrayed as inferior or lesser, that I have read expressed so passionately in this thread? Where in canon? montims [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 12:34:03 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 05:34:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Snape finding Lily's Letter (& other little details) In-Reply-To: <1f40e2480708010031r7f6b1b35u5e91a4ea8a473dc2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <615789.9752.qm@web55014.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174095 This is a general comment about Lily's letter, about how Snape might have communicated to the Order in HP& OOTP, and about other such details... As anyone can tell from my posts, I love discussing the details and the possibilities. That's because the details of the Harry Potter books is one of the things I love about them. JKR has woven a story across seven books using fine threads of story lines -- the details, the continuity, the foreshadowing, etc. all appeal to me. Despite that, I'm OK not knowing. Wondering doesn't mean I have to know...and life should have a little mystery to it... The bottom line is the books (with only a few chapters as exceptions) are told from Harry's POV. If he doesn't know the details, we won't know the details... I wonder if he wonders as much as we wonder... Christy From vincent.maston.ml at free.fr Wed Aug 1 12:39:07 2007 From: vincent.maston.ml at free.fr (Vincent Maston) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:39:07 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's wife In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B07EEB.2050208@free.fr> No: HPFGUIDX 174096 helmclever a crit : > Sorry if this has been asked before (I do try to keep up!) but is > Draco's wife, who we see at the station, someone we know? Vincent : I think that must be P. Parkinson, maybe ? But I don't think that it can be deducted from the book for sure. -- http://www.nonewsweb.com : Photos & Reviews I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by. Douglas Adams From vincent.maston.ml at free.fr Wed Aug 1 12:45:04 2007 From: vincent.maston.ml at free.fr (Vincent Maston) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:45:04 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Albus Potter and the Resurection Stone" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B08050.6020004@free.fr> No: HPFGUIDX 174097 Scott a crit : > What do you think? Book 1 of a new story? J.K. made quite a point to > leave that thing in the forest where any old wizard or creature could > find it. Vincent : Yeah, and since it would happen in 2017, i.e the future, it could have brilliant plot twists like a new kind of wizards. Alien wizards ! In spaceships, coming to earth in order to invade it and AK the hell out of us. And Hugo Weasley could have a laser wand. -- http://www.nonewsweb.com : Photos & Reviews I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by. Douglas Adams From csh at stanfordalumni.org Wed Aug 1 13:43:30 2007 From: csh at stanfordalumni.org (chuck.han) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:43:30 -0000 Subject: The Real HP for GrownUps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174098 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > ... > Bella and Voldemort talking of highest pleasures. > ... There is much innuendo surrounding the relationship between Bellatrix Lestrange and Voldemort. JKR makes it painstakingly clear that Voldemort is incapable of love, but she goes out of her way to describe Tom Riddle as exceedingly handsome, and she seems to tip her hand that Voldemort is not above carnal pleasure in DH when he refutes Snape's love for Lily. Bellatrix describes herself as "his most faithful:" What does this imply? How far does this "faithfulness" go? Clearly, the relationship between Bellatrix and Voldemort is not on an equal plane--she submits to him and his power. Their first scene together in the Department of Mysteries seems to indicate more than just a "working relationship." And, finally, JKR puts it down in black-and-white in DH after Voldemort collapses post-Avada Kedavra describing Bellatrix's actions as, "like a lover." So it seems to me that Bellatrix is capable of love (or something close to it), but it's a one-way street which doesn't exclude Voldemort of taking what he feels is rightfully his from their relationship. JKR is undoubtedly aware of the connection between power/politics and sexuality a la Churchill, Kennedy, Mao, Hitler, etc... Chuck From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Aug 1 13:56:00 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:56:00 -0000 Subject: Jo's OWN Words/Harry using Crucio/I am about to Rant/Danger Designating the In-Reply-To: <700201d40708010241u1cfb69ddr7b6187a6cb530fb1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174099 > > Magpie: > > It is hard not to notice the difference between Slytherin and the > > other houses even without the clear distinction between it and the > > rest of the school in every book including the last one. Not only > > has it apparently always been based on blood Purity, the other > > houses are all Sorted for virtues...and Slytherin isn't. I don't > > think "cunning" or "ambition" have ever been really considered > > virtues the way courage, wisdom and loyalty have been. > > Kemper now: > Cunning and ambition are human (not heavenly) virtues as are courage, > wisdom and loyalty. > > Cunning is an admirable word. The Sorting Hat did not say Slytherin > valued deceit. Hermione is cunning (Timeturner). Magpie: I see a clear difference between these virtues and the others. Cunning is often used to indicate a lower form of intelligence--and animal cunning as opposed to wisdom ("bad" groups are often described as "cunning" because it suggests deception and underhandedness). And ambition, while certainly helpful, is another thing often warned against as selfish. If you look at a list of Puritan Virtue names, you will find Courage, Loyal and Learned among them, but not Cunning or Ambition (unsurprisingly--I think both would be considered bad things). Hermione certainly is cunning, but as I said, Slytherin values seem to me to clearly be ennobled when used by non-Slytherins, while when Slytherins show the values of other houses (like Snape and Regulus being brave) it ennobles the Slytherin. > Kemper now: > Magpie, I think I may not understand this sentence. What I think > you're saying is something like: Snape is esteemed because he is > brave, and he is not esteemed because he is cunning (I do not see him > as ambitious post graveyard scene) Magpie: Snape is redeemed and praised for being brave--perhaps he was Sorted too soon. His display of this value ennobles Snape. When I think of times that cunning and ambition have been seen as good things in canon, it's when usually the Trio is using them. Iow, it's the Slytherin values that are ennobled by being used by non-Slytherins. When Snape is brave, by contrast, it is Snape being ennobled by the trait, not the trait being ennobled by Snape. Kemper: > I understand how this is perceived by the reader. This is Harry's > story, we see through his eyes. He values bravery and admires Snape > for his bravery. It is Dumbledore's perception as well, he being a > Gryffindor. The reader is not close to any Slytherin to see their > take on Snape. Magpie: Yes, I think it's Harry's perception, the reader's perception and Dumbledore's perception. The Slytherin perception is not presented as equally valid. Kemper: > Similarly or on the side, we see that Luna admires Hermione's brains, > wondering why she wasn't in Ravenclaw. Luna, the only non- Gryffindor > student we have any real contact with. Does she say anything about > any Gryffindor's bravery? No. Magpie: Luna is valued for her own bravery and is associated with her friends, the Gryffindors. Kemper: She values wit beyond measure. Would > it be in her character to admire Snape for his courage? No. Magpie: I think it would be in her character to admire Snape for his courage, sure. But I don't think that changes things one way or the other. Kemper: > Going back to Snape. He doesn't seem to admire courage in others. > Why would he? If Voldemort could admire the virtues in another, I > think would admire Snape and not for his courage, wisdom, or loyalty: > all of which he has in spades.> Oh... what about Draco? Nineteen years later and what does he think > about his old Head of House? "What a courageous teacher"? or > something like "the most cunning Slytherin to ever walk Hogwarts"? Magpie: The opinions of none of these people are presented as correct in canon, so what does it matter what they admire? Snape is redeemed by being couragous, not for his personality and values in other areas. The Slytherin pov is not being presented as equally valid. Montims: And yet again - I wonder if we do know the truth about Draco's actions. He is there with Crabbe and Goyle, yes - the pair who "'ung back... decided to bring you to 'im". Do we know that his time with Snape, the shock of DD's death, and his subsequent insight into the realities of LV's violence didn't change Malfoy? Do we KNOW that he wasn't playing a watching game, like Snape? Crabbe starts the violence, and all we hear from Malfoy is not to kill Harry - the Dark Lord wants him alive. Just like Snape. We are only absorbing the scene through Harry's perception, and we know how we have been misled throughout the series... Magpie: We don't, which is why for me the scene was just kind of a WTF? moment. It seems a slight change in direction for what little momentum we've seen in Draco throughout the story. I can fanwank reasons for him for being there, but the main one always seems to be just so that he can be in the school. I slightly disagree with Ceridwen that he's playing the big bad DE there--I may be remembering it wrong, but it seemed like Crabbe took on that role and Draco was noticibly not the leader there, even being behind Crabbe and Goyle. He seemed a follower DE until he got distracted by the tiara (without, iirc, finishing telling us his thoughts on it outright), then he was trying to stop them from killing Harry, and then everything went up in flames. I admit that I, too, remembered Snape in the HBP being there mainly to tell everybody else not to kill Harry. Is it possible Draco was doing that? Actually yes, given what we'd seen before, but his actions were still confusing to me. Montims: *It doesn't matter to us*. So where is the evil I have been reading about? The intense house hatred and divisions? The "Slytherins are bad, Gryffindors good" depiction that is supposed to be there? The idea that Slytherins are being portrayed as inferior or lesser, that I have read expressed so passionately in this thread? Where in canon? Magpie: Um, throughout the entire series? There *is* an obvious division that is not healed, and Harry's nice line to his kid hardly shows that it's gone away. His kid is worried about being Slytherin just as always, and Harry's saying "You'll be great no matter what house you're in" in response to his brother being able to *frighten* him with the possibility of being in Slytherin is a nice comfort to Albus, not a big defense of the house's qualities. He follows it by saying he knew a Slytherin who was really brave--the quality of Gryffindor house, and then reveals that he can choose not to be in Slytherin anyway. Exactly as things were at the beginning of the series. The point isn't that there is intense hatred between the two houses, but that Slytherin is still the odd house out-- unsurprisingly. It remains the house with the Dark reputation--a reputation it seems to deserve. -m From rdransom at verizon.net Wed Aug 1 13:46:28 2007 From: rdransom at verizon.net (R Ransom) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:46:28 -0500 Subject: The Real HP for GrownUps - 2017 Message-ID: <0JM3000SIKXF5OW8@vms044.mailsrvcs.net> Posted by: "Christine Maupin" Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:35 pm (PST): <> Maybe that is when JK is planning on writing her next series ?Albus S. Potter & the next generation." ~R~ From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Aug 1 13:57:41 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:57:41 -0000 Subject: Snape finding Lily's Letter In-Reply-To: <46AFDBE4.8040501@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174101 > va32h wrote: > > Personally, I think it's the author's responsibility to make sure > her own story makes sense - and not our responsibility as readers > to go thinking up explanation after explanation for questionable > continuity. > KJ writes: > > Exactly! None of us are asking other posters to come up with > increasingly unlikely > explanations for these glitches, particularly not with a suggestion > of "duh". The fact is, that there should not be such glaring, > obvious flaws in the plot. Jen: I've been reading this thread, trying to imagine the explanation coming up in the story and failing to think of a legitimate reason why it would. One scenario: Harry would wonder why the letter was there. But why would he in that moment? He's connecting to his mom, learning about a part of his life he never knew about. And he associates GP with Sirius, even in a negative way. So Harry wondering about why the letter is there would come across as a diversion, at least to me. Maybe Hermione, the logical one? She could bring it up and she and Harry might speculate. If I read such a scene, I would expect it to mean something in the plot later, not explaining a process that has no narrative significance in the moment. JKR could have the letter at a different location, say the Trio track down the house Sirius lived in prior to Azkaban (if it's still around and in his ownership, both of which seem dubious after an estate has been settled). If there's no bearing on the Horcrux search or the search for the truth about DD - Harry's minor quest - then it would seem like a moment inserted only for the Trio to find the letter. Now the *timing* caught my eye. If Wormtail was indeed down because he knew his vist was the last time he'd see the Potters (Harry's speculation), why did he go so long without seeing them? Or is this a timing error? Lily talks as if the b-day just occurred in the letter, which means writing sometime in August. Several months passed before they died on Oct. 31st. (And are the ornaments mentioned in the letter another word for knick-knacks?) I didn't notice this until re-reading though. The first time through I was captured by the bitterseet idea of Harry having such an ordinary family moment to hold onto. It was something I hoped to see so I was hanging onto the moment as well! Jen From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 14:13:37 2007 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:13:37 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174102 There is so much on this thread that I am not even going to try to snip a few sentences to address. I do however, want to ask people to consider two points. First, that we have a limited view of Slytherin, because we are somewhat limited to Harry's view on that house, not because JKR has a narrow view of the people sorted into that house. While it is often difficult to remember when we are reading, we need to remember that the author is writing from a particular narrative perspective (which has been widely discussed as third person limited omnicient - but significantly tied to Harry's own thoughts), and this narrative perspective does not necessarily correspond in part or at all with the author's perspective. Additionally, we now have to consider what is Harry's perspective and what has formed that perspective. Well, let's see, just a quick glance...a member of Slytherin house murdered his parents, from his initial introduction to Hogwarts Slytherin's have been bullying, across the board people connected with the house have worked tirelessly to bring about his destruction, and perhaps most importantly, Harry fears the qualities in himself that seem to associate him with that house. Also, many people have pointed to the fact that the battle at Hogwarts seems to be fought singularly by the other three houses, yet we know that at some point Slughorn returns and that Snape has been fighting all along. Perhaps, because of Harry's limited perspective and his limited knowledge of the members of Slytherin there are others who are do return to fight, but simply go unnoticed by Harry and thus by us, because of the limited narrative. It is only because of the knowledge of Snape's sacrifice gained at the very end of the novel, that opens Harry's eyes about Slytherin house and allows for his change of heart during his discussion with his son at the end of the novel. Second, I don't agree with that Slytherin is "evil" nor that evil is the right way to label all of its members. Okay, so Voldemort, Bellatrix, et al, certainly deserve that label. But, here is where Harry's limited perspective comes in to play, Harry doesn't seem to be acquainted with many Slytherins so it is inevitable that his perspective is incredibly narrow. Now let's consider a couple of members of Slytherin (from the few we know). Pansy Parkinson specifically her call to hand Harry over to LV at the end. Is this an act of evil? Or is Parkinson acting out of fear and her own weakness? We as readers find it so abhorent, because of our perspective that Harry is the hero, as we know from Neville, Hogwarts and the WW at large has been terrorized for many months and everyone is in "mortal peril." From Parkinson's perspective handing Harry over is about self-peservation not necessarily love of LV. And wouldn't it be out of character for her to rise to Harry's aid, just out of the blue? I suspect however, that Malfoy,is perhaps (although it has not been widely discussed) is truly at the heart of this discussion, as readers many have been hoping that Malfoy would be redeemed through the novel a lot of fan fiction ink has been spilled on this particular subject. This perhaps is the source of the real dissatisfaction. Again, I have a really hard time labeling Malfoy as "evil," he just seems so weak and foolish. This may make him at best a good vehicle for evil, but not necessarily evil in and of himself. Malfoy isn't redeemed in the novel, because he stays true to character, despite the terror and abuse he receives at the hand of LV, his father and other DE's, Malfoy isn't introspective enough to seek redemption, all he seeks is power, although as readers we see how limited his power is, to assuage his powerlessness, and glory (again feeble as it is) to cure his inferiority. What is perhaps tragic about him, is that he is offered mercy by Dumbledore, and Harry and doesn't have the brains to grab it. Beatrice From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 14:18:22 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:18:22 -0000 Subject: "Albus Potter and the Resurection Stone" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174103 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Scott" > wrote: > > > > What do you think? Book 1 of a new story? J.K. made quite a point to > > leave that thing in the forest where any old wizard or creature could > > find it. > > > SSSusan: > Well, I don't think so. :) > > JKR said in her online chat on the 30th that she suspected the stone > would stay lost... that centaurs' hooves likely squashed it down into > the ground and it was buried. > > So I think we've seen the last, truly, 'til we get that HP encyclopedia. Alla: Heee, you know Susan, I want to believe that, I want to believe that we had seen the last and NOT because I was unhappy with the books, quite the contrary as you know :) I just really really want JKR to keep her promise and NOT to get into writing sequels, etc. Again, unless of course her muse will strike her and she would really want to do something totally, drastically different and not capitalising on what she already did and writing Harry Potter and New generation or Albus Potter and resurrection stone. IMO of course. And this is actually goes to one of my few minor dissapointments with the books, who as a whole go no to the shelf of the best books I had read ever :) See, she said that she wrote Teddy as orphan to show the full circle, right? That to show the contrast she really wanted to show at the end that he is okay (paraphrasing here, can be wrong). And I cannot get rid of the feeling that while this may be true, another reason why she did that is to write an orphan of new generation that can be a main character for the sequels. I just cannot shake that feeling and I do not like it at all. I mean, did she have to name Draco's kid Scorpius unless to designate him as next villain? As I said, maybe I am fretting out for nothing, but I just really do not want sequels, really :) But, who knows, JKR always managed to surprise me an write something that I cannot stand so well that I love it, so maybe I will love sequels as well, if it ever to appear. Alla From npod4291 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 14:11:18 2007 From: npod4291 at yahoo.com (npod4291) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:11:18 -0000 Subject: Mr. Weasley, I take my hat off to you. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174104 Among all the complaints about what should have been, I would like to take a moment to give our friend Ron Weasley a pat on the back. He has really out done himself in this, the last and IMO best, novel of the epic tale of Harry Potter. Starting with the more obvious, congrats Ron, on bringing both lightheartedness (?) and (even more and better) humour to the trio that would have been (and was for a little) lost without you. Among my favorite lines: (and I don't have the book with me, so I'm sorry for quotes that aren't perfect) "...I forgot we were going to be hunting Voldemort in a mobile library." "I don't know mate, I think they may have noticed that we have broken in." "Its not all about wandwork." As I said I don't have the book with me. If I did, I feel like this could go on for quite a while. Please feel free to add some of your favorite "Ron" lines. More importantly, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Weasley, for FINALLY maturing and growing up. Of the other male characters, (mainly Harry, Neville, and Draco to an extent), you were last, but not the least, to make the transition from being a boy to a man. I specifically say males because as a gender, we admittedly are longer on the uptake as far as maturity is concerned. This transition, I think we can all agree, begins with the verbalization of his thoughts and fears before he made the trio a duo and ends with overcoming those fears and insecurities in destroying the locket. The timing of this growing-up is can be compared to that of Harry. I think that Harry really grew up between the fifth and sixth book, emphasized by him when he tells DD about he ultimately recovered from Sirius's death. Anyway, please post your thoughts and impressions of Ron, who came out better in DH than in all of the previous books combined. Nate, a frequent lurker and not so frequent poster From bookworm857158367 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 14:24:32 2007 From: bookworm857158367 at yahoo.com (bookworm857158367) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:24:32 -0000 Subject: Many responses (Molly's age, Hagrid, JKR stuff, unforgivables, etc) - also, Moody's Eye In-Reply-To: <24190204.1185935434377.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174105 The idea of magic attracting magic is an interesting one. It would make sense if there are two or more magical genes that must be inherited to produce a witch or a wizard and it would make more sense if those genes came from both parents. Wizards and witches who marry Muggles and produce magical children are probably marrying people who carry magical genes themselves, even if they aren't aware of it and Muggle-born witches and wizards like Hermione and Lily Evans have probably inherited magical genes from BOTH parents that combine to create a fully magical child. People like Petunia and Hermione's parents are probably "half-magical" instead of being simply Muggles. They can't create magic themselves, but may have enough of the genes to recognize it, be attracted to it, step into the world and experience it. Petunia can write to Hogwarts; Dudley can experience the full effect of a Dementor; the Grangers can walk into Diagon Alley with Hermione or onto Platform 9 3/4 to see her off. It takes a certain amount of magic to be able to walk at a pillar and out onto a train platform that no Muggle should be able to see. Dudley Dursley's son or daughter might conceivably be at Hogwarts as well if he married another half-magical Muggle (as he very well could have) and produced a witch or a wizard. It would serve his parents right. Bookworm857158367 From absinthe at mad.scientist.com Wed Aug 1 14:26:17 2007 From: absinthe at mad.scientist.com (Milz) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:26:17 -0000 Subject: The Real HP for GrownUps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174106 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chuck.han" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > ... > > Bella and Voldemort talking of highest pleasures. > > ... > > There is much innuendo surrounding the relationship between Bellatrix > Lestrange and Voldemort. > I think if Bellatrix had her chance, she would, to use the common term, jump Voldie's bones. But I think Bellatrix's love for Voldie parallels the often sexual relationships/brainwashing of any 'charismatic' leader with a follower. For example, Charlie Manson and some of his female followers or Jim Jones and his female followers. And while Bellatrix had this undying love/loyality, I think she knew Voldie did not totally reciprocate in light of the Malfoy's disgrace and her panic when she believed the sword was stolen. Juli wrote: >I think it must have been extremely hard for Ron to live with >his crush for almost a year and never slip into her bed. The boy has >a huge amount of self-control. I think this was 3-fold. 1. They knew they were in great danger. So the thought of danger might have been a romance-killer. 2. I think Ron has a great deal of respect for Hermione and wouldn't pressure her into anything that she wasn't ready for. 3. Kinda difficult to 'get it on' with Harry just a few feet away. Milz From foodiedb at optonline.net Wed Aug 1 14:22:24 2007 From: foodiedb at optonline.net (David) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:22:24 -0000 Subject: Red Herrings and Reconciliation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174107 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "estelle_clements" wrote: > > Red Herrings... foodiedb writes: I thought that, early in the book, when she wrote that Harry cut himself and realized that he had never learned how to magically heal a bleeding wound, and that he made a mental note to ask Hermione how to do it (and he never did ask her); well I thought that JKR was foreshadowing Harry's own, or Ron's or Hermione's ultimately bloody death...thank goodness I was wrong. From foodiedb at optonline.net Wed Aug 1 14:11:52 2007 From: foodiedb at optonline.net (David) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:11:52 -0000 Subject: The one who would do magic later in life - book 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174108 Sorry if this has been asked already and I missed it but: I thought I remembered JKR stating that we'd be surprised by someone doing magic later in life (Aunt Petunia, etc.). Did it happen in book 7, did I read it so fast after getting it that I missed it? Thanks all! David From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Aug 1 14:42:39 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:42:39 -0000 Subject: Snape finding Lily's letter In-Reply-To: <749401.92450.qm@web50312.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174109 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Diane C wrote: > > > Mus responds: For me, it's how it came to be in 12 > > Grimmauld Place in > > DH, not how it got delivered to Sirius in the first > > place. Sirius > > wasn't living there at the time of the attack on the > > Potters in > > Godric's Hollow, so it must have been brought there > > later. > > Grimmauld Place was Sirius's ancestral home, wasn't > it? So while he was imprisoned, it makes sense that > his things would be stored at his residence, even if > the expectation was that he would never be claiming > it. Since his will wouldn't go into effect until his > death, the belongings would simply be left there until > whoever legally could claim them after Sirius's death, > in this case, Harry. > > muse > > Valky: Just to throw my two knuts into the hat, it seems to me the ministry is the one most likely reason Sirius' belongings ended up in Grimmauld place, I agree with muse and barring that possibility I would go with the person who pointed out Kingsley as a possible source. Sirius had possessions, they were carted off to his N.O.K. or ancestral home as standard procedure or something near-wise, simple. Nor do I take issue with Sirius not showing his effects to Harry, there are plenty of reasons why it might never have happened, even if Sirius was well aware that he had a photograph and letter in his keeping I don't see why he would be instantly compelled to part with it, he loved the Potter family as much as anyone and more than most, he wanted to take care of Harry not give him a keepsake in substitute. OTOH the memory out of chronological order is glaringly odd and probably a bit of a flint. I don't consider it a great big deal but I'll grant that it does stand out a bit as an error that can't be rationalised. Still two out of three ain't bad. From foodiedb at optonline.net Wed Aug 1 14:35:56 2007 From: foodiedb at optonline.net (David) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:35:56 -0000 Subject: Whose Death Was The Saddest - book 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174110 I know that there were many terrible deaths in book 7 (Hedwig, Colin Creevey, etc) and the level of sadness when many of them fell, such as Fred, and then soon after we found out about Remus and Tonks, well, the sadness was awful. However, for me I found the saddest death to be that of Dobby. When JKR wrote, as Dobby was lay dying, (pg. 476 US ed.), "...he had stretched out his thin arms to Harry with a look of supplication." Well, I was instantly in tears, which then lasted for quite some time afterwards. Foodiedb From foodiedb at optonline.net Wed Aug 1 14:37:26 2007 From: foodiedb at optonline.net (David) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:37:26 -0000 Subject: Who else should have been at 9 3/4 at the end of the book? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174111 It would have been nice to see Hagrid there, even just waving to Harry, Hermione and Ron. foodiedb From accioginnyweasley at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 14:51:08 2007 From: accioginnyweasley at yahoo.com (accioginnyweasley) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:51:08 -0000 Subject: Draco's wife In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174112 She doesn't say, but I think it isn't Pansy. If it was, I think she would have specifically said that Draco was with his wife Pansy and she doesn't. She just says he is with his wife. To me, that means it is someone else. accioginnyweasley From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 14:59:19 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:59:19 -0000 Subject: Mr. Weasley, I take my hat off to you. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174113 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "npod4291" wrote: > > Among all the complaints about what should have been, I would like > to take a moment to give our friend Ron Weasley a pat on the back. > He has really out done himself in this, the last and IMO best, novel > of the epic tale of Harry Potter. > > Starting with the more obvious, congrats Ron, on bringing both > lightheartedness (?) and (even more and better) humour to the trio > that would have been (and was for a little) lost without you. <<<<>>>>> > More importantly, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Weasley, for > FINALLY maturing and growing up. Of the other male characters, > (mainly Harry, Neville, and Draco to an extent), you were last, but > not the least, to make the transition from being a boy to a man. <<<<>>>> > Anyway, please post your thoughts and impressions of Ron, who came > out better in DH than in all of the previous books combined. > > Nate, a frequent lurker and not so frequent poster ******** katie replies: Within the Trio, I see this: Hermione = BRAIN Harry = MUSCLE Ron = HEART Ron has always been the emotional heart of the group. Fiery, prone to reckless anger, and recklessness in general, he always keeps us (and Harry and Hermione) laughing and feeling cheerful. Ron has long been my emotional favorite of the group, and I always felt he was the glue. I enjoyed seeing Harry and Hermione spending time together and bonding without Ron, which I felt they hadn't done in a while. It was nice to see them relating to each other as adults and leaning on each other...BUT, I really missed Ron. He brings the important emotional element to the group. In DH, I felt Ron's turning point was his breaking the locket with Gryffindor's sword. For the first time ever, Harry handed all the power over to Ron. Ron has always felt that he stands in Harry's long shadow, and it was important for Harry to pass the torch. Ron definitely gained confidence after that point. I agree that Ron finally grew up in DH. I think a lot of it had to do with the realization of his love for Hermione. Before HBP, they had crushes on each other...the tragic events in HBP made their deep friendship, combined with those crushes, turn into a deep love. Hermione is such a reasonable and mature person, it seemed to kind of rub off on Ron. He knew she wouldn't go for his immature shenanigans. What I really liked is that he grew up without losing his personality. He was still Ron - silly, smart-alecky, and not a little bit kooky, but the maturity settled on those characteristics well. I love Ron. He is easily my favorite male character in the books, sometimes even instead of Harry. I join you in your salute to our Mr. Weasley! Cheers, Katie > From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 15:06:58 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:06:58 -0000 Subject: Who else should have been at 9 3/4 at the end of the book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174114 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "David" wrote: > > It would have been nice to see Hagrid there, even just waving to > Harry, Hermione and Ron. > > foodiedb > ***** KATIE REPLIES: I posted this previously, but I think seeing Dudley there with his son or daughter would have been fantastic. Seeing that the next generation of Dursleys were able to let go of Petunia's hatred and jealously would have been really satisfying for me. I wanted to see Harry and Dudley shaking hands, asking how the wives and kids were doing...I would have loved that! I would also have liked to see some of our more loved secondary characters, like Dean and Seamus or Justin Finch-Fletchly. KATIE From va32h at comcast.net Wed Aug 1 15:26:32 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:26:32 -0000 Subject: Snape finding Lily's Letter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174115 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: I've been reading this thread, trying to imagine the > explanation coming up in the story and failing to think of a > legitimate reason why it would. va32h: Had I been JKR's editor, I would have suggested she scrap the scene with Snape tearfully holding the letter entirely. It's too maudlin. I would have structured the whole revelation of Lily/Snape differently, actually. Instead of Snape's memories - I'd use Lily's words. As the Dursleys leave, Petunia hands harry a bundle of papers - no explanation, no tears, perhaps a simple sentence "I ought to have given these to you years ago." The bundle contains letters, letters home from Lily during her school days. Letters that talk about her friend Sev ("remember him mummy, that odd little boy that used to live down by Spinner's End?"). And eventually mentioning the end of their friendship in 5th year, for unelaborated reasons. Other letters would be to Petunia - describing her marriage, the birth of Harry, etc. Yes - it removes the big Surprise!Snape/Lily! but I think it would have added something more. As Harry learns that Dumbledore is seemingly less than Harry believed him to be, Harry would also be questioning his feelings about Snape and Petunia. His mother liked Snape? She and Petunia corresponded? The world has gone topsy-turvy! Skipping ahead to Snape's death, when Harry does get the memories, instead of scene after scene, Harry would describe brief, whirling impressions that reflect situations described in Lily's letters. Then he would land is SWM, and realize the significance of that. I would keep all the other memories intact, except the one where Portrait! Dumbledore tells Snape to tip Voldemort off about the escape from Privet Drive. It makes no sense, since Snape wasn't headmaster yet, and we already knew Snape gave this info, from chapter 1. And of course, ditch the goopy "Snape cries over photo of Lily" business. Or, if they must have Snape crying over something, let it be a photo of himself and Lily as first years, that he has been carrying around for the last 20 years. Hey - I figure if we readers have to fix all the plotholes ourselves, we may just as well go ahead and rewrite the things we don't like. (which would also mean that in my alternate universe, Fred lives and Charlie dies - sorry Charlie!) va32h From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Aug 1 15:39:06 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:39:06 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174116 Beatrice: > I do however, want to ask people to consider two points. First, that > we have a limited view of Slytherin, because we are somewhat limited > to Harry's view on that house, not because JKR has a narrow view of > the people sorted into that house. Magpie: It's a work of fiction, one for which JKR chooses the perspective. Presumably JKR knows more about Slytherin than Harry, yes. But that's why she's also in control of how it comes across in the story, which is the only place it exists outside her head (and her words in interviews even seem to back this up). Slytherin's role in the story is pretty clear and consistent, with the redeemed Slytherins all proving the rule, imo, and I'm going by that. By what I see in the story JKR's view isn't narrow but accurate, since she's showing the house the way she wants it to be shown and she made it up. Beatrice: While it is often difficult to > remember when we are reading, we need to remember that the author is > writing from a particular narrative perspective (which has been > widely discussed as third person limited omnicient - but > significantly tied to Harry's own thoughts), and this narrative > perspective does not necessarily correspond in part or at all with > the author's perspective. Additionally, we now have to consider what > is Harry's perspective and what has formed that perspective. Magpie: Harry's perspective is the only perspective (except for the scenes not in his perspective)--and while there are places where Harry's perspective is clearly different than the author's, that doesn't make it totally unreliable. Whatever is needed for us to understand what the author wants to say is in the book. There is no "real wizarding world" outside it. To quote Sydney's great metaphor, it's not like JKR's filming a documentary here and she just doesn't have the footage to give the impression she wants. The impression Harry has of the Slytherins is all we have, and I see no reason to think it's so skewed I as a reader don't have an accurate picture of Slytherin. JKR could have turned around Harry's impression of Slytherin and shown him how he was wrong, but that's not what happened. Beatrice: Well, > let's see, just a quick glance...a member of Slytherin house murdered > his parents, from his initial introduction to Hogwarts Slytherin's > have been bullying, across the board people connected with the house > have worked tirelessly to bring about his destruction, and perhaps > most importantly, Harry fears the qualities in himself that seem to > associate him with that house. Magpie: How is the fact that Harry's experience of Slytherin has been almost all negative (and that includes a lot of Slytherins) a defense against the fact that Slytherin comes across negatively? They're supposed to come across that way, aren't they? Harry's fears that he might have those qualities make sense--though ultiamtely he's fine with having the qualities. What we might assume are Slytherin qualities are quite sexy on Harry. Beatrice: Also, many people have pointed to the > fact that the battle at Hogwarts seems to be fought singularly by the > other three houses, yet we know that at some point Slughorn returns > and that Snape has been fighting all along. Perhaps, because of > Harry's limited perspective and his limited knowledge of the members > of Slytherin there are others who are do return to fight, but simply > go unnoticed by Harry and thus by us, because of the limited > narrative. Magpie: Given the set up I absolutely can't just assume they came back to fight. There's nothing so wrong in Harry's perspective that suggests, imo, that I should stick in a bunch of Slytherins to fix it. If they were there we'd know it and so would he. Is it so important that Slytherin students should have returned? Because I think if one feels it is important one must ask why it's not in the story--and Harry's perspective certainly doesn't explain it. He sees the Slytherins that are there. Beatrice: It is only because of the knowledge of Snape's sacrifice > gained at the very end of the novel, that opens Harry's eyes about > Slytherin house and allows for his change of heart during his > discussion with his son at the end of the novel. Magpie: It opens his eyes to Snape being brave, like Regulus, and changes his heart towards Snape. The change in his heart towards Slytherin is pretty weak (remember, it's not like Harry's been wanting to burn the House down throughout canon). There's no praising of Slytherin at the end of the novel--understandably. I can't imagine what Harry would find to praise about it--which is I think why he winds up diplomatically reassuring his son via the signature quality of Gryffindor. (And why his son needs reassuring to begin with.) Beatrice: > Second, I don't agree with that Slytherin is "evil" nor that evil is > the right way to label all of its members. Okay, so Voldemort, > Bellatrix, et al, certainly deserve that label. But, here is where > Harry's limited perspective comes in to play, Harry doesn't seem to > be acquainted with many Slytherins so it is inevitable that his > perspective is incredibly narrow. Magpie: No, not inevitable, actually, even if "evil" isn't the word for Slytherin. Harry doesn't know that many Ravenclaws or Hufflepuffs, but they don't come across like Slytherin, because they aren't. On the contrary, we're told a lot about what to expect to Slytherins from Harry's perspective (which Hermione agrees with as well) and then they demonstrate he's right. If there's a bunch of Slytherins knitting sweaters for orphans, they don't appear in the story and therefore do not exist. Beatrice: Now let's consider a couple of > members of Slytherin (from the few we know). Pansy Parkinson > specifically her call to hand Harry over to LV at the end. Is this > an act of evil? Or is Parkinson acting out of fear and her own > weakness? We as readers find it so abhorent, because of our > perspective that Harry is the hero, as we know from Neville, Hogwarts > and the WW at large has been terrorized for many months and everyone > is in "mortal peril." From Parkinson's perspective handing Harry > over is about self-peservation not necessarily love of LV. And > wouldn't it be out of character for her to rise to Harry's aid, just > out of the blue? Magpie: Well, yeah, it would be. I don't quite see what your point is here, though. I could see your point if the series wasn't over yet, but now that it is, this is how it stands. Fanfic authors have been giving the Slytherin perspective for years, but as you note here, we as readers find it abhorent and it is supposed to be. The problem isn't that I, as a reader, can't think of things from their pov or that I am angry at the Slytherins. Fanfic isn't canon, and canon isn't defending the Slytherin viewpoint. You say that it would be OOC for Pansy to get up and protect Harry (I agree as if that's the only possible alternative to what actually happened, but then when we're told the Slytherins all leave and never hear of them again returning, you think it's fine to assume they changed their minds and came back. Why would I give them these actions that they haven't earned? Beatrice: I suspect however, that Malfoy,is perhaps (although > it has not been widely discussed) is truly at the heart of this > discussion, as readers many have been hoping that Malfoy would be > redeemed through the novel a lot of fan fiction ink has been spilled > on this particular subject. This perhaps is the source of the real > dissatisfaction. Again, I have a really hard time labeling Malfoy > as "evil," he just seems so weak and foolish. This may make him at > best a good vehicle for evil, but not necessarily evil in and of > himself. Malfoy isn't redeemed in the novel, because he stays true > to character, despite the terror and abuse he receives at the hand of > LV, his father and other DE's, Malfoy isn't introspective enough to > seek redemption, all he seeks is power, although as readers we see > how limited his power is, to assuage his powerlessness, and glory > (again feeble as it is) to cure his inferiority. What is perhaps > tragic about him, is that he is offered mercy by Dumbledore, and > Harry and doesn't have the brains to grab it. Magpie: I find this a bit condescending--well, really a lot condescending. The extreme version of this argument is: "You're just mad because we wanted leather pants Draco," and you've followed it with your own personal interpretation of the character as being somebody who only wants power and doesn't have the brains to seek redemption. Leaving aside that I don't completely agree with your interpretation of what's in canon (but you can find yours in fanfic too), and that you can't claim to know the motivations of why everyone who is dissatisfied, this argument still doesn't say anything about the actual problem. Malfoy is, of course, part of the discussion, because he of the storyline he was given in HBP, a storyline that put the character *canonically* in the position of a change the story ultimately said did not happen. This was seen even by people who did not like or were not interested in the character to begin with. He was placed in a position of meaning, and how he acted was, imo, therefore a significant part of what the author was saying. So Malfoy's yet another Slytherin without the brains to seek redemption--which is exactly the point people are making about Slytherin and why they find it a dissatisfying ending. Slytherin doesn't take its place as a house of equal value to the others, and that wasn't necessary for the true defeat of the things they were fighting (or, imo, they just chose a smaller thing to fight). Even if someone loved fanon Draco, they're obviously seeing the character as he is in the actual canon here. Finding something in canon unsatisfying doesn't mean that you *must* have had a specific, unreasonable expectation and could only be dissatisfied because you didn't get it. I know that sometimes individual people really do seem to make it clear that's what it's about, but you're generalizing about a lot of people here. The argument here just really seems to be jumping around in sometimes contradictary ways, so that you agree that Slytherin is presented in this negative way, then defend it as if the author was trapped into presenting it that way when really she knew it was something else, then say it really did contain the things people want but they weren't written in, but if that doesn't work maybe there's something wrong with you. To me it seems a lot more simple: JKR wrote the story a certain way, she had a certain view of Slytherin house that she presented perfectly well. But what she wanted to say just wasn't satisfying for some readers. -m From npod4291 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 15:44:06 2007 From: npod4291 at yahoo.com (npod4291) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:44:06 -0000 Subject: Slytherins in love Was: Wasted potential in Pettigrew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174117 > Carol responds: > I think you're seeing my position as more extreme than it is. I'm not > arguing for St. Severus, only that Snape does not come across as a > stalker to me. Nor am I denying that his reason for wanting Lily to > live while not caring about her husband and son is in any way admirable. The way I see it, Snape's love for Lily is love in its purest form. Let me explain to those with the shocked faces. It is clear that Snape loved Lily from a very young age. Likewise, it is clear that, because of some Snape's choice in friends and the "Mudblood" incident, Lily will never be able to return that love. IMO, Snape accepts this, but continues to love her. If this were not the case, he would actively been pursuing her after the "Mudblood" incident, which it isn't canon that he doesn't, but I think we can assume. He doesn't want her to be spared from Voldemort because he plans to pursue her. Like I said, I believe he had already accepted that because of his previous choices, it would never happen for the two of them. He asks that she be spared, because he wants her to live and be happy, even if its not eith him. The reason he only asks for her to be spared, IMO, is because asking Voldemort to not kill Harry when he was intent on doing so would have been as good as suicide. Instead he asks DD to help protect all three, even his most hated rival James, because they made Lily happy. IMO, pure love is a love that is shown when the happiness of the loved is much more important to the lover than his/her own happiness. Snape shows this, from his fifth year on, that he continues to love her, even though he knows he will have the happiness that comes from being with her. He even accepts that James, the person he hates above all others aside from maybe Sirius, makes her happy, and thus wishes to protect him as well. I wouldn't call this obsessive, as that has a negative connotation to it. Is it something that he thought about all the time? I believe so, but not to the point of being able to think of nothing else, which is what I take obsessive to mean. npod4291 From marthaforhp at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 15:36:06 2007 From: marthaforhp at yahoo.com (marthaforhp) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:36:06 -0000 Subject: Mr. Weasley, I take my hat off to you. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174118 My favorite: When the trio rescues Goyle and Malfoy from Fiendfyr, Ron bellows "IF WE DIE, I'M GOING TO KILL YOU,HARRY!" [all-caps in the original, quote approximate, as I don't have DH with me.] Martha From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 16:06:41 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:06:41 -0000 Subject: Slytherins in love Was: Wasted potential in Pettigrew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174119 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "npod4291" wrote: > The way I see it, Snape's love for Lily is love in its purest form. > Let me explain to those with the shocked faces. > > It is clear that Snape loved Lily from a very young age. Likewise, > it is clear that, because of some Snape's choice in friends and > the "Mudblood" incident, Lily will never be able to return that > love. IMO, Snape accepts this, but continues to love her. If this > were not the case, he would actively been pursuing her after > the "Mudblood" incident, which it isn't canon that he doesn't, but I > think we can assume. Alla: Given the fact that he was ready to sleep near Gryffindor dorms, no I cannot assume that he would not have pursued her. I mean, maybe yes, maybe no in my opinion. npod4291: He doesn't want her to be spared from Voldemort > because he plans to pursue her. Like I said, I believe he had > already accepted that because of his previous choices, it would > never happen for the two of them. He asks that she be spared, > because he wants her to live and be happy, even if its not with him. Alla: So, whom does he think she would be alive and happy with, if he does not ask to spare her husband and son? npod4291: > The reason he only asks for her to be spared, IMO, is because asking > Voldemort to not kill Harry when he was intent on doing so would > have been as good as suicide. Alla: If Snape had any sort of love for Lily at that point in time that I would call pure, then yeah, suicide or not, I think he would have tried to save her loved ones, who if I may were in danger **because of him** in the first place. IMO. npod4291: Instead he asks DD to help protect > all three, even his most hated rival James, because they made Lily > happy. Alla: He comes to Dumbledore after he bargained with Voldemort for Lily's life and **still** asking him to protect Lily only. It is only till Dumbledore rather directly tells him that he disgusts him AND that boy has Lily's eyes Snape agrees to protect him. So I just do not see where he asked to protect James of his own initiative and yeah, if he truly loved Lily, I believe that no matter how much he hated James, he **owed** it to her to protect them. npod4291: > IMO, pure love is a love that is shown when the happiness of the > loved is much more important to the lover than his/her own > happiness. Snape shows this, from his fifth year on, that he > continues to love her, even though he knows he will have the > happiness that comes from being with her. He even accepts that > James, the person he hates above all others aside from maybe Sirius, > makes her happy, and thus wishes to protect him as well. I wouldn't > call this obsessive, as that has a negative connotation to it. Is > it something that he thought about all the time? I believe so, but > not to the point of being able to think of nothing else, which is > what I take obsessive to mean. Alla: Where do we see that he accepts that James makes her happy in canon? And yes I agree that happiness of the loved one is much more important in the true love. Snape's loved one and her husband are dead because of him ( and Voldemort of course) and her kid had to endure Snape's hatred for years. Although Snape was protecting his life, because he is "Lily's son", but it just does not cut for me to show Snape's pure love. To do what he did to the child of the woman he loved? Um, no. Sure, he loved her and did good things because of love for her or was it because of his guilt? But I would not call it pure love, at the very least with very strong obsessive undertones IMO. Alla From magpye29 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 1 15:58:51 2007 From: magpye29 at hotmail.com (Mellanie Crowther) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:58:51 -0400 Subject: Who else should have been at 9 3/4 at the end of the book? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174120 I'm new here, but I would have liked to have seen George, and I'm intrigued by something I read where JKR suggested that Luna and Neville could have ended up together. I'm also with those who wanted to see Dudley there, and my favorite HP movie hottie, Oliver Wood. Mellanie From marion11111 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 16:08:36 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:08:36 -0000 Subject: Patronuses (was Re: Dumbledore: Patronus and Dementors (specifically Snape's) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174121 > > > > marion: > > At the time, I though he was being spiteful. And he was, but now I > wonder if he was making a comment about himself also. > > Potioncat: > I don't think so. His Patronus seems pretty powerful based on the > quoted and snipped section. I once suggested that Tonks's previous > Patronus had reflected Snape and he was upset at her transfer of > affections. (It was a joke!) > marion11111 - I see there is another marion, so this is me: I didn't mean he was describing his patronus as weak, but he himself as being weak for not being able to move ahead and get his own darn patronus. When he said that Tonks'(who actually went from independent, strong woman to depressed clinger-on a little too dramatically for my taste) patronus looked weak, my first thought was that he meant *she* was behaving in a weak way. > Potioncat: > One more point: I think the rule is: If it's important to the story, > the Patronus reflects someone who is the source of the caster's > strength. If it isn't important to the story, the Patronus is chosen > at JKR's whim. > marion11111: LOL!! I would say that is a very big rule in the wizarding world applying to many many situations! From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 16:27:55 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:27:55 -0000 Subject: Whose Death Was The Saddest - book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174122 Foodiedb: > I know that there were many terrible deaths in book 7 (Hedwig, Colin > Creevey, etc) and the level of sadness when many of them fell, such as > Fred, and then soon after we found out about Remus and Tonks, well, > the sadness was awful. However, for me I found the saddest death to > be that of Dobby. When JKR wrote, as Dobby was lay dying, (pg. 476 US > ed.), "...he had stretched out his thin arms to Harry with a look of > supplication." Well, I was instantly in tears, which then lasted for > quite some time afterwards. Lisa: I cried over Dobby (because it was so unexpected) and Snape (because of the man he could've been). Hedwig got me choked-up, too, because it was so unfair. Lisa From magpye29 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 1 16:07:39 2007 From: magpye29 at hotmail.com (Mellanie Crowther) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:07:39 -0400 Subject: Draco's kid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174123 Alla wrote "I mean, did she have to name Draco's kid Scorpius unless to designate him as next villain?" Maybe he was born in November... Mellanie From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 16:36:12 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:36:12 -0000 Subject: Who else should have been at 9 3/4 at the end of the book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174124 Foodiedb: > It would have been nice to see Hagrid there, even just waving to > Harry, Hermione and Ron. Lisa: I don't know, Hagrid would've been pretty darned old, huh? Hagrid was there when Tom Riddle was a student; the Lexicon has his birthday as December 6, 1928. If the epilogue was set in 2017, that would make Hagrid 89 years old. From cottell at dublin.ie Wed Aug 1 16:42:14 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:42:14 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio In-Reply-To: <46B048CD.2070606@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174125 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > Further, how little reaction it illicited either from Harry > himself or from McGonagall, who actually called an Unforgivable > Curse "gallant", and then followed on with a UC of her own. It > would have done the scene wonders for the good guys to display at > least a little moral distaste for the actions they felt forced to > perform. > The lack of any sort of moral discomfiture was probably the most > disturbing part of the incident. Mus responds: This reader might, at a pinch, be able to accept AdrenalinFuelled!Harry acting in the heat of the moment, but the use of Imperio by McGonagall immediately after is what makes this incident deeply questionable. She uses Imperio for no other reason than to disarm the Carrows and make them easier to tie up. [DH, UK: Ch30, 478] McGonagall is calm under pressure, we know that. Accio, Expelliarmus and Petrificus Totalus would have had exactly the same effect, and have been used for similar purposes throughout the six preceding books, and Luna has just ensured that Alecto's going nowhere by simply Stunning her. I've posted before that I was worried about the moral arc of the series in HBP. This incident in The Ravenclaw commonroom convinced me, to my horror, that it was now in shreds. Mus, sorrowing. From shagufta_naazpk2000 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 16:41:13 2007 From: shagufta_naazpk2000 at yahoo.com (shagufta_naazpk2000) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:41:13 -0000 Subject: Mr. Weasley, I take my hat off to you. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174126 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marthaforhp" wrote: > > My favorite: > > When the trio rescues Goyle and Malfoy from Fiendfyr, Ron bellows > > "IF WE DIE, I'M GOING TO KILL YOU,HARRY!" [all-caps in the original, > quote approximate, as I don't have DH with me.] > > Martha > Hear Hear I have always loved Ron and the reason i don't watch the Medium That Must Not Be Named is that the actor playing Ron just doesnt look like what i think he should. Also, they take away his best lines and give them to Hermione. In this book i loved the above quote. Also when, after its all over, Peeves makes up a silly song (Voldy's gone mouldy - LOL) and Ron says something like: really sums up the tragedy of it all doesnt he... And i loooved the scene where Harry tries to put Ron's fears to rest (regarding Hermione) - so awkward for both of them, yet it was something that needed to be brought out and dealt with. Three cheers for ickle ronnikins who finally grew up Shagufta From lsanders at amtrim.com Wed Aug 1 17:15:33 2007 From: lsanders at amtrim.com (Sanders, Lynne) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 13:15:33 -0400 Subject: The Epilogue Message-ID: <57DF66CB2B1CEA4DA6FDD3E67BC4E3940133D622@mercury.amtrim.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174127 In the epilogue I really didn't take it that Albus didn't want to go into Slytherin because it was evil. As the mother of two boys I know my oldest one knows exactly what buttons to push to make my youngest scream. I took this teasing by James like a family where everyone has gone to Ohio State and he says I'll bet you're going to Michigan! Even on a smaller scale we have school rivalries and that is how I took it. Lynne [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sneeboy2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 17:25:43 2007 From: sneeboy2 at yahoo.com (sneeboy2) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:25:43 -0000 Subject: The Epilogue In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708010458g8c8ce87ve084686c586530c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174128 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > OK - I have finished rereading DH again, and realised upon rereading the > epilogue that I have been debating a strawman on the Slytherin/Gryffindor > issue. > > In PS, we see primarily a sporting rivalry, led by their domineering heads > of house - McGonagall is even willing to break rules to ensure that > Gryffindor win back the Quidditch Cup after several years. Sneeboy2: Was it sports that caused Harry to so vehemently reject the idea of being a Slytherin when the hat suggested it? In COS, the "heir of Slytherin" was someone who could unleash a deadly monster on the school, not win games. Does anyone seriously think that the bullying and ill feelings between Slytherins and Gryffindors is merely the result of a sporting rivalry? It's the other way around, no? They're rivals on the field because they dislike each other off the field. Janette: > > Twentyfive years later, we see that the Hat still Sorts, but what else do we > see? The railway platform, and two quarrelling Potter boys, one of whom is > a Gryff. The Potter family has been Gryffs at least as far back as his > great grandfather. Another family, the Weasleys, have all been Gryffs for > at least three generations. The parents are all renowned for having fought > and beaten, as Gryffs, enemies who were predominantly Slytherin, in the last > great Wizarding War, and their headmaster through their school years was a > Gryff, opposed to the most infamous Slyth. The children of the Potter and > Weasley families would have grown up with these facts and allegiances, and > James teases Albus that he would be Sorted as a Slyth - a House that none of > the family has ever belonged to, in anyone's memory. > > And what does Harry say to Al? "- then Slytherin house will have gained an > excellent student, won't it? It doesn't matter to us." > > *It doesn't matter to us*. So where is the evil I have been reading about? > The intense house hatred and divisions? The "Slytherins are bad, > Gryffindors good" depiction that is supposed to be there? The idea that > Slytherins are being portrayed as inferior or lesser, that I have read > expressed so passionately in this thread? Where in canon? > > montims > > Sneeboy2 replies: Well, you just laid it out for us: the heroes are all Gryffs and the bad guys are all Slyths. What could be clearer? No Syltherins anywhere in the books are presented as good-natured, likable people. They are all selfish, stuck-up bullies to one degree or another. JKR herself has said that Snape is not a "good" person. Some have suggested that the house system is merely a reflection of reality. But where, in the real world, are people so reliably "sorted" into good and bad? And is it wise to present young readers with an allegorical world where they can be? The epilogue offers a very mild statement of open-mindedness -- the sort of "they're not all bad" that even the most prejudiced person can muster in a forgiving mood. "Then Slytherin house will have gained an excellent student, won't it? It doesn't matter to us." This is not a statement about Slytherin but a parent's reassurance: you're great, and it doesn't matter what house you're in; we'll still love you. From vincent.maston.ml at free.fr Wed Aug 1 17:19:03 2007 From: vincent.maston.ml at free.fr (Vincent Maston) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:19:03 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry using Crucio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B0C087.5050404@free.fr> No: HPFGUIDX 174129 muscatel1988 a ?crit : > McGonagall is calm under pressure, we know that. Accio, > Expelliarmus and Petrificus Totalus would have had exactly the same > effect, and have been used for similar purposes throughout the six > preceding books, and Luna has just ensured that Alecto's going > nowhere by simply Stunning her. > > I've posted before that I was worried about the moral arc of the > series in HBP. This incident in The Ravenclaw commonroom convinced > me, to my horror, that it was now in shreds. Yeah, well, I think McGonagall is calm under pressure, but this does not prevent her from being angry. For a whole year, she had to watch, not beeing able to do a thing about it, the Carrows torturing children and basically ruining the whole school she devoted her life to. She finally has the chance to get a little revenge, and I think I'd have done the same. She did not even cruciated them a little bit, only imperiused them. IMO, Imperio is an unforgivable curse only because the danger a wrong wizard can provoke with it, not, like Crucio or AK, because of a pain or death it induces. For all we know, Imperio is just as painfull as laying in a nice bed. The hell with morality. McGonagall is a woman, not a poster girl for christian forgiveness. If you want a nice little book full of nice people always beeing nice to each other, I don't think that a series beginning with the murder of a baby's parents right in front of him is the right choice. -- http://www.nonewsweb.com http://www.last.fm/user/nonewsweb/ vincent.maston.ml From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 1 17:53:42 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:53:42 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174130 Beatrice: > > Well, let's see, just a quick glance...a member of Slytherin > > house murdered his parents, from his initial introduction to > > Hogwarts Slytherin's have been bullying, across the board people > > connected with the house have worked tirelessly to bring about > > his destruction, and perhaps most importantly, Harry fears the > > qualities in himself that seem to associate him with that house. Magpie: > How is the fact that Harry's experience of Slytherin has been > almost all negative (and that includes a lot of Slytherins) a > defense against the fact that Slytherin comes across negatively? > They're supposed to come across that way, aren't they? SSSusan: Gotta agree with Magpie on this one. The story does take place primarily *from* Harry's POV... but it's *JKR* who's plotting out what he and we will be seeing! If she'd elected to have a Slytherin student or two counter Pansy and offer to fight, then she would have written it out that way... and then we'd have seen that episode from Harry's (probably very amazed & pleased) perspective! The whole point is, JKR... the author, the one pulling all the punches... *elected* to not have this happen -- nor any other scene where a Slytherin student stands up to be counted amongst those fighting Voldy, or even, really, to just being neutral. It was JKR's choice to craft it that way, so Harry's PoV doesn't really enter in to the objection, you know? It's that it didn't HAPPEN at all, not that Harry reacted to it through tinted-by- Slytherin-dislike lenses. Magpie: > Given the set up I absolutely can't just assume they came back to > fight. There's nothing so wrong in Harry's perspective that > suggests, imo, that I should stick in a bunch of Slytherins to fix > it. If they were there we'd know it and so would he. SSSusan: Yes, and JKR would've made sure we saw it -- either through Harry's eyes or through a report of another person to Harry. The best 'solution' I've seen to this dilemma was that suggested by Montims here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174090 , where she argued that it's entirely possible that Draco was behaving in the RoR the way Snape had always behaved in his role as a double- spy: that is, acting the part of assisting the Dark Lord, while actually doing what he could to keep Harry alive. All Draco did in the RoR scene, really, was keep stressing that they needed to take Harry alive, after all. Okay, not saying I'm convinced, but at least it's a possibility! :) Too bad JKR didn't make it clearer, if that's what was happening, though. :( Siriusly Snapey Susan From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 18:02:12 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:02:12 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174131 > >>Beatrice: > There is so much on this thread that I am not even going to try to > snip a few sentences to address. > > I do however, want to ask people to consider two points. First, > that we have a limited view of Slytherin, because we are somewhat > limited to Harry's view on that house, not because JKR has a narrow > view of the people sorted into that house. > Betsy Hp: Since canon is closed, what's in the books is all we've got. And Slytherin is definitely the house of "lesser than", as you point out later on in your post. (The examples I snipped.) So Harry's view is correct and therefore matches JKR's. > >>Beatrice: > Second, I don't agree with that Slytherin is "evil" nor that evil > is the right way to label all of its members. > Betsy Hp: Yes, but they're certainly "most likely to become evil". The Houses are on a definite ladder of purity and worth. With Gryffindor at the highest (they can throw Crucio's and remain pure), and Slytherin at the lowest (even their love is twisted). So the story ends with Slytherin properly put in its place and golden Gryffindor ready to keep them there. > >>Beatrice: > I suspect however, that Malfoy,is perhaps (although it has not been > widely discussed) is truly at the heart of this discussion, as > readers many have been hoping that Malfoy would be redeemed through > the novel a lot of fan fiction ink has been spilled on this > particular subject. > Betsy Hp: I haven't seen much lamenting on list that JKR Jossed someone's fanfic. So I think this is a bit of a straw man. I *have* lamented Draco's fate on list (I think?) but more because he represents Slytherin for his generation and the outcome is not good. Though to be honest, I'm more horrified at the theory put forth that so many children can be deemed "lesser than" or "most likely to go bad" at such a young age to be too worried about how one particular Slytherin turned out. (Though I do wonder why so much page-space was wasted on him in HBP when we *could* have gotten some Hollows and Dumbledore foreshadowing instead.) > >>Beatrice: > > Malfoy isn't redeemed in the novel, because he stays true > to character, despite the terror and abuse he receives at the hand > of LV, his father and other DE's, Malfoy isn't introspective enough > to seek redemption, all he seeks is power, although as readers we > see how limited his power is, to assuage his powerlessness, and > glory (again feeble as it is) to cure his inferiority. What is > perhaps tragic about him, is that he is offered mercy by > Dumbledore, and Harry and doesn't have the brains to grab it. Betsy Hp: Well yes, exactly. That's how Slytherin's are. Stupid, selfish, greedy and cowardly. And that's the "not evil" side of the House. Isn't it wonderful that the WW has a way of figuring out all the children like that and keeps them thoughtfully grouped together so as to not bother the blessed children? Too bad we don't have a similar sorting hat in RL, eh? (Though I know groups that think we do have workable methods.) Betsy Hp From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 18:05:52 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:05:52 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Age WAS: Who else should have been at 9 3/4 at the end of the book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174132 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lisa" wrote: Foodiedb: It would have been nice to see Hagrid there, even just waving to Harry, Hermione and Ron. Lisa: I don't know, Hagrid would've been pretty darned old, huh? Hagrid was there when Tom Riddle was a student; the Lexicon has his birthday as December 6, 1928. If the epilogue was set in 2017, that would make Hagrid 89 years old. KATIE REPLIES: But we know Hagrid was still alive, because James (or Albus. I can't remember which), was having tea with him at school. Harry reminds them of it as the kids are leaving. Would 19 years have made that big of a difference in his health/stamina? Interestingly, do giants have a longer life span than wizards, who we already know have a longer life span than Muggles? Maybe Hagrid will live to be two hundred or something! KATIE From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 18:04:29 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:04:29 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio In-Reply-To: <46B0C087.5050404@free.fr> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174133 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Vincent Maston wrote: > Yeah, well, I think McGonagall is calm under pressure, but this does not > prevent her from being angry. > For a whole year, she had to watch, not beeing able to do a thing about > it, the Carrows torturing children and basically ruining the whole > school she devoted her life to. > > She finally has the chance to get a little revenge, and I think I'd have > done the same. She did not even cruciated them a little bit, only > imperiused them. IMO, Imperio is an unforgivable curse only because the > danger a wrong wizard can provoke with it, not, like Crucio or AK, > because of a pain or death it induces. For all we know, Imperio is just > as painfull as laying in a nice bed. > > The hell with morality. McGonagall is a woman, not a poster girl for > christian forgiveness. > > If you want a nice little book full of nice people always beeing nice to > each other, I don't think that a series beginning with the murder of a > baby's parents right in front of him is the right choice. Alla: Personally I am not incredibly bothered by Mcgonagall Imperio for precisely the reasons you said, I am also not incredibly bothered by Harry's Crucio, except I sort of am Let me explain, I am perfectly satisfied that Harry would not use Unforgiveable curses unless circumstances are extreme. I think she established that point with Harry refusing to use Avada in the battle and Lupin of all people scolding him for it. I thought it was done very well and giving that Harry is prone to anger I am not incredibly bothered by his Crucio, had it been, I don't know, done in response to more extreme situation, if that makes sense? Like if he used it on Bella, when she Crucio Hermione - oh yes, then my response would have been, he had a very good reason to be angry. This situation just does not really cut it for me. As I said, I am not holding it much against Harry - I am perfectly happy with him refusing to kill, but if she wanted to show that he was angry, I needed more violent situation for that. Because I agree with those that the point was made that Unforgiveables are not only illegal but immoral as well. JMO, Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 18:15:05 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:15:05 -0000 Subject: "Albus Potter and the Resurection Stone" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174134 --- "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > --- "Scott" > wrote: > > > > What do you think? Book 1 of a new story? J.K. made > > quite a point to leave that thing in the forest > > where any old wizard or creature could find it. > > > SSSusan: > Well, I don't think so. :) > > JKR said in her online chat on the 30th that she > suspected the stone would stay lost... that centaurs' > hooves likely squashed it down into the ground and it > was buried. > > So I think we've seen the last, truly, 'til we get > that HP encyclopedia. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > bboyminn: Also, note WHERE the Ring was lost; in the lair of the Acromantula Spiders. I think they would make pretty good sentinels and guardians of the Stone. True they are not invincible as we see in the book. If you have an army, you can drive them out of their lair, but any single or small group of wizards would have an extremely difficult and dangerous time trying to find a lost buried ring in a swarm of giant man- eating spiders. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 18:11:55 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:11:55 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jo's OWN Words/Harry using Crucio/I am about to Rant/Danger Designating the In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40708010241u1cfb69ddr7b6187a6cb530fb1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40708011111v7ee09b26r5ef6331ce3e6c88@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174135 > > Kemper earlier: > > Cunning and ambition are human (not heavenly) virtues as are > courage, > > wisdom and loyalty. > > > > Cunning is an admirable word. The Sorting Hat did not say > Slytherin > > valued deceit. Hermione is cunning (Timeturner). > > Magpie: > I see a clear difference between these virtues and the others. > Cunning is often used to indicate a lower form of intelligence--and > animal cunning as opposed to wisdom ("bad" groups are often > described as "cunning" because it suggests deception and > underhandedness). And ambition, while certainly helpful, is another > thing often warned against as selfish. If you look at a list of > Puritan Virtue names, you will find Courage, Loyal and Learned among > them, but not Cunning or Ambition (unsurprisingly--I think both > would be considered bad things). Hermione certainly is cunning, but > as I said, Slytherin values seem to me to clearly be ennobled when > used by non-Slytherins, while when Slytherins show the values of > other houses (like Snape and Regulus being brave) it ennobles the > Slytherin. Kemper now As I was googleing and wikipediaing Puritan Virtues and finding nothing (not saying it doesn't exist, just stating I couldn't find them easily), a thought hit me: thank God JKR didn't espouse to Puritan Values whatever they be! Puritans don't value courage unless it's against the devil. Puritans don't value wisdom. They value being learned in the Bible. Puritans don't value loyalty unless it's to their interpretation of God or the pulpit. So of course Puritans wouldn't value cunning or ambition within their followers as either might make them think and then act outside of the Puritan's authoritative rule. No doubt, the Puritan authority were ambitious and manipulative if not cunning. Here's how Merriam-Webster defines Cunning as adjective 1 : dexterous or crafty in the use of special resources (as skill or knowledge) or in attaining an end 2 : displaying keen insight 3 : characterized by wiliness and trickery 4 : prettily appealing : cute as noun 1: obsolete a: knowledge, learning b: magic art 2: dexterous skill and subtlety (as in inventing, devising, or executing) 3: craft, slyness synonyms see art Nowhere can it be implied that cunning is a lower form of intelligence. When used on pet animals, it is used to mean cute. The fox is sly. "Bad" groups aren't described as cunning. Manipulative or deceitful, maybe. An honorable adversary can be described as cunning. Strategies can be cunning. For sure, both Allies and Axis powers hoped their strategies were. It's a human virtue. As I've said, this story is in the Gryffindor perspective, with Gryffindor values. > Magpie: > Snape is redeemed and praised for being brave--perhaps he was Sorted > too soon. His display of this value ennobles Snape. When I think of > times that cunning and ambition have been seen as good things in > canon, it's when usually the Trio is using them. Iow, it's the > Slytherin values that are ennobled by being used by non-Slytherins. > When Snape is brave, by contrast, it is Snape being ennobled by the > trait, not the trait being ennobled by Snape. Kemper now: How is Snape redeemed and praised for being brave? Harry tells Voldemort that Voldemort's been artfully deceived by Snape's cunning. That's how I read it. Sure, Harry talks about Snape's love (which no House claims as a virtue). But Voldemort is more interested in Snape's dexterous skill and subtle planning. It is what Harry seems to be impressed by as well. No where does he laud Snape's courage. > Magpie: > Yes, I think it's Harry's perception, the reader's perception and > Dumbledore's perception. The Slytherin perception is not presented > as equally valid. Kemper now: Because it's not a Slytherin story. It's a Gryffindor's. > Magpie: > Luna is valued for her own bravery and is associated with her > friends, the Gryffindors. Kemper now: She is valued for her bravery by Gryffindors who value bravery and who's perception we see most in the books. The first book could've been called SuperGryffindor and the Philospher's Stone. Just like none of the books could be called EveryHouse Potter and the Deathly Hallows. > Magpie: > I think it would be in [Luna's] character to admire Snape for his > courage, sure. But I don't think that changes things one way or the > other. Kemper now: If we are assuming off canon as I did up thread, then Luna would admire Snape's intellect and appreciate his cunning (as the two are linked) over his courage. > > Kemper earlier: > > Going back to Snape. He doesn't seem to admire courage in others. > > Why would he? If Voldemort could admire the virtues in another, I > > think would admire Snape and not for his courage, wisdom, or > loyalty: > > all of which he has in spades.> Oh... what about Draco? Nineteen > years later and what does he think > > about his old Head of House? "What a courageous teacher"? or > > something like "the most cunning Slytherin to ever walk Hogwarts"? > > Magpie: > The opinions of none of these people are presented as correct in > canon, so what does it matter what they admire? Snape is redeemed by > being couragous, not for his personality and values in other areas. > The Slytherin pov is not being presented as equally valid. Kemper now: It maters based on what we've seen in canon. It is not seen that Snape is redeemed by his courage. He is redeemed by his love for Lily. It is what Harry tells Voldemort and the spectators in the Great Hall. Nothing about Snape's valor. Kemper From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Aug 1 18:30:54 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 14:30:54 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: Why did Harry have to think his death was real? Message-ID: <24062346.1185993054918.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174136 Carol responds: >It was important, however, that Snape not give Harry a possibly false >hope of surviving. Harry could not know, and therefore neither could >DD's messenger, Snape, that Harry wouldn't die from this sacrifice >because of the shared drop of blood (the soul bit would die instead). Bart: I'm in agreement here, but the logic is so tortured that I have to take a step back to really get it. It's been pointed out that possibly a term other than "Horcrux" is needed, in that Harry was NOT the same as other horcruxes. Harry was the Horcrux equivalent of the ectopic pregnancy, in that the soul bit that attached itself to him was not really implanted; it was ON Harry more than IN Harry, which is why he was not Voldemort. Harry could access the soul bit, and vice versa, but he was protected from BECOMING the soul bit, unless he initiated the process. One might deduce that this was one fear that DD had of having Harry raised in a Wizarding family; that his treatment as The Boy Who Lived might lead to a symptom similar to Gildilocks' (now, THAT'S a nickname), where fame becomes an addiction. Being raised by the Dursley's, with oversight from a distance, gave Harry a sense of humility, and a hatred of bullies, which would cause him to be disgusted at the idea of being connected to Morty. I have stated before that I believe that Harry's choice of friends was NOT a coincidence (I prefer to think of it as DD's manipulations than JKR's close encounters of the most convenient kind). Certainly, Draco put out the hand of friendship at the beginning; it was upon seeing Draco as a bully that Harry firmly rejected the idea. [It's the subject for a new thread, and I'll probably repeat it if it gets "lost in the sauce", but I am STILL puzzled by the Dursleys' treatment of Harry. Considering their placing of importance on keeping up appearances, what did they THINK the neighbors would think about their clear lack of care of their nephew? I hope that England is not so different from the United States that this sort of behavior would be considered acceptable. As a matter of fact, when I was about 11, I knew a wealthy woman in England who had a daughter my age (she was a friend of my uncle's, who was a producer in London), who lacked playmates (which is why my uncle brought me over; I was living in Amsterdam at the time, and visited London frequently). The daughter had a hired companion; a young woman her own age from a poor family. Well, unless you were told which one was the daughter and which one was the companion, you wouldn't know. They were treated (and treated each other) like sisters. I would hope that this was the rule, and not the exception.] Getting back to horcruxes, Dumbledore clearly expected Harry to have to die, probably AFTER "killing" Morty, as the last piece. But having gotten to actually KNOW Harry, DD found this to be a more difficult task than he had imagined (maybe he saw Ariana in Harry? There's even a similarity in the names, as pronounced). He was probably going over every possibility to figure out how to save the boy, when Morty did it for him, by using Harry's blood in his reincarnation (I think that's the best word, at least judging from the etymological roots). This created a second tether. (When I was about 19, I was at a party. I was wearing a 2 piece suit. As a joke, she tried to "pants" me. However, my belt was just for show; my pants were REALLY being held up by a pair of suspenders underneath the jacket. So, she pulled the pants down, and they popped right up again. I see the blood tether as sort of like the pair of suspenders). OK, so Harry and Morty were double-linked. Still, that wasn't enough; DD wanted Harry to learn Occlumancy. It turned out that Morty couldn't stand possessing Harry, but it would have made it much easier for Harry to separate himself from Morty's soul-piece. But Harry refused to learn it, and Snape refused to try teaching Harry. So Dumbledore had to come up with plan B, a plan which was complicated by the fact that he wasn't going to be around to orchestrate things. Now, here's where the logic gets torturous; I'm not sure even JKR understood it completely. But I suspect (and have mentioned) that it's the drunk driver syndrome. When you read reports of accidents involving drunk drivers, it is often the driver who suffers the fewest injuries. This is NOT coincidence; what happens is that the tensing of muscles due to fear during an accident increases the level of injury. The drunk driver doesn't have the reflexes to tense up his muscles, and is therefore relaxed, and goes with the momentum rather than fighting it. I suspect it was something similar with Harry. If Harry did not believe he was going to die, or did not sacrifice himself willingly, Voldemort would have broken both tethers. However, by voluntarily dropping all his defenses, he left the Mortysoul exposed. It took the brunt of the AK spell, while the blood tether kept the Harrysoul from departing, pulling him back to life like the suspenders pulled my pants back up. I have no doubt that, had Morty NOT created the blood tie, DD would have come up with another plan (perhaps showing Harry more disappointment as his failure to learn Occlumancy). But Morty's insistence on using Harry's blood was yet another fatal mistake on the part of Morty. Bart From cottell at dublin.ie Wed Aug 1 18:38:15 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:38:15 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio In-Reply-To: <46B0C087.5050404@free.fr> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174137 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Vincent Maston wrote: > > If you want a nice little book full of nice people always beeing > nice to each other, I don't think that a series beginning with the > murder of a baby's parents right in front of him is the right > choice. Mus: Wasn't the point of that murder that Voldemort was evil and to be condemned and combatted for it? In an earlier post (#172472), BetsyHP, in a response to CJE Culver, commented: > Betsy Hp: > Turns out this wasn't a battle between good and evil. It was > between bad and worse. And yeah, Voldemort was definitely the > more brutal of the two. But in their subtle evil, the "good" guys > may be even more dangerous. > > They aren't good by their actions. They use the same methods > their enemies use. They aren't good by their endgame. The WW is > left exactly as it was when Harry is first introduced to it. The > only thing missing is the immediate threat of Voldemort. But the > constant pressure of hiding themselves from the Muggles, the > quartering of their people into good, okay, questionable, and bad > (as illustrated by Hogwarts) remains. > > So yeah, I had a similar question as your son's. Only mine was > directed to Harry and company. "I thought they were good?" Mus: She puts it better than I could. I have no problem with a book about the battle between bad and worse - there's lots of them available, and if JKR were to write one (or seven), I'd have no objection at all. I do, as a reader, have problems with a writer who sets up a moral struggle between good and evil, between good choices and bad choices, and then discards that arc with no apparent reason. There was, in 700-odd pages, ample space for some justification of those Unforgivable curses, or reflection on their use, but both are simply absent. In the end, it seems that Quirrell was right: "A foolish young man I was then, full of ridiculous ideas about good and evil. Lord Voldemort showed me how wrong I was. There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it ..." [PS UK(PB) Ch17, 211] Mus, who's now wondering if Lyra should have become a Cardinal. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 18:56:18 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:56:18 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio -- my two cents In-Reply-To: <986300.13101.qm@web55001.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174138 --- Christine Maupin wrote: > > I have a general remark about Harry using Crucio, not > one directed at any one comment. > > Like many, I too was taken by surprise that he used > such an extreme curse, an unforgivable no less, when > a stupefy would have done just as well. But, one of > the things I love about JKR's stories -- her > characters are flawed. The situation was indeed extreme > and Harry reacted in an extreme way to what was "the > straw that broke the camel's back" -- he had just > learned from Neville how cruelly the Carrows had > treated the students .... bboyminn: I couldn't agree more. Harry is not in a field full of daisies and fluffy bunnies, he has stepped into the depths of hell. There probably isn't any place on earth that is more dangerous to Harry at that moment than Hogwarts. Further, Carrows themselves are not exactly fluffy bunnies. There were there when Dumbledore was killed and they were among the most bloodthirsty. Since having arrived at the school there actions have been unspeakably cruel; actually making the students torture each other as a form of punishment. So, I agree, when Carrow spits in McGonagall's face, Harry has reached an unbearable limit. These people need to be taught a lesson. They need to be taught some respect and humility, and Harry, in that moment of anger, has no qualms about being the person to do the teaching. These are the EXTREMEST of circumstances. If Harry is caught in the school before they are ready to fight the Death Eaters, then Harry is as good as dead and so is anyone who helped him, and anyone associated with anyone who helped him. This is the darkest and most dangerous and most extreme of times, and consequently, it calls for equally dark, dangerous, and extreme counter-measures. While Carrow is under the Imperius Curse, he can not betray them. Under that circumstance, I think that was justified. Comparing this to real life, you can't give soldiers guns and send them off to war, then complain when they shoot people. That's just irrational. When Harry meets someone of unspeakable cruelty and disrespect, he feels he needs to take equally extreme measure to counter them. He may not have been right, but I'm sure that's how he felt. I'm sure in later years, Harry had second thoughts about having used unforgivable, just as soldiers in wartime have second thoughts. But in the moment, you have to react spontaneously, without hesitation, if you want to continue living. Let the morals of it work themselves out later. Harry did what he did. He reacted in the heat of the moment. He reacted to defend the honor of someone he deeply admired, against someone he deeply despised and rightly so. Further he did so under circumstances equivalent to walking into hell and taunting the devil himself. I would say that constitutes very extreme circumstances. Harry is not perfect, but on the whole, he is a noble and selfless hero, and that's good enough for me. Steve/bboyminn From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Aug 1 18:59:34 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:59:34 -0000 Subject: Snape finding Lily's Letter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174139 Jen: > I've been reading this thread, trying to imagine the > explanation coming up in the story and failing to think of a > legitimate reason why it would. Ceridwen: Since others are offering up alternative scenarios, here's mine for the letter: Harry goes into Sirius's room, sees all the stuff on the walls. Sees a box in the corner with some old magazines in it, box labeled Property of S. Black - Return to Next of Kin - signed somehow to indicate Aurors (Crouch's signature?) or Azkaban (official stamp?). Then, on to the litter in the room, pages from magazines, the first page of the letter. Not specifically stated, but there for anyone who wonders, to figure out. Only one sentence added to the book. Ceridwen. From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Aug 1 19:01:52 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:01:52 -0000 Subject: Moments In-Reply-To: <46AFD913.10108@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174140 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > I earlier said my vote for favorite character goes to the entire Weasley > clan, from Mr. Weasley as the easy-going-but-slightly-henpecked husband, > to the Fred-and-George show to Molly's perpetually about-to-erupt > volcanic temper. And I agree, Ron showed by far the most character > development in DH. > > CJ, Taiwan > Allie: Another touching moment "Awww, Harry" moment: Harry has to walk through a crowd of dementors to get into the courtroom where Mrs. Cattermole is being interrogated. He can't conjure a Patronus since he's under the cloak. "... with every step he took numbness seemed to steal over his brain, but he forced himself to think of Hermione and Ron, who needed him." Very similar to how thinking of Ron and Hermione saved his life when the Dementors attacked him in Little Whinging. From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 19:09:59 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:09:59 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Age WAS: Who else should have been at 9 3/4 at the end of the book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174141 KATIE: > > But we know Hagrid was still alive, because James (or Albus. I can't > remember which), was having tea with him at school. Harry reminds them > of it as the kids are leaving. Would 19 years have made that big of a > difference in his health/stamina? Interestingly, do giants have a > longer life span than wizards, who we already know have a longer life > span than Muggles? Maybe Hagrid will live to be two hundred or > something! KATIE > Lisa: Well, Hagrid lives at Hogwarts, so as long as he was still alive, James could visit him; he wouldn't necessarily still be Groundskeeper/Care of Magical Creatures professor. As for a life span -- I was under the impression that giants didn't live very long ... but I don't know why I think that, and I'm too lazy to pull out HBP, LOL! But JKR said McGonagal, a wizard only three years older than Hagrid (according to the Lexicon's calculations), was "getting on" in years and wasn't headmaster (or teacher, I assume) -- so if she's too old to be teaching, I would think Hagrid is, too, unless I'm WAY off-base and giants live even longer than wizards. Lisa From graynavarre at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 19:04:07 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Whose Death Was The Saddest - book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <659646.22561.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174142 . > > Lisa: > > I cried over Dobby (because it was so unexpected) > and Snape (because of > the man he could've been). Hedwig got me choked-up, > too, because it > was so unfair. > > Lisa > I cried over Severus Snape's death just like I cried for Sirius. Both had been stuck in a web and neither had a chance to live and love after the death of James and Lily. I wanted Snape to have the chance to see Harry and the others and for them to see him as the hero (or anti-hero) that he was. I wanted him to grow into one of the best and most revered Headmaster that Hogwarts ever had. I knew that it was an impossible wish - but I wanted it. Now, I just want to know where Severus is buried. Barbara From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Aug 1 19:16:09 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:16:09 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jo's OWN Words about Political and Religious Overtones in... Message-ID: <32807549.1185995769630.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174143 anigrrrl2: >She didn't keep her spiritual stuff secret because Harry was a symbol for Jesus - Jeannie: >I've read the books and watched all the movies. My Family is >under the impression that the writer is a practicing Wiccan >and therefore not Christian in any sense of the word. Can >someone tell me what views she has expressed in other interviews >regarding her beliefs. You can write me off line if that is more >appropriate. Bart: I don't see Harry as a symbol for Jesus; I see him as a symbol of the good Christian, following for real the often hypocritically applied, "What would Jesus do?" He is not Jesus; he is an ordinary person, following Jesus' lead. However, JKR a WICCAN? No, no, no, no, NO! First of all, she has specifically stated that she is not, and Wiccans rarely keep their religion a secret if asked directly; a number of Wiccan/neopagan sects actually have as a basic rule not to lie about one's religion. I have found that, when someone tells me they are a Wiccan, by asking a technical question, they are put at ease (my normal response is, "Gardnerian? Alexandrian? Eclectic? Famtrad?"). I must point out that, while a student of religions, I, myself do not belong to one, being, among other things, quite allergic to ritual (OK, only psychosomatically, but I still break out in hives and start coughing). In any case, I am going to bring up "The Good Doctor", Isaac Asimov. As many here know, there has long been speculation that the plays of William Shakespeare were not written by Shakespeare himself, but ghosted by some prominent Elizabethan figure, such as Francis Bacon or Kit Marlowe. In any case, Asimov analyzed the scientific knowledge (such as astronomy) referred to in the plays, particularly where the science was wrong, and concluded that Shakespeare made errors which were consistent with his education, but would have been inconsistent with the education of those suspected of being him. Similarly, if you look at the occult as expressed in the Harry Potter novels, you will note that there are certain basic, well, I guess you would call them "errors", which no Wiccan (or at least no knowledgeable Wiccan) would commit. We went over that here during a discussion of the 4 houses vs. the 4 elements, where I pointed out that the characteristics given the houses by JKR do not match their elemental aspects (if they did, Gryffindor would be fire, Ravenclaw air, Hufflepuff water, and Slytherin earth; in addition, fire and air are masculine elements, and earth and water are feminine elements, so, whether Slytherin was water or earth, Salazar should have been a woman). BTW, by contrast, Frank Baum WAS an occultist (a Theosophist, to be precise), and definitely knew his stuff, shown particularly in the WIZARD OF OZ (to see an article on that by an old friend, Prof. John Algeo, check out http://tinyurl.com/2duyea ). So, although I think that the Christianity in the HP series goes beyond a simple "Jesus allegory", JKR is no Wiccan. Bart From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 19:30:02 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:30:02 -0000 Subject: The Real HP for GrownUps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174144 > Juli wrote: > >I think it must have been extremely hard for Ron to live with > >his crush for almost a year and never slip into her bed. The boy has > >a huge amount of self-control. > > I think this was 3-fold. > 1. They knew they were in great danger. So the thought of danger > might have been a romance-killer. > 2. I think Ron has a great deal of respect for Hermione and wouldn't > pressure her into anything that she wasn't ready for. > 3. Kinda difficult to 'get it on' with Harry just a few feet away. > > Milz JW: Surely, you jest. These three factors are guaranteed to enhance, not diminish, the effectiveness of rampant teenage hormones. As with other key events in the books, just because HP doesn't notice it, doesn't mean it never happened. IMO, if nothing happened between HG & RW in the forest, it is indeed proof that they really DID live in a magical fantasy world! From clio44a at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 19:51:17 2007 From: clio44a at yahoo.com (clio44a) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:51:17 -0000 Subject: Slytherins in love In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174145 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "npod4291" wrote: > > The way I see it, Snape's love for Lily is love in its purest form. > >SNIP< >Alla wrote > But I would not call it pure love, at the very least with very strong > obsessive undertones IMO. > > Alla > I guess Alla (whose older posts about Snape usually differ strongly from my opinion) has already made very good points on Snape's obsession, which I don't want to repeat. I only would like to add that seeing a grown man cry over the letter of his 16 year long dead teenage love is maybe romantic and moving, but is also a bit disturbing. Maybe it is just testament to his loneliness and the overtaxing situation after Ddore's death. *shrugs* Anyways, it is realistic. I agree that his love is very human but far from idealistic or pure. I would call it selfish. Only Ddore manages to channel that passion for his purposes, i.e. for the greater good and for Harry. Yet as we see in his memories Snape seems to have progressed from his extreme point of view (only Lily matters) to a more moral view (what will become of my soul/ should we sacrifice Harry). And I am happy to see that. I like how in the whole Snape story arc the sweetness and the greedy obsession are well balanced. The point is, that Snape, deep down under the icy exterior, has a heart. And all he does is fuelled by burning emotions. Who would have thought after the first books? What a great character! I would just have loved a confrontation between Snape and Harry somewhere in the book. Clio From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 19:55:42 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:55:42 -0000 Subject: DH: How did Luna recognize Harry at the wedding? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174146 --- "Scott" wrote: > > --- , "blazius1" > wrote: > > > > In Fleur and Bill's wedding, Luna is able to see > > through Harry's polyjuice disguise. How? > > > > Scott: > I think it was supposed to be due to her "open mind". > She believes completely in tons of things she has > never actually seen, so for her, seeing is not required > for believing. She picked up on Harry's expression or > mannerism and just assumed it was him. > > -Scott > bboyminn: I agree 100% with Scott, but I think there is one more aspect. Harry was the center of everyone's attention even though he didn't look like Harry. When ever Fred or George, Ron or Hermione finished a task, they all then gathered around and consulted with this red-headed kid called Barny. Echoing what Scott said, Luna is not one to 'believe her eyes'. She saw the center of attention, and regardless of what it physically looked like, she knew that must be Harry. I think she knew this on an instinctive intuitive level, she didn't logic it out. She simply saw Harry and assumed it was him. Steve/bboyminn From chaomath at hitthenail.com Wed Aug 1 19:57:17 2007 From: chaomath at hitthenail.com (Maeg) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 14:57:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry using Crucio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <93D0C9E3-A54E-49C6-A3AA-3E6875058CBD@hitthenail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174147 Mus wrote: > I have no problem with a book > about the battle between bad and worse - there's lots of them > available, and if JKR were to write one (or seven), I'd have no > objection at all. I do, as a reader, have problems with a writer > who sets up a moral struggle between good and evil, between good > choices and bad choices, and then discards that arc with no apparent > reason. That's exactly what I've been struggling to put into words -- thanks for putting it all in a nutshell. And it isn't only the handling of Unforgivable curses that suffer. JKR also drops: - choices being more important that what we're born to; - the world is not simply divided into good people and Death Eaters; - unity of houses is required to triumph over evil; - sentient beings who are not wizards (e.g., goblins, house elves) should be given respect. I'm not sure she discarded all of this on purpose. I think that the writing got distracted by elaborate plot lines and complicated backstories. It's simply not well written; it doesn't hang together in a sensible way. The latter books of the series had begun to head in this direction; I really thought that she'd pull it all back in line for the final book. Instead, she shot wide of the mark and brought the whole series down with it (imho, as if that needed saying). Sigh. Maeg My mind isn't always in the gutter -- sometimes it comes out to feed. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 19:59:21 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:59:21 -0000 Subject: The one who would do magic later in life - book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174148 --- "David" wrote: > > Sorry if this has been asked already and I missed it > but: I thought I remembered JKR stating that we'd be > surprised by someone doing magic later in life (Aunt > Petunia, etc.). Did it happen in book 7, did I > read it so fast after getting it that I missed it? > Thanks all! > > David > bboyminn: JKR has answered this question in interviews. True at one point she did tell us she had this plot line, what she forgot to tell us was that she abandon the plot idea in after book three. So, as of book three, there was no 'magic later in life' plot line. Steve/bboyminn From sneeboy2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 20:08:49 2007 From: sneeboy2 at yahoo.com (sneeboy2) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:08:49 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio -- my two cents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174149 > > bboyminn: > > I couldn't agree more. Harry is not in a field full of > daisies and fluffy bunnies, he has stepped into the > depths of hell. There probably isn't any place on > earth that is more dangerous to Harry at that moment > than Hogwarts. > > Further, Carrows themselves are not exactly fluffy > bunnies. There were there when Dumbledore was killed > and they were among the most bloodthirsty. Since > having arrived at the school there actions have been > unspeakably cruel; actually making the students > torture each other as a form of punishment. > > So, I agree, when Carrow spits in McGonagall's face, > Harry has reached an unbearable limit. These people > need to be taught a lesson. They need to be taught > some respect and humility, and Harry, in that moment > of anger, has no qualms about being the person to do > the teaching. > > These are the EXTREMEST of circumstances. If Harry > is caught in the school before they are ready to > fight the Death Eaters, then Harry is as good as > dead and so is anyone who helped him, and anyone > associated with anyone who helped him. This is the > darkest and most dangerous and most extreme of times, > and consequently, it calls for equally dark, dangerous, > and extreme counter-measures. Sneeboy2: I don't see him at that moment being in more danger than he was, say, escaping Voldemort at the start of the book, yet there he used only the legal spells -- and to good effect. I find it disturbing that he uses what's arguably the worst of the three spells: in the real world, we do not outlaw killing in times of war, but we do outlaw torture. If JKR wants to show us that Harry is flawed, I'm disturbed that she chose to do it so near the climax, where the logic of plot implies that this is a development toward which the rest of the plot has been aiming. It's almost as if she's saying to readers that his reluctance to use the unforgivable curses before now was a matter of immaturity, rather than moral fortitude. > bboyminn:> > Comparing this to real life, you can't give soldiers > guns and send them off to war, then complain when they > shoot people. That's just irrational. Again, in real life we have laws against torturing the enemy. And who gave Harry the "gun"? Was he ever taught it was OK to use the curse? > bboyminn: When Harry meets > someone of unspeakable cruelty and disrespect, he feels > he needs to take equally extreme measure to counter them. > He may not have been right, but I'm sure that's how he > felt. > > I'm sure in later years, Harry had second thoughts about > having used unforgivable, just as soldiers in wartime > have second thoughts. But in the moment, you have to > react spontaneously, without hesitation, if you want to > continue living. Let the morals of it work themselves > out later. Sneeboy2: Problem is, he never does show remorse, and the morals never do work themselves out -- however morals might do that. > bboyminn:> > Harry did what he did. He reacted in the heat of the > moment. He reacted to defend the honor of someone > he deeply admired, against someone he deeply despised > and rightly so. Sneeboy2: Yet another troubling thing: he was directly defending someone's honor, not their life. Not even Bill O'Reilly would suggest that people should be tortured to defend a woman's honor. Well, maybe he would. > bboyminn: Further he did so under circumstances > equivalent to walking into hell and taunting the devil > himself. I would say that constitutes very extreme > circumstances. Sneeboy2: If that guy's the devil, who's LV? Seriously, I think the fact that you're using a Christian fundamentalist analogy proves my point. The scene is not a nuanced depiction of a flawed hero, as JKR wants us to believe, but a statement that good and evil are predetermined, and good is good no matter what ends it uses to bring about its chosen means. > > bboyminn: > Harry is not perfect, but on the whole, he is a noble > and selfless hero, and that's good enough for me. Sneeboy2: And it's his nobility and heroics that make it so bothersome. If it's OK for a hero to do it . . . From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 20:11:07 2007 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:11:07 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174150 > Beatrice: > I suspect however, that Malfoy,is perhaps (although > > it has not been widely discussed) is truly at the heart of this > > discussion, as readers many have been hoping that Malfoy would be > > redeemed through the novel a lot of fan fiction ink has been > spilled > > on this particular subject. Snip > > Magpie: > I find this a bit condescending--well, really a lot condescending. > The extreme version of this argument is: "You're just mad because we > wanted leather pants Draco," and you've followed it with your own > personal interpretation of the character as being somebody who only > wants power and doesn't have the brains to seek redemption. Leaving > aside that I don't completely agree with your interpretation of > what's in canon (but you can find yours in fanfic too), and that you > can't claim to know the motivations of why everyone who is > dissatisfied, this argument still doesn't say anything about the > actual problem. Beatrice: I'm sorry, but who is exactly being condescending here? It is my understanding that this is a discussion board and that disagreement over one's interpretation / reading of the text is allowed, but that respectful disagreement is key. My comment stems from several posts in this thread where people indicated that they wanted to see a fully redeemed Slytherin house, which yes led to me *gasp* theorizing as to why people might have wanted this. Perhaps, because I think as many others indicated that this type of "fairy tale" ending would have been difficult to swallow for many of us - myself included. It is however unclear what specifically you are disagreeing with my "interpretation." Sistermagpie: > The argument here just really seems to be jumping around in > sometimes contradictary ways, so that you agree that Slytherin is > presented in this negative way, then defend it as if the author was > trapped into presenting it that way when really she knew it was > something else, then say it really did contain the things people > want but they weren't written in, but if that doesn't work maybe > there's something wrong with you. Beatrice: I really enjoy the someting "wrong" with me bit. As this again seems to go against the spirit and the etiquette of this discussion board. And my argument isn't jumping around in contraditory ways, although admittedly, I could spend a lot more time fleshing it all out. I agree that the qualities / attributes of those individual characters who are sorted into Slytherin are in many ways the anthesis of Harry, et al within the novels. Thus we and Harry are locked into a stereotyping that sometimes proves true and sometimes does not. But because the narrative of the story is bound so tightly to Harry's perspective, it isn't possible for the reader to see much further beyond that narrative viewpoint. And as such would it be plausible given Harry's history and perspective to completely heal the rift between Slytherin and the other houses? > > To me it seems a lot more simple: JKR wrote the story a certain way, > she had a certain view of Slytherin house that she presented > perfectly well. But what she wanted to say just wasn't satisfying > for some readers. > Beatrice: That is fine....although I can't remember attacking anyone's perspective, just offering a couple other things for people's consideration that haven't yet appeared. > Magpie: > Harry's perspective is the only perspective (except for the scenes > not in his perspective)--and while there are places where Harry's > perspective is clearly different than the author's, that doesn't > make it totally unreliable. Beatrice: I never stated that Harry was unreliable only that he was influenced by his history and his own bias. Magpie:. To quote Sydney's great metaphor, it's > not like JKR's filming a documentary here and she just doesn't have > the footage to give the impression she wants. The impression Harry > has of the Slytherins is all we have, and I see no reason to think > it's so skewed I as a reader don't have an accurate picture of > Slytherin. Beatrice: Pardon the cliche, but you hit the nail on the head "to give us the impression she wants." You assume two things 1. JKR's impression is the same as Harry. You may be correct, but it is not really in keeping with contemporary practices of Literary Theory and exegesis. 2. maybe it is an accurate picture, after all there are people in the world of great ambition who will do anything and anything to achieve their ends (this is from the sorting hat's discription in PS.). But it doesn't mean that it is the ONLY accurate picture of Slyterin. > Beatrice: > > Well, > > let's see, just a quick glance...a member of Slytherin house > murdered > > his parents, from his initial introduction to Hogwarts Slytherin's > > have been bullying, across the board people connected with the > house > > have worked tirelessly to bring about his destruction, and perhaps > > most importantly, Harry fears the qualities in himself that seem > to > > associate him with that house. > > > Magpie: > How is the fact that Harry's experience of Slytherin has been almost > all negative (and that includes a lot of Slytherins) a defense > against the fact that Slytherin comes across negatively? They're > supposed to come across that way, aren't they? Harry's fears that he > might have those qualities make sense--though ultiamtely he's fine > with having the qualities. What we might assume are Slytherin > qualities are quite sexy on Harry. > > Beatrice: > > Also, many people have pointed to the > > fact that the battle at Hogwarts seems to be fought singularly by > the > > other three houses, yet we know that at some point Slughorn > returns > > and that Snape has been fighting all along. Perhaps, because of > > Harry's limited perspective and his limited knowledge of the > members > > of Slytherin there are others who are do return to fight, but > simply > > go unnoticed by Harry and thus by us, because of the limited > > narrative. > > Magpie: > Given the set up I absolutely can't just assume they came back to > fight. There's nothing so wrong in Harry's perspective that > suggests, imo, that I should stick in a bunch of Slytherins to fix > it. If they were there we'd know it and so would he. Is it so > important that Slytherin students should have returned? Beatrice: No, it isn't not for me anyway. I am just pointing out the constraints of the narrative itself, not making editorial suggestions as the only thing I am really dissatisfied with is the epilogue. > > Beatrice: > > Beatrice: > > Now let's consider a couple of > > members of Slytherin (from the few we know). Pansy Parkinson > > specifically her call to hand Harry over to LV at the end. Is > this > > an act of evil? Or is Parkinson acting out of fear and her own > > weakness? We as readers find it so abhorent, because of our > > perspective that Harry is the hero, as we know from Neville, > Hogwarts > > and the WW at large has been terrorized for many months and > everyone > > is in "mortal peril." From Parkinson's perspective handing Harry > > over is about self-peservation not necessarily love of LV. And > > wouldn't it be out of character for her to rise to Harry's aid, > just > > out of the blue? > > Magpie: > Well, yeah, it would be. I don't quite see what your point is here, > though. I could see your point if the series wasn't over yet, but > now that it is, this is how it stands. Fanfic authors have been > giving the Slytherin perspective for years, but as you note here, we > as readers find it abhorent and it is supposed to be. Beatrice: You are twisting my words here. I don't find it abhorent to give Slytherins a pov, I am suggesting that in the moment of reading, when Parkinson shouts "there's Potter, let's hand him over to LV" (not an exact quote as I don't have my text) we as readers (at least I was )are appalled at her suggestion and touched at how the other houses come to his aid. What I am pointing out here is several people have discussed how every member of Slytherin is characterized as "evil." I am using Pansy to illustrate this, but we could discuss other characters also. And while one can see Pansy's willingness to hand Harry over as an act of evil to reinforce this notion, I simply want to suggest that there are other ways of looking at her "choices" and even Malfoy's choices instead of seeing them as acts of evil. We can see them as acts of fear or trying to find their own glory. After all, Pansy is hardly the only person to try to hand Harry over to Death Eaters. X. Lovegood tries to do this also out of fear for his daughter's life. Beatrice, who loves the discussion, but could do without the rudeness. > From npod4291 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 20:10:11 2007 From: npod4291 at yahoo.com (npod4291) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:10:11 -0000 Subject: Ron and Hermione in Deathly Hallows In-Reply-To: <4F9FAF84-3D68-447D-9B4E-4DC50730F58F@hitthenail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174151 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Maeg wrote: > > > > As I said, I'll give you Cho, but I never bought Harry's feelings for > Ginny. I found the concept of Harry protecting Ginny by not > displaying his affection very sad and moving, but it was only the > *concept*. I never really felt that JKR convinced me that Harry > truly valued her as a person and as a romantic entanglement. I was > just told that, and it seemed somewhat trite. Bah. Interestingly, I found almost the exact opposite. To show that Harry really cared for Ginny, I look at the very end of the Ch 34 in DH, "The Forest Again" (Don't have book with me, so I don't know page number, only know its that chapter because JK has said multiple times that it was the hardest chapter for her to write in all the books.) Right before Voldemort curses Harry, it's said that he is thinking Ginny, not Ron, Hermione, Sirius, or even his parents. I think that speaks volumes as to how much he actually cared about her. If not that, the multiple times through DH in which Harry looks at her on the Marauder's Map, hoping that she will somehow now that he is thinking about her. IMO, it couldn't be more clearly shown how much he cares for her. > >For a series that hounds on the idea that > "love is the savior" and whose narrative arc is about growing up, > this seems to be a large flaw. > I think that you are misunderstanding the whole "love is a savior" part of the story (or at least the way that I understood it, I certainly do not claim to be exactly, absolutely correct). I do not believe that Harry's greatest strength being his ability to love means romantic love. I think it means his ability to create incredibly loving friendships with large number of people in comparison to Voldemort, who cannot love at all, being it friends, family, or romantic interests. The difference is this. Harry loves, and is loved, but a multitude of people, all of whom are willing to die for him. Likewise, because of his love for them, he is unwilling to let that happen because he loves them, hence how is able to let himself be killed to save them. Voldemort has people willing to die for him, but not because love, because the fear what he would to do them if they didn't put their lives on the line. Nate, just my 2 knuts From tobyfoot23 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 20:21:58 2007 From: tobyfoot23 at yahoo.com (tobyfoot23) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:21:58 -0000 Subject: Why did Harry have to think his death was real? In-Reply-To: <24062346.1185993054918.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174152 > > Carol responds: > >It was important, however, that Snape not give Harry a possibly false > >hope of surviving. Harry could not know, and therefore neither could > >DD's messenger, Snape, that Harry wouldn't die from this sacrifice > >because of the shared drop of blood (the soul bit would die instead). > Tobyfoot23: I also think that Harry had to believe that he was going to die for the cause (all of his friends and everyone not a DE). His sacrifice mirrored his mother's sacrifice and that "old magic" was then invoked for everyone he cared about. Paraphrased from DH: Harry says to Voldy, "Didn't you notice that your curses aren't sticking to anyone you put them on?" If Harry hadn't believed that he wouldn't survive the encounter with Voldy, he wouldn't have accidentally protected everyone on his side. Granted this only worked on Voldy and not his DE's, but it was some protection none the less. Tobyfoot23 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 20:39:44 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:39:44 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174154 > Magpie: . To quote Sydney's great metaphor, it's > > not like JKR's filming a documentary here and she just doesn't have > > the footage to give the impression she wants. The impression Harry > > has of the Slytherins is all we have, and I see no reason to think > > it's so skewed I as a reader don't have an accurate picture of > > Slytherin. > > Beatrice: Pardon the cliche, but you hit the nail on the head "to > give us the impression she wants." You assume two things 1. JKR's > impression is the same as Harry. You may be correct, but it is not > really in keeping with contemporary practices of Literary Theory and > exegesis. 2. maybe it is an accurate picture, after all there are > people in the world of great ambition who will do anything and > anything to achieve their ends (this is from the sorting hat's > discription in PS.). But it doesn't mean that it is the ONLY > accurate picture of Slyterin. Alla: The problem is that there is no **other** picture of Slytherin now, only what we saw since the canon is finished. I mean, no wrong phrasing - it is not a problem for me, I am perfectly happy with baby steps she shows IMO in canon towards possibly healing the rift or NOT. But I just do not see what is the support for your argument that this is not the ONLY accurate picture of Slytherin. If you mean that the reader is free to imagine the different picture other than what we had been given, then sure, we are. I for example became extraordinary found of AU fanfics since Sirius was killed :). But but Sirius being alive is not in the book, no? Just as Slytherins returning to fight is not in the book or any justifications for what Pansy did is not in the book. The POV we had been given stands, since we had been given nothing to contradict it, IMO. JMO, Alla From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 20:13:01 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 13:13:01 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Headmaster portraits (was Re: DH - unanswered (and irritating) quest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0708011313y4f6add03i4987f8b629bdd99b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174155 Bruce Alan Wilson: After all, strictly speaking Ubridge's picture should be there too. I think that Snape was as much a 'usurper' as Umbridge. Lynda: With the exception that Snape, was, of course, working for the Order and Dumbledore for the past several years before Voldie's demise, it seems to me that the two situations are very different indeed. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Aug 1 20:50:17 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:50:17 -0000 Subject: Jo's OWN Words/Harry using Crucio/I am about to Rant/Danger Designating the In-Reply-To: <700201d40708011111v7ee09b26r5ef6331ce3e6c88@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174156 > Kemper now > > "Bad" groups aren't described as cunning. Manipulative or deceitful, > maybe. An honorable adversary can be described as cunning. > Strategies can be cunning. For sure, both Allies and Axis powers > hoped their strategies were. It's a human virtue. Magpie: I think bad groups actually have historically been described as cunning. (The meaning of "cute" is totally out of context in this instance, I think.) I think the word has a far more dodgy history than something like loyalty or courage. You've dismissed the Puritans as aribiters of Virtue, but I don't think you can just throw out what seems like much of the history of western thought on the topic, particularly when Harry himself liked to think of Gryffindor as chivalrous. I only mentioned Puritans because they had a habit of naming their children after what were already considered Christian virtues, so the names make up a pretty good list. Yes the Puritans considered all virtues by how they gloried God--but that doesn't completely disconnect us from them historically. There was a time when most Western thought did that, I would think. Nowadays we might have a different view, but I think the history still does carry some weight, especially since JKR isn't turning that history on its head here. It is not that cunning is always bad--it can be used in ways that are positive. But I have never in my life heard it put on the same level as something like courage as a personal quality: "Cunning... is but the low mimic of wisdom." (Plato) "Cunning is the dwarf of wisdom." (William R. Alger) "Cunning pays no regard to virtue, and is but the low mimic of reason." (1st Viscount Bolingbroke, Henry St. John) "Cunning is none of the best nor worst qualities; it floats between virtue and vice; there is scarce any exigence where it may not, and perhaps ought not to be supplied by prudence." (Jean de la Bruyere) I'm not saying these quotes are the be all and end all of what the word means--it can be used as a good thing, especially in certain contexts. There are situations where people will be counseled to be cunning to succeed. But I at least also associate with the word with negative ideas: "a cunning criminal" is a common combination, and "fiendish cunning" and "low animal cunning." Low and animal, for me, do naturally cling to the word in certain contexts, and this is certainly one of them given the way the Slytherins are presented. That was the connection I made way back in PS/SS, and I'd be surprised if JKR didn't do it on purpose. Ambition is more obviously associated with personal advancement. It can of course lead to success, but with that quality too there's also a long history of stories about the pitfalls of ambition (the "folly of ambition" also being a phrase that comes to mind, one which I think fits easily into this story). Kemper: > > As I've said, this story is in the Gryffindor perspective, with > Gryffindor values. Magpie: True. So I probably didn't even need to say all that about the way cunning and ambition seem to me to be a little more suspect than the virtues of the other houses. Because regardless, this story is a Gryffindor story that praises Gryffindor values, which the author seems to readily assert she agrees with. Not Slytherin values. I don't see how the way things might be in a totally different story has much bearing on this one. If Voldemort were writing the story Harry would be the villain. What bearing does that have on the story we're discussing? > Kemper now: > How is Snape redeemed and praised for being brave? Harry tells > Voldemort that Voldemort's been artfully deceived by Snape's cunning. > That's how I read it. Sure, Harry talks about Snape's love (which no > House claims as a virtue). But Voldemort is more interested in > Snape's dexterous skill and subtle planning. It is what Harry seems > to be impressed by as well. No where does he laud Snape's courage. Magpie: Snape is praised for being brave by Harry saying he was brave--and by JKR also saying that he was brave. His love for Lily was what inspired him to be so. I don't see Harry at all more impressed by Snape's subtle planning than his bravery (the last thing he says about Snape was that he was brave). JKR also included Snape and Dumbledore talking about bravery and Snape not being a coward. > > Magpie: > > Yes, I think it's Harry's perception, the reader's perception and > > Dumbledore's perception. The Slytherin perception is not presented > > as equally valid. > > Kemper now: > Because it's not a Slytherin story. It's a Gryffindor's. Magpie: Yes. So I don't understand what changes because this is a Gryffindor story. The Gryffindor story is the only story. I don't think JKR just picked that randomly. Those are the values the story is putting across. > > Magpie: > > Luna is valued for her own bravery and is associated with her > > friends, the Gryffindors. > > Kemper now: > She is valued for her bravery by Gryffindors who value bravery and > who's perception we see most in the books. The first book could've > been called SuperGryffindor and the Philospher's Stone. Just like > none of the books could be called EveryHouse Potter and the Deathly > Hallows. Magpie: Well, yeah. If the pov of the books is to value bravery, that's the values the author is writing about. That shows in the story. It's not EveryHouse and the Deathly Hallows. It's Gryffindor House and Gryffindor Values. Because that's what JKR wanted to write. > > Magpie: > > I think it would be in [Luna's] character to admire Snape for his > > courage, sure. But I don't think that changes things one way or the > > other. > > Kemper now: > If we are assuming off canon as I did up thread, then Luna would > admire Snape's intellect and appreciate his cunning (as the two are > linked) over his courage. Magpie: I don't understand what "assuming off canon" means exactly. The fact that you can imagine that Luna might value Snape's cunning has no bearing on the story one way or the other. > > Magpie: > > The opinions of none of these people are presented as correct in > > canon, so what does it matter what they admire? Snape is redeemed by > > being couragous, not for his personality and values in other areas. > > The Slytherin pov is not being presented as equally valid. > > Kemper now: > It maters based on what we've seen in canon. It is not seen that > Snape is redeemed by his courage. He is redeemed by his love for > Lily. It is what Harry tells Voldemort and the spectators in the > Great Hall. Nothing about Snape's valor. Magpie: What does it have to do with the story that you can imagine all these things outside the story? (And Snape is redeemed by his love for Lily yes, in that, imo, that's the thing that makes him do the stuff that Harry the Gryffindor can admire.) I am honestly confused at what you're getting at. Gryffindor values are the ones everyone is judged by because this is the Gryffindor story. But there is no other story. It's the only one we're talking about--the only one there is. The one the author wanted to write. Beatrice: I'm sorry, but who is exactly being condescending here? It is my understanding that this is a discussion board and that disagreement over one's interpretation / reading of the text is allowed, but that respectful disagreement is key. My comment stems from several posts in this thread where people indicated that they wanted to see a fully redeemed Slytherin house, which yes led to me *gasp* theorizing as to why people might have wanted this. Magpie: You were, I thought, which is why I said so. But I tried to be specific about what exact argument felt condescending and why, and didn't assume you were doing it on purpose. Not because you disagreed with me, but because you suggested what I thought was a dismissive motive behind peoples' dissatisfaction. Theorizing about why people might have wanted this was exactly what I objected to. Nobody generally likes it when somebody else suggests motives for them, especially when it's a bit silly. Isn't that what ad hominem is? Beatrice: My comment stems from several posts in this thread where people indicated that they wanted to see a fully redeemed Slytherin house, which yes led to me *gasp* theorizing as to why people might have wanted this. Perhaps, because I think as many others indicated that this type of "fairy tale" ending would have been difficult to swallow for many of us - myself included. It is however unclear what specifically you are disagreeing with my "interpretation." Magpie: I think the "fairy tale" ending as I assume you're using it is a mischaracterization of what anyone wanted--though of course, given the book ended with the evil wizard killed by the super magical wand, I'd say we got an ending that was at home in any fairy tale anyway. I didn't say what I specifically disagreed with in your interpretation of the character because I didn't think it wasn't relevent and it seemed pointless to go off on a tangent on the minor ways we might see that one character differently, and I wasn't really interested in discussing the character himself. Sistermagpie: > The argument here just really seems to be jumping around in > sometimes contradictary ways, so that you agree that Slytherin is > presented in this negative way, then defend it as if the author was > trapped into presenting it that way when really she knew it was > something else, then say it really did contain the things people > want but they weren't written in, but if that doesn't work maybe > there's something wrong with you. Beatrice: I really enjoy the someting "wrong" with me bit. Magpie: There is no something wrong with you bit. I'm sorry if I was unclear, but it never occurred to me to say that anything was wrong with you. I was referring to theorizing that people were disappointed because they wanted something out of fanfic. Iow, I thought that suggested that the problem wasn't with the story, it was with those readers having unrealistic expectations(and I agree that's not a very pleasant thing to have told to you). I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with you, I was saying that argument sounded like that's what you were saying about other people (albeit unintentionally). Beatrice: As this again seems to go against the spirit and the etiquette of this discussion board. And my argument isn't jumping around in contraditory ways, although admittedly, I could spend a lot more time fleshing it all out. Magpie: I hope my explanation of it makes it clear there was no insult to you at all intended in it. I did feel like the argument jumped around, which is why I had a hard time responding to it. It seemed like different parts of it were arguing against slightly different positions. Beatrice: I agree that the qualities / attributes of those individual characters who are sorted into Slytherin are in many ways the anthesis of Harry, et al within the novels. Thus we and Harry are locked into a stereotyping that sometimes proves true and sometimes does not. But because the narrative of the story is bound so tightly to Harry's perspective, it isn't possible for the reader to see much further beyond that narrative viewpoint. And as such would it be plausible given Harry's history and perspective to completely heal the rift between Slytherin and the other houses? Magpie: I don't know how completely the rift could be healed, but sure I think it would be plausible to have written a story where some healing began, even in Harry's perspective. He would be more challenged in it, but that wouldn't be impossible. That's not what JKR was writing, and she doesn't have to, but I don't think it would be an impossible story to write. Magpie:. To quote Sydney's great metaphor, it's > not like JKR's filming a documentary here and she just doesn't have > the footage to give the impression she wants. The impression Harry > has of the Slytherins is all we have, and I see no reason to think > it's so skewed I as a reader don't have an accurate picture of > Slytherin. Beatrice: Pardon the cliche, but you hit the nail on the head "to give us the impression she wants." You assume two things 1. JKR's impression is the same as Harry. You may be correct, but it is not really in keeping with contemporary practices of Literary Theory and exegesis. 2. maybe it is an accurate picture, after all there are people in the world of great ambition who will do anything and anything to achieve their ends (this is from the sorting hat's discription in PS.). But it doesn't mean that it is the ONLY accurate picture of Slyterin. Magpie: I think I agree it's not the only accurate picture of Slytherin possible, but it seems to be the one in the book. I don't know what the contemporary practice of Literary Theory and exegesis would say about it, but it seems like imagining this other view by definition suggests something extra. Something certainly worthwhile, but slightly different. Beatrice: Beatrice: You are twisting my words here. I don't find it abhorent to give Slytherins a pov, I am suggesting that in the moment of reading, when Parkinson shouts "there's Potter, let's hand him over to LV" (not an exact quote as I don't have my text) we as readers (at least I was )are appalled at her suggestion and touched at how the other houses come to his aid. What I am pointing out here is several people have discussed how every member of Slytherin is characterized as "evil." I am using Pansy to illustrate this, but we could discuss other characters also. And while one can see Pansy's willingness to hand Harry over as an act of evil to reinforce this notion, I simply want to suggest that there are other ways of looking at her "choices" and even Malfoy's choices instead of seeing them as acts of evil. Magpie: I agree--but again, isn't that something that relies more on the reader questioning things his/herself and filling in on his/her own rather than anything the story is really dealing with? Not that the reader shouldn't question things, but there's a point where it's not always working with the text I guess is the easiest way to say it. Like the fanfic issue again. Beatrice, who loves the discussion, but could do without the rudeness. -m, who did not realize she sounded rude and hopes the misunderstanding was cleared up. From jajaredor at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 20:43:50 2007 From: jajaredor at yahoo.com (Jaja Redor) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 13:43:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The one who would do magic later in life - book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <999900.17676.qm@web61217.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174157 > >>David: > Sorry if this has been asked already and I missed it > but: I thought I remembered JKR stating that we'd be > surprised by someone doing magic later in life (Aunt > Petunia, etc.). Did it happen in book 7, did I > read it so fast after getting it that I missed it? > >>bboyminn: >> JKR has answered this question in interviews. True at one point she did tell us she had this plot line, what she forgot to tell us was that she abandon the plot idea in after book three. >> >> So, as of book three, there was no 'magic later in life' plot line. << Just wondering why it was still floating until book 7 if it was already abandoned from book 3? -J From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 21:01:35 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:01:35 -0000 Subject: Whose Death Was The Saddest - book 7 In-Reply-To: <659646.22561.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174159 Barbara: Now, I just want to know where Severus is buried. Lisa: ::::gasp::::: The Muggle town where Lily & Petunia & Snape grew up? Could that be the same town where Harry grew up? Interesting! Lisa From waterstorm03 at msn.com Wed Aug 1 20:43:30 2007 From: waterstorm03 at msn.com (James Michael) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 14:43:30 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:DH: How did Luna recognize Harry at the wedding? References: <46B0EBED.000003.03948@JUSTME> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174160 > >> Blazius1 >> In Fleur and Bill's wedding, Luna is able to see through Harry's polyjuice disguise. How? > >>Debi: >> Because she's Luna! James Michael: You know it was never said how she was able to figure out that it was Harry. That was a big question. James Michael [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From schumar1999 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 21:11:24 2007 From: schumar1999 at yahoo.com (prittywittygrl) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:11:24 -0000 Subject: The Power of the Office and other speculations (was Re:Headmaster portraits) In-Reply-To: <2795713f0708011313y4f6add03i4987f8b629bdd99b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174161 I agree with Lynda... these situations are extremely different! Don't forget, the Headmaster's Office allowed itself allowed Snape to occupy it, but did not allow Umbridge in. This was not because Dumbledore was still alive, I'm sure, but because she was not a rightful headmistress. I believe it was Dumbledore's plan all along for the Voldemort controlled ministry to appoint Snape as Headmaster. I know that when I was reading, I felt reinforced hope for a "Dumbledore's Man" Snape when he was obviously able to get into the Headmaster's office and certainly communicate with Dumbledore's portrait... again, all in Dumbledore's plan I'm sure. It's too bad that Dumbledore's portrait couldn't explain that to McGonnagal. Obviously, the safest way for Snape to do his part in protecting Harry and bringing an end to Voldemort meant that no one in the Order... no one apart from Dumbledore... could know his true allegiance and reasons... until the very end. I can only guess that McGonnagal returned to being Headmistress after Snape's death. Other speculation: I also imagine Harry, Ron, and Hermione returning to Hogwarts to complete their 7th year along with Ginny and Luna (and maybe even Dean and others who were forced to leave their 7th year. Then, I start imagining Harry and McGonnagal's conversations with Portrait Dumbledore and Portrait Snape. Snape's opinion of Harry was unjustified and based on projected comparisons to James (likely to protect himself from seeing Lilly in her son), but as Harry obviously made peace with his feelings toward his former professor, I have hope that Portrait Snape and Harry were able to make amends and finally have a mutual understanding and respect. I cried reading Harry remind his son Al of his full name because of all background that I read into it. Such is the magic of these books, as much more is "written" than is in print. Marianne --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > > Bruce Alan Wilson: > > After all, strictly speaking Ubridge's picture should be there too. > I think that Snape was as much a 'usurper' as Umbridge. > > > Lynda: > > With the exception that Snape, was, of course, working for the Order and > Dumbledore for the past several years before Voldie's demise, it seems to me > that the two situations are very different indeed. > > Lynda > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 21:13:20 2007 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:13:20 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174162 > Alla: > > The problem is that there is no **other** picture of Slytherin now, > only what we saw since the canon is finished. > > I mean, no wrong phrasing - it is not a problem for me, I am > perfectly happy with baby steps she shows IMO in canon towards > possibly healing the rift or NOT. > > But I just do not see what is the support for your argument that this > is not the ONLY accurate picture of Slytherin. If you mean that the > reader is free to imagine the different picture other than what we > had been given, then sure, we are. > > I for example became extraordinary found of AU fanfics since Sirius > was killed :). > > But but Sirius being alive is not in the book, no? Just as Slytherins > returning to fight is not in the book or any justifications for what > Pansy did is not in the book. The POV we had been given stands, > since we had been given nothing to contradict it, IMO. > > JMO, > > Alla Beatrice: I'm being wrongly accused of constructing "A READING" of the text here or perhaps more accurately "a re-reading" or re- working. I'm not trying to do either. All I have tried to do, and I am being skewered for it like I was for suggesting that Harry's body housed a portion of Voldemort's soul that was accidently put into him at Godric's Hollow, is suggest that the novel has a limited narration and that it is wrong to assume that Harry's perspective and JKR's perspective are exactly alike. While they certainly may be linked together only JKR can tell us where one begins and one ends. I am not suggesting that Pansy returned to fight nor do I suggest any such thing, what I am saying is that just because she didn't fight doesn't mean that she is evil or supports Death Eaters. AGAIN I am using her only as a brief example, to illustrate that nowhere in the canon does it say that every Slitherin is evil. Nor does the text support that reading. I used Pansy as an example to show that her behavior at the end of DH, while repellent, upon close examination cannot exactly be labeled as evil, or at least there is another way to look at her actions. Beatrice. > From nightmasque at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 19:28:23 2007 From: nightmasque at yahoo.com (Feng Zengkun) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry using Crucio -- my two cents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <245609.63618.qm@web52610.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174163 bboyminn: > I couldn't agree more. Harry is not in a field full of > daisies and fluffy bunnies, he has stepped into the > depths of hell. There probably isn't any place on > earth that is more dangerous to Harry at that moment > than Hogwarts. > >(SNIPPED) > > These are the EXTREMEST of circumstances...(snipped) > it calls for equally dark, dangerous, and extreme counter- > measures. > > Comparing this to real life, you can't give soldiers > guns and send them off to war, then complain when they > shoot people. That's just irrational. When Harry meets > someone of unspeakable cruelty and disrespect, he feels > he needs to take equally extreme measure to counter them. > He may not have been right, but I'm sure that's how he > felt. > > I'm sure in later years, Harry had second thoughts about > having used unforgivable, just as soldiers in wartime > have second thoughts. But in the moment, you have to > react spontaneously, without hesitation, if you want to > continue living. Let the morals of it work themselves > out later. Zengkun: Hogwarts episode aside, there is the matter of the Imperiuses in the Gringotts bank. But all of that aside, I don't think anyone is disputing the (possible) necessity of fighting evil with evil; I am sure the debate over whether the Unforgiveables were called for can go on forever. But that is not the point in question: the point is why Rowling completely ignores the moral quandary she sets up, by ignoring the fall-out of their use by the so-called good guys. I seem to remember one of the characters saying in an earlier book that Barty Crouch Sr's Aurors were no better than the bad guys because of the methods they used in catching dark wizards, so it is not as if there is no precedent for this moral quandary. Since Rowling herself set up the dodgy Auror = dark wizard parallel as a warning against the slippery slope argument, for her to completely ignore her own parallel in the last book is even more untenable. I don't mind so much that McGonagall gets a free pass for her U.C.s, since she's not the main character and is substantially older, but for Harry to get one as well? That's kind of disappointing, and harkens back to Rowling's seeming myopia over Snape's attraction as well, I think (she said in an interview that people must like Snape because he's a 'bad boy', if I'm not mistaken). Finally: it is all very well to assume that Harry later regrets his use of the Unforgiveables, that there is fall-out that happens 'off-screen', but I find that kind of defence to be little better than fan-wanking, quite honestly. Especially considering the Gringotts Imperiuses, where we were specifically told of Hermoine's non-reaction, and especially since this is not a nitpickety detail but one of the larger themes of the series - "the world is not divided into good people and Death Eaters" is another example, as is an early chapter in DH itself, when Lupin confronts Harry over the latter's Expelliarmus (as opposed to killing curse). Doesn't Harry reject the 'evil merits evil' argument then? All the more reason to address it when he succumbs then, isn't it? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 21:16:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:16:34 -0000 Subject: Snape's death scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174164 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jkoney65" wrote: > > > Krista: > > Oh, I think Snape was indeed prepared--and his "preparation" > > was a decision to stick with his cover, to try to deny > > anything that would alert Voldemort's suspicions, and *then* > > to get himself out alive, if possible. > > Jack-A-Roe: > His cover? The final battle is being fought right outside the > door. If the good guys lose there is no regrouping, there is no > place to gather anymore and there probably won't be any leaders > left. > > Voldemort tells Snape that he is expecting Harry to show up. If > nothing else, Snape believes he knows Harry and the one thing > that Gryffendor will do will be to show up and face Voldemort. > > Knowing this and knowing that he must get this last piece of > information to Harry he decides to do nothing but die? If this > is a man who has been guarding Lilly's son, are you saying that > he's just going to quit? > > I think he just froze up for a minute. He's gotten out of most > situations in the past by his wit/words or by being a bully. > Neither is going to work on Voldemort. > > He's a double agent, he should always be expecting the hammer > to come down on him which means he should always have a way out. > He is supposedly a great wizard. If so, can't he defend himself > long enough to make it to the door? > > Instead he is killed by the snake. His poor planning/reactions > are saved because the reckless Harry decides to try and get to > the Shrieking Shack and gets to see this unfold before his eyes. > If Harry was any less of a man and didn't decide to check on > Snape himself, Snape's mission would have failed. > Carol responds; It has nothing to do with defending himself or blowing his cover. He has one job to do and one only--get the message to Harry Potter that Harry must let Voldemort kill him to destroy the soul bit in the Horcrux. If he fails to do that, it's all over. it's not about snape and his cover. it's about the one and only way to destroy Voldemort. If Snape tries to fight Voldemort, he'll be killed and fail in his mission. And as he lies bleeding on the ground, white-faced, that's what he thinks has happened. It isn't his death, which he must have always expected would come eventually, that he fears. It's that he has risked his life and experienced the hatred of the Order and protected the Potter boy for nothing. It has nothing whatever to do with poor planning. Dumbledore has told him not to deliver the message until he sees Voldemort protecting the snake, and until now, the snake has not been protected. If the planning is poor on anyone's part, it's Dumbledore's. Here's a related post that I accidentally sent to the wrong person offlist, so I'll repeat it here (might as well combine posts to kepp from exceeding my quota!): Eggplant wrote: >>Dumbledore told Snape that he expected Harry to destroy the snake before he confronted Voldemort for the last time and he expected Harry to die ... I can't think of any reason Dumbledore would lie to Snape about that... Carol responds: Dumbledore didn't mention anything to Snape about killing the snake before the battle. He said that when Voldemort started keeping Nagini close to him under magical protection, it would mean that the end was near and it was time for Snape to tell Harry about the soul bit and having to let Voldemort kill him. That's why Snape is so desperate to get away to "find the boy." Nagini is being kept in her bubble. Snape knows that he has to get his message to Harry now, before it's too late. If Harry tries to duel with Voldemort, the WW is doomed. Harry, of course, would know that Nagini being magically protected means that Voldemort knows that his other Horcruxes are destroyed. Dumbledore wasn't lying to Snape. Dumbledore just couldn't tell Snape the full truth, only the part that Harry needed to know to go willingly to his death (which DD knew that the blood protection would prevent the first time around). Carol, who has cited the canon for her position elsewhere and won't repeat it here From bowie_alicat at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 21:39:20 2007 From: bowie_alicat at yahoo.com (bowie_alicat) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:39:20 -0000 Subject: Ron and Hermione in Deathly Hallows In-Reply-To: <2795713f0707281006k855eb98hc021430a6f7732c6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174165 Whew! Tons of opinions about the romances, or lack there of - so in an attempt at brevity and avoiding the 'snips' - Yes, R and H bickered quite a bit while around Harry, but as it grew more intense as they aged, that was a BIG sign to me that their feelings toward each other were intensifying. The classic 'opposites attract' scenario. However, R and H also spent an AWFUL lot of time together outside of Hogwarts. I actually started feeling sorry for Hermione's parents, as it seemed she was spending holidays and most school breaks with the Weasly's almost exclusively. So I can completely imagine that their time spent together, without Harry, would lend depth to their friendship and move it towards the romantic. As for H and G, I found it completely believable that Harry's break time from Hogwarts started to include him more with the Weasly's as well. It allowed a friendship with Ginny to grow beyond that of 'his best mate's younger sister' to the point that he is annoyed to realize after weeks of enjoying her company, outside of Hogwarts, that she is not part of his social circle. HUGE clue for the romantics! Yes, the gradual realization of Harry of his attraction to Ginny is about as romantic as it gets, in my book of romance. alison From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 22:08:13 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:08:13 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174166 Betsy Hp: Now that the posts have slowed down a tad I thought I should dive *way* back in to the past (all the way back to April!) and see just how wrong I was about everything. It's a train wreck, but those can be fun to watch, right? ***WARNING WARNING WARNING***NEGATIVE POST TO FOLLOW*** ***READ AT YOUR OWN RISK***SERIOUS CYNICISM ALERT*** > >>Betsy Hp: > When DH finally comes out, this is the post that will either give > me reason to gloat or force me to eat some crow. A breakdown of > what I'm sure will happen, what I think will happen, and what I > hope will happen. Betsy Hp: My goodness, wasn't I a naive young thing? > >>Betsy Hp: > Things of Which I'm Smugly Sure: > (Yeah, this is what'll come back to bite me if I'm wrong ) Betsy Hp: And I said it with a smile! The bite, it hurts... > -- Voldemort will be defeated. (What? I'm going out on a limb > here! You got to give me an easy one.) Betsy Hp: I got this bit right. The funny part was how little Voldemort's death actually meant. It didn't change the WW at all. > -- Harry will defeat Voldemort. He may have a bit of help, but in > the end, I'm sure it'll all come down to Harry. Betsy Hp: Oddly enough, it more came down to a super-special wand. So I think I'll say I got this one wrong. Certainly in spirit this was a miss. > -- Harry will live. Happily ever after, however Harry (or JKR) > defines it, with magical abilities intact and all of his surviving > friends. (Yes, OBHWF for all. :/ ) Betsy Hp: Okay, this one I got prefectly correct. Harry was incredibly happy and the Weasley family is big and happy as well. > -- Draco Malfoy will play an important role in helping the good > guys beat Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Oh, and he'll survive. Betsy Hp: Well, Malfoy survived (I doubt he ever really lived though, poor boy). But his role was the definition of unimportant. I totally blame HBP, though. Silly me, taking that book seriously. > -- Snape is, and has been for the course of the books, solidly and > unwaveringly DDM. Oh, I'm sure there were moments of "You want to > who? With the what?!?" But that just goes with the territory of > working with Dumbledore. Snape never considered leaving the old > guy. Betsy Hp: I'm calling this one wrong. I assumed "man" and all along Snape was Dumbledore's dog. Of *course* Snape didn't leave Dumbledore. Dumbledore owned Snape lock, stock and barrel. Mega-depressing, though quite frankly the Snape of my imagination would have never put up with Dumbledore. Too principled. And this book is not about principles. That Dumbledore himself was so evil and weak was a surprise. I recall arguing that Dumbledore would *never* use an Unbreakable Vow or a Horcrux. Young and naive. > Trends I Suspect Will Play Out: > (This is more my sense of how the story beats will play out, so > it's all a bit vague. This stuff will more nibble than anything. > ) Betsy Hp: Oddly enough, I think it's those nibbles that hurt the most in the end. I was *way* off in my sense of the story JKR was trying to tell. As you will see. > -- I suspect the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort > will be quite private and solitary: think diary!Tom vs. Harry in > CoS. Betsy Hp: Hahaha! No. Not only was it as public as possible (surely someone in the crowd had a camera) Harry did his own version of the Evil Overlord speech. Lucky (or not?) that no one snuck up behind Harry and beaned him while he was mid-explanation of who had the biggest wand. > -- I suspect Harry is a Horcrux, or at least, I think his scar > might be. Betsy Hp: I ended up right about this. Odd. > -- I still think someone we think is good will turn out to be > working for Voldemort. No real solid clue on who though. Betsy Hp: Gosh, no! That would have meant Harry being *wrong* about someone and maybe having to question his judgment or something. When we all know Harry is practically perfect in every way. (Plus, the psychological horror of learning someone you thought trustworthy really isn't would have seriously gotten in the way of the great McGuffin hunt. Hermione needed time to collect mushroom, gosh darn it!) > -- Somehow the four houses of Hogwarts working together will be a > key to defeating Voldemort (finding the horcruxes maybe?). Betsy Hp: The pain... oh, the pain... > -- I'm pretty sure both Hermione and Ron will survive the end of > the series. Betsy Hp: Got that one right. Yay? > -- If a contemporary of Harry dies, my money is on either Neville > or Luna. (I lean more towards Neville.) Betsy Hp: And I got that one wrong. Yay. (Wasn't Luna super-duper annoying at that final feast though? It was like she was suddenly Harry's grandmother or something. Or was that just me?) > -- If Snape actually killed Dumbledore, he'll for sure die. If > not, he might, *might* live. Betsy Hp: Eep. Again, this was back before I realized the depth of sin attached to being a Sltherin. Not only does Snape die, not only was it anticlimactic, but by that point I didn't even care. Seriously, I think an eye-roll was about my only reaction. (Why did JKR even *bother* with a Snape character?) > -- There's a link of some sort between Snape and Lily (fingers > crossed it's friendship and not romance). I suspect Aunt Petunia > will give Harry a clue on that. Betsy Hp: Right and sorry for it. Snape's first experience at being someone's dog. Though again I laugh at the thought that Aunt Petunia might come into play. (Silly Betsy, Muggles are for laughing at.) I did gain a massive amount of sympathy for her after seeing Snape's dying memories. What a horrible little sister. "Tunie"?! Seriously!?! Petunia should have run away from home. And become a scientist. Any field. Just to show how hard Muggles beat Wizards. > Stuff I'd Love To See (but I'm not holding my breath): > (This is just my wishes and dreams: no real bites, but no real > gloating either.) Betsy Hp: Back when I could dream. > -- Percy was a spy for Dumbledore all along. Betsy Hp: No. The Weasley mob is always right. > -- One of the twins has gone bad through greed or something like > that. Betsy Hp: ::sigh:: Hey, but at least one died! ::perks back up:: > -- Hermione is knocked down a peg or two, and conversely Ron gets a > bit more self-confident. Betsy Hp: Hahaha! Though Hermione did get rather stupid. (Cleverly disguising herself from the folks hunting muggleborns by... using a muggleborn's name. D'oh! Yeah, I know. It was a flint. But she also gathered wild mushrooms to eat, so I'm sticking with more stupid!) And of *course* Ron didn't get more confident. Someone has to make Harry look good. > -- For some odd reason, I'd kind of like the Malfoys to come out > alright. Maybe because Draco worked so hard for their safety in > HBP. Betsy Hp: Huh. I guess I sort of got my wish? Though honestly, being forced to live in a world where you've been designated "lesser than" at age eleven... I seriously wanted to kidnap them and introduce them to the Muggle world. I'd bet they'd take to it! (Wait -- Slytherin also equals stupid. ::sigh:: Never mind.) > -- I'd love for Snape to get a happily ever after. Betsy Hp: Hah! Snape didn't get a happily before *or* a happily during. What was I thinking? He's Slytherin. They're made to suffer so Gyffindors can feel better about themselves. Poor sad Snape. > So there it is. Only a few months to find out just how crazy I am. > Betsy Hp: And the answer is: crazy. Absolutely, utterly, mad as a hatter. Betsy Hp From joylyn1 at charter.net Wed Aug 1 21:48:52 2007 From: joylyn1 at charter.net (Joylyn) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:48:52 -0700 Subject: DH: How did Luna recognize Harry at the wedding? In-Reply-To: References: <46B0EBED.000003.03948@JUSTME> Message-ID: <46B0FFC4.5060104@charter.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174167 > > >> Blazius1 > >> In Fleur and Bill's wedding, Luna is able to see through Harry's > polyjuice disguise. How? > > > >>Debi: > >> Because she's Luna! > > James Michael: > You know it was never said how she was able to figure out that it was > Harry. That was a big question. Actually, she does say. She says it was Harry's expression that gave him away. Page 140, "Oh, just your expression." She (Luna) said. Joylyn, a new member From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 22:50:01 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:50:01 -0000 Subject: Snape's Worst Memory In-Reply-To: <474437.3250.qm@web53806.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174168 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Cassandra Lee wrote: > > Snape's worst memory was actually him calling Lily a "mudblood" and not the Marauders tormenting him. JW: You fully understand the point, although I think it was evident in the first reading of SWM. After all, the memory did not end with the Marauders' teasing - it ended with Snape insulting Lily. Had the teasing been climatic, there would have been no reason to extend the memory any further. Additionally, had this action been typical of Snape, Lily would not have looked surprised at the insult. Clearly, the author meant for us to understand that this was a turning point in Snape's life, and NOT just another run-in with the James Gang. My reconsideration of SWM focused on the irony of James' attitude and words. Why did he torment Snape? Just because Snape existed. Fast forward to DH - why did LV kill Snape? For more-or-less the same reason. From graynavarre at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 22:12:55 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:12:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Whose Death Was The Saddest - book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <148753.98361.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174169 --- Lisa wrote: > Barbara: > > Now, I just want to know where Severus is buried. > Lisa: > > ::::gasp::::: The Muggle town where Lily & Petunia > & Snape grew up? > Could that be the same town where Harry grew up? > Interesting! Actually, I am rather hoping that it would be at Hogwarts. You know, maybe he would have a nice place and a nice sign about fighting LV for 17 years. Maybe future Slytherins could point it out as the one person who cleverly deceived the Dark Lord for 17 years. Like Harry, Hogwarts was his home and the only place he had any happiness (as long as he could avoid the "gang of four" aka James, Sirius, Remus, and Peter). Oh, I loved Sirius and Remus when they grew up, but as boys, they were rotters. Barbara From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 23:13:05 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:13:05 -0000 Subject: Random DH questions from a lowly Muggle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174170 > Mindy asked: > > > 1) Who DID betray Harry's escape date from Privet Drive to LV? I seem to have missed that. > > Donna replies: > That would be Snape. Remember, DD told Snape he would have to > relay the date info to Voldy to remain credible. . > > Mindy asked: > > > 2) Who was Snape's 'source' to LV? I know it was DD, but LV didn't know that - so who was his 'source'? > > Donna replies: > I am going to guess Mundungus - not that Mundungas was a willing > source, but Snape was obviously meeting with him (to implant info > on DD's orders) so it would make a good alibi to give Voldy. JW: I had a completely different approach. IMO, the author set up Mundungus as an obvious but false traitor, similar to the false trails she set in earlier books. I had already believed that Petunia was a spy for the DE during VW1, out of jealousy of Lily. Under this approach, Snape was Pet's contact - and now we do know they were acquaintances from childhood. Certainly, LV would have known the existence of this spy. It is axiomatic that Pet knew the correct date for HP's escape plan. I assumed that Snape told LV that Petunia was the source of this info, as she (assumedly) had been the source of info many years before. Needless to say, I was quite disappointed that the Dursleys (or their correspondence) did not re-enter the story to support these conjectures. However, I will wait patiently for the encyclopedia to prove them. Dum de de dum dum de dum de de dum... is it published yet? From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Aug 1 23:19:57 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:19:57 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio -- my two cents In-Reply-To: <245609.63618.qm@web52610.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174171 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Feng Zengkun wrote: > > bboyminn: > > I'm sure in later years, Harry had second thoughts about > > having used unforgivable, just as soldiers in wartime > > have second thoughts. But in the moment, you have to > > react spontaneously, without hesitation, if you want to > > continue living. Let the morals of it work themselves > > out later. > > Zengkun: > > Hogwarts episode aside, there is the matter of the > Imperiuses in the Gringotts bank. But all of that > aside, I don't think anyone is disputing the > (possible) necessity of fighting evil with evil; I am > sure the debate over whether the Unforgiveables were > called for can go on forever. But that is not the > point in question: the point is why Rowling completely > ignores the moral quandary she sets up, by ignoring > the fall-out of their use by the so-called good guys. > Valky replies: Call me crazy, but I have come around to wondering if the whole unforgivables thing at the end has something to do with Draco's wand and Harry learning from it. Now I don't mean to say the wand itself was suggesting crucio and imperio to Harry, exactly, I'm sure Harry's instincts selected the curses and not the wand, but maybe that Harry's magical instincts somehow linked to his knowledge of how Draco used his wand? Draco was excellent at Imperius as shown in HBP, his imperio on Rosemerta was rather extraordinary for a young wizard, he won her over quickly and she never faltered from his control in a whole year. He did this with the Hawthorn wand which would suggest that the Hawthorn wand itself was extremely capable of channelling a strong imperio. Harry it seemed really understood the wandlore that Ollivander told him, better in some ways than even Ollivander understood it himself. Of the few weapons he could use against the DE in Gringotts, for example an alternative may have been a memory charm and a stunning spell, Harry chose the one spell his wand was known to have performed flawlessly the previous year. Moreover, when he had done it there was a clear connection drawn in the narrative between Harry and the wand (a warm sensation), this, perhaps, was the on page example of Harry "learning" from the wand itself. I'm not sure how to fill in the gaps between the Hawthorn wand's familiar spells and Harry choosing them. It could be anything from being the wands own influence to just being Harry experimenting to learn more about the hallows while he had the opportunity. Or I could be wrong altogether. I'm not sure I am wrong though, Harry had never cast an Imperio before the scene in Gringotts, it's altogether too coincedental that he had absolutely no problems with a spell he'd never used before, in my opinion the wand was involved somehow, and, maybe, Harry understood that. Valky From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 23:23:14 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:23:14 -0000 Subject: Whose Death Was The Saddest - book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174172 For me Remus's death was the worst. I truly believed that one of James' old friends would survive, a way to keep Harry connected to his parents, to learn more about them. But the minute he asked Harry to be Teddy's godfather, his fate was sealed. From that moment on he was a dead man walking. Juli From cottell at dublin.ie Wed Aug 1 23:23:08 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:23:08 -0000 Subject: Whose Death Was The Saddest - book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174173 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lisa" wrote: > ::::gasp::::: The Muggle town where Lily & Petunia & Snape grew > up? Could that be the same town where Harry grew up? Interesting! > > Lisa Mus: Although that would be neat, I'm afraid they're unlikely to be the same place. Harry's letter in PS is addressed to Little Whinging, Surrey, which is in the south east of England, bordering Greater London - suburban, commuter belt. The town where Snape and the Evans girls grew up, and by assumption the same one that's described in the Spinner's End chapter of HBP, is described as a grimy, post-industrial town, with a polluted river and a factory chimney - the sort of urban landscape one finds in the North of England. The Lexicon makes a good case for it being near Manchester in the North West (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-spinners- end.html). Mus, who's hoping there isn't a Northern "it's grim up North" stereotype lurking here. Surely not. From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Aug 1 23:28:12 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:28:12 -0000 Subject: HP fans are so smart!!! + tidbits that went nowhere + dead basilisk Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174174 Now that it's all over, I just wanted to congratulate everyone. The Harry Potter fan base is incredibly impressive in its sleuthing abilities. I guess it's just because we obssessively read and rearead and nitpick the series, but so many key points were actually suspected by fans that it actually took something away from my enjoyment of the last book. (Since very little came as a surprise, more like a confirmation of what people were suspecting.) To name the pre-suspected details that I can remember (and please add to the list if anyone thinks of more): - the barman at the Hog's Head is Dumbledore's brother (JKR had confirmed this prior) - Harry is a Horcrux (some people went as far as to say that it was accidental!) - Snape loved Lily - Snape's Worst Memory was "the worst" because he called Lily Evans a Mudblood - RAB = Regulus Black (this is the only one that I got on my own, lol) - Kreacher and Regulus went to the cave and stole the real horcrux locket - THE locket was the one they found in 12 GP when they were cleaning it out - Mundungus stole the locket from 12 GP - Snape is DD's man - DD was dying from the curse on the ring - DD planned his own death with Snape - the last horcrux is the tiara that Harry placed on top of the bust in the Room of Requirement when he was hiding his potions book there, it belonged to Rowena Ravenclaw (HOW anybody figured that one out is beyond me) Little clues and things that didn't amount to anything more: - Neville's Mimbulus Mimbeltonia (I really thought this was going somewhere) - Socks - Clocks - Time Turners - Trevor's frequent bids for freedom And as an aside, since I don't think it merits an entire post, was anyone else disgusted that there has been a dead basilisk rotting in the Chamber of Secrets for the last 5 years? Dumbledore didn't see fit to clean it up? (Maybe he knew that Harry & co. would need the venom to destroy the Horcruxes five years later ) Allie From rachitakumar2000 at yahoo.co.in Wed Aug 1 23:31:53 2007 From: rachitakumar2000 at yahoo.co.in (rachita) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:31:53 -0000 Subject: Will Harry's wand work well for him after he repaired it? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174175 In the seventh book, Harry repairs his old wand with the Elder Wand because it used to work well for him. My question is that if now Harry's soul is whole and there is no part of Voldy's soul in him, will his wand with the Pheonix core work for him like it did before? If a wand chooses the Wizard, then will Harry's old wand still choose him even if part of Harry has changed? The pheonix core chose him because part of Voldy's soul was in Harry right? Someone please throw some light on this issue. -Rachita. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Aug 1 23:19:07 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 17:19:07 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Real HP for GrownUps References: <46B046CC.10704@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <028e01c7d492$5bf42870$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> No: HPFGUIDX 174176 >> through his mind, "Hey, treat my body with a little more modesty". > > I can't say I laughed at this, per se, but it was certainly amusing. And > I agree, he SHOULD have voiced the thought. > >> fact that Hermione and Flur were among the six fake Potters is a bit >> kinky, but I didn't write it, JKR did. > > Since it's hard to believe JKR didn't realize just how kinky the scene > was, it'd be interesting to ask her exactly how much she expects her > audience to infer. I'd expect a smirk and silence in reply. > >> Well I'm sure the Harrys kept their underwear on. > > Panties, probably, but without the requisite "fillers", wouldn't a bra > be a bit inconvenient. > > Then again, wouldn't most ladies (particularly those of the teenage > persuasion), be embarassed to have their unmentionables seen in public > even if it were draped over someone else's body? And just 'cause it's > polyjuiced, wouldn't it still FEEL like your body getting all naked? > > Yeah, I know -- the scene was for laughs, for cryin' out loud. Don't > overanalyze it. > > But then again.... > > CJ, Taiwan Shelley: You just can't resist having fun at the fun parts, and this is one of them! When I mentioned this scene and asked my daughter what she thought of it, at first she didn't get it. Then I said, "imagine you are Hermione, and then you are Polyjuiced into Harry- now change your clothes to match Harry's." She didn't think of the underwear- she just replied that "Harry's wearing a bra!" If I were Harry, that's what would freak me out- seeing my "male" body in some Victoria Secret bra and underpants, because you know Fleur would have had a hot set of underclothing. Thus her line might be a little misleading "don't look at my face, it's horrible" could really mean that she suddenly doesn't like the rest of her body either, and she's using her face as just the distraction. From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Thu Aug 2 00:05:25 2007 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:05:25 -0000 Subject: The Real HP for GrownUps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174177 Juli wrote: > > > I think it must have been extremely hard for Ron to > > > live with his crush for almost a year and never slip > > > into her bed. The boy has a huge amount of self-control. Milz responded: > > I think this was 3-fold. > > 1. They knew they were in great danger. So the thought of > > danger might have been a romance-killer. > > 2. I think Ron has a great deal of respect for Hermione > > and wouldn't pressure her into anything that she wasn't > > ready for. > > 3. Kinda difficult to 'get it on' with Harry just a few > > feet away. JW: > Surely, you jest. These three factors are guaranteed to > enhance, not diminish, the effectiveness of rampant > teenage hormones. ... [J]ust because HP doesn't notice > it, doesn't mean it never happened. Two comments. 1. (re #3 above) Muffliato. 2. Could help explain Hermione's passionate (dare I say) reactions when Ron left and upon his return. -- Matt From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 22:38:37 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:38:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron and Hermione in Deathly Hallows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <668819.62744.qm@web55003.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174178 Maeg: > As I said, I'll give you Cho, but I never bought Harry's feelings > for Ginny. I found the concept of Harry protecting Ginny by not > displaying his affection very sad and moving, but it was only the > *concept*. I never really felt that JKR convinced me that Harry > truly valued her as a person and as a romantic entanglement. I > was just told that, and it seemed somewhat trite. Bah. Nate: > Interestingly, I found almost the exact opposite. To show that > Harry really cared for Ginny, I look at the very end of the Ch 34 > in DH, "The Forest Again" (Don't have book with me, so I don't > know page number, only know its that chapter because JK has said > multiple times that it was the hardest chapter for her to write > in all the books.) > Right before Voldemort curses Harry, it's said that he is thinking > Ginny, not Ron, Hermione, Sirius, or even his parents. I think > that speaks volumes as to how much he actually cared about her. > If not that, the multiple times through DH in which Harry looks > at her on the Marauder's Map, hoping that she will somehow now > that he is thinking about her. IMO, it couldn't be more clearly > shown how much he cares for her. (I'm not sure to whom to attribute this next comment. Maeg, again? I apologize for my confusion...) > For a series that hounds on the idea that "love is the savior" > and whose narrative arc is about growing up, this seems to be > a large flaw. Nate: > I think that you are misunderstanding the whole "love is a savior" > part of the story (or at least the way that I understood it, I > certainly do not claim to be exactly, absolutely correct). I do > not believe that Harry's greatest strength being his ability to > love means romantic love. I think it means his ability to create > incredibly loving friendships with large number of people in > comparison to Voldemort, who cannot love at all, being it friends, > family, or romantic interests. The difference is this. Harry > loves, and is loved, but a multitude of people, all of whom are > willing to die for him. Likewise, because of his love for them, > he is unwilling to let that happen because he loves them, hence > how is able to let himself be killed to save them. Voldemort has > people willing to die for him, but not because love, because the > fear what he would to do them if they didn't put their lives on > the line. Nate, I think your two knuts are right on. I'm surprised anyone could think Harry doesn't value Ginny as a person, esp. after COS and esp. considering how the entire Wesley family has embraced him and he them (oh, well, let's not talk about Percy in books 5 and 6). Yes, Ginny's a bit player at first (but for her role in COS), but we see more of her, and therefore her interactions with Harry, starting in OOTP. And, let's remember, she's a "kid sister." Being a "kid sister" myself I know how easily we are over looked growing up. A friend has borrowed my OOTP and HBP books so I'm doing this from memory, but in OOTP there are a few instances at Grimmauld Place where Ginny and Harry share a subtle joke (barely more than a glance and grin and a couple of times at Fleur's expense but shared nonetheless) and there she is right in the thick of things at the Ministry. I can't believe Harry's respect for her wouldn't grow after that. Then, in HBP we see them spending lots of time together during the summer at the Burrow. HBP is filled with foreshadowing (e.g., a couple times a flowery scent is mentioned that we later learn is associated with Ginny -- I know one occurrence is during the first potions lesson); and in HBP Harry experiences jealousy as he watches Ginny with her boyfriends, in an ideal world he'd rather use his FF potion to win her over than get Slughorn's memory, and he often tries to talk himself out of his growing feelings by reminding himself that she's Ron's sister. By the time they kiss in the common room after the Quidditch match I'm thinking, "Its about darn time." And, I thought that (defining) moment was very sweet and natural. As for Harry and love, one of the first things that stuck me about Harry when I first started the books is his acceptance. I don't get the impression that the Dursley household was one that taught tolerance -- yet he doesn't think twice about accepting a half- giant, a house elf, a centaur, classmates from diverse backgrounds, etc. into his life. For the most part, he takes individuals on face value -- he's a "golden rule" kind of guy. He really doesn't have a lot of preconceived notions; if you're good to him, he's good to you and expects the same in return. Now, I know someone will slam me about his feelings for Slytherin house (and I know that there is whole thread on the topic of Slytherin) -- Harry is a flawed character (that's why he's easy to accept, he's not perfect). Yes, he relies on what others tell him (i.e., evil wizards come from Slytherin), but he has just learned about his heritage for the first time (that in itself is a lot for an 11 year to take in) and the truth about his parents, and, let's be honest, Draco Malfoy and Professor Snape don't make good first impressions. His only prejudices seem to be toward Slytherin -- and they do have some basis in personal experience with individual Slytherins. Slughorn is the first Slytherin he meets who doesn't seem out to get him. And the fact that his attitude toward Slytherin in the epilogue of book 7 is vastly different than his attitude in book 1 speaks volumes about his growth as a person... So, 37-year-old Harry has the whole tolerance/acceptance/love thing nailed... (Gee, I'm 46 and sadly I can't say the same about myself...) Christy From juli17 at aol.com Thu Aug 2 00:21:35 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:21:35 -0000 Subject: Snape's Worst Memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174179 > > JW: > You fully understand the point, although I think it was evident in the > first reading of SWM. After all, the memory did not end with the > Marauders' teasing - it ended with Snape insulting Lily. Had the > teasing been climatic, there would have been no reason to extend the > memory any further. Additionally, had this action been typical of > Snape, Lily would not have looked surprised at the insult. > > Clearly, the author meant for us to understand that this was a turning > point in Snape's life, and NOT just another run-in with the James Gang. > > My reconsideration of SWM focused on the irony of James' attitude and > words. Why did he torment Snape? Just because Snape existed. Fast > forward to DH - why did LV kill Snape? For more-or-less the same reason. > Julie: I think many, maybe most, fans did read that one right. It was clear Snape and the Marauders already had a long history of tormenting each other. One incident out of dozens wouldn't be significant, so the one difference in this memory--Lily witnessing his humiliation and of him responding by calling her a Mudblood had to be what was significant. BTW, James may have said he was tormenting Snape just because he existed, but James is just a big ol' liar! Hey, it may be an unconscious lie, in which case James lying to himself also, but he is after Snape because Snape is Lily's oldest friend at Hogwarts. Not only her oldest friend, but a Slytherin, and most importantly, someone who had the potential to be *more* than friends with Lily. James may not know it yet, but he isn't about to let that happen, because he wants Lily for himself! In the end James turned out to be much better for Lily than Snape likely would have ever been, but the "because he exists" excuse doesn't hold water for me now, as there was no differece between Snape and the other Slytherins his age (who were apparently all soon to be fitted for Death Eater masks) other than Snape's connection to Gryffindor's most popular girl. Julie, who's actually glad there was some motive for the Marauders continued harassment of Snape other than merely that he existed. From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 23:58:55 2007 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:58:55 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio -- my two cents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174180 > Sneeboy2: > I don't see him at that moment being in more danger than he was, > say, escaping Voldemort at the start of the book, yet there he > used only the legal spells -- and to good effect. I find it > disturbing that he uses what's arguably the worst of the three > spells: in the real world, we do not outlaw killing in times of > war, but we do outlaw torture. If JKR wants to show us that > Harry is flawed, I'm disturbed that she chose to do it so near > the climax, where the logic of plot implies that this is a > development toward which the rest of the plot has been aiming. > It's almost as if she's saying to readers that his reluctance > to use the unforgivable curses before now was a matter of > immaturity, rather than moral fortitude. Jack-A-Roe: So far Harry has broken into Gringott's, lost the sword, had to fight his way out by riding a dragon, goes to Hogsmeade where the DE's know something is up, has to fight off dementors, finds out his friends have been tortured during the school year, and has to find a horcrux hidden in a castle before Voldemort gets there. Meanwhile one of the deatheaters who was there when Dumbledore is killed tells McGonagall: US edition pg 593 "It's not a case of what you'll permit, Minerva McGonagall. Your time's over. It's us what's in charge her now, and you'll back me up or you'll pay the price." And he spat in her face. Harry, our everyman, reacts like most people would when someone they care about is threatened. Out of anger. He curses Amycus, but stops it when Amycus is thrown into the bookcase and is knocked unconscious. At that point Harry is starting to fight like it's a war. He could have cast a reductor curse which I think would have caused a lot more damage or several other more deadly curses. The effect of the curse is not long term whereas one of the other curses could have been. He doesn't hold it on him, in fact it is over rather quickly. So at this point I can't see the spell as torture. Why didn't he use one of the other curses such as stupify? I'm guessing that he's rather stressed and remembering Lupin's words that this is for keeps. I don't have any problem with Harry's reaction. From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 00:40:24 2007 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:40:24 -0000 Subject: Snape's death scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174181 > Carol responds; > It has nothing to do with defending himself or blowing his cover. He > has one job to do and one only--get the message to Harry Potter that > Harry must let Voldemort kill him to destroy the soul bit in the > Horcrux. If he fails to do that, it's all over. >snip> > It has nothing whatever to do with poor planning. Dumbledore has told > him not to deliver the message until he sees Voldemort protecting the > snake, and until now, the snake has not been protected. Jack-A-Roe: First off I must say I was wrong when I said Snape didn't have his wand out. It was apparently in his hand the entire time and he did raise it. You are exactly right when you say it's not about his cover. That point is over. He sees the snake being protected and knows he must get his message to Harry. As a double agent his life is in constant jeopardy. Which means that he has to be ready to defend himself and have a way out of every situation that he walks into. Being called to Voldemort during the battle should have raised a red flag. Voldemort's speech should have had him working his way toward an exit. When I say he failed to plan I mean he didn't have a way out of the shack. He could never plan for every contingency but he should have had something in mind. His life is in danger and all he can do is raise his wand and do nothing. This is right after Voldemort tells him that "While you live, Severus, the Elder Wand cannot be truly mine." At that point he should have started throwing curses and working his way out the door. Voldemort just said he was going to kill him. After all he still has a mission to finish. Instead I believe he froze up under the threat, knowing he was going to fail in his mission. To me this is a great contrast to Harry who always fights til the end. From dwalker696 at aol.com Thu Aug 2 00:46:43 2007 From: dwalker696 at aol.com (dwalker696) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:46:43 -0000 Subject: Camping, ethics, structure, from 'I am about to rant....' In-Reply-To: <3cd952930707312135u6b26bb70p80247d09a49f5bab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174182 Laurel wrote: > Donna, I just want to say "I LOVE YOU!" Thank you so much for writing this. > I have been trying to sort through the posts to find a discussion of the > Trio's traveling into the woods, into the darkness, etc. I thought this was > a key point of the plot. I think it's the most important part of the book, > actually, and ties in very nicely with the Quest theme. Donna blushes and replies: Gosh Laurel, thanks! I swear, the one thing that keeps coming up when I discuss DH with friends is the structure of the book, and inevitably the camping always comes up with that. I keep thinking if I can get my thoughts organized well enough, I would like to start a thread that just discusses the book within the context of literary structure and form and allusions to works within similar genres. One thing I loved about DH was that the structure and literary blueprint of the book is even more complex than I had hoped for - with each book the writing structure has really developed, become more layered, even my (now) nine year old who started reading Harry in Kindergarten noticed that even the reading level was increasing - she commented something like, "each book seems more and more like what adults probably read, I don't mean WHAT she (JKR) is talking about, I mean the WAY she writes about it!" Of course, most of my thoughts on examples of this in the book happen when I am driving or jogging, so I don't jot them down, but somehow I am going to start... > Laurel: > >> I feel that DH really shows JKR's growth as a writer. DH is definitely my > favorite of the series. Donna replies: I have heard other people comment similarly to this (about JKR growing as a writer), but I can't help wonder that perhaps the increase in the complexity of the writing was intentional on JKR's part? The reading level seems to increase; certainly the subject matter matures; and the running themes seem to multiply. When discussing the book with my daughter, let's say we're talking about Harry's reaction to what he learns about DD early in DH, and I comment that this is a classic theme in literature, that the protagonist or archetypal hero has a kind of "fall from grace/innocence" as he realizes the pillars he looks up to aren't perfect/have let him down/were a facade. And she will say, "Well, I thought you said a major theme of the books was the choices we make regardless of our environment? And before that you said a major theme was oxymorons in characters and situations, (Hagrid and Fang are huge and tough looking but really big softies, LV and HP had similar upbringings, but both turned out very differently, Malfoy and Dudley who were given everything they ever needed turn out to have been denied the gift of generosity, etc) And before that you said a major theme was that youth shouldn't always unquestionably accept the rules and doctrines given to them by adults? And before that you said...." Another impression I have of DH is that it uses more literary plot devices and classic literary themes than any of the other books. So, one could argue she increased the reading level and subject maturity to age along with young readers who started the series, well, when they were young. But the rest of it....is it a function of her writing ability growing? Is it a function of her being tuned in to this world she created full of literary allusions and references, and therefore inserting such allusions and references, everything from using the names of Greek mythological characters to using lovingly 'plagarized' plot devices, became second nature to her? Or, was the growth in her writing from book to book completely intentional from the beginning; to reflect that HRH were growing and maturing, and that the mystery and secrets Harry has to discover with each book were becoming ever layered and complex. I kind of like to think she may have set out writing Harry's story with the intention to make each book more complex and layered in structure and form than the last one. Thoughts, anyone? Donna From ianuno3 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 2 00:42:02 2007 From: ianuno3 at hotmail.com (ianuno3) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:42:02 -0000 Subject: DH - unanswered (and irritating) questions In-Reply-To: <001001c7d069$1bffa230$28c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174183 ciraarana: > > Q: The Polyjuice Potion. It only lasts for an hour. That was important > > in GoF. And in this book it's never even once mentioned! And some of > > the adventures took longer than an hour. Is this a new version of > > Polyjuice? Why aren't we told so? Anne: > "We are shown in GoF that PJ potion can last for a year if the > pjed person keeps taking drinks of the potion. I think maybe (not > sure about this) that this is what's going on here." > > I think what ciraarana meant was that Fake Crouch had to remember to take the potion every hour: "But I think, in the excitement of tonight, our fake Moody might have forgotten to take it as frequently as he should have done ... on the hour ... every hour ... we shall see." GoF Can Ed pg 592. > > In DH, particularly with Harry as Barny Weasley, and Harry and Hermione in Godric's Hollow, we only see them taking one big swig: "Harry had taken a large dose of Polyjuice Potion and was now the double of a..." (DH CanEd Pg 115) and "...so it was late afternoon when they finally swallowed Polyjuice Potion(DH Can Ed pg 263).....He could tell that it was almost dawn by the stillness and the quality of the cold" (DH Can Ed pg 282). > > Longtime sporadic lurker and first-time poster. I'm so glad there's a forum for those of us that are this passionate about Harry. The Polyjuice inconsistencies in DH really leapt out at me, especially at the wedding, in Godric's Hollow, and most of all, the MoM sequence. There's no way they could've accomplished what they did before and during the MoM scene in under one hour. In fact the only time Polyjuice Potion was used and the effects were spot-on, was the Seven Potters/Fallen Warrior chapters in DH. When everyone was arriving at the Burrow, all of the fake Harrys were now themselves again -- they were supposed to arrive at the Burrow an hour after they left Privet Drive, and they were. JKR appeared to go out of her way to make a point of the hourlong effects in CoS and GoF, so I was surprised there weren't little reminders from Hermoine to have extra bottles for Ron and Harry in case they split up at MoM, and to remind them, "Oh, our hour's almost up. We better take another dose." If someone had read DH without reading the first six books, it shouldn't have bothered them. For those of us who have read the series over and over, perhaps JKR, having introduced to us to Barty Crouch Jr. taking it hourly throughout GoF to maintain his Mad-Eye form, thought we'd just assume that. I wish that detail of the time limit of Polyjuice Potion had remained prevalent in DH only because the potion played such a big role throughout the book. Ian, who wishes he could use PP to be part of the trio just for an hour. From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 2 01:01:16 2007 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:01:16 -0000 Subject: Snape's death scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174184 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jkoney65" wrote: > > At that point he should have started throwing curses and working his > way out the door. Voldemort just said he was going to kill him. After > all he still has a mission to finish. Instead I believe he froze up > under the threat, knowing he was going to fail in his mission. > > To me this is a great contrast to Harry who always fights til the end. "K": Snape didn't freeze. I think Carol's response (Message #174164) was pretty much right on. What bothers me so much about this series, especially the last book, is the portrayal of Harry being so dang perfect. Almost every other character has to have some flaw or fail in some way except for dear Harry. Because of JKR's overdone-Hero!Harry-coming-to-the-rescue, usually in front of a crowd, btw, I found Harry slipping down my 'favorite' list with each book. To think for one moment that Severus Snape didn't fight to the end, that he froze, is well...untrue as far as I'm concerned. I guess one can read this scene as they wish. You know, it doesn't take anything away from Harry being the Great One if another character suffers a great loss, is a hero in some way, fights to the end and is brave. "K" From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 00:52:44 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:52:44 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Real HP for GrownUps In-Reply-To: <028e01c7d492$5bf42870$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> References: <46B046CC.10704@yahoo.com> <028e01c7d492$5bf42870$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> Message-ID: <46B12ADC.1060104@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174185 k12listmomma blessed us with this gem On 02/08/2007 07:19: > If I were Harry, that's what would freak me out- seeing > my "male" body in some Victoria Secret bra and > underpants, because you know Fleur would have > had a hot set of underclothing. I thought teenage girls were congenitally discomfited about their bodies. Would Hermione just shrug off displaying her Victoria's Secret collection to the world? And given Ron's hormonal hots for Hermione, I just can't imagine him NOT gawking at her underthingies, even if they are draped across the wrong body. (And IS there a WW equivalent of Victoria's Secret? Probably in the restricted section of Diagon Alley. One wonders what the catalog must be like.) > "don't look at my face, it's horrible" could really mean that > she suddenly doesn't like the rest of her body either, and she's > using her face as just the distraction. Hmm, I guess I pictured Fleur as not being too hot and bothered about it -- she's a Veela after all, and aren't they kinda used to being gawked at? But it WAS Fleur who provided the two best lines of the scene: "I'm 'hideous", and the "soppy, slavish look that Harry hoped with all his heart would never appear on his face again." Whew - who ever would have guessed one could get so much gutter-time out of a children's book? CJ, Taiwan From juli17 at aol.com Thu Aug 2 01:06:51 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:06:51 -0000 Subject: Harry and Snape (was Re: Ron and Hermione in Deathly Hallows In-Reply-To: <668819.62744.qm@web55003.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174186 Christy > > Now, I know someone will slam me about his feelings for Slytherin > house (and I know that there is whole thread on the topic of > Slytherin) -- Harry is a flawed character (that's why he's easy > to accept, he's not perfect). Yes, he relies on what others tell > him (i.e., evil wizards come from Slytherin), but he has just > learned about his heritage for the first time (that in itself > is a lot for an 11 year to take in) and the truth about his > parents, and, let's be honest, Draco Malfoy and Professor Snape > don't make good first impressions. His only prejudices seem to > be toward Slytherin -- and they do have some basis in personal > experience with individual Slytherins. Slughorn is the first > Slytherin he meets who doesn't seem out to get him. And the > fact that his attitude toward Slytherin in the epilogue of book > 7 is vastly different than his attitude in book 1 speaks volumes > about his growth as a person... So, 37-year-old Harry has the > whole tolerance/acceptance/love thing nailed... (Gee, I'm 46 > and sadly I can't say the same about myself...) Julie: I happen to agree with you, Christy. Your post also touches on a subject I'm sure many of us have been wondering about, and that is why Harry named his second son Albus *Severus*. Was it just because Snape was brave, because he loved Lily, and because he protected Harry and ultimately died to honor that love? Even though he was also a mean, bitter man and a bully of a teacher? Maybe. We could also assume more happened later, like a letter left from Snape to Harry, or conversations between Harry and the (eventually placed) Headmaster!Snape portrait that led to even more of an understanding and even a reconciliation between the two. Anything is possible. Yet I think what we saw, coupled with Harry's own personality and maturation after DH, could be enough. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and it always takes two to set the definition of any relationship. And I think Harry came to realise this. Before anyone jumps down my throat, YES, Snape was the adult, YES, Snape started it with his own bias against Harry based on the resemblance to James. Snape bears the brunt of the blame for their mutual antagonism. I'll say it again, it is mostly SNAPE'S fault. But. But... A more mature and empathetic Harry may be able to look back and realize that he played his part--perhaps far smaller than the part played by Snape, but still his part--in the continued animosity between the two of them. Perhaps Harry thinks to himself, "How many times did I lie to Snape, and not just for noble reasons, but sometimes just because I wanted my own way (to go to Hogsmeade) or I wanted to hide something I knew wasn't quite on the up and up (the HBP's Potions book)?" or "No matter how crappy a teacher Snape was in those Occlumency lessons, I know now that he wasn't trying to set me up for Voldemort. And I know that there was never any good excuse for invading his privacy." Etc. Yep, Harry might well realize that while Snape was mean and unfair based on Harry's resemblance to James, Snape was also RIGHT about many of Harry's actions. And since Harry *is* the better man than Snape (and than Dumbledore IMO, though that's irrelevant!), he would rightly realize that he did nothing to improve the situation between himself and Snape, and even did some things that made the situation worse. So, with that acceptance of his own mistakes, and his better understanding of Snape's motives and remorse, and his gratitude for Snape's personal sacrifices--up to and including his life--all in the name of his love for Harry's mother, would this be enough for Harry to name his second son Albus *Severus* in memory of Snape? I think so. Julie From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Aug 2 00:22:31 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:22:31 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mr. Weasley, I take my hat off to you. References: Message-ID: <02ce01c7d49b$37a46ad0$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> No: HPFGUIDX 174187 > Nate, a frequent lurker and not so frequent poster > More importantly, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Weasley, for > FINALLY maturing and growing up. Of the other male characters, > (mainly Harry, Neville, and Draco to an extent), you were last, but > not the least, to make the transition from being a boy to a man. I > specifically say males because as a gender, we admittedly are longer > on the uptake as far as maturity is concerned. This transition, I > think we can all agree, begins with the verbalization of his > thoughts and fears before he made the trio a duo and ends with > overcoming those fears and insecurities in destroying the locket. > > The timing of this growing-up is can be compared to that of Harry. > I think that Harry really grew up between the fifth and sixth book, > emphasized by him when he tells DD about he ultimately recovered > from Sirius's death. > > Anyway, please post your thoughts and impressions of Ron, who came > out better in DH than in all of the previous books combined. Shelley: Don't you think Ron might be a mirror here for James? If you look at Ron and Hermione, they were fighting a lot. Then, in the 7th year, Ron changes. Instead of Hermione chiding him for having the emotional range of a teaspoon, we see him actually trying sypathy and compassion. He does grow up a lot. We see James and Lilly not hitting it off either in the earlier memory when Snape was hung upside down, and yet Harry wonders what transformation took place that lead his parents to end up married. He couldn't fathom that change, yet he gets to witness it with Ron. I hope he feels better about his parents, knowing that if Ron changed that much for a girl, his dad probably did the same to win Lilly's heart. From emhensley at comcast.net Thu Aug 2 01:17:14 2007 From: emhensley at comcast.net (Melanie Hensley) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:17:14 -0000 Subject: Whose Death Was The Saddest - book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174188 I was so sad over Fred. I kept thinking there was a catch to it. I LOVED Fred and was not expecting him to die!! Melanie in Indiana USA From bill at griffeth.name Thu Aug 2 01:06:29 2007 From: bill at griffeth.name (wfgriffeth) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:06:29 -0000 Subject: Whose Death Was The Saddest - book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174189 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "David" wrote: > > > However, for me I found the saddest death to > be that of Dobby. When JKR wrote, as Dobby was lay dying, (pg. 476 US > ed.), "...he had stretched out his thin arms to Harry with a look of > supplication." Well, I was instantly in tears, which then lasted for > quite some time afterwards. > > Foodiedb Dobby's death and burial were the most poignant part of the book for me also. JKR's description of his death is her most poetic writing: "And then with a little shudder the elf became quite still, and his eyes became nothing more than great glassy orbs, sprinkled with light from the stars they could not see." (p.476, US children's ed.) My wife and I spent 7/21 and 7/22 listening to Jim Dale read DH. His reading of Harry's "Dobby, no, don't die, don't die" captured perfectly Harry's horror at Dobby's grave condition. The gentleness with which he described Dobby's death was very appropriate to the passing of a simple, innocent, loyal, and courageous soul. I'm glad that my first encounter with DH was through Jim Dale's reading, for he brilliantly communicated this moment and many others. BillG From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 01:35:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:35:52 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174190 Montavilla47 wrote: > The problem is not what JKR says, but what comes through in the books. The message regarding Slytherins in DH is that they > > 1) don't do anything to resist oppression when it threatens their fellows (there are NO Slytherins who join the D.A. forces during the school year); Carol responds: I think we need to consider why that might be the case. Could it be because they finally have a Slytherin Headmaster? If we can judge from the reaction in HBP when Snape gets the DADA post (and by Draco before he started seeing Snape as his DE rival in HBP), most of the Slytherins seem to have liked Snape when he was teaching, even if most of the students from other Houses hated him. Now their Head of House is Headmaster. Those who are Death Eaters' children think he's a loyal DE; the others might well believe the Daily Prophet's version of events, that Harry Potter killed Dumbledore. Either way, they would see no reason to join a group that they would view as anti-Snape and anti-Slytherin, and it probably doesn't help that the Gryffindors, who are in charge of the opposition hold the view that all Slytherins are Death Eaters. It would never occur to them to invite a slytherin to join. In fact, I don't think we see any new recruits to the D.A. Voldemort's coup sows seeds of distrust that sprout even when he's off searching for the Elder Wand. If a kid wasn't in the DA. in the first place, they're unlikely to trust him or her now. Of course, they're not going to invite junior DE Draco who tried to kill Dumbledore (and nearly killed Ron and Katie with his carelessness) or his friends who were members of Umbridge's Inquisitorial Squad. As for the Slytherins in Harry's year who weren't IQ members, Blaise Zabini is a pure-blood supremacist and Theo Nott's father is or was a Death Eater. Ginny, Neville, and Luna fought Death Eaters in the MoM. It's unlikely that they'll reach out to anyone who might be associated with DEs. At this point, they trust only known friends like Hagrid (good thing Snape let him stay at the school!) and their fellow DA members, especially the Gryffindors to whom they can talk safely in their common room without being overheard. I think we need to be realistic rather than idealistic. The time to make friends with the Slytherins is not when the DEs appear to be in charge of the school, especially given the view held by the Gryffindor students, at least, that Snape murdered Dumbledore. (I found it ironic, even darkly humorous, that the first person to question the Snape-as-murderer view was Rita Skeeter, but, of course, her own theory was even farther from the truth.) Since we don't see any individual Slytherins other than Draco and his cronies except Pansy, who has no idea what being a DE is really like and still seems to be under her HBP delusion that it's something glorious, we can only guess what's going through their minds. Crabbe and Goyle, having DE fathers and the intelligence of slugs, are open to the influence of the Carrows, but we don't see any other Slytherins, even Pansy, throwing around Dark magic. There's no incentive for even non-DE Slytherins like Blaise Zabini, or loners like Theo Nott (whose father must have died in Azkaban or St. Mungo's as we don't hear anything about him) to side against him. (Portrait!Phineas perhaps illustrates their attitude. He's proud to serve a Slytherin headmaster in place of doddering, eccentric old Dumbledore. I can't tell exactly where Phineas's loyalties lie in the middle of the book other than toward Snape, but I think he must have known from sixteen years of overhearing their conversations that Snape was Dumbledore's man and he can't help but overhear him talking with Portrait!Dumbledore. My reading is that he's protecting Snape's cover and is SSM (Severus snape's Man) through and through. And note that he drops the "Mudblood" epithet for Hermione when Snape reprimands him.) Montavilla47: > 2) will actively aid Evil by handing over the champion of Good (Pansy Parkinson yelling for Harry to be turned over to Voldemort, Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle coming back to capture Harry in the RoR); Carol responds: You're talking about four of about seventy students (assuming a normal student body of 280 and no Muggleborn Slytherins). Draco in DH is a thorough mess; his parents seem to be still loyal to Voldemort and eager to get back into is good graces, at least until what we must assume was a crueler than usual torture session after Harry Potter escaped from them. His Aunt Bellatrix is still fanatically loyal. Draco is evidently appalled by the cruelty but afraid to stand up to it. His mother's only virtue at this point is her love for him; slippery OFH!Lucius has no virtues at all. Voldemort has taken his wand, which is now destroyed, humiliated him, made Draco torture people and watch his old Muggle studies teacher die, and all Lucius can think about is getting back into LV's good graces. How is Draco, whose courage has always been rather lacking, supposed to stand up to them and oppose their treatment of Harry and Hermione? The best he can do is refuse to definitively identify them. Spineless as he is, Draco is not "[Voldemort's] most cowardly servant" (DH Am. ed. 470). That dubious honor goes to Gryffindor Wormtail. Poor Goyle, who has always followed Draco's lead, has no more brains than a dinner plate. (Rather touchingly and quite surprisingly, to me, at least, Draco cares enough about Goyle to save him from the fire, or have Harry save him. Crabbe, little more intelligent than Goyle, is unfortunately a lost cause, reveals an unsuspected talent for casting Dark spells, no doubt having found a kindred spirit in Amycus Carrow, but we don't see any of the other Slytherins trying to use the Killing Curse or FeindFyre (sp.) Pansy Parkinson, who delighted in Rita Skeeter's previous slanders of Harry, perhaps believing them, may for all we know believe them now. Much better for Dumbledore's murderer to be the over-rated and arrogant Harry Potter than Professor Snape, who perhaps does not seem sinister at all to the Slytherins (and, of course, is trying to protect the students eithout blowing his cover). Or she may believe that Snape did the school a favor by getting of "the old Mudblood lover," to quote Draco's earlier view. Not having any first-hand experience of a Death Eater's life, how is Pansy supposed to change her views? Maybe Draco, like Regulus before him, is protecting her by letting her continue to spout the Ministry's party line. Best not to know the truth when Voldemort can return at any second and torture or kill them all.) Whatever their motives, these four are not representative of the other Slytherins, whose only crime is not to side with people who hate and distrust them. Better to obey McGonagall as she shivvies them out. If they stay, she'll suspect them of supporting Voldemort. Montevilla: > > 3) will flee rather than fight when push comes to shove (the ENTIRE Slytherin House leaving the castle just before the fight. Carol: Flee? They obey McGonagall's order to leave. After Pansy's idiotic suggestion that someone grab Harry, first the Gryffindors and then the Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws stand up and point their wands at Pansy, something like 200 against one, because she's stupid enough to think that giving Harry to Voldemort is the right thing to do. McGonagall restores order in the only way possible. "You will leave the Hall first with Mr. Filch," she says to Pansy. "If the rest of your House could follow" (DH Am. ed. 610). There's no indication that a single Slytherin intended to act on Pansy's suggestion (though Draco and company attempt it later), but any Slytherin defying McGonagall's order would automatically be assumed to be trying to follow Pansy's suggestion or sneak out to fight for LV. What choice they have besides obeying McGonagall escapes me. McGonagall follows with a similar order to the Ravenclaws. "Ravenclaws, follow on!" And underage students from any House (which would be anyone in fifth year or below and even some sixth years, regardless of House. "A number of older Ravenclaws [and even more Hufflepuffs] remained seated while their fellows filed out, but no one is going to suspect *them* of doing so to support Voldemort. Nor do we know exactly how many older students are involved; the Muggleborns aren't at school, so at a guess ten students from Ravenclaw and twenty from Hufflepuff? The numbers could be even smaller. The majority seem to have followed the Ravenclaws' example. Of course, a larger number of Gryffindors (most of them underage and prevented from staying behind--Colin Creevey disobeys and is killed for his bravery) support the invisible Harry, but they are members of his own House. Many know him personally; others cheered for him as their Quidditch or TWT champion. *Of course* more Gryffindors than anyone else choose to join the battle. It has as much to do with protecting or defending one of their own as with courage or principle. How many slytherins could be expected to stand up for Harry Potter given his known antipathy to their House (later modified, thanks to Snape)? If you can cite canon for any Slytherin actually fleeing as opposed to following Filch as ordered, please do so. Montevilla: The Malfoys actually get points for running around like chickens instead of fighting for either side.) Carol: I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're referring to. If you mean that JKR is giving them "points," I think she's just illustrating that even Death Eaters and Slytherins are capable of love. I think Narcissa gets more "points" than Lucius since she actually lies to the Dark Lord, and I would certainly give both of them more "points" than the murderous Bellatrix. I think we're meant to feel the same mixture of pity and contempt for the adult Malfoys (who have put their son's life ahead of their pure-blood agenda and support for a maniacal would-be dictator from whose cruelty they have suffered) and for the confused and conflicted Draco that Harry felt after the tower scene in HBP: "He despised Malfoy for his infatuation with the Dark Arts [never mind that we've seen no such infatuation], but now the tiniest drop of pity mingled with his dislike. Where, Harry wondered, was Malfoy now and what was Voldemort making him do under threat of killing him and his parents?" (HBP Am. ed. 640). DH gives us part of the answer and an unusually astute glimpse on Harry's part into Draco's psychology.) Are we meant to admire the Malfoys? Of course not. Are we supposed to feel some compassion for them, or at least for Draco and Narcissa, a drop of pity mingled with our dislike or contempt? I think we are. (Lucius is still Lucius, placing self-interest above everything else, but even he cared more about Draco than reinstating himself in the Dark Lord's best interest. Or maybe he knew this wasn't a fight that the Dark Lord was going to win. I need to reread that section of the book.) But we are certainly meant to contrast Narcissa with her sadistic and murderous and perhaps psychotic sister Bellatrix, whose passing no reader is likely to mourn. Montevilla: > The only good Slytherins we get are Slughorn and Snape. Moreover, both Slughorn and Snape belong to older generations. Carol: As does "brave Regulus, champion of house-elves," whose contribution this thread seems to be neglecting. Sure, he's dead. Sure, he's of Snape's generation. But their generation is the same as that of Harry's parents, just twenty years or so older than the Trio and exactly the right age to serve as role model for a young person. Slughorn, of course, is some fifty or sixty years older than Snape, having taught *Tom Riddle* Potions. (And Phineas Nigellus, if we can count a portrait, is from a still older and much more conservative generation. Think of an ante-bellum Southern colonel embodied in a talking portrait in the 1990s. Yes, I know it's an American image, but he would hold the view of Black people common to Southern gentlemen of his era, which I think is anagolous to Phineas' view of Muggleborns.) So we have multiple generations of Slytherins represented, with only the students excluded for what seem to me perfectly sensible reasons. (Ask McGonagall why she shepherded them away.) But, IMO, it doesn't matter that Snape and Regulus, who doesn't seem to be getting his due here because his contribution to the fall of Voldemort occurred seventeen years before, are members of a different generation. Snape was influential; he was the Slytherins' teacher and Head of House for much of his adult life and their headmaster for most of his last year. They knew him personally, perhaps much better than Harry knew him. Of course it matters that snape was a hero. Who better to influence the next generation of Slytherins, especially once he has a portrait in the headmaster's office. And if I were JKR, I'd make sure that he had an Order of Merlin First Class prominently displayed in the Trophy Room (replacing Tom Riddle's unearned one.) A role model to follow is their first step. And Slughorn, the other "good Slytherin," is their current Head of House, and we can hope that he'll use his charisma or however you wish to define that trait to guide them in the right direction. (I doubt he'll openly express surprise at a Muggleborn's talents in future.) The new generation has these two people to look up to, two more than they had before. Regulus Black could be added to the pantheon of Slytherin heroes as an example of Slytherin courage and compassion toward house-elves. Compulsory Muggle Studies taught by someone with a philosophy comparable to Charity Burbage's would be another step in the right direction. Montevilla: The students, overall, represent the future of the Wizarding World. The underlying message is that none of the Slytherins are worthy to share in triumph of the good. Carol: Canon, please? I've cited some, along with my interpretation (as of this stage in my rereading). Most of what I've seen so far from the "Slytherin as Other" side is unsupported generalizations. I'm not saying that you're wrong and I'm right, but can we have some solid evidence and analysis, please? I thought that was what this list is supposed to be about. > Carol: > When Phineas Nigellus shouted, "Slytherin did its part" (or words to that effect), what part did you think Slytherin House played? Carol: Aside from the fact that without Snape, HRH would still be suffering from the evils of the locket Horcrux and Harry would not have received the message to let Voldemort kill him so that the scar Horcrux would be destroyed, and Slughorn's contribution, and Regulus as inspiration for the house-elves and the metamorphosis of their new leader Kreacher, and Phineas Nigellus (blood prejudice or not) as Snape's spy and go-between, passing on the key information that the kids were in the Forest of Dean? Seriously, Snape alone played such an important part that the statement stands as valid in my view. Of course, Phineas is a bit carried away--the of-age Slytherin students were effectively blocked from participation just like the younger students from all the Houses--but I can see his point. Slytherin *did* play its part, and that part turned out to be crucial. It needs to be acknowledged. > Montevilla: > It wouldn't have taken much to show Slytherin "playing a part." For example, we could have had a Slytherin Flag in the RoR. Carol: Can someone point me to the page where this description occurs? I could be mistaken as I haven't yet memorized the book , but, IIRC, the RoR is replicating the DA headquarters, and no Slytherins were admitted to the DA, so of course it would contain no Slytherin flag. It may or may not be relevant, but the target of the DA was High Inquisitor Umbridge and the not-yet overthrown Ministry, not Voldemort (except for HRH and their close friends). And at that time, Draco, Pansy, and the Slytherin Quidditch team were going around wearing Inquisitorial Squad badges. I doubt they knew that their Head of House was quietly undermining Umbridge, nor do I think they knew just how closely affiliated she was with the pure-blood agenda. (Do we see signs of that in OoP? I always thought her pink cardigans and Alice bands hinted that she was a Muggle-born.) montevilla: > We could have seen 1 students remaining when Slytherin left. (How much would we have loved Theodore Nott if he had stayed at that table?) We could have seen some of the Slytherin students returning with Slughorn for the final battle (with their families). Carol: Okay, you've got me there. I wanted to see Theo Nott play a role in the book. But the Slytherin students can't fight in the battle. The of-age Slytherins are being kept away from the battle along with the younger students and those from Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff who chose to sit out the battle. (Maybe the Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs who joined did so because, like Hannah Abbott, whose mother was murdered in HBP, they had lost family members to the Death Eaters? At a guess, Hufflepuff students have a lot more Muggle and Muggle-born relatives than the Slytherins do!) As for Theo, at least he didn't become a Death Eater like his father as Draco did or fight to avenge his arrest (and death?). I'd say there's hope for his redemption or rather his future since he doesn't appear to have committed any crimes. Montavilla47: > I think JKR didn't put any of that in because she wanted to give maximum impact to Snape and Narcissa's actions. But even so, she could have simply mentioned the "returning" Slytherin students when everyone is sitting in the Great Hall. Instead, we get the lonely Malfoys huddling together, wondering if any one is going to kill them for simply existing. Carol: I think you're right about JKR's focus on key characters or characters who illustrate a key theme (as in even Death Eaters can put love of family above Voldemort). Love is the key. (Oh, dear. Now the theme from "Secret of NIMH" is running through my head. FILK, CMC, or is the song too soppy?) But to generalize from Slytherins sitting out the battle to Slytherin = evil seems a big jump to me. Sure, the students from other Houses turn on Pansy Parkinson, but unlike her, they see Harry (rightly) as the WW's only hope. We can't expect Pansy, who has always seen Harry as someone to laugh at, along with his "Mudblood" and "blood traitor" friends, to suddenly change her view of Harry. And we didn't see the rest of the Slytherin table cheering her or melodramatically crying "Seize him!" This scene occurs *130 pages* before Harry publicly vindicates Snape, who has been killed three hours before according to LV. Until Harry makes that speech, the students from the other three Houses thought their erstwhile headmaster was a murderer and a Death Eater and that his House was the Death Eater's House. Harry's speech is undoubtedly a wake-up call for students, staff members, and ordinary citizens who three hours before thought there was no such thing as a good Slytherin. Carol, who wants to get beyond unsupported generalizations and examine the text itself From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 01:39:42 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:39:42 -0000 Subject: Poor Fred :( In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174191 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "greendayisawesome" wrote: > > The loss of Fred was the > thing that shocked me the most. Why not Bill or Charlie? Or > Percy. Why couldn't she kill one of them? > Sally JW: The short and direct answer is that if Bill, Charlie or Percy had bought the farm, you would not have cared. JKR *WANTED* you to care. JKR *WANTED* you shocked. She succeeded. Here's a longer answer: As Molly observed in OotP (the scene with her boggart at 12 GP) - there were nine Weasleys, half already in the order. It was too much to hope that all would survive. So who would fall? My analysis: Ginney, Arthur, Ron and Bill already came close; I saw no reason to bother them again. As you observed, Charlie and Percy would not generate sufficient dramatic impact, so they were safe. That left Molly and the twins. The books lack solid parent-figures; hence, I doubted that JKR would kill off the strongest mother-figure of all. That means Molly was safe. Of the twins, Fred is the dominant while George is the subordinate. The loss of Fred would maximize dramatic impact - it is more shocking when the strong die, leaving the weaker to survive as best they can. Here's another observation relating to that scene in OotP: It was Lupin who responded to Molly, comforting her by saying that should anything happen to her and Arthur, the Order would watch over the Weaslings to make sure they would not starve. I did not predict the Lupin/Tonks marriage, but as soon as Mr./Mrs. Lupin had a baby, I recalled the OotP scene, and assumed the Lupins were goners - Lupin's promise in OotP would be kept, but not as he intended it. Instead, it was Teddy Lupin who was cared for in the absence of his parents. From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Aug 2 01:41:49 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:41:49 -0000 Subject: Red Herrings and Reconciliation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174192 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "David" wrote: > foodiedb writes: > I thought that, early in the book, when she wrote that Harry cut > himself and realized that he had never learned how to magically heal a > bleeding wound, and that he made a mental note to ask Hermione how to > do it (and he never did ask her); well I thought that JKR was > foreshadowing Harry's own, or Ron's or Hermione's ultimately bloody > death...thank goodness I was wrong. > Allie: And I thought, but he DID learn that! At the beginning of HBP, Tonks used "episkey" to fix Harry's nose, and then he used it on someone's bleeding lip during a Quidditch practice. Why he couldn't use it for Ron's bleeding, splinched arm, I don't know. (And does that mean the chunk of missing arm is lying around somewhere to be found, like when he left his eyebrow behind?) From Meliss9900 at aol.com Thu Aug 2 01:39:06 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:39:06 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's kid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174193 In a message dated 8/1/2007 12:31:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time, magpye29 at hotmail.com writes: Alla wrote "I mean, did she have to name Draco's kid Scorpius unless to designate him as next villain?" Maybe he was born in November... Mellanie ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Meliss9900 at aol.com Thu Aug 2 01:42:55 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:42:55 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's kid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174194 In a message dated 8/1/2007 12:31:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time, magpye29 at hotmail.com writes: Alla wrote "I mean, did she have to name Draco's kid Scorpius unless to designate him as next villain?" Maybe he was born in November... Mellanie IMO she was just following the naming tradition that she started in the Black family. . .Regulus, Sirius, Andromeda, Bellatrix and Draco himself are all named after either stars or constellations and so is Draco's son. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bill at griffeth.name Thu Aug 2 01:15:36 2007 From: bill at griffeth.name (wfgriffeth) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:15:36 -0000 Subject: The one who would do magic later in life - book 7 In-Reply-To: <999900.17676.qm@web61217.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174195 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jaja Redor wrote: > > >> So, as of book three, there was no 'magic later in life' plot line. > > Just wondering why it was still floating until book 7 if it was >already abandoned from book 3? The closet JKR came to having a character reveal unsuspected magical skill was when Ron found he could imitate Parseltongue well enough to get into the Chamber of Secrets. (US children's edition, p. 623) BillG From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Thu Aug 2 02:20:48 2007 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:20:48 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgivables In-Reply-To: <46AFCCD1.90205@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174196 I think the discussion about RW law has gotten a bit offtopic, so I'm going to agree to disagree there. With respect to the unforgivable curses themselves, remember that your original complaint was that Rowling had been "inconsistent" by neglecting in DH the *reasons* that the unforgivable curses are unforgivable: >>> I had had more than one discussion with my son previously >>> about what made the Unforgivables unforgivable, and why a >>> good person could not use them.... >>> For all intents and purposes, in HP7 JKR just seems to >>> ignore the moral component of at least two of the >>> Unforgivables .... That's the sentiment I was responding to when I asked why it should matter that Snape killed Dumbledore using the Avada Kedavra curse rather than by, say, blasting him off the top of the tower? CJ wrote: >>> Even assuming your moral code permits euthanasia, >>> euthanasia hardly justifies an Unforgivable Curse. I asked: >> Why should the means of death make any moral difference? CJ now says: > [I]t makes all the difference in the world! Even in the > US, which still permits capital punishment, the form of > death is chosen to be as humane as possible. To say that > killing is justified is not at all to say that ANY FORM > of killing is justified. Right, but as your example points out, the only moral criteria usually applied in this sort of a circumstance are humaneness to the deceased and no potential danger to others. The killing curse performed by Snape would seem to satisfy both of those criteria (indeed, you concede that it is "quick and painless"). > The point is that an immoral (and yes, I do believe the > canon establishes that the UCs are immoral, not just > illegal) method of killing is unjustifiable even when the > killing itself is not. I guess I just don't get your statement that "canon establishes that the UCs are immoral." Aside from the lack of any citation, wasn't your whole point from the beginning that we should focus on the reason for the unforgivable curses being unforgivable? That was why you said that Harry's attempt to use the same curse on Snape was "understandable" in a way that you said Snape's killing of Dumbledore never could be. Now, you seem to be retreating to labels. As I wrote before: >> I think that in distinguishing based on the form of >> curse used you are putting more weight on the term >> "unforgivable" than Rowling ever did. You ask for me to prove the point -- > Could you cite a passage on this? The text, as far as > I can see, simply establishes the UCs as (morally) > unforgivable. Is there a passage which discusses the > exact degree of "unforgivable"? -- but it's really up to you, since it's your reliance on the text that I'm questioning. Where does the text say "morally unforgivable"? Where does the text say "never can be justified"? The *only* discussion we get in the books of the sense in which the curses are unforgivable is the word of an escaped Death Eater that "the use of any one of them on a fellow human being is enough to earn a life sentence in Azkaban." (GF, ch. 14). That is not a moral statement and it says nothing about extenuating circumstances. Sirius later refers to Crouch's authorization of the government's use of the curses against suspects as evidence of Crouch's ruthlessness (GF, ch. 27), but he does not explicitly appeal to any universal moral principle. His words can easily be understood as personal hostility toward Crouch and/or a political statement about how the government ought to act towards the accused. It is difficult to believe that Sirius -- a classic rulebreaker who was ready to murder Peter Pettigrew a year earlier -- is defending some kind of moral absolutism. More to the point, neither Sirius's statement, nor Crouch's, nor anything ever said in canon contradicts the quite natural reading -- yours I thought as well as mine -- that the unforgivable curses are unforgivable *because one person should not treat another that way* (killing, torture, enslavement). But if that is true then when circumstances undermine the premise -- when, that is to say, a homicide is justifiable -- the conclusion about the curses no longer holds. You do not seem to have any response to this, other than once again retreating to the word "unforgivable": My question -- >> Is there some reason that the use of Avada Kedavra is >> unforgivable above and beyond the immorality of ending >> another person's life? Your response -- > I don't have any idea. JKR never discusses that.... > [A]s to WHY the AK is unforgivable, you'll have to wait > for JKR to explain. I only know from reading the text > that it IS. I'll tell you what I know: It is impossible to discuss morality without asking "why". Ethics is not about labels, it is about principles. You had it right at the beginning when you were talking about "what made the Unforgivables unforgivable." Once you walked away from that, you lost all possible basis for calling Rowling inconsistent. > [O]utside of book 7 and the end of book 6 (which are > the points of contention) there are no clear examples of > a morally justified use of the UCs. Actually, the first time we are exposed to the curses, in GF, provides a relatively clear example. Crouch!Moody, with Dumbledore's approval, uses practical demonstration to teach the students how to throw off the Imperius curse. Once again, the moral basis for putting the curse off limits does not apply: Crouch is attempting to teach the students, not to enslave them. (At least that is what he tells Dumbledore, and on that basis Dumbledore approves the lesson.) As it turns out, Crouch ends up teaching Harry just what he needs to know in the climactic confrontation. > [A]ny discussion of the "degree" of unforgivability > lies outside the canonical texts; i.e., in the realm > of speculation. I'm not sure how you dismiss a principled discussion of morality as speculation, but degrees of unforgivability was your idea not mine. You said that Harry's attempt on Snape was "understandable" while Snape's attack on Dumbledore put him "beyond all possibility of salvation." All I have said is that some uses of those curses can be justified, which involves weighing moral principles but is not a question of degree. -- Matt From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Aug 2 02:22:54 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:22:54 -0000 Subject: Snape finding Lily's Letter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174197 > > Jen: > > I've been reading this thread, trying to imagine the > > explanation coming up in the story and failing to think of a > > legitimate reason why it would. > > Ceridwen: > Since others are offering up alternative scenarios, here's mine for the > letter: > > Harry goes into Sirius's room, sees all the stuff on the walls. Sees a > box in the corner with some old magazines in it, box labeled Property > of S. Black - Return to Next of Kin - signed somehow to indicate Aurors > (Crouch's signature?) or Azkaban (official stamp?). snip > Ceridwen. Potioncat: I've read as much of this thread as I can find. It seems to me the question is, "Why is the letter in 12 GP?" But the other question should be, "How did Snape know to look for it?" Then I realized, Snape had already seen the letter, and so did we. It's mentioned in OoP. Here's the [canon]. [We know that Sirius had his own place.] He was a Black, and an Order member, so it's reasonable to think the house would be protected by curses, jinxes, hexes and a large barking dog. [That horrible Halloween comes, Sirius loses control and ends up in Azkaban.] The house is left behind with all the magical protection--minus the dog-- safe from intruders. OoP: [Sirius is locked up in 12 GP,] and begins to think about all the stuff in storage at his old place. He slowly starts to retrieve the contents. In bits and pieces, perhaps one boxfull at a time, he starts to sort through it all. And so we find him in January, going through some old letters. [To his surprise Snape arrives to talk to Harry.] Sirius goes to confront Snape, not even thinking of the letter in his hand. Snape's eyes dart to the parchment, and there is the barest flicker of recognition. He knows the handwriting. Sirius picks up on it at once. "Going through some old letters from Lily. She wrote all the time. We were great friends, you know. Sent lots of photographs. " He drops [the letter on the table and the two of them glare. Enter Harry.] HBP: [June. Snape has had a horrible year. He can barely remember why he's doing it all. And now Dumbledore is dead. Snape has no one to encourage him or to keep him inspired.] His memory of Lily has been the driving force, but now he needs more. And he knows where to find it. According to Black there are photographs and letters. All he needs is one DH: And you know the rest. Well? (Everything in [] is canon.) From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Aug 2 02:36:01 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 22:36:01 -0400 Subject: Harry using Crucio -- my two cents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174198 Some have also objected to Prof. McG.'s reaction as being too mild. But do you think that this was the first time that Mr. Carrow had treated her with similar disrespect? She wouldn't be human if she hadn't been wishing that something nasty would happen to him. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mishbob88 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 01:54:55 2007 From: mishbob88 at yahoo.com (Michelle Wilkinson) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:54:55 -0000 Subject: Whose Death Was The Saddest - book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174199 I agree Bill. I love listening to Jim Dale read the Potter books. He does a wonderful job of getting across the emotion of JKR's writting. The saddest death for me was Dobby until we saw Snape's dying memories. I listened to that part while driving home tonight and had to pull over to find a tissue to whipe my eyes so I could see the road mishbob88 From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Aug 2 02:32:03 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 22:32:03 -0400 Subject: Jo's OWN Words about Political and Religious Overtones in... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174200 JKR is on record as a communicant in good standing with the Church of Scotland. As far as I know, Presbyterians still count as Christians. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Thu Aug 2 02:38:20 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:38:20 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174201 Betsy wrote: > > > -- Voldemort will be defeated. (What? I'm going out on a limb > > here! You got to give me an easy one.) > > Betsy Hp: > I got this bit right. The funny part was how little Voldemort's > death actually meant. It didn't change the WW at all. > > > > -- Harry will defeat Voldemort. He may have a bit of help, but in > > the end, I'm sure it'll all come down to Harry. > > Betsy Hp: > Oddly enough, it more came down to a super-special wand. So I think > I'll say I got this one wrong. Certainly in spirit this was a miss. Julie: I don't think it was a miss, in spirit or otherwise. Harry beat Voldemort because he was willing to sacrifice himself for others. The wand was just the instrument, again...as it was when Lily was willing to die for Harry. Voldemort didn't get it the first time, and he still doesn't get it 16 years later. Betsy: > > > -- Harry will live. Happily ever after, however Harry (or JKR) > > defines it, with magical abilities intact and all of his surviving > > friends. (Yes, OBHWF for all. :/ ) > > Betsy Hp: > Okay, this one I got prefectly correct. Harry was incredibly happy > and the Weasley family is big and happy as well. > > > > -- Draco Malfoy will play an important role in helping the good > > guys beat Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Oh, and he'll survive. > > Betsy Hp: > Well, Malfoy survived (I doubt he ever really lived though, poor > boy). But his role was the definition of unimportant. I totally > blame HBP, though. Silly me, taking that book seriously. Julie: I was hoping for a little more spine from Draco too, which was probably a product of my own desires more than any canon from the books. Draco never showed a lot of spine when he was in danger, and he never showed any real interest in changing his outlook on Muggles or the WW. So I can accept that DH Draco was a reasonable extension of that character. Betsy: > > -- Snape is, and has been for the course of the books, solidly and > > unwaveringly DDM. Oh, I'm sure there were moments of "You want to > > who? With the what?!?" But that just goes with the territory of > > working with Dumbledore. Snape never considered leaving the old > > guy. > > Betsy Hp: > I'm calling this one wrong. I assumed "man" and all along Snape was > Dumbledore's dog. Of *course* Snape didn't leave Dumbledore. > Dumbledore owned Snape lock, stock and barrel. Mega-depressing, > though quite frankly the Snape of my imagination would have never put > up with Dumbledore. Too principled. And this book is not about > principles. Julie: I disagree. Snape was never Dumbledore's dog. He made a promise because he loved Lily, and he kept it, first for her, and eventually because I think his principles did shift (he was willing to continue with the plan even after he found out that Lily's son was to be sacrificed for the sake of the WW). But he could have left any time and pursued his own agenda (whatever that might be--and I can now see an AU fanfic where Snape kidnaps Harry and locks him away to save him from his fate!). Seriously, I don't see how Dumbledore owned Snape. Betsy: > That Dumbledore himself was so evil and weak was a surprise. I > recall arguing that Dumbledore would *never* use an Unbreakable Vow > or a Horcrux. Young and naive. Julie: I do agree that Dumbledore took a step down from all-powerful all-wise God-like to simply a man who'd made his own critical mistakes and had suffered and eventually learned from them. I did shake me a little that the Dumbledore who was so set on saving Draco's soul seemed to care so little about Snape's. I really expected Dumbledore felt a deeper bond with many of his students, including Snape and the Marauders. But it seems he really didn't. He let Sirius rot in Azkaban because he just assumed Sirius was guilty. He had no extraordinary wisdom or empathy for others beyond that of an old man whose been through many experiences. In short, he was just a man. And in the end that worked okay for me, because all-wise all-loving god-like Dumbledore didn't really fit with so many things that had gone before. Betsy: > > Trends I Suspect Will Play Out: > > (This is more my sense of how the story beats will play out, so > > it's all a bit vague. This stuff will more nibble than anything. > > ) > > Betsy Hp: > Oddly enough, I think it's those nibbles that hurt the most in the > end. I was *way* off in my sense of the story JKR was trying to > tell. As you will see. > > > > -- I suspect the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort > > will be quite private and solitary: think diary!Tom vs. Harry in > > CoS. > > Betsy Hp: > Hahaha! No. Not only was it as public as possible (surely someone in > the crowd had a camera) Harry did his own version of the Evil > Overlord speech. Lucky (or not?) that no one snuck up behind Harry > and beaned him while he was mid-explanation of who had the biggest > wand. Julie: I didn't actually have a problem with this, as Voldemort has said over and over again that Harry is for him. So I wouldn't expect any DEs to interfere. Betsy: > > -- I suspect Harry is a Horcrux, or at least, I think his scar > > might be. > > Betsy Hp: > I ended up right about this. Odd. > > > > -- I still think someone we think is good will turn out to be > > working for Voldemort. No real solid clue on who though. > > Betsy Hp: > Gosh, no! That would have meant Harry being *wrong* about someone > and maybe having to question his judgment or something. When we all > know Harry is practically perfect in every way. (Plus, the > psychological horror of learning someone you thought trustworthy > really isn't would have seriously gotten in the way of the great > McGuffin hunt. Hermione needed time to collect mushroom, gosh darn > it!) Julie: I rather suspected this too. But I put that expectation all on myself (happily knowing I was *far* from alone). There was absolutely nothing in canon that demanded someone in the side of good was working for Voldemort. Hence you had no solid clue on who, and nor did I, though we all entertained a variety of theories! Betsy: > > -- Somehow the four houses of Hogwarts working together will be a > > key to defeating Voldemort (finding the horcruxes maybe?). > > Betsy Hp: > The pain... oh, the pain... Julie: I am with you on this. JKR dropped a lot of hints that the Houses had to unite, that they had to work together to defeat Voldemort. I assumed that included Slytherin, who was after all the only House *out.* So I am a little disappointed it didn't happen. Betsy: > > > -- I'm pretty sure both Hermione and Ron will survive the end of > > the series. > > Betsy Hp: > Got that one right. Yay? > > > > -- If a contemporary of Harry dies, my money is on either Neville > > or Luna. (I lean more towards Neville.) > > Betsy Hp: > And I got that one wrong. Yay. (Wasn't Luna super-duper annoying at > that final feast though? It was like she was suddenly Harry's > grandmother or something. Or was that just me?) Julie: Fred was sort of a contemporary, as well as Colin. But it wasn't one of the six. I'd have to re-read the feast part as I don't recall Luna being particularly annoying. But her father sure was! Betsy: > > -- If Snape actually killed Dumbledore, he'll for sure die. If > > not, he might, *might* live. > > Betsy Hp: > Eep. Again, this was back before I realized the depth of sin > attached to being a Sltherin. Not only does Snape die, not only was > it anticlimactic, but by that point I didn't even care. Seriously, I > think an eye-roll was about my only reaction. (Why did JKR even > *bother* with a Snape character?) Julie: I really wanted Snape to live too. But I knew he was almost certain to die. I do find it odd though that you didn't care about Snape living or dying by the point of his death scene. We hadn't even learned his story yet, and I knew more was coming. I do understand your reaction about it being anticlimactic though. When I finished that chapter I just sat there in stunned disbelief, thinking "That's it? Finally we get Snape, and the first thing he does is die?" I certainly cared though. I was furious! Still, on later reflection it worked for me. Yes, I wish there had been more of living!Snape in DH, but learning about him through his memories was better than not learning about him at all. And even if Snape didn't turn out exactly as I wanted him to be, I still thank JKR profusely for *bothering* with this character. Betsy: > > -- There's a link of some sort between Snape and Lily (fingers > > crossed it's friendship and not romance). I suspect Aunt Petunia > > will give Harry a clue on that. > > Betsy Hp: > Right and sorry for it. Snape's first experience at being someone's > dog. Though again I laugh at the thought that Aunt Petunia might > come into play. (Silly Betsy, Muggles are for laughing at.) I did > gain a massive amount of sympathy for her after seeing Snape's dying > memories. What a horrible little sister. "Tunie"?! Seriously!?! > Petunia should have run away from home. And become a scientist. Any > field. Just to show how hard Muggles beat Wizards. Julie: Again, I don't think Snape was Lily's dog in any way. Even if I expected something a little different, his character did make sense. Whatever my personal vision of Snape, he was never mine to mold ;-) I did feel sorry for Petunia. Really, when you think about it, how would you feel if you find out that your sibling in essence gets to go live at Disneyland every day for the rest of her life, and you DON'T? Ouch. Really, ouch. I'm not sure many sibling relationships could survive that kind of disparity of fortune. (And maybe that's why we never heard from another family where the siblings didn't all end up at Hogwarts--like the Creeveys and the Patils.) > Betsy Hp: > And the answer is: crazy. Absolutely, utterly, mad as a hatter. Julie: I am sorry it was so disappointing for you, Betsy. I didn't get all I wanted--which makes it sound like it was Christmas morning and we didn't get what we asked for in our stockings! --but it was always JKR's story and we were always just interested bystanders. Julie From muellem at bc.edu Thu Aug 2 02:40:34 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:40:34 -0000 Subject: Mr. Weasley, I take my hat off to you. In-Reply-To: <02ce01c7d49b$37a46ad0$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174202 > Shelley: > > Don't you think Ron might be a mirror here for James? > > If you look at Ron and Hermione, they were fighting a lot. Then, in the 7th > year, Ron changes. Instead of Hermione chiding him for having the emotional > range of a teaspoon, we see him actually trying sypathy and compassion. He > does grow up a lot. > > We see James and Lilly not hitting it off either in the earlier memory when > Snape was hung upside down, and yet Harry wonders what transformation took > place that lead his parents to end up married. colebiancardi: hmmmm. interesting comparison. But I would never call Ron a bullying toe-rag or berk. Ever. I think Ron just had issues with Hermione because he didn't know how to express his feelings for her. Much like a lot of teenage boys. But we never see him hexing people for the fun of it or ganging up on someone he doesn't care for. Lily's issues with James was that he and his gang were picking on others and that James was arrogant. Ron never has this problem, what-so-ever. Hermione always seemed to like Ron, once they got over the initial bump in the road in the first book. And vice-versa. Yes, I saw that SHIP sailing in :) They behaved like two normal children who were on the verge of romantic attraction; You know, like when the boy who tormented you in grade school by pulling on your pigtails *actually* was trying to express that he liked you - a lot. I do not view Ron as James and Hermione as Lily. Ron & Hermione were always friends - even when they disagreed. Sure, they may have fell out of favor with one another, but that was resolved quite quickly and all was forgiven(GoF and HBP). And that was se`xual tension and jealousy between the two that caused that falling out. As far as we know, Lily loathed James until his 7th year - his transformation was much greater, as he had to overcome his bullying berky ways. In fact, Lily and Snape were more of a Hermione & Ron in the early years - they both liked each other and were *best friends*. However, Snape couldn't or wouldn't change his evil ways, so he lost Lily. Which then opened the door for James to make his move and he decided Lily *was* worth changing his ways for. colebiancardi (out of the trio, Ron is my favorite. Always has been. It also has helped that the-medium-that-must-not-be-named!Ron is my favorite as well and a better actor than the other two - IMHO) From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Aug 2 02:40:55 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 22:40:55 -0400 Subject: Harry using Crucio Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174203 "Further, how little reaction it illicited either from Harry himself or from McGonagall, who actually called an Unforgivable Curse "gallant", and then followed on with a UC of her own. It would have done the scene wonders for the good guys to display at least a little moral distaste for the actions they felt forced to perform. The lack of any sort of moral discomfiture was probably the most disturbing part of the incident. CJ, Taiwan" Do you honestly think that this was the first time that Carrow had done something like that, with Mc.G. forced to look on helpless to do anything about it? She wouldn't be human if she didn't exault at least a little bit at seeing him struck down and the opportunity to get a little of her own back. There is an old Rabbinical saying: "Do not let the best become the enemy of the good." Many who would jump on any moral lapse by those designated as heroes would remember that. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ckc at rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 2 00:00:23 2007 From: ckc at rochester.rr.com (CK Campbell) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:00:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who else should have been at 9 3/4 at the end of the book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c7d498$1fec8420$6701a8c0@CKC> No: HPFGUIDX 174204 I think I asked this in a previous post, but I don't recall seeing an answer or any discussion among the copious threads coming into my inbox. What is Percy doing at the train station in the epilogue? What is his role in shouting about broom rules? What does that all mean? Thanks, Ckc From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 02:45:23 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 19:45:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's death scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <963093.72794.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174205 K: >What bothers me so much about this series, especially the last book, >is the portrayal of Harry being so dang perfect. Almost every other >character has to have some flaw or fail in some way except for dear >Harry. Because of JKR's overdone-Hero! Harry-coming- to-the-rescue, >usually in front of a crowd, btw, I found Harry slipping down my >'favorite' list with each book. Harry, perfect? The Harry who can tell a fib as well as any kid/teenager in an effort to keep himself out of trouble? The Harry who, like many students, leaves his homework until the last minute and then does a half-*&^ job of it? The Harry who can manipulate people pretty well when he wants to. The Harry who waited until the last minute to work out the clue hidden inside the egg during the TriWizard Tournament? The Harry who bluntly violated Snape's privacy by looking into the pensieve, failed to learn a skill (Occlumency) that all the adults in his life (including those he trusted, i.e., Dumbledore, Black, and Lupin) urged him to learn, and whose failure led to a monumental mistake that in turn led to the death of his godfather? The Harry who used an unknown spell (Sectumsempra) on a fellow student (Draco) that almost resulted in that student bleeding to death and then lied about where he found the spell? The Harry who used the Cruciatus curse? (Those are the examples I can come up with off the top of my head.) In ways large and small, Harry proves over and over again that he is not perfect. He is very much a flawed character. Christy, who wonders if you made that comment only to see how people would react :-) From dgoldens3 at aol.com Thu Aug 2 02:58:17 2007 From: dgoldens3 at aol.com (dgoldens3 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 22:58:17 EDT Subject: Why did Harry have to think his death was real? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174206 Hi, I thought it was interesting when Harry was talking to DD and thought he had died. Very interesting chapter. Dawn From dgoldens3 at aol.com Thu Aug 2 03:00:41 2007 From: dgoldens3 at aol.com (dgoldens3 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:00:41 EDT Subject: Moments Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174207 I like the moment when Harry realizes that Mrs. Weasley was in trouble with DD and then makes his move. It tells you how much Harry thinks of them as his family and I like the moment when Mrs. Weasley gave Harry her brother's watch - a touching moment. Dawn From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Aug 2 03:11:48 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:11:48 -0000 Subject: Snape finding Lily's Letter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174208 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > But the other question > should be, "How did Snape know to look for it?" Then I realized, > Snape had already seen the letter, and so did we. It's mentioned in OoP. Here's the [canon]. > Allie: Talk about the needle in the haystack! If that was JKR dropping a hint, that was her most subtle yet. HBP 518 The exact text reads: ". . . Sirius and Snape both seated at the long kitchen table, glaring in opposite directions. The silence between them was heavy with mutual dislike. A letter lay open on the table in front of Sirius. 'Er,' said Harry to announce his presence." Now that you've (brilliantly!) pointed it out, yes, of course, it must be the same letter. (At the time maybe we thought it was a letter from Dumbledore to Sirius explaining the situation?) Yet more proof, HP fans are smart. :) From trog at wincom.net Thu Aug 2 03:13:07 2007 From: trog at wincom.net (Dennis Grant) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:13:07 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174209 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: > The *only* discussion we get in the books of the sense in which the > curses are unforgivable is the word of an escaped Death Eater that > "the use of any one of them on a fellow human being is enough to > earn a life sentence in Azkaban." (GF, ch. 14). That is not a > moral statement and it says nothing about extenuating circumstances. [... ...] > More to the point, neither Sirius's statement, nor Crouch's, nor > anything ever said in canon contradicts the quite natural reading -- > yours I thought as well as mine -- that the unforgivable curses are > unforgivable *because one person should not treat another that way* > (killing, torture, enslavement). But if that is true then when > circumstances undermine the premise -- when, that is to say, a > homicide is justifiable -- the conclusion about the curses no longer > holds. That's my read too. In peacetime, with a just and competent Ministry in charge, the use of any of the curses results in jail. But in wartime, the gloves come off and the use of the curses is no longer an instant lifetime jail sentence. I imagine that *how* the curses are used though might come into play. There is a real-world example here: there is an experimental weapon being tested and deployed that uses finely-tuned, low-power microwaves to induce the sensation of being burned alive in the target. So far, there does not seem to be any actual harmful long term effects - while you are in the area of effect of the beam, you are in excruciating pain, but once the beam is turned off or aimed elsewhere, you're OK. The intent is a non-lethal mob dispersal weapon for point defense. Is your embassy being stormed? Turn these puppies on and watch people find something else to do in a right hurry. That might seem cruel, but the alternatives are far worse - like dispersing the crowd with machine gun fire, which will kill or cripple anybody struck by it. Even less aggressive methods like fire hoses can still kill or seriously injure. The parallel with crucio should be obvious. Now, strapping somebody to an immovable object and then using the pain gun on them would be a horrible, immoral act - but using the pain gun to disperse a mob is an act of mercy. Similarly, an AK is an instant, painless death. It strikes me that there is sufficient power in Potterverse magic to kill people in any number of horrible ways - "accio liver!" - or any form of transfiguring some vital part into an non functioning bit (not to mention various forms of asphyxiation, burning, electric shock, or poisoning) You don't *need* AK to kill when you can (say) stupify them and then fill their lungs with conjured water. In time of war, the use of AK seems downright humane by comparison with what *could* be done. I think in wartime, the "unforgivable" curses - subject to how they are used - become entirely forgivable, and so it didn't strike me as odd or jarring that the good guys started using them. DG From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Aug 2 03:19:47 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:19:47 -0000 Subject: OBHWF (wasRe: Who else should have been at 9 3/4 at the end of the book? In-Reply-To: <000d01c7d498$1fec8420$6701a8c0@CKC> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174210 "CK Campbell" wrote: > > I think I asked this in a previous post, but I don't recall seeing an answer > or any discussion among the copious threads coming into my inbox. > > What is Percy doing at the train station in the epilogue? What is his role > in shouting about broom rules? What does that all mean? Potioncat: That Percy is sending his child/children to school on the Hogwarts Express before he goes to work. He's just as work-oriented as ever. How many little Weasleys do you think there are? Bill has at least 3. Percy 1? George at least 2. Ron 2. And of course, the 3 Potter- Weasleys. So that makes it 11. Hard to tell how many would already attend Hogwarts. I came up with the numbers based on canon and what JKR said. From va32h at comcast.net Thu Aug 2 03:27:42 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:27:42 -0000 Subject: Snape's death scene In-Reply-To: <963093.72794.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174211 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Christine Maupin wrote: > Harry, perfect? The Harry who can tell a fib as well as any kid/teenager in an effort to keep himself out of trouble? The Harry who, like many students, leaves his homework until the last minute and then does a half-*&^ job of it? The Harry who can manipulate people pretty well when he wants to. The Harry who waited until the last minute to work out the clue hidden inside the egg during the TriWizard Tournament? The Harry who bluntly violated Snape's privacy by looking into the pensieve, failed to learn a skill (Occlumency) that all the adults in his life (including those he trusted, i.e., Dumbledore, Black, and Lupin) urged him to learn, and whose failure led to a monumental mistake that in turn led to the death of his godfather? The Harry who used an unknown spell (Sectumsempra) on a fellow student (Draco) that almost resulted in that student bleeding to death and then lied about where he found the spell? The Harry who used the Cruciatus curse? (Those are the > examples I can come up with off the top of my head.) > > In ways large and small, Harry proves over and over again that he is not perfect. He is very much a flawed character. va32h: All your examples, except for the use of Crucio, come from previous books. And in Deathly Hallows, when Harry does use Crucio, it's treated as some sort of breakthrough for his character - a triumph that he can finally perform it successfully. I would definitely agree that in books 1-6 and even the first portion of DH, Harry is a flawed, human, well-developed character. During Dobby's burial however, Harry develops some sort of weird Sherlock Holmes/Jessica Fletcher/Det. Goren thing - where he needs one nugget of information to extrapolate entire (inevitably correct) scenarios. I can understand the death of Dobby, torture of Hermione, and the entire Malfoy Manor experience acting as catalyst - making Harry decide to stop feeling sorry for himself and brooding on Dumbledore's misspent youth. But it does much more than that - for the rest of the book, Harry is...well he's Indiana Jones! Daring, clever plans, made up on the fly, impossible to injure, always getting away from the bad guy at just the right moment - Harry is a cinema hero. And I have to say, when Harry finished exploring Snape's memories in the pensieve? And he's laying on the floor? I had this instant image of Harry saying "Death...why'd it have to be death?" I'm just not sure I believe post-Dobby's death Harry as the natural result of Harry's development up to that point. va32h From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 03:47:56 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:47:56 -0000 Subject: Harry perfect after Dobby's funeral WAS: Re: Snape's death scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174212 > va32h: >> I would definitely agree that in books 1-6 and even the first portion > of DH, Harry is a flawed, human, well-developed character. During > Dobby's burial however, Harry develops some sort of weird Sherlock > Holmes/Jessica Fletcher/Det. Goren thing - where he needs one nugget > of information to extrapolate entire (inevitably correct) scenarios. >> I'm just not sure I believe post-Dobby's death Harry as the natural > result of Harry's development up to that point. Alla: Maybe that's the point? I mean we agree, right that for six and a half books Harry is well developed, flawed, imperfect, etc. It is not like he is Indiana Jones during 7 books, no? It is only one third of the book and it is the last book, he does need to get much better and become someone who is able to finish the quest and sacrifice himself. What I am trying to say is that it makes sense to me that during last part of last book, Harry is much better at serving puzzles and stuff, because this IS the last book? I still do not see him as perfect in general here, IMO. Like if we go to Luke from Star Wars, he does do some amasing stuff in the Return of Jedi, no? But he had not even finished his training yet and he becomes Jedi because of what he did, yes? Not just what he learned and Harry sort of matures in action, no? JMO, Alla From sk8maven at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 03:27:59 2007 From: sk8maven at yahoo.com (sk8maven) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:27:59 -0000 Subject: Slytherins: selfish, not evil + Ariana raped? In-Reply-To: <16440236.1185812019660.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174213 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > It was more than a mental block; it was an extremely deep > psychological wounding. Now, my opinion may be colored having spent > a number of years working with abused children, but I can tell you > that a simple beating, even a bad one, would not have this effect > unless there was brain injury involved (with most of the children > with whom I worked, brain injury WAS involved). We don't get any details. Maybe the little brutes knocked her against a wall or into a rock (or threw rocks AT her) or something which would cause concussion at the very least and possibly a fractured skull. That could certainly cause brain damage with all the attendant consequences. Bart: > However, one factor I had not considered until now was that this > took place in the mid-19th century Wizards may be longer-lived than Muggles, but not THAT much longer-lived. Work it backward from Dumbledore's defeat of Grindelwald and capture of his wand - in 1945, as we are explicitly told more than once. He delayed that meeting for "five years" after Ariana died. She died quite young (16? 20? Check the details). There's simply no way the attack that disastrously damaged her can be pushed back past about the 1920's. The Slytherin thing is one of my dissatisfactions with DH as well. Not even "one or two" Slytherin banners looking "forlorn and out of place" among the Gryffindor and Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw ones in the Room of Requirement? None of the other Slytherins looked at Pansy with shock and/or disgust when she suggested handing Harry over? The only detail we get about the Slytherin exodus is Blaise Zabini nearly trampling other kids in his rush to get out of there? NO subtle little touches to add moral complexity in a few words? I think the story got away from JKR somewhere around Book 4, and she had to stuff it all back in Book 7...and there was so much to stuff by that time that a lot of detail simply got lost. It's not the best book of the series, even though it ought to have been and needed to be. Maven From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 02:57:27 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:57:27 -0000 Subject: Victory for TEWWW EWWW?? Snape the hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174214 > leslie41 > > No, but IMHO they have everything to do with how seriously we are > supposed to take your opinion on Snape (it seems you have decided > to stop calling him Snapey-poo, thankfully). In other words, it > has to do with how good you are as a judge of character. Once again how spectacularly, completely, terribly, totally, supremely out of order! As we have said, the faults of Snape and those of Lupin have nothing to do with each other. Nor do the faults of any characters in the series, unless direct causal links can be drawn. Lucius' sins certainly have something to do with Draco's, but Dumbledore's nothing to do with Harry's, Hermione's nothing to do with Ron's, and Lupin's nothing to do with Snape's. Unless of course you are bringing up the prank? I suppose some causal links could be drawn there, but then again, Sevviekin's personality was well formed before the mean ole Gryffindors hurted his feelings! > leslie41 > I admire Severus Snape, but I am not some happy-crappy "How > could Lily desert him? Oh, he's just so lovable and wonderful" > sort of Snaper. As I have said before, he's hardly likeable. > And with regard to Lily he gets exactly what he deserves. > > As for Remus, I like him an awful lot. And I reiterate, what does anyone's opinion of Lupin have to do with one's opinion of Snape? But, even given what you say here, I do find your complete, unremitting, and completely rock-bound (I-do like that phrase) and obstinant defense of Sevviekins and his abusive behavior completely inconsistent with your professed positions. > > Lupinlore, who really IS getting to like JKR more with each > > passing revelation > > leslie41 > And what do you think of her "revelation" that though deeply > flawed, she believes Snape is a hero? That Lily might have loved > him? Hmmm. Well, that presuposes that authorial intent is important, after all. But, JKR said that Lily actually DID love Snape, as a friend. She said Lily might have loved him romantically if he had not been so enamored of the Dark Arts and his Death Eater friends. But, as has been gone into in another thread, Snape's personality flaws are deeply entangled with his love of the Dark Arts and his attraction to the Death Eaters. A Sevviekins that Lily might have loved in a romantic way would be a Sevviekins of a very different personality. Lupinlore, who has enjoyed the full transcripts of JKR's recent chat's and interviews, particularly where she admits that Snape had absolutely no excuse for his abuse of Harry From marycosola at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 04:12:50 2007 From: marycosola at yahoo.com (seriousschwartz) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 04:12:50 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio -- my two cents In-Reply-To: <986300.13101.qm@web55001.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174215 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Christine Maupin wrote: > > I have a general remark about Harry using Crucio, not one directed at any one comment. > > >he had just learned from Neville how cruelly the Carrows had treated the students (students who were Harry's friends -- friends who had tried to carry on traditions he started, friends who in doing so displayed not only courage but loyalty to Harry and suffered because of it), he remembers the Carrows from the night Dumbledore died and how blood thirsty they were, Voldemort is on his way so the "clock is ticking," he still has to find the diadem, and his very presence at Hogwarts is about to begin a battle that will decide everything. Even under normal circumstances I think that Harry would have considered a cruel Death Eater (dare I use the word scum) spitting in the face of his regal teacher the biggest insult possible -- and therefore worse than any words or curse Carrow could have used instead. So, given the overall situation, Harry snapped for a moment... > seriousschwartz: Thanks for your perspective. I agree with you and have been weighing whether to add my thoughts to this thread. I want to point out that Harry was under the invisibility cloak during McGonagall/Amycus exchange. She was completely shocked to see him there at all. She was processing Harry's presence in the Ravenclaw common room of all places when he told her Voldemort was on his way. Also, he wasn't a student anymore, so she couldn't exactly give him detention. I need to add that I am one of those people who will take abuse from people and shrug it off, but if someone I love is hurt or disrespected, I want to rip the offender's face off and shove it down his throat. I am much more likely to become extremely aggressive in defense of someone else, but not myself. So, I guess I'm saying that I completely understood Harry's motivation there. Also, I understand that Rowling can't address every single action in the book. We have seen that Harry struggles with his dark side. I was surprised at first that he used it, but not disappointed. On the heels of all that he had been though to that point, I can see him saying to himself, "Enough is enough!" From kristincrocker at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 2 04:34:57 2007 From: kristincrocker at sbcglobal.net (k_crocker1972) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 04:34:57 -0000 Subject: Moments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174216 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: > > a list of some of my 'best-of' moments. Moments > whose categories are defined entirely based on how I could fit the > moment into a category. > > Feel free to offer your own nominees, or to create new categories. > But I thought I'd try to only mention things I thought were done well > ( [KC] I'm going to go out on limb here and offer a couple of new categories: BEST MOMENT FOR CHARACTER CONSISTENCY When the Avada Kedavra curse rebounds, killing LV. From the very beginning, Harry has been about defense, disarming, and protection. I love that he didn't actually kill Voldemort; LV's own hatred did him in. BEST CHEESY POP CULTURE MOMENT Tie between Molly & BS (shades of Sigourney Weaver in Aliens) and Harry & Ron over the locket ("I love her like a sister" - Star Wars anyone?), but both scenes great for lightening a tense moment. BEST TEAR JERKER Dobby's epitaph. 'Nuff said. BEST TRIBUTE TO THE FALLEN Harry's son - Albus Severus. This is just a small sample - for individual moments, I thought this book shone with examples of excellence. Kristin From CaroJ11 at windstream.net Thu Aug 2 04:41:46 2007 From: CaroJ11 at windstream.net (CaroJ11) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 04:41:46 -0000 Subject: Narcissa's love Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174217 Hello to all. This is my first post! I think we should all pause, and mentally thank Narcissa for saving Harry's life. It was she who lied to Voldemort, saying Harry was indeed dead. Curious, isn't it? Once again, Voldemort is defeated my a mother caring more for her child than for his service. --CaroJ From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Aug 2 04:57:54 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 04:57:54 -0000 Subject: Harry perfect after Dobby's funeral WAS: Re: Snape's death scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174218 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > va32h: > > >> I would definitely agree that in books 1-6 and even the first > portion > > of DH, Harry is a flawed, human, well-developed character. During > > Dobby's burial however, Harry develops some sort of weird Sherlock > > Holmes/Jessica Fletcher/Det. Goren thing - where he needs one > nugget > > of information to extrapolate entire (inevitably correct) scenarios. > > >> I'm just not sure I believe post-Dobby's death Harry as the natural > > result of Harry's development up to that point. > > > Alla: > > Maybe that's the point? I mean we agree, right that for six and a half > books Harry is well developed, flawed, imperfect, etc. > > It is not like he is Indiana Jones during 7 books, no? It is only one > third of the book and it is the last book, he does need to get much > better and become someone who is able to finish the quest and > sacrifice himself. > > What I am trying to say is that it makes sense to me that during last > part of last book, Harry is much better at serving puzzles and stuff, > because this IS the last book? > > I still do not see him as perfect in general here, IMO. > > Like if we go to Luke from Star Wars, he does do some amasing stuff in > the Return of Jedi, no? > > But he had not even finished his training yet and he becomes Jedi > because of what he did, yes? Not just what he learned and Harry sort > of matures in action, no? > > JMO, > > Alla > Valky: I don't mind adding, I can't see how puzzle solving could *not* be the natural result of Harry's intellectual development. Besides biting off so much strife he can barely chew each book, putting together clues and theory is the one major activity that he has engaged in. By mid HBP he's getting pretty good at it too and we see that because Dumbledore takes his one last chance to test Harry on this skill and Harry comes off exceptional; he can translate cryptic instructions from Dumbledore instantly, demonstrated again in DH by his quietly instant recognition of the snitch secret in DD's will, and with a little help from Hermione he riddles out the reason for the Gryffindor sword. In HBP Harry pieces together tidbits from DD regarding the Horcruxes which leads him to instinctively recognise the ring as an object indicative of a set. From the first book and onward we get glimpses of Harry coming to the right and clever conclusion through piecing together clues: PS - Hagrid gave away the secret to passing Fluffy COS - Moaning Myrtle was Riddle's first victim GOF - The sphinxes riddle and by HBP it has become fairly obvious that Harry is getting good at reading between the lines. He needs only to extend this ability that bit further before he is *very* good at it, so it's not a sudden thing at all that he finds himself in DH suddenly able to really take advantage of this skill. he has always had it. IMHO Valky From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 04:52:36 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 04:52:36 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174219 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Montavilla47 wrote: > > The problem is not what JKR says, but what comes through in the > books. The message regarding Slytherins in DH is that they > Carol responds: > I think we need to consider why that might be the case. Montavilla47 (in reply): Carol, I agree with you that the motivations and actions of the Slytherins make sense, given their position as children of Death Eaters (although JKR has said that they are not all children of Death Eaters), that they their esteemed teacher is the Headmaster of the School, and that they were never invited into the D.A. in the first place. I wasn't pointing out those things in order to in order to say that the Slytherins should have done differently than they did. I pointed them out to show that these actions are indications to the reader that the Slytherins don't belong on the side of the good guys. That moment when the three other houses rise up to defend Harry is thrilling. But it only works if the Pansy's threat is meaningful. Yes, I think JKR does give the Malfoys points for not fighting on Voldemort's side. Then she cuts those points in half by making it all about finding their son. So, what we are left with is compassion for them because they are a family that loves each other, tempered with contempt because they still never really did anything that wasn't based on their most immediate and selfish needs. I think she also gives Draco points for not betraying Hermione and Harry when they are in Malfoy Manor--not that it helps them one little bit. But she cuts those points in half--at least--when she has Draco coming back with Crabbe and Goyle to capture Harry for Voldemort--the very thing that Pansy Parkinson suggested, and the reason that McGonagall cast the Slytherin students into exile. Of course, being primed by two years of analyzing Snape's moves, I can read into Draco's actions that he's trying to help Harry by keeping Crabbe from killing him outright. But it's very ambiguous, and I can't help feeling that I'm fanwanking that interpretation. The message I draw from all this is that the Malfoys, and the rest of the Slytherins, contemptible as they are, aren't quite evil enough to bother to kill. > Montevilla: > > It wouldn't have taken much to show Slytherin "playing a part." For > example, we could have had a Slytherin Flag in the RoR. > > Carol: > Can someone point me to the page where this description occurs? I > could be mistaken as I haven't yet memorized the book , but, IIRC, > the RoR is replicating the DA headquarters, and no Slytherins were > admitted to the DA, so of course it would contain no Slytherin flag. Montavilla47: I've only read this part twice, but my understanding was that the RoR was acting as a refuge for any student fighting against the horror that was the Carrows, the Ministry, and the Death Eaters. That they are fighting more than the Headmaster is shown by Neville's tale of Luna being dragged off the train to be used as hostage and the Death Eaters going after Neville's grandmother. If there *are* non-Death Eating Slytherin children and their parents are being targeted, then shouldn't at least one or two of them be helping out this D.A., even if they weren't in it the first time? Don't they have a stake in the outcome of this conflict? If they aren't--if they don't, then the implication is that they are all on Voldemort's side. > Carol: >As for Theo, at least he didn't become a > Death Eater like his father as Draco did or fight to avenge his arrest > (and death?). I'd say there's hope for his redemption or rather his > future since he doesn't appear to have committed any crimes. Montavilla47: I agree. There's hope for Theo. I think there's hope for all of them. But, at the end of the battle, all it is is hope. A glimmer. A *chance* that not all Slytherins are Voldemort's lackies. > Carol: > But to generalize from Slytherins sitting out the battle to Slytherin > = evil seems a big jump to me. Sure, the students from other Houses > turn on Pansy Parkinson, but unlike her, they see Harry (rightly) as > the WW's only hope. We can't expect Pansy, who has always seen Harry > as someone to laugh at, along with his "Mudblood" and "blood traitor" > friends, to suddenly change her view of Harry. And we didn't see the > rest of the Slytherin table cheering her or melodramatically crying > "Seize him!" Montavilla47: I'm not saying that Slytherins are evil. I'm saying that we are not given any--even the smallest, meanest crumb of a clue that they aren't. No, we don't see her table cheer her on. We don't see the Slytherins react at all. So, we can interpret that to mean that maybe they aren't in agreement with her--but if any were in disagreement, the time to say so would be immediately afterwards, when 3/4s of the school have voted. That no one does so is a lost opportunity to suggest a glimmer of non-Voldemortness in the Slytherins. Carol: > This scene occurs *130 pages* before Harry publicly vindicates Snape, > who has been killed three hours before according to LV. Until Harry > makes that speech, the students from the other three Houses thought > their erstwhile headmaster was a murderer and a Death Eater and that > his House was the Death Eater's House. Harry's speech is undoubtedly a > wake-up call for students, staff members, and ordinary citizens who > three hours before thought there was no such thing as a good Slytherin. Montavilla47: Exactly. That's the wake-up call for everyone. I believe that's why JKR keeps out any hint that the Slytherin students harbor anything but support for Voldemort and his evil ways. To give us a "good" Slytherin before that moment would take away from the shock of learning that Snape was. It makes that moment more effective. It makes Narcissa's moment more effective. But it does so at the cost of tying up the set-up for House Unity. It mitigates the idea of Slytherin having intrinsic value to the community. Which is something I seem to remember JKR saying years ago when asked about Slytherin. That they were nasty people, but you can't just get rid of people because they're nasty, can you? I hate how bitter this all sounds, because I don't really feel bitter. Maybe I invested too much in characters like Draco. Maybe I invested too much in the idea that, because the Hat said the Houses needed to unite, that there was something intrinsically valuable and necessary in Slytherin House. That the battle couldn't be fought without all the Houses. But that's what JKR does, doesn't she? She draws these characters that we fall in love with, think about, dream about. They're so vivid that they seem real. Then, she turns them on us--killing off minor characters and breaking our hearts. Montavilla47 From bill at griffeth.name Thu Aug 2 04:53:54 2007 From: bill at griffeth.name (wfgriffeth) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 04:53:54 -0000 Subject: Whose Death Was The Saddest - book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174220 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Michelle Wilkinson" wrote: > I agree, Bill. I love listening to Jim Dale read the Potter books. > He does a wonderful job of getting across the emotion of JKR's > writing. > The saddest death for me was Dobby until we saw Snape's dying > memories. I listened to that part while driving home tonight > and had to pull over to find a tissue to wipe my eyes so I could > see the road. The saddest part of Snape's tale for me was not his death but his giving up Lily's friendship. Snape is certainly a tragic figure, the more so because his feelings for Lily Evans were not strong enough to cause him to abandon the Dark Arts. Snape's was the worst kind of careerism, since he sacrificed love, or at least friendship, for it. The rift between Snape and Lily developed before Lily and James became a couple. As Dumbledore told Harry, it's our choices that are determinative. Who knows what may have happened if Snape had chosen Lily over the Dark Arts? After Snape had lived with bitter disappointment and remorse for years because of his choice, Harry arrived at Hogwarts. Snape only saw James in Harry. Dumbledore told him that Harry was more like Lily than James. Snape, however, was not able to see Lily in Harry until the end of his life, when he told Harry to look at him. By the time of his death, Snape was a bitter, if courageous, man who was doing his best to make up for the consequences of his earlier choice. By contrast, when Dobby died, he was totally innocent and had just courageously rescued Harry and the others by returning to the house in which he had been enslaved. Dobby did not deserve to die. Snape, to some extent, did, since his choices had led him to reject Lily and assist Voldemort. BillG From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 07:01:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 07:01:20 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174221 Beatrice wrote: > I'm being wrongly accused of constructing "A READING" of the text here or perhaps more accurately "a re-reading" or re-working. I'm not trying to do either. All I have tried to do is suggest that the novel has a limited narration and that it is wrong to assume that Harry's perspective and JKR's perspective are exactly alike. While they certainly may be linked together only JKR can tell us where one begins and one ends. Carol responds: Put another way, the third-person-limited narrator is not the voice of the author, who knows how the story will work out, but a creation of the author who describes the sensations, thoughts, perceptions, and interpretations of the pov-character, in this case, Harry. (Fans have called this device "the Harry filter.") Like human beings in RL, a character is limited by his surroundings. Harry and his companions are isolated in the middle of the book as they have never been before. Almost their only contact with events outside their microcosm is Harry's scar. But the problem is not only isolation, it's misperception, complicated by the few outside contacts whose information is as limited as their own. Take Snape, for example. Only one living person, Snape, knows what really happened on the tower or where Snape's loyalties lie, and he's under cover as a DE. Both the DEs, who have been given the story that it was done on Voldy's orders, and the Order members and their friends, who have been given Harry's version. Elsewhere in the WW, the Daily Prophet and Rita Skeeter are suggesting other versions of the story. Harry is suddenly Undesirable Number One (a plot development I certainly didn't foresee!) and the truth is up for grabs. Until Harry receives Snape's memories, he is trapped by a false perception that seems to be absolute and irrefutable, so much so that he (and his friends both in the tent and at school) are oblivious to clues that they see with their eyes or hear with their ears but don't process with their minds. A parallel process is occurring with Dumbledore. Harry has the wise and benevolent Dumbledore he thought he knew; the seemingly capricious Dumbledore who willed him and his friends a Snitch, a deluminator; the saintly Dumbledore of Elphias Doge's epitaph; and the dark, mysterious Dumbledore of Rita Skeeter's biography, seemingly confirmed by the youthful letter to Grindelwald. For all these reasons and others (such as wearing a Horcrux around your neck--what were they thinking?), Harry's perception, and therefore the narrator's, is more than usually clouded in this book. He has to work his way through the clues, choose between Hallows and Horcruxes, and arrive on his own at an assessment of Dumbledore that the reader might agree with. With Snape, in contrast, he has an epiphany, presented in nearly objective terms as a Pensieve memory. His changed perception of Snape is announced to Voldemort and many other listeners and is confirmed by the epilogue. His encounter with Dead!Dumbledore isn't really an epiphany so much as the usual Dumbledorean exposition, but the return to a benevolent Dumbledore in DD's final scene suggests that Harry and the reader are seeing the "real" Dumbdledore at last. The name Albus Severus sums up Harry's final judgment on both characters, and even if it weren't for the chats and interviews, we could be sure that it's the author's final judgment as well. Finally, both Harry and the narrator can see clearly, sharing the author's view. (Which is not to say that authorial intention is the basis by which we should judge a work, only that the author's intentions are clearly reflected in this small but significant incident in the epilogue.) With regard to Slytherin, Harry's perception is equally unclear for most of the seven-book series. From the first book, it has been depicted as Voldemort's House, the House from which nearly all the DEs came. But there are hints that this statement isn't true. Not all Slytherins are Death Eaters. Andromeda Tonks married a Muggleborn; Snape and Regulus are heroes; Slughorn shows his spine in the final battle; Narcissa lies to the Dark Lord for love of her son; the Slytherin kids may sit out the battle but they don't join the DEs. These events, and particularly Snape's contribution, change Harry's perception of Slytherin House. There's all the difference in the world between sitting under the Sorting Hat thinking "Not Slytherin! Not Slytherin!" and telling your son that it's okay to be sorted into that House and the bravest man you ever knew was a Slytherin. The epilogue, IOW, reflects, at last, the author's view of her characters and their fictional world, which evidently coincides with that of her protagonist and the no-longer unreliable (but still limited) third-person narrator. Harry's myopia is now only literal, not figurative. Carol, agreeing that JKR's perspective and Harry's perspective are not the same, at least not until he achieves (JKR's version of) wisdom or maturity at the end of the book From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Thu Aug 2 08:34:46 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 04:34:46 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's kid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174222 Alla wrote "I mean, did she have to name Draco's kid Scorpius unless to designate him as next villain?" Mellanie: Maybe he was born in November... Sandy: Or October. I am a Scorpio, born in October. I actually love the name, and if I ever have to create a new screen name it will be Scorpius. Sandy ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 2 08:41:15 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:41:15 -0000 Subject: Who else should have been at 9 3/4 at the end of the book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174223 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Mellanie Crowther wrote: Mellanie > I'm new here, but I would have liked to have seen George, and I'm intrigued by something I read where JKR suggested that Luna and Neville could have ended up together. I'm also with those who wanted to see Dudley there, and my favorite HP movie hottie, Oliver Wood. Geoff: Thinking about the various responses to this question, I would like to offer a couple of comments. In the brief and minimalist epilogue which JKR has used to replace her original ideas and which tells us hardly anything, we do not know who might be there because it's not germane to the story. We know from each reference to the Express in the books that the platform at Kings Cross is always crowded. So? Let me give a parallel example. At this time of year, the Sunday morning service at my church is full - maybe 180-200 people because in addition to our own folk, we get a lot of holidaymakers in the area. I come home and my wife might say to me, "I didn't see Y and Z this morning. I wonder if they're away?" My reply might be "No. I spoke to Y after the service." There could easily be lots of folk we know there but who just don't feature in the meetings or conversations. Some people suggested Hagrid might be there. However, don't forget this is /not/ the first time the Potters have been there for the Hogwarts Express. James is already a pupil at the school... It's just a "normal" departure if such a thing exists around Harry. :-) From sk8maven at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 05:29:51 2007 From: sk8maven at yahoo.com (sk8maven) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:29:51 -0000 Subject: Houses / Sorting "too soon" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174224 Has anyone considered the possibility that Dumbledore's comment refers to himself as well as to Snape? That is, not only is Snape showing a level of courage more appropriate to a Gryffindor - Dumbledore is tempted by the lure of power and is showing the kind of devious manipulativeness associated with Slytherin. I wonder if Snape got that point, or if he was so gobsmacked by a "backhanded compliment" that he didn't think it all the way through. Maven From dwalker696 at aol.com Thu Aug 2 05:52:56 2007 From: dwalker696 at aol.com (dwalker696) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:52:56 -0000 Subject: 'crushing the magic out of him' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174225 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "barkingiguana" wrote: ... But the murder of an ally so that an > already delivered magic item would accept the murderer as its true > owner was not new to me. Does anyone else here recall having seen > that plot device before? > Donna thinks of another reply: Um, I just thought of another possible example. It doesn't follow the exact rules of the device you are speaking of, and again, I wish it came from a more prestigous literary source....remember the "Highlander" films that were made into a TV series? When any immortal chopped off another immortal's head, they gained all their victim's knowledge, power, experience, etc. Incidently, I always thought that the soundtrack Queen created for that movie could easily be used as the soundtrack for the last HP movie ;0) Donna From briandav at melbpc.org.au Thu Aug 2 09:57:27 2007 From: briandav at melbpc.org.au (Brian Richard Davis) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:57:27 +1000 Subject: DH: How did Luna recognize Harry at the wedding? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070802195420.020a67b8@melbpc.org.au> No: HPFGUIDX 174226 > Blazius1 > In Fleur and Bill's wedding, Luna is able to see through Harry's > polyjuice disguise. How? On page 117 of the UK edition it says: He led a party of warlocks into the marquee as Luna rushed up. "Hello, Harry!" she said. "Er - my name's Barny," said Harry, flummoxed. "Oh, have you changed that too?" she asked brightly. "How did you know -?" "Oh, just your expression," she said. Brian From abryan at bordgrng.bham.sch.uk Thu Aug 2 10:03:01 2007 From: abryan at bordgrng.bham.sch.uk (Andrew) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:03:01 -0000 Subject: 2017 Hogwarts Intake Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174227 Christine Maupin wrote snip>the epilogue took place on September 1 (the day students traditionally board the Hogwarts Express for school), 2017 Message-ID: <758999.8888.qm@web50402.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174228 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Michelle Wilkinson" wrote: > The saddest death for me was Dobby until we saw Snape's dying > memories. I listened to that part while driving home tonight > and had to pull over to find a tissue to wipe my eyes so I > could see the road. The saddest death to me was Fred's death. I was an only child so I don't know what having a brother feels like. But in the books even though all the brothers loved each other it was obvious how close Fred and George were to each other. The fact that they were twins even made them closer. The thought of George having to go on without Fred was very sad to me. Dave From trog at wincom.net Thu Aug 2 11:40:59 2007 From: trog at wincom.net (Dennis Grant) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:40:59 -0000 Subject: Victory for TEWWW EWWW?? Snape the hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174229 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > Lupinlore, who has enjoyed the full transcripts of JKR's recent > chat's and interviews, particularly where she admits that Snape had > absolutely no excuse for his abuse of Harry Except, of course, being human. Let's recap: 1. Snape has loved Lily since childhood - even before either of them attended Hogwarts. And its that particularly intense, unrequited, secret love that can come out of the tumult of adolescence. 2. Every time he finally tries to act on it, to finally come clean and reveal how he really feels, it goes horribly, horribly wrong. Instead of the long dreamed for union, each attempt pushes her a little farther away. 3. Then, somehow, she winds up involved not with the long-suffering, ever-loyal Snape, her childhood friend and confidant, but with the ringleader of the group of bullies who have been tormenting you since literally the first day of school - to the point where she marries him and has his child. 4. On top of that, something he does "at work" to get in better with the boss endangers her. He seeks help, but too late - she is killed as a direct result of his own actions. 5. Overcome with remorse, he embarks on the profession of the double agent, completely changing his life, but keeping the fact of his redemption *secret*. To all external appearances, he's the same old Snape, the bad guy. Nobody knows the truth except Dumbledore, and every day he has to put up with the snide comments, the sidelong glances, the tacit respect covering for the internal disapproval. 6. And then one day the kid shows up, and not only does he have his mother's eyes, he has his father's outward appearance and some degree of his mannerisms and attitude (although Snape does a lot of projecting here - Harry isn't quite the snot that young James was) Just *looking* at him throws Snape's past misdeeds back in his face; a constant reminder of the central tragedy of his live. Harry - without realizing it, and unintentionally - provokes Snape beyond all human endurance. No wonder he's a bit snippy! Snape's path to redemption is a path of extreme loneliness, isolation, and pain, but he stays the course right up to the end and pays the ultimate price. It can, I think, be forgiven if some of that pain leaked out along the way. DG From trog at wincom.net Thu Aug 2 11:57:34 2007 From: trog at wincom.net (Dennis Grant) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:57:34 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174230 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > If there *are* non-Death Eating Slytherin children and their parents > are being targeted, then shouldn't at least one or two of them be > helping out this D.A., even if they weren't in it the first time? > Don't they have a stake in the outcome of this conflict? > > If they aren't--if they don't, then the implication is that they are > all on Voldemort's side. Or perhaps they're just keeping their heads down. The Headmaster and the two most influential teachers are clearly aligned with Voldy. Voldy's influence in the outside world is growing daily. And those crazy Griffendors etc who try to resist are beaten down most cruelly. And Snape and the two nasty pieces of work are *teachers*, the legal authorities of the school! The D.A. are outlaws, breaking the rules! They *deserve* punishment! A non-aligned Slytherin could certainly see which way the wind was blowing, and choose to keep his head down, even if he had no ties to the Death Eaters himself. And when Pansy suggests handing over Harry to Voldy - is that evil (I support Voldy and want to do what he wants) or simple pragmaticism? (This nutcase is going to attack the school and kill a whole bunch of people unless we turn over this long time troublemaker and outlaw to him - so let's give him what he wants and save everybody else) DG From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 12:02:43 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:02:43 -0000 Subject: Victory for TEWWW EWWW?? Snape the hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174231 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Grant" wrote: > Harry - without realizing it, and unintentionally - provokes Snape > beyond all human endurance. No wonder he's a bit snippy! > > Snape's path to redemption is a path of extreme loneliness, isolation, > and pain, but he stays the course right up to the end and pays the > ultimate price. It can, I think, be forgiven if some of that pain > leaked out along the way. Alla: Yes, indeed, how dare Harry. I mean, he **looks** like James, so how can Snape NOT be snippy at him? ( I usually use much stronger objectives than snippy, but I will go with snippy for the purpose of this post). I understand that you said "unintentionally", but I nevertheless take an exception to the phrase "provokes Snape beyond human endurance". Harry IMO does no such a thing. Harry does not know Snape. Harry does not know that **Snape** contributed to the greatest tragedy of his life - being marked and growing up an orphan. IMO Snape **chooses** to be provoked by how innocent kid looks and I say - shame on Snape. Harry wants to study potions, Snape seems intend to hate him from the moment Harry shows up. From their very first lesson IMO. There is no way Snape can figure out the **attitudes** of eleven year old, whom he never met before IMO. And it is a very sympathetic phrasing of course "some of that pain leaks along the way". I will phrase it differently - Snape hates the boy, whose mother he loved and whose mother and father he contributed to untimely demise. Can it be forgiven? Sure it can be. Harry did. But that to me makes Harry even more Christ like figure, since I wiew what Snape did in much harsher terms than "some pain leaks along the way". JMO, Alla From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Thu Aug 2 12:18:45 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 08:18:45 -0400 Subject: HP fans are so smart!!! + Message-ID: <006701c7d4ff$4643dcb0$88c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 174232 Allie said: "- the last horcrux is the tiara that Harry placed on top of the bust in the Room of Requirement when he was hiding his potions book there, it belonged to Rowena Ravenclaw (HOW anybody figured that one out is beyond me)" I knew it the minute I saw it in HBP. I can't tell you why, anymore than I can tell you why I KNEW the silver doe was Snape's patronus...other than that it didn't talk, and at that point in the story, every other patronus that came to them had talked. I certainly had no inkling that Lily's patronus had ever been a doe. I also knew the locket was one, as soon as it was introduced in HBP, the problem would be finding it again as they were trashing all that stuff in OotP. CathyD TrentonON [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Thu Aug 2 12:19:43 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 08:19:43 -0400 Subject: Snape finding Lily's Letter Message-ID: <006b01c7d4ff$687f7140$88c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 174233 Potioncat said: <> CathyD: Oh, you have a different book than I have. Snape never even looked at the letter in the Canadian edition, nor show any recognition...and there certainly was not that particular conversation. Besides which fact, there is still the missing link...of HOW the letter got there. As I have said before, there is no way it could come to be in that house as Sirius left the house when he was 16, to return when he was 35-36 once it was made HQ of the OotP. The letter would have been sent, initially, to his old residence...the one he purchased with the money from Uncle A. The point of my concern is how it ever came to be at 12 GP in the first place. Allie said:<> And he didn't show it to Harry, the kid dying to know more about his parents, because??? CathyD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 13:01:33 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:01:33 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174234 > >>Betsy Hp: > > -- Harry will defeat Voldemort. He may have a bit of help, but > > in the end, I'm sure it'll all come down to Harry. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Oddly enough, it more came down to a super-special wand. So I > > think I'll say I got this one wrong. Certainly in spirit this > > was a miss. > >>Julie: > I don't think it was a miss, in spirit or otherwise. Harry > beat Voldemort because he was willing to sacrifice himself > for others. The wand was just the instrument, again...as it > was when Lily was willing to die for Harry. Voldemort didn't > get it the first time, and he still doesn't get it 16 years > later. Betsy Hp: I'll admit I still don't get it. Especially since we learn James stood in front of Voldemort without a wand to buy his family escaping time. But, you know, by gones. More to the point, while Harry's willingness to "sacrifice" himself (though I still get a wiff of suicide in there) got rid of one of the horcruxes, which was great, that final confrontation was all about who had the Elder Wand. Which didn't rely on anything special about Harry at all. It was literally luck that lead to Harry being the rightful owner. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Well, Malfoy survived (I doubt he ever really lived though, poor > > boy). But his role was the definition of unimportant. I totally > > blame HBP, though. Silly me, taking that book seriously. > Julie: > I was hoping for a little more spine from Draco too, which > was probably a product of my own desires more than any > canon from the books. Draco never showed a lot of spine > when he was in danger, and he never showed any real interest > in changing his outlook on Muggles or the WW. So I can > accept that DH Draco was a reasonable extension of that > character. Betsy Hp: If you totally ignore HBP. Draco (as he's done in past books) showed a great determination to put up with a lot of personal pain and stress to do something he thought worth doing. In this case, fixing the cabinet to save his family. He also went a bit gobsmacked when Dumbledore (while dying no less) told him not to use the word "mudblood". Which seemed to indicate something. As did Draco's not standing with the Death Eaters and refusing to murder Dumbledore even at their repeated urging. But all of that was meaningless. Draco's point, it turned out, was to get the Elder Wand and pass it on to Harry. All in complete ignorance naturally (Draco's and Harry's). Draco was teetering on the cusp of something as of HBP. He continued to teeter in DH, and seemed to still be perched there in the Epilogue. Which acutally makes sense given the status of Slytherins in JKR's world. The best they can hope for is limbo. > >>Betsy: > > -- Snape is, and has been for the course of the books, solidly > > and unwaveringly DDM. > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > I'm calling this one wrong. I assumed "man" and all along Snape > > was Dumbledore's dog. > > > >>Julie: > I disagree. Snape was never Dumbledore's dog. He made a promise > because he loved Lily, and he kept it, first for her, and > eventually because I think his principles did shift (he was > willing to continue with the plan even after he found out > that Lily's son was to be sacrificed for the sake of the WW). > But he could have left any time and pursued his own agenda > (whatever that might be--and I can now see an AU fanfic > where Snape kidnaps Harry and locks him away to save him > from his fate!). > > Seriously, I don't see how Dumbledore owned Snape. Betsy Hp: I saw it in Dumbledore's complete lack of care when he informed Snape that Snape would be murdering Dumbledore at some future point to further Dumbledore's plans. And I saw it in Snape's incredibly feeble protest. Snape was not a thinking man. He was Dumbledore's creature. Which is what Dumbledore, being evil, wanted. Heh. To further the "creature" thing. Snape, like Kreature, followed the orders of a dead person's portrait. Not even death could release them. > >>Julie: > I do agree that Dumbledore took a step down from all-powerful > all-wise God-like to simply a man who'd made his own critical > mistakes and had suffered and eventually learned from them. > Betsy Hp: Oddly enough, I thought Dumbledore moved in a reverse direction. I'd always thought of him as a smart man, but a man none the less, doing the best he could with limited information. Skin-of-his-teeth- Dumbledore, was how'd I'd describe him. Instead it seems that Dumbledore was locked in his tower, cackling over his plans, that included a child sacrifice naturally, manipulating people to his own ends, and ignoring his student body. Except to judge them harshly if they failed him. Very Old-Testament god-type, IMO. > >>Julie: > I did shake me a little that the Dumbledore who was so set > on saving Draco's soul seemed to care so little about Snape's. > Betsy Hp: Given that Slytherins don't have souls worth worrying about, I suspect Dumbledore faked his worry to further pressure Snape. ("Think of the children!" cries the old man who'd never thought of the children in his life.) He needed Snape well tucked into Voldemort's side so to better position his sacrificial lamb. > >>Julie: > He had no extraordinary wisdom or empathy for others beyond that of > an old man whose been through many experiences. > In short, he was just a man. > Betsy Hp: I'd say he was something less than that. He was clever I grant you, but I think he had only a monster's worth of empathy. Empathy is something not very much valued in this series honestly. Maybe because it's a virtue associated with water? (She says, still trying to make sense of the whole thing, which she should honestly stop trying to do. ) > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Lucky (or not?) that no one snuck up behind Harry and beaned him > > while he was mid-explanation of who had the biggest wand. > >>Julie: > I didn't actually have a problem with this, as Voldemort > has said over and over again that Harry is for him. So I > wouldn't expect any DEs to interfere. Betsy Hp: Hee! That's very true. It was a battle between dumb and dumber, and fortunately for Harry, Voldemort was dumber. > >>Betsy Hp: > > -- I still think someone we think is good will turn out to > > be working for Voldemort. No real solid clue on who though. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Gosh, no! > > > >>Julie: > I rather suspected this too. But I put that expectation all > on myself (happily knowing I was *far* from alone). There > was absolutely nothing in canon that demanded someone in > the side of good was working for Voldemort. > Betsy Hp: Oh, you're absolutely correct. I was seriously sour grape-ing up there. And most likely this wouldn't have bothered me at all if everything else hadn't gone completely pear-shaped. It's not really that I needed to be right, it's just where I was wrong (good in everybody) is where I most needed to be right in order to enjoy the story. This one clashed horribly with my own personal philosophy. > >>Betsy: > > -- Somehow the four houses of Hogwarts working together will be > > a key to defeating Voldemort (finding the horcruxes maybe?). > >>Betsy Hp: > > The pain... oh, the pain... > >>Julie: > I am with you on this. JKR dropped a lot of hints that the > Houses had to unite, that they had to work together to > defeat Voldemort. I assumed that included Slytherin, who > was after all the only House *out.* So I am a little > disappointed it didn't happen. Betsy Hp: I didn't think I was insane on that one. I was sure there were some hints and foreshadowing that went absolutely nowhere. So I'm glad of that at least. But no, this is the disappointment that crushed me. The other world-view, that sliding scale of worthiness JKR set up with her horrible, bullying, violent Gryffindor's on top killed the series dead for me. And then desecrated the body. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > (Wasn't Luna super-duper annoying at that final feast though? It > > was like she was suddenly Harry's grandmother or something. Or > > was that just me?) > >>Julie: > > I'd have to re-read the feast part as I don't recall Luna being > particularly annoying. But her father sure was! Betsy Hp: Luna's father was *creepy*! I thought he'd killed her and mummified her remains during that tea scene. What I recall being annoyed at in the closing feast was Luna's shepherding of Harry, her "I'd want some peace and quiet if it were me" thing. Seemed a bit forced, IMO. But then by that point *everything* seemed forced to me. So I'm probably not the best judge. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Eep. Again, this was back before I realized the depth of sin > > attached to being a Sltherin. Not only does Snape die, not only > > was it anticlimactic, but by that point I didn't even care. > > Seriously, I think an eye-roll was about my only reaction. (Why > > did JKR even *bother* with a Snape character?) > >>Julie: > I really wanted Snape to live too. But I knew he was almost > certain to die. I do find it odd though that you didn't care > about Snape living or dying by the point of his death scene. > We hadn't even learned his story yet, and I knew more was > coming. Betsy Hp: By that point I knew Snape's story was going to be a coda. And a not very important one at that. We were too close to the end and Harry didn't even have any blood-rage left for Snape (for no apparent reason). So I realized that Snape was completely unimportant when it came to JKR and the story. So yeah, at that point I just thought, of course he dies in a meaningless fashion like this. She's got to drive home his utter lack of worth. > >>Julie: > I do understand your reaction about it being anticlimactic > though. When I finished that chapter I just sat there in > stunned disbelief, thinking "That's it? Finally we get > Snape, and the first thing he does is die?" I certainly > cared though. I was furious! Betsy Hp: By that point I was bitterly numb. I just kept on in morbid fascination to see what further ugliness JKR could throw up. > >>Julie: > Again, I don't think Snape was Lily's dog in any way. > Betsy Hp: For me it's because the friendship was so obviously one-sided. Lily got information out of Snape but she was too "lily-white" to fully care for the dark Slytherin boy. He was beneath her and they both knew it. (JKR says differently in her interviews, but this is what DH says, IMO.) > >>Julie: > I am sorry it was so disappointing for you, Betsy. I didn't > get all I wanted--which makes it sound like it was Christmas > morning and we didn't get what we asked for in our stockings! > --but it was always JKR's story and we were always just > interested bystanders. Betsy Hp: Hee! The Christmas analogy is perfect. And of course it's JKR's story and of course I'm just a bystander. But it was a serious let- down for me because I have serious issues with the over-arching theme. And quite honestly, the theme was there to be seen. There'd been others arguing all along that there was a sliding scale of worth at Hogwarts no matter what characters actually did. It's such a horrible view of the world I couldn't believe anyone would dedicate seven books and that much time to perpetuating it, but I was quite wrong. This is my lament. Betsy Hp (going through the steps) From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Aug 2 13:16:34 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:16:34 -0000 Subject: Victory for TEWWW EWWW?? Snape the hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174235 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Grant" > wrote: > > Snape's path to redemption is a path of extreme loneliness, > isolation, > > and pain, but he stays the course right up to the end and pays the > > ultimate price. It can, I think, be forgiven if some of that pain > > leaked out along the way. > > Ahhh dontcha just love a good Snape debate? :) I'd like to add my own thoughts to this as I feel, saving that I come to basically the same end as Dennis (quoted above) I have some perspective unique to this thread. Is Snape a hero? Well I will say he did something very heroic; somewhat by putting himself to the hazard for a good cause, but mostly, almost entirely, IMO, for sticking to it til the very end. Snape's love of Lily at the start was flawed, impure and selfish. The fact is he did not join the Order for the right reasons because he felt them in his soul. It simply didn't happen that way. He was fortunate in his moment of deepest remorse, the beginning of his redemption, to have been guided by another to *see* the right reasons, and to see that for all his crying out that he loved Lily there was no honour to her in his self pity and misery, a true act of love was going to be more painful than that. Snape was pretty hopeless at the start, unable to see how in his obsession with Lily, he didn't love the real her at all. To do that, he would have to honour who she truly was, Harry's Mother. And to quote an old wise man he may have done it grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still, he did it, he gave Lily his love and it redeemed him. It was much later in his life that Snape truly became a heroic person, he protected Harry at first as an obligation, a necessary contrition for his misdeeds. But then he grew into it a little, he started saving people simply because he could save them, and making right choices because they were right. In his heart he was always doing it for Lily but now he is really doing something that would honour her memory, he is actually on her side. At this point Snape is a fully redeemed man, he doesn't owe any more and he has no moral obligation to stay. Right then and there, Dumbledore drops the bombshell, Harry will die, and by the way Severus, please do me the honour of a diginified death while you're still about. Severus did not have to do these things, he wasn't obliged to stand by Harry til his last day, and he was not compelled by any influence to grant DD's dying wish at enormous risk to himself and his soul, he was no longer sticking around out of remorse but out of pure bravery. In the end he wasn't watching over and protecting Harry for Lily because someone had told him it was the right thing to do, he was genuinely, wholeheartedly in it for the long haul, right to the end. For her. All up I don't think Harry's forgiveness and honouring of Severus in the end was pure saviour-style altruism, but rather a very wise understanding of the fact that when Snape had already redeemed all his sins he risked his life and his soul for a friend, and when he had already paid his dues and was free, he stayed there right beside Harry to his death. For that, he was very very brave. Valky From Sherry at PebTech.net Thu Aug 2 13:24:47 2007 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:24:47 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Age WAS: Who else should have been at 9 3/4 at the end of the book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174236 > Lisa: > > Well, Hagrid lives at Hogwarts, so as long as he was still alive, James > could visit him; he wouldn't necessarily still be Groundskeeper/Care of > Magical Creatures professor. As for a life span -- I was under the > impression that giants didn't live very long ... but I don't know why I > think that, and I'm too lazy to pull out HBP, LOL! Amontillada: I'm not sure, but I have an impression that has more to do with their tendency to fight and harm each other, not with early death from natural causes. If many giants die young from battle or injuries, it would reduce the average life expectancy. But JKR said > McGonagal, a wizard only three years older than Hagrid (according to > the Lexicon's calculations), was "getting on" in years and wasn't > headmaster (or teacher, I assume) Amontillada: I've wondered about that assumption. It may be that McGonagal chose to leave the headmaster's office and return her energies to teaching. A teacher with her great skill at Transfiguration may be harder to find than an able headmaster. From ladymela99 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 13:40:26 2007 From: ladymela99 at yahoo.com (Melanie) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 06:40:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HP fans are so smart!!! + In-Reply-To: <006701c7d4ff$4643dcb0$88c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <246189.39353.qm@web30005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174237 CathyD wrote: I knew it the minute I saw it in HBP. I can't tell you why, anymore than I can tell you why I KNEW the silver doe was Snape's patronus...other than that it didn't talk, and at that point in the story, every other patronus that came to them had talked. I certainly had no inkling that Lily's patronus had ever been a doe. I also knew the locket was one, as soon as it was introduced in HBP, the problem would be finding it again as they were trashing all that stuff in OotP. MelanieB: It's interestin to hear someone else say that they knew the Doe was Snape's patronus right away. I guess one reason why I was so sure of it was that I couldn't see who else would be trying to help them without giving away who they were. I did think that a Doe was a unlikely patronus for a man such as Snape but I had no idea why it would be this animal. It makes sense now..:) --------------------------------- Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From npod4291 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 13:48:23 2007 From: npod4291 at yahoo.com (npod4291) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:48:23 -0000 Subject: James Hatred of Snape (Was: Snapes Worst Memory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174238 > Julie: > I think many, maybe most, fans did read that one right. It > was clear Snape and the Marauders already had a long history > of tormenting each other. One incident out of dozens wouldn't > be significant, so the one difference in this memory--Lily > witnessing his humiliation and of him responding by calling > her a Mudblood had to be what was significant. > > BTW, James may have said he was tormenting Snape just because > he existed, but James is just a big ol' liar! Hey, it may be > an unconscious lie, in which case James lying to himself also, > but he is after Snape because Snape is Lily's oldest friend > at Hogwarts. Not only her oldest friend, but a Slytherin, > and most importantly, someone who had the potential to be > *more* than friends with Lily. James may not know it yet, > but he isn't about to let that happen, because he wants > Lily for himself! I believe that James had two reasons to hate Snape. 1.) Snape practiced and was very interested in the Dark Arts. It has been said (I believe) many times in canon that James, like Harry and Sirius, hated the Dark Arts and anyone who used them. This would have been enough reason to get Sirius, the Co-Leader of the gang, to abuse Snape, as he agreed with this reasoning. 2.) Exactly as you said, James was worried that Lily was going to become more than friends with someone else. What I would like to know, and it is not something that we can possibly know as JKR might not even know, is which reason for hating Snape came first. I think that it is a very good possiblity that James at first didn't like Snape because he was such good friends with Lily, and therefore started to hate everything about him. Because Snape loved the Dark Arts, James then hated the Dark Arts. Nate From npod4291 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 14:01:29 2007 From: npod4291 at yahoo.com (npod4291) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:01:29 -0000 Subject: Poor Fred :( In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174239 JW: > Here's a longer answer: > As Molly observed in OotP (the scene with her boggart at 12 GP) - > there were nine Weasleys, half already in the order. It was too > much to hope that all would survive. I also thought that one of the Red Hairs was going to die as well. To be honest though, as soon as I saw Percy come back, I thought he was doomed. As much as people didn't like him previously (myself included), I thought that once he came back, admitted he was wrong and that he had been trying to get out for awhile, he was surely going to die sacrificing himself for one of his family members, in particular, his father. I think that Rowling likes to have most of the people in the Potterverse innately good, the exceptions being Voldemort, Bellatrix, and their ilk. She even had Scrimegour (don't think thats spelled correctly) be redeemed for his poor treatment of Harry with him dying and being tortured trying to portect Harry. I thought that, giving the possiblity of redemption for Percy, he was goner. Nate, who now after reading the 7th book, is trying to figure out how he ever thought that snape could be a bad guy From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 14:06:02 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:06:02 -0000 Subject: Snape's Worst Memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174240 > Julie: > > In the end James turned out to be much better for Lily than > Snape likely would have ever been, but the "because he > exists" excuse doesn't hold water for me now, as there > was no differece between Snape and the other Slytherins > his age (who were apparently all soon to be fitted for Death > Eater masks) other than Snape's connection to Gryffindor's > most popular girl. > > Julie, who's actually glad there was some motive for the > Marauders continued harassment of Snape other than merely > that he existed. > Lisa: Oh, I still think it was completely arbitrary on James' part -- Lily wasn't the most popular girl at Hogwarts when James made his decision that he didn't like Snape. They all met on the Hogwarts Express in the first year. Snape mentioned Slytherin, James mentioned Gryffindor, they both got a bad impression of each other, and James tried to trip Snape as he and Lily left the compartment at Lily's urging. At that point, either James or Sirius shouted "See ya, Snivellus!" And that was the start of it all. No reason for the dislike, other than pre-House- rivalry, that continued and got worse. Lisa From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 14:12:42 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:12:42 -0000 Subject: My Confession, WAS Re: Poor Fred :( In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174241 > JW: > The short and direct answer is that if Bill, Charlie or Percy had > bought the farm, you would not have cared. JKR *WANTED* you to > care. JKR *WANTED* you shocked. She succeeded. Lisa: Okay, let the shocked and appalled flames begin. I'm about to confess. I've never cared for the twins. They were funny from time to time ... but mostly annoying to me. I didn't care that Fred died. I was just happy it wasn't Ron. :0X There. I've said it. Whew -- finally got that off my chest! LOL! Lisa From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Aug 2 14:22:12 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:22:12 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174242 > > Carol: > >As for Theo, at least he didn't become a > > Death Eater like his father as Draco did or fight to avenge his arrest > > (and death?). I'd say there's hope for his redemption or rather his > > future since he doesn't appear to have committed any crimes. > > Montavilla47: > I agree. There's hope for Theo. I think there's hope for all of > them. But, at the end of the battle, all it is is hope. A glimmer. > A *chance* that not all Slytherins are Voldemort's lackies. Magpie: Actually, I don't see how there's hope for Theo to be redeemed or do anything, since the story is over. If you leave aside JKR's notes on him that she included on her website, which was the most we ever even heard about him, we've got a boy whose dad is a DE, and once or twice he's shown talking to Draco. Other than that he's just another one of the crowd of Slytherins who submit to Voldemort and don't do anything good--which is statement enough, it seems to me. He's not actively doing anything bad; he's almost a non-entity in canon, but a Slytherin non-entity, so not working for good. > > Carol: > > But to generalize from Slytherins sitting out the battle to Slytherin > > = evil seems a big jump to me. Sure, the students from other Houses > > turn on Pansy Parkinson, but unlike her, they see Harry (rightly) as > > the WW's only hope. We can't expect Pansy, who has always seen Harry > > as someone to laugh at, along with his "Mudblood" and "blood traitor" > > friends, to suddenly change her view of Harry. And we didn't see the > > rest of the Slytherin table cheering her or melodramatically crying > > "Seize him!" > > Montavilla47: > I'm not saying that Slytherins are evil. I'm saying that we are not given > any--even the smallest, meanest crumb of a clue that they aren't. No, > we don't see her table cheer her on. We don't see the Slytherins react > at all. So, we can interpret that to mean that maybe they aren't in > agreement with her--but if any were in disagreement, the time to > say so would be immediately afterwards, when 3/4s of the school have > voted. That no one does so is a lost opportunity to suggest a glimmer > of non-Voldemortness in the Slytherins. Magpie: Exactly. It's not that all the Slytherins are always being aggressively evil. But that says very little positive about them as a group. All of them leaving in this scene was a pretty powerful image to me--and Voldemort refers to it later as them coming to him. I don't see how not standing up for Harry isn't a bad thing in itself. They don't even get the little nod Lupin gets of looking uncomfortable while he doesn't step in to protect Snape. The fact that McGonagall orders it doesn't seem to make much difference, especially since it seemed set up beforehand that McGonagall was giving Slytherin a chance and saying if they blew it this is what she'd do. > Carol: > > This scene occurs *130 pages* before Harry publicly vindicates Snape, > > who has been killed three hours before according to LV. Until Harry > > makes that speech, the students from the other three Houses thought > > their erstwhile headmaster was a murderer and a Death Eater and that > > his House was the Death Eater's House. Harry's speech is undoubtedly a > > wake-up call for students, staff members, and ordinary citizens who > > three hours before thought there was no such thing as a good Slytherin. > > Montavilla47: > Exactly. That's the wake-up call for everyone. I believe that's why JKR > keeps out any hint that the Slytherin students harbor anything but support > for Voldemort and his evil ways. To give us a "good" Slytherin before > that moment would take away from the shock of learning that Snape was. Magpie: It didn't read like it was written as a wake-up call about Slytherin to me at all. It reveals what was going on with Snape--a wake-up call about him. As has been discussed earlier in the post, not all Slytherins have been said to support Voldemort. Some support him, some just don't oppose him. The ones that do oppose him are almost all stories of personal redemption for personal reasons after starting out aggressively bad. They show that not all Slytherins are so bad, rather than saying, imo, that the opinion we've had of Slytherin has been misguided. It's not, after all, as if the good guys throughout the books go around persecuting Slytherin all that much. Mostly they react to things Slytherin does (sometimes overreact, imo, but they're still reacting). I thought Phineas' line at the end was another little dig showing him thinking of himself first and wanting extra credit for his house (and so himself) when it wasn't much deserved. You might get something from Slytherin but you could never count on it as you could other houses. Montavilla: > It makes that moment more effective. It makes Narcissa's moment more > effective. But it does so at the cost of tying up the set-up for House Unity. > It mitigates the idea of Slytherin having intrinsic value to the community. Magpie: I agree. And almost all these examples of Slytherins doing the right thing is mitigated to begin with by not coming from the same impulse as the other people have. The one person who comes closest to an impersonal choice for good is Slughorn, who has also been shown to be motivated by a passion for Lily Potter and personal fear of the DEs who are out to get him and immediately apologizes for his house affiliation. This doesn't change that Slughorn fights, but I don't see him as vindicating his house much at all since he's so much more connected with other people than his house, and even his stand takes a bit of doing. Basically, we see how houses do their part--all three other houses do it quite easily--and Slytherin is a special case. Montavilla: > Which is something I seem to remember JKR saying years ago when > asked about Slytherin. That they were nasty people, but you can't just > get rid of people because they're nasty, can you? Magpie: Yes. Unfortunately it also suggests not only that nasty people are stuck that way, but that there's a separation between nasty people and ourselves. Montavilla: > I hate how bitter this all sounds, because I don't really feel bitter. Maybe > I invested too much in characters like Draco. Maybe I invested too much > in the idea that, because the Hat said the Houses needed to unite, that > there was something intrinsically valuable and necessary in Slytherin > House. That the battle couldn't be fought without all the Houses. Magpie: I know I did. And I admit I was wrong, that things like the Sorting Hat's New Song were apparently not going anywhere, because it was describing some kind of utopia rather than anything realistic. (Though I still think that's an odd idea.) I had absolutely believed that there couldn't be a real victory unless this was addressed--and that's why it doesn't feel like there's a real victory. I think it goes beyond what I wanted and thought should happen, it's that even knowing that was never the goal it's not a real victory, it's just killing Voldemort. Which is why despite Slytherin proving itself bad, I can't completely divorce the good guys from their problems either, because they don't consider these other people worth the effort and don't look into themselves to see where they go wrong either. No effort is made to heal the split, and I'm frankly left with the bizarre subtext that people want Slytherin the way they are because they're needed this way and it's so satisfying fighting this kind of battle. DG: A non-aligned Slytherin could certainly see which way the wind was blowing, and choose to keep his head down, even if he had no ties to the Death Eaters himself. Magpie: Which is not admirable or moral in the way the behavior of other characters is. There are times when pragmatic is wrong (and not even pragmatic in the long run). Betsy Hp: For me it's because the friendship was so obviously one-sided. Lily got information out of Snape but she was too "lily-white" to fully care for the dark Slytherin boy. He was beneath her and they both knew it. (JKR says differently in her interviews, but this is what DH says, IMO.) Magpie: I'm probably going to sound even more negative there, but unfortunately I reacted to that stuff in the interview as part of what seems to be a pattern of the good guys looking good. Of course Lily is wonderful enough that she could have actually fallen in love with Snape despite his being ugly, repulsive and bad-tempered. She just wound up with the good-looking cool guy because Snape was ugly on the *inside.* So he was doubly the fool, and Lily was doubly good. -m From desiivy at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 13:43:41 2007 From: desiivy at yahoo.com (Ivy) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:43:41 -0000 Subject: Whose Death Was The Saddest - book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174243 Foodiedb: >However, for me I found the saddest death to be that of Dobby. When > JKR wrote, as Dobby was lay dying, (pg. 476 US ed.), "...he had >stretched out his thin arms to Harry with a look of supplication." > Well, I was instantly in tears, which then lasted for quite some time > afterwards. Ivy: The saddest was Remus I expected it though, as soon as he made Harry little Teddy's god father I just knew he was a dead man. From sneeboy2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 14:30:25 2007 From: sneeboy2 at yahoo.com (sneeboy2) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:30:25 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174244 Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > > > Do you honestly think that this was the first time that Carrow had done > something like that, with Mc.G. forced to look on helpless to do anything about > it? She wouldn't be human if she didn't exault at least a little bit at seeing > him struck down and the opportunity to get a little of her own back. > There is an old Rabbinical saying: "Do not let the best become the enemy of the > good." Many who would jump on any moral lapse by those designated as heroes > would remember that. > > Bruce Alan Wilson > Sneeboy2: My beef is with the author, not the fictional hero. She has spent a good bit of ink establishing that the "unforgivable" curses are just that, that only the bad guys use them, that the effects of them are horrible, and so forth. Then, at almost the end of the tale, where one expects the moral of the story to be the clearest, she inserts a scene that indicates that, under some circumstances, using an unforgivable is OK, even gallant. There's no nuanced examination, as we're having here, of precisely what those circumstances are. There's no indication that maybe using the curse was a "moral lapse," as you put it. Personally, I don't think the scene is intended to show the character's flaws, or to raise a moral debate. There would be no point in doing either so late in the story. It seems designed solely to elicit a little cheer from an audience that, having sat through six books in which the good guys are rather painfully good, is hungry for a little eye-for-an-eye justice. The scene is very Hollywood in that way, right down to the punchline about having to "mean it" -- though perhaps hot as Hollywood as Mrs. Weasley's "bitch" line, which felt lifted right from "Aliens." I had to wonder whether JKR had the movie-version of DH in mind when she wrote these scenes. Call me a killjoy, but I felt pandered to in both cases. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 14:29:37 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:29:37 -0000 Subject: My Confession, WAS Re: Poor Fred :( In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174245 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lisa" wrote: > > > JW: > > The short and direct answer is that if Bill, Charlie or Percy had > > bought the farm, you would not have cared. JKR *WANTED* you to > > care. JKR *WANTED* you shocked. She succeeded. > > Lisa: > > Okay, let the shocked and appalled flames begin. I'm about to confess. > > I've never cared for the twins. They were funny from time to time ... > but mostly annoying to me. > > I didn't care that Fred died. I was just happy it wasn't Ron. :0X > > There. I've said it. Whew -- finally got that off my chest! LOL! > > Lisa > ***** Katie Replies (While wiping tears away for my beloved Fred): I am sure you are not alone in this! : ) Everyone has their favorites, and their un-favorites, and sometimes when JKR means you to care for someone...you don't. It's that simple. Now, I adore the twins. I have known so many guys like them: funny, cocky, silly, but when the chips are down, they're right where you need them to be. I have a lot of admiration for their Umbridge rebellion, and I think they're generally pretty great guys. I wept myself silly and had to take a break from the book when Fred died. However, in sympathy with your dislike of the twins, let me make my own confession...I've never liked Hagrid much. ACK. That was hard to say. I've even tried to tell myself that I DO like Hagrid...but the truth is, in rereads, I often skip Hagrid parts and his blundering buffoonery is sometimes too much for me. I appreciate his love of Harry and I did enjoy seeing him fight off Umbridge in OotP...but I actually like Fang more than I like his master. Sometimes I just want to shake Hagrid and say, "Shape up!What's wrong with you anyway?" So, don't despair...;) - I am sure plenty of us dislike people we "aren't supposed to"! KATIE (still crying about Fred...) From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 14:50:45 2007 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:50:45 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables In-Reply-To: <46AFCCD1.90205@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174247 CJ wrote: I think she has also tried to make that point in several of her interviews. She has specifically discussed Harry's use of the Cruciatus in the Ravenclaw commons room in terms of wanting to show that Harry was no saint. I'll accept that much, while arguing that I think she botched the job. In order to show that Harry is no saint, she has to show him performing a morally reprehensible act. But she doesn't make clear that his use of the Cruciatus in that case WAS reprehensible. Certainly, the reaction of McGonagall (calling it "gallant" of all things, immediately followed by an equally casual UC of her own!) doesn't help. And some reflection after the fact on the vileness (even if justified) of the act would have also gone a long way toward making her point. After all, as you've said, even good people do terrible things in war. But good people also agonize over it afterward. To my mind, the casualness with which the UCs are tossed about by the good guys works against the point JKR is trying to make. vmonte: I agree with you. I was very upset with the way the "good guys" (and without the slightest hesitation or thought about what they were doing) used unforgivables. It made me extremely uncomfortable. I was led to believe that those particular curses were unforgivable, and that it took a certain type of person to cast them. I liked that Harry was unable to effectively curse Bellatrix in OOTP. It made me like Harry that much more. To me it meant that Harry was a good person. And then in DH we see Harry use them, and in such an offhanded manner. Well, it just made me sick. Besides the easy use of unforgivables, I really hated what Hermione did to her parents. I found this act particularly shocking. And it's freaking creepy the way it's casually mentioned in the book. Aren't Hermione's actions worse than brainwashing? Isn't what she did just another form of Imperio? Because Hermione is forcing her will on her parents. What ever happened to doing what is right instead of what is easy? Isn't it her parent's right to choose whether to go in hiding or remain at home? Morally the actions of the "good guys" in DH emulate Voldemort's motto: "There is no right or wrong, only power." I guess to them the end justifies the means, even if it is at a cost to their souls. From sneeboy2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 14:56:24 2007 From: sneeboy2 at yahoo.com (sneeboy2) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:56:24 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio -- my two cents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174248 > > > Sneeboy2: > > > I don't see him at that moment being in more danger than he was, > > say, escaping Voldemort at the start of the book, yet there he > > used only the legal spells -- and to good effect. I find it > > disturbing that he uses what's arguably the worst of the three > > spells: in the real world, we do not outlaw killing in times of > > war, but we do outlaw torture. If JKR wants to show us that > > Harry is flawed, I'm disturbed that she chose to do it so near > > the climax, where the logic of plot implies that this is a > > development toward which the rest of the plot has been aiming. > > It's almost as if she's saying to readers that his reluctance > > to use the unforgivable curses before now was a matter of > > immaturity, rather than moral fortitude. > > > Jack-A-Roe: > So far Harry has broken into Gringott's, lost the sword, had to > fight his way out by riding a dragon, goes to Hogsmeade where the > DE's know something is up, has to fight off dementors, finds out > his friends have been tortured during the school year, and has to > find a horcrux hidden in a castle before Voldemort gets there. > > Meanwhile one of the deatheaters who was there when Dumbledore is > killed tells McGonagall: > > US edition pg 593 > "It's not a case of what you'll permit, Minerva McGonagall. Your > time's over. It's us what's in charge her now, and you'll back me > up or you'll pay the price." > > And he spat in her face. > > Harry, our everyman, reacts like most people would when someone > they care about is threatened. Out of anger. Sneeboy2: Fictional heroes don't behave like most people. That's why they're heroes. And just because he's the main character doesn't make him an "everyman." We could go back and list the dangers harry faced in all the books and ask "why not here" or "why not there?" and come up with plausible reasons. But the real reason it happens here is because the author feels the time has come for a crowd-pleasing "kid-gloves-are-off" moment. I think she cheapens the narrative with it and does unintended damage to her carefully constructed message. > Jack-A-Roe:> > At that point Harry is starting to fight like it's a war. He > could have cast a reductor curse which I think would have caused > a lot more damage or several other more deadly curses. > > The effect of the curse is not long term whereas one of the other > curses could have been. He doesn't hold it on him, in fact it is > over rather quickly. So at this point I can't see the spell as > torture. Sneeboy2: Rather convenient that, after all the scenes in which the spell is used to horrible effect, when the hero uses it, it's not so bad. Sort of a "it's not torture when we do it" logic. > Jack-A-Roe: > Why didn't he use one of the other curses such as stupify? I'm > guessing that he's rather stressed and remembering Lupin's words > that this is for keeps. > > I don't have any problem with Harry's reaction. Sneeboy2: And there's the troubling part. We're not supposed to have a problem with it. We're supposed to cheer him on. JKR was asked a question about this scene and offered an explanation about Harry's propensity for anger and imperfections as a hero. Yet who read this scene and thought, "There's goes Harry with his anger issues," or "What a complex moral character Harry is." No, there are other scenes for that. We're supposed to read this scene and give a whoop of triumph and not think too long about whether what Harry did was OK. From va32h at comcast.net Thu Aug 2 15:05:26 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:05:26 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174249 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sneeboy2" wrote: > > My beef is with the author, not the fictional hero. She has spent a > good bit of ink establishing that the "unforgivable" curses are just > that, that only the bad guys use them, that the effects of them are > horrible, and so forth. Then, at almost the end of the tale, where one expects the moral of the story to be the clearest, she inserts a scene that indicates that, under some circumstances, using an unforgivable is OK, even gallant. There's no nuanced examination, as we're having here, of precisely what those circumstances are. There's no indication that maybe using the curse was a "moral lapse," as you put it. > Personally, I don't think the scene is intended to show the character's flaws, or to raise a moral debate. There would be no point in doing either so late in the story. It seems designed solely to elicit a little cheer from an audience that, having sat through six books in which the good guys are rather painfully good, is hungry for a little eye-for-an-eye justice. The scene is very Hollywood in that > way, right down to the punchline about having to "mean it" -- though > perhaps hot as Hollywood as Mrs. Weasley's "bitch" line, which felt > lifted right from "Aliens." I had to wonder whether JKR had the > movie-version of DH in mind when she wrote these scenes. Call me a > killjoy, but I felt pandered to in both cases. va32h: THANK YOU! Yes, yes, I completely agree. I am the person who submitted the Crucio question in the live chat - and JKR completely missed my point (the question was cut off as well, there was one more part about Harry's mental consequences). I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH HARRY USING CRUCIO. Shouting only because I can't use bold - no problem at all with him USING the curse - every human being has felt that sort of impulse at some point. I have a huge problem with him cheerfully enjoying it and feeling nary a twinge of even regret afterwards. Harry could hardly live with himself after accidentally harming Draco with Sectumsempra, but apparently, being able to enjoy hurting someone is some sort of mark of maturity. But this is nothing new, really. In the past, Hermione has kidnapped, imprisoned, and blackmailed Rita Skeeter, permanently disfigured a classmate, led Umbridge into what Hermione not only believed, but hoped would be a violent attack by centaurs. The twins experiment on younger students, and shoved Montague into a Vanishing Cabinet, neither knowing or caring what happened to him. And I completely understand that we are supposed to cheer, not chastise. The people who get punished are the "bad guys", it's our heroes who are doling out the justice. But those actions seem out of place in a series that allegedly preaches "It's our choices that make us who we are". JKR can say that all she wants, but what she shows us is that it's their motivations, their loyalties, that make her characters what they are. There are no intrinisically bad acts, there are only intrinsically bad people. And speaking of Hollywood scenes and pandering to an audience, let me offer Harry and Voldemort's made-for-the-cinema face off. "So the question is," asks Harry "Do you feel lucky, punk? Er...I mean, does the wand in your hand know it's last master was defeated?" va32h From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 15:13:56 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:13:56 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174250 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: <<>> > Besides the easy use of unforgivables, I really hated what Hermione > did to her parents. I found this act particularly shocking. And > it's freaking creepy the way it's casually mentioned in the book. > Aren't Hermione's actions worse than brainwashing? Isn't what she > did just another form of Imperio? Because Hermione is forcing her > will on her parents. What ever happened to doing what is right > instead of what is easy? Isn't it her parent's right to choose > whether to go in hiding or remain at home? ***Katie: I apologize if I post the generally same message twice - my computer crashed and I think my first post was lost. Forgive me if it shows up. I have to completely, and respectfully, disagree with you. Hermione's Muggle parents could not begin to comprehend the danger they, and their daughter, were in. Had Hermione come to them and said, "Mum, dad, I am dropping out of Hogwarts to go on a long and possibly fruitless search for the soul pieces of an evil overlord, and after we find them, we're going to fight him to the death. Tea?", they would have either though she was insane, or they would have wanted to protect her. Either way, they would have been unable to understand the real danger they were in, because these things are not part of the Muggle world. Hermione was attempting to protect her parents from something she knew they couldn't be prepared for. They would have been utterly defenseless against wizards. She didn't want them to be tortured and die at the hands of Death Eaters. I would do the same for my mother and father. She didn't Obliviate them, either. She implanted false memories to be removed later. Plus, I think it was pretty obvious that Hermione was incredibly upset about it. She was crying and visibly distraught when talking about it...so, I don't feel like it was mentioned casually. I feel like people are looking for reasons to dislike the Trio lately. These are good people, with good intentions, in an unfathomably difficult and dangerous situation, so I'm inclined to give them an occasional break. Plus, Jo has made it so clear that they are not meant to be seen as perfect. They have lapses in judgement, and they do questionable things occasionally. I have to say, however, that I *do not* think Hermione's protecting his parents is one of those lapses. I think it is commendable that she wants to protect them from things that are not of their world and that they have no natural defense against. Just my .02, Cheers, Katie From va32h at comcast.net Thu Aug 2 15:19:40 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:19:40 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174251 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > Besides the easy use of unforgivables, I really hated what Hermione > did to her parents. I found this act particularly shocking. And > it's freaking creepy the way it's casually mentioned in the book. > Aren't Hermione's actions worse than brainwashing? Isn't what she > did just another form of Imperio? Because Hermione is forcing her > will on her parents. What ever happened to doing what is right > instead of what is easy? Isn't it her parent's right to choose > whether to go in hiding or remain at home? va32h: Thank you for bringing this up - I also felt a great deal of distaste at Hermione's mind-rape of her parents. However, it's very in character of Hermione to conclude that she knows what is best for everyone. That was my whole issue with SPEW. Well-intentioned, but still Hermione trying to establish what other people should want and how they should feel and what they should do. Same situation with altering her parents' memories. Sometimes Hermione is a deeply unpleasant character, really. va32h From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Aug 2 14:16:16 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 14:16:16 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] James Hatred of Snape (Was: Snapes Worst Memory) Message-ID: <25991.81140.qm@web86208.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174252 Nate wrote: I believe that James had two reasons to hate Snape. 1.) Snape practiced and was very interested in the Dark Arts. It has been said (I believe) many times in canon that James, like Harry and Sirius, hated the Dark Arts and anyone who used them. This would have been enough reason to get Sirius, the Co-Leader of the gang, to abuse Snape, as he agreed with this reasoning. 2.) Exactly as you said, James was worried that Lily was going to become more than friends with someone else. What I would like to know, and it is not something that we can possibly know as JKR might not even know, is which reason for hating Snape came first. I think that it is a very good possiblity that James at first didn't like Snape because he was such good friends with Lily, and therefore started to hate everything about him. Because Snape loved the Dark Arts, James then hated the Dark Arts. Irene: But haven't we seen the beginning of that hate? It was not about the Dark Arts or Lily's heart at all, they've hated Snape at first sight, since that meeting on the train. Was it because he was poorly dressed and ugly? Or was it because he had expressed interest in Slytherin? And if in JKR's world Slytherin equalled dark arts even before Voldemort, and so made it OK for James and Sirius to hate Snape, then it's an even worse world than what it seems post book 7. :-( Oh, and the whole "Dark Arts" business really lost its influence on me after book 7. It seems now that the definition of Dark Arts is totally dependant on the caster of the spell. What did Avery and Mulciber do, I wonder, that was worse than putting a boy into a vanishing cabinet and keeping quiet about it for two weeks, never giving a thought (or maybe giving a hopeful thought?) about him dying there from hunger and thirst? Irene From lfreeman at mbc.edu Thu Aug 2 15:30:49 2007 From: lfreeman at mbc.edu (lmf3b) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:30:49 -0000 Subject: JKR's live chat -- excerpts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174253 > > (Lisa's note: She originally said that Ron and Harry were aurors, > > but now she's saying that Ron went into business with George) > > > > I don't see how that is contradictory...Ron has a job with the > Ministry. That probably won't preclude him from owning shares in > George's business or even helping out with the business on weekends > or vacations. Heaven knows I've helped friends and family members > with their businesses in my spare time.... It also may be that Ron's work as an Auror was a natural fit with the joke business... remember how the ministry and the Order found Fred and George's products helpful for disguises and self-protection. Ron's role in helping Fred may have been in facilitating sales to Auror and in general research and development. Louise From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 15:42:58 2007 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:42:58 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174254 Katie wrote: I have to completely, and respectfully, disagree with you. Hermione's Muggle parents could not begin to comprehend the danger they, and their daughter, were in. Had Hermione come to them and said, "Mum, dad, I am dropping out of Hogwarts to go on a long and possibly fruitless search for the soul pieces of an evil overlord, and after we find them, we're going to fight him to the death. Tea?", they would have either though she was insane, or they would have wanted to protect her. Either way, they would have been unable to understand the real danger they were in, because these things are not part of the Muggle world. Hermione was attempting to protect her parents from something she knew they couldn't be prepared for. They would have been utterly defenseless against wizards. She didn't want them to be tortured and die at the hands of Death Eaters. vmonte responds: Well, I disagree. Hermione took the easy way out. And why would her parents think that Hermione was insane? I mean they know she is a witch and that she is not the only one. Or are you implying that muggles are too stupid to understand what war is? See, if I was told that a Nazi-like regime, with magical powers, took over the wizarding world I would be terrified. Hermione did what she did because she knew that her parents would not agree with her involvement in the war, not because they couldn't understand it. Katie: I would do the same for my mother and father. vmonte: Well, if I found out that my daughter messed with my brain I don't think I would ever trust her again. But then again, Hermione probably made them forget that too. From CariadMel at aol.com Thu Aug 2 15:47:04 2007 From: CariadMel at aol.com (Annette) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:47:04 -0000 Subject: JKR Encyclopaedia; what do you want to see in it? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174255 A big assumption here that *if* JKR does write an encyclopaedia of the Wizarding World that it would contain the facts and figures of Harry's world. That is to say, that all the minutiae and details that absorb us can be referred to as author intended. As much as I have loved reading and even trying out a few theories of my own these are just interpretations around the facts (and long may they live!). However, I feel there are still outstanding little niggles we have concerning the world of Harry Potter. What things do it to you? Mine for instance: 1. The gemstones in the hourglasses; we know the Houses are represented by the colours, red, blue and green have rubies, sapphire and emeralds Hufflepuffs are represented by yellow, so what's their gemstone? 2.Do all Wizard families send their children off from Kings Cross station? How do Muggleborns know how to get on to Platform 9, 3/4? 3. We know the history of the Bloody Baron, the Grey Lady and Nearly- headless Nick, what about the Fat Friar? I'm sure you have more. If you know the answers because they have been disclosed in interviews please LMK :) I've not had the chance to read all the JKR interviews (yet). Cariad x From ckc at rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 2 15:42:03 2007 From: ckc at rochester.rr.com (CK Campbell) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:42:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] OBHWF (wasRe: Who else should have been at 9 3/4 at the end of the book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002501c7d51b$acdfcd50$6701a8c0@CKC> No: HPFGUIDX 174256 "CK Campbell" wrote: > > I think I asked this in a previous post, but I don't recall seeing an answer or any discussion among the copious threads coming>into my inbox. > > What is Percy doing at the train station in the epilogue? What is his role in shouting about broom rules? What does that all > mean? >Potioncat: >That Percy is sending his child/children to school on the Hogwarts Express before he goes to work. He's just as work-oriented >as ever. Thank you! It never occurred to me that Percy would have married and had children! Pity his poor wife. Although perhaps the experiences of book 7 would have changed him a little, made him a little more open-minded. Carolyn From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Aug 2 15:56:53 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:56:53 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174257 > ***Katie: > > I apologize if I post the generally same message twice - my computer > crashed and I think my first post was lost. Forgive me if it shows > up. > > I have to completely, and respectfully, disagree with you. > Hermione's Muggle parents could not begin to comprehend the danger > they, and their daughter, were in. Had Hermione come to them and > said, "Mum, dad, I am dropping out of Hogwarts to go on a long and > possibly fruitless search for the soul pieces of an evil overlord, > and after we find them, we're going to fight him to the death. > Tea?", they would have either though she was insane, or they would > have wanted to protect her. Either way, they would have been unable > to understand the real danger they were in, because these things are > not part of the Muggle world. Magpie: And yet every single person reading the book is a Muggle and can understand. Muggles actually aren't that stupid, and Hermione's parents have been nothing but supportive of her being a witch. To me this comes across just the way it does in canon--that Muggles are like children so Wizards can make decisions for them. Hermione has been treating her parents this way for a while now, and it's not surprising that she'd prefer to just zap them for her own convenience than want to explain anything to them. She's long since decided that they just "won't understand" so it's not worth the effort. But that doesn't make what she's doing right or not worth thinking about. How would Hermione have felt if her parents hired some wizard to memory charm her for a year to keep her out of the fight? They would want to protect her too, but something tells me she'd think she ought to make her own decisions about that rather than have her rights totally violated. Perhaps if Hermione had explained things to her parents they might have agreed to some protections, but she didn't give them that chance. It's easier to just do it. Katie: > Plus, I think it was pretty obvious that Hermione was incredibly > upset about it. She was crying and visibly distraught when talking > about it...so, I don't feel like it was mentioned casually. Magpie: She is not upset about it and is not doing any such thing when talking about it. She tells Harry that she's coming with him and simply reels off that she's taken care of her parents. She begins to cry not because she's done something horrible to them, but because in talking about it she brings up the possibility of *her own death.* She says if she survives the Horcrux hunt she'll lift the enchantment. If she doesn't, well, she's cast a good enough spell to make them happy as the two people they aren't. She's not crying about having done this completely unacceptable thing to these two people, but her own future. Her parents get off easy as far as she's concerned. They'll be fine even if they live a lie the rest of their lives. It's Hermione who will be missing out by dying. It's her who's felt sorry for in the scene. Katie: > I feel like people are looking for reasons to dislike the Trio > lately. Magpie: We're not. Katie: These are good people, with good intentions, in an > unfathomably difficult and dangerous situation, so I'm inclined to > give them an occasional break. Plus, Jo has made it so clear that > they are not meant to be seen as perfect. They have lapses in > judgement, and they do questionable things occasionally. Magpie: Lapses that mean nothing because they're good people with good intentions. That's the problem people have. They're not looking for a reason to dislike them. That's no serious exploration of right and wrong. Katie: > I have to say, however, that I *do not* think Hermione's protecting > his parents is one of those lapses. I think it is commendable that > she wants to protect them from things that are not of their world > and that they have no natural defense against. Magpie: Wanting to protect them the problem. It's the way she decides what's good for them and completely robs them of their own will and freedom and at the least an entire year of their lives that's a problem, and she does it without the slightest thought that she's done anything wrong. She seems to agree with you that we should feel sorry for her since she's the good person who's in the bad circumstance, so it's unfair to even question her or consider her parents being robbed of their rights. It's taken as a given that Muggle parents won't understand, but I can't help but what Hermione wouldn't understand about the Muggle world and the mess this would cause that could have been avoided. (Things I shouldn't be thinking of because it's basically just supposed to be a joke.) It just seems like this is very indicative of the way morals are handled in the series already. In discussions of things like torture and stealing somebody's life without their permission, it's a very common response that people are asking too much of these good, good people, and questioning their ethics is a personal attack. -m From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 15:59:49 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:59:49 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174258 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > Katie wrote: > I have to completely, and respectfully, disagree with you. > Hermione's Muggle parents could not begin to comprehend the danger > they, and their daughter, were in. Had Hermione come to them and > said, "Mum, dad, I am dropping out of Hogwarts to go on a long and > possibly fruitless search for the soul pieces of an evil overlord, > and after we find them, we're going to fight him to the death. > Tea?", they would have either though she was insane, or they would > have wanted to protect her. Either way, they would have been unable > to understand the real danger they were in, because these things are > not part of the Muggle world. > > Hermione was attempting to protect her parents from something she > knew they couldn't be prepared for. They would have been utterly > defenseless against wizards. She didn't want them to be tortured and > die at the hands of Death Eaters. > > vmonte responds: > Well, I disagree. Hermione took the easy way out. And why would her > parents think that Hermione was insane? I mean they know she is a > witch and that she is not the only one. Or are you implying that > muggles are too stupid to understand what war is? See, if I was told > that a Nazi-like regime, with magical powers, took over the > wizarding world I would be terrified. > > Hermione did what she did because she knew that her parents would > not agree with her involvement in the war, not because they couldn't > understand it. > > Katie: > I would do the same for my mother and father. > > vmonte: > Well, if I found out that my daughter messed with my brain I don't > think I would ever trust her again. But then again, Hermione > probably made them forget that too. > ******Katie again: All I can say is that I see it differently and that Hermione, to me, is one of the most brave and most loyal characters in the books. I know a lot of people have problems with the whole Marietta thing. I don't. I don't have a problem with her sending birds flying at Ron's face when she was jealous and angry, either, though I know some do. I like Hermione, and I think she was trying to protect her parents from harm, and I just don't have a problem with it. Maybe I'm morally lax or something (though I don't actually think so), but I seem to not have a problem with a lot of stuff in the books that other people do. I have no problem with the twins putting Montegue in the Vanishing Cabinet. I thought it was funny. I have no problem with Harry using Crucio or Imperio in a scary and exteme situation...although I do wish that Jo had done a better job at explaining why that was excusable in that particular situation. I like the good guys, and I don't really care too much what happens to the bad guys. If that makes me morally bereft...so be it. Katie From tifflblack at earthlink.net Thu Aug 2 16:04:01 2007 From: tifflblack at earthlink.net (tiffany black) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:04:01 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR Encyclopaedia; what do you want to see in it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <009501c7d51e$c0097950$6401a8c0@TIFFANY> No: HPFGUIDX 174259 Mine for instance: 1. The gemstones in the hourglasses; we know the Houses are represented by the colours, red, blue and green have rubies, sapphire and emeralds Hufflepuffs are represented by yellow, so what's their gemstone? Tiffany: I think for some reason I remember it being topaz. From ken.fruit at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 16:02:21 2007 From: ken.fruit at gmail.com (rt11guru) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:02:21 -0000 Subject: JKR Encyclopaedia; what do you want to see in it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174260 As much as an Encyclopedia, I would like to see an organized presentation of JKR's notes. She created a tremendous amount of backstory that isn't in the books. There are lists of character names that never were used. There are probably little incidents that she wrote that didn't ever fit into one of the books, or were edited out for length. That is what I would like to see. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annette" wrote: A big assumption here that *if* JKR does write an encyclopaedia of the Wizarding World that it would contain the facts and figures of Harry's world. That is to say, that all the minutiae and details that absorb us can be referred to as author intended. As much as I have loved reading and even trying out a few theories of my own these are just interpretations around the facts (and long may they live!). However, I feel there are still outstanding little niggles we have concerning the world of Harry Potter. What things do it to you? From trog at wincom.net Thu Aug 2 16:15:05 2007 From: trog at wincom.net (Dennis Grant) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:15:05 -0000 Subject: Victory for TEWWW EWWW?? Snape the hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174261 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > All up I don't think Harry's forgiveness and honouring of Severus in > the end was pure saviour-style altruism, but rather a very wise > understanding of the fact that when Snape had already redeemed all his > sins he risked his life and his soul for a friend, and when he had > already paid his dues and was free, he stayed there right beside Harry > to his death. For that, he was very very brave. High five! And the whole time, the ungrateful little rule-braking, glory-hound brat not only wouldn't show him any simple respect, but actually kept calling him out as one of the bad guys! Certainly reason to be a little snippy.... DG From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Aug 2 16:13:39 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:13:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables Message-ID: <556308.29472.qm@web86208.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174262 Katie wrote: All I can say is that I see it differently and that Hermione, to me, is one of the most brave and most loyal characters in the books. I know a lot of people have problems with the whole Marietta thing. I don't. I don't have a problem with her sending birds flying at Ron's face when she was jealous and angry, either, though I know some do. I like Hermione, and I think she was trying to protect her parents from harm, and I just don't have a problem with it. Maybe I'm morally lax or something (though I don't actually think so), but I seem to not have a problem with a lot of stuff in the books that other people do. I have no problem with the twins putting Montegue in the Vanishing Cabinet. I thought it was funny. I have no problem with Harry using Crucio or Imperio in a scary and exteme situation...although I do wish that Jo had done a better job at explaining why that was excusable in that particular situation. I like the good guys, and I don't really care too much what happens to the bad guys. If that makes me morally bereft...so be it. Katie ===== Irene: Katie, I don't think it makes you morally bereft. You just read the books the way JKR probably intended them to be read: with the "bad guys" being cardboards who we shouldn't care much about. There are good books written this way, good children books too - Roald Dahl is the first that comes to mind. I don't mind that kind of book, generally speaking. I can read about James Bond killing a hundred "black hat" guys to get to the main villain - it's OK, he is *our* spy. I can enjoy it. But what I mind about Deathly Hallows being that sort of book is the fact that I was misled. I didn't expect it. The first six books were misleading. DH didn't do what it said on the tin for me. Rowling didn't keep her villains and her background Slytherins cardboard enough, she made me care for some of them. And in the end she laughed at me: "gotcha!" So, nothing wrong with your morals, you are lucky to stick to the original authorial intent and not to be led astray by red herrings of complexity that just was never there. Irene From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 16:07:11 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:07:11 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174263 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > <<>> > Katie: > > Plus, I think it was pretty obvious that Hermione was incredibly > > upset about it. She was crying and visibly distraught when talking > > about it...so, I don't feel like it was mentioned casually. > > Magpie: > She is not upset about it and is not doing any such thing when > talking about it. She tells Harry that she's coming with him and > simply reels off that she's taken care of her parents. She begins to > cry not because she's done something horrible to them, but because > in talking about it she brings up the possibility of *her own > death.* She says if she survives the Horcrux hunt she'll lift the > enchantment. If she doesn't, well, she's cast a good enough spell to > make them happy as the two people they aren't. She's not crying > about having done this completely unacceptable thing to these two > people, but her own future. Her parents get off easy as far as she's > concerned. They'll be fine even if they live a lie the rest of their > lives. It's Hermione who will be missing out by dying. It's her > who's felt sorry for in the scene. <<>> > -m > ****Katie again: I simply do not see the scene that way. ""Assuming I survive our hunt for the Horcruxes, I'll find Mum and Dad and lift the enchantment. If I don't --- well, I think I've cast a good enough charm to keep them safe and happy. Wendell and Monica Wilkens don't know that they've got a daughter, you see." Hermione's eyes were swimming with tears again." I interpreted this, on first read and on subsequent ones, as Hermione crying because her parents don't remember her. This obviously upsets her. I never saw it as her crying for herself. I guess I just don't see her as so self-involved. Katie From YasminOaks at aol.com Thu Aug 2 15:45:38 2007 From: YasminOaks at aol.com (YasminOaks at aol.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:45:38 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Whose Death Was The Saddest - book 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174264 > Michelle Wilkinson wrote: > The saddest death for me was Dobby until we saw Snape's dying > memories. I listened to that part while driving home tonight > and had to pull over to find a tissue to wipe my eyes so I > could see the road. Dave replied: The saddest death to me was Fred's death. I was an only child so I don't know what having a brother feels like. But in the books even though all the brothers loved each other it was obvious how close Fred and George were to each other. The fact that they were twins even made them closer. The thought of George having to go on without Fred was very sad to me. Cathy: I have had a hard time thinking of whose death was the saddest for me. All of them (aside from Voldy and Bellatrix) were upsetting. I think the ultimate saddest death was Severus Snape. It seemed almost a certainty after HBP that he would be one to die in the final book. I didn't see much of a chance for his survival even though I believed he was DDM all along. Yet when I read "What Will Happen in Harry Potter Book 7" written by the geniuses at Mugglenet.com, I was given hope that Snape might just make it after all. They stated that since someone had been given a reprieve that they believed it would be Snape. I liked this thought and put some hope into it. Throughout the series I had always enjoyed Snape's character. He had a rough and lonely life and it seemed that all he wanted was to fit in somewhere. I thought he must have cared for Lily at one time too. Oh and speaking of Lily, although she had never been fully introduced before I really liked her a lot. I felt that she was someone so kind and gentle and talented. I have to admit that what I read of her in Snape's memories wasn't up to par with my high expectations of her. Sure she was nice and talented. I just must have been seeing her as perfect and caring and a friend to everyone. I personally was disappointed that she didn't give Snape more of a chance and I was very disappointed that she ended their long time friendship. I feel that if she had at least stayed his friend then her influence would have perhaps guided him away from becoming a death eater. Of course I had also been wishing she had fallen in love with Snape all along too. I just never liked James from the memories. He was too much of a show off and a bully for me to really like him. He had a great son, but he just didn't seem like a nice person himself. I am sure he grew up and matured into a wonderful man though as everyone really seemed to think so highly of him. Another death that left me feeling it was so wrong was Fred. I totally agree that it would be so hard for George to carry on without his twin. That just broke my heart. I also felt so horrible for Tonks. She was such a loving and devoted woman. I always loved her character too. She loved Lupin so much and they seemed so right for one another. Their love made me smile. Of course Lupin let me down when he left her, but he did go back and was happy. He deserved that as he had such a rough life. I was glad that he found love and happiness. My best friend felt that Hedwig's death was the saddest. That really broke her heart terribly. I sure cried a lot in this book, but loved most about it. I just wish that Snape had been able to live and found some happiness in his sad and lonely life. Cathy who writes too much. :) From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 16:23:03 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:23:03 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174265 > Magpie: > And yet every single person reading the book is a Muggle and can > understand. Muggles actually aren't that stupid, and Hermione's > parents have been nothing but supportive of her being a witch. To me > this comes across just the way it does in canon--that Muggles are > like children so Wizards can make decisions for them. Hermione has > been treating her parents this way for a while now, and it's not > surprising that she'd prefer to just zap them for her own > convenience than want to explain anything to them. She's long since > decided that they just "won't understand" so it's not worth the > effort. But that doesn't make what she's doing right or not worth > thinking about. Lisa: Heavens! That's not the scenario I imagine at all! "Mom, Dad, as you know, Harry Potter is a close friend of mine. He's being hunted by a very evil wizard -- you can't even imagine how evil he is! Harry has been marked -- he HAS to defeat this wizard. He's my friend, I can't let him do it alone, I just can't! I know you have objections and you're afraid for me, and rightly so -- this is going to be a very dangerous quest. But it's something I have to do. And in doing so, I'm going to be placing you in extreme danger -- and in return, because you know so much about Harry and you know I'll be with him, you may place me in extreme danger. But I can hide you -- I can hide you as though it'll be you never existed. You'll think you're someone else, and you'll live somewhere else -- and when it's all over, I'll come get you and reverse the spell, I promise. But you've got to trust me. I'd never forgive myself if you were killed by Death Eaters -- YES, DEATH EATERS, isn't that awful?! -- because of me, please, you've GOT to let me do this. I have complete faith in Harry, Ron and I, I'm very confident that we'll come out of this all right. But ... but ... if we don't ... you'll still be safe, and we'll be together again someday, won't be? Please, if you love and trust me, you'll let me do this, so that I won't be mad with worry over you while I should be concentrating all my efforts on helping Harry defeat this horrible wizard." Lisa From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Aug 2 16:23:51 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 12:23:51 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] DH: How did Luna recognize Harry at the wedding? Message-ID: <11406753.1186071831154.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174267 Blazius1: >In Fleur and Bill's wedding, Luna is able to see through Harry's >polyjuice disguise. How? Bart: Because physical appearance is not all there is to recognizing someone. For example, once, on a subway, when I was about 22, a young woman came up to me, and asked me, "Aren't you Bart Lidofsky?" I said yes. She was someone I barely knew from Junior High School, but I was working in a notebook on the train, and I erased something. Apparently, she recognized the way I erased it (on top of everything else, by then I had grown a beard, which made me even harder to recognize by appearance). Now, this is not entirely strange, as I use a slightly unusual eraser (a plastic one; it only rubs off the surface, and does nothing to the paper; it's more commonly used by artists, but it was also commonly used in the Netherlands, where I started using it). And there was my facial expression while erasing, and who knows what else. The point is that people have facial expressions, gestures, ways of walking, ways of looking at things, which can be subtle, yet distinct. Luna recognized Harry by these methods (I don't have the quote in front of me, but she does pretty much say this). Remember in COS, when Harry & Ron pretended to be Crabbe and Goyle, and had to remember to take care of their walking, talking, and facial expressions, so as not to make it look suspicious? What is interesting about this scene is that Luna did not come there looking for Harry in disguise, yet she saw right through it. I don't know what the encyclopedia will say, but I think that she would make an excellent auror. Think of the USA Network's (anybody know what it's called over the pond?) strange detectives, from shows like Monk, Psyche, The Dead Zone, Burn Notice, etc. Consider: The bar had no name on the door. Not surprising for an establishment on Nokturn Alley. People knew where to go. At least they thought so. That's why all the heads turned when the dark-haired young woman walked in. She was dressed more like she was going to a party than a Nokturn Alley bar. So, nobody reacted when someone violated the unwritten rule of anonymity, breaking the silence, "And, who might you be, and what brings you to a place like this?" The young woman replied, "Hi! I'm an Auror from the ministry, and I'm trying to solve the Philo Finnegan murder." For a moment, you could have heard a pin drop on the floor. Then the bar erupted in hearty laughter. Everybody started offering to buy the newcomer drinks. "I will have to turn myself in, Missy! I'm the guy who killed Philo Finnegan!" said one. Soon, almost everybody in the bar was taking turns going up to her, and confessing to the crime. A good time was had by all, when the woman prepared to leave. "Thank you all. I'm pretty sure I know who the real murderer is, now." And there was more laughter, as she left. They hadn't had this much fun in years. A few minutes later, back at Ministry headquarters, Agent Lovegood walked in. The disguise spell was removed. "I think we're on the right track." she said. "I'm sure it was Polywhacker Grimm who killed Philo Finnegan." "How do you know?" asked her supervisor. She proceeded to explain the evening's goings on, while her supervisor fought the urge to slam his head against his desk a few times. "But, still. How do you know it was Polywhacker Grimm?" "Simple." replied Luna. "He was the only person in the bar who did NOT confess to the murder." Bart Bart From cottell at dublin.ie Thu Aug 2 16:29:04 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:29:04 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174268 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > Magpie: > And yet every single person reading the book is a Muggle and can > understand. Muggles actually aren't that stupid, and Hermione's > parents have been nothing but supportive of her being a witch. To > me this comes across just the way it does in canon--that Muggles > are like children so Wizards can make decisions for them. Bizarrely, the Dursleys got not only an explanation but also a choice. From guzuguzu at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 16:44:13 2007 From: guzuguzu at yahoo.com (guzuguzu) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:44:13 -0000 Subject: Luna's Creepy Father-- Was: Predictions for the End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174269 Betsy Hp wrote: > Luna's father was *creepy*! I thought he'd killed her and mummified > her remains during that tea scene. guzu: I was extremely disturbed by the portrayal of Luna's father, who, from what we heard about him in OotP and HBP, seemed to be comically wacky. Instead, we find that besides being a cowardly traitor (trying to sell Harry and co. to the DEs) he is dangerously delusional (the exploding horn). I found the latter particularly disgusting given that we learned in OotP that Luna's mother accidentally killed herself during an experiment. I wonder if Mr. Lovegood had anything to do with that? Seeing as how he had been planning to give the horn to Luna as a gift, it seems the DEs actually saved her from severe injury or death by kidnapping her. I'm not sure what J.K. Rowling's intent was in writing him to be as nasty as he was, other than to make us feel even more sorry for Luna. From Ajohnson5 at oh.rr.com Thu Aug 2 16:01:21 2007 From: Ajohnson5 at oh.rr.com (April Johnson) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 12:01:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR Encyclopaedia; what do you want to see in it? References: Message-ID: <017601c7d51e$5ee416d0$6601a8c0@april> No: HPFGUIDX 174270 Cariad x Writes: 2.Do all Wizard families send their children off from Kings Cross station? How do Muggleborns know how to get on to Platform 9, 3/4? April Writes: Didn't the books say that one of the people from the school goes to the house of the muggles to explain everything to the parents about their child being a witch or wizard and about the school? I'd think they'd tell them how to get to diagon alley and to the platform at that time. April. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dougsamu at golden.net Thu Aug 2 16:46:00 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 12:46:00 -0400 Subject: Snape finding Lily's Letter Message-ID: <507C1611-833A-4F1F-A1BC-DAA9E631E596@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174271 CathyD: And he didn't show it to Harry, the kid dying to know more about his parents, because??? doug: Because adults have secrets. ___ __ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 16:54:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:54:21 -0000 Subject: Snape's death scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174272 Carol earlier: > > It has nothing to do with defending himself or blowing his cover. He has one job to do and one only--get the message to Harry Potter that Harry must let Voldemort kill him to destroy the soul bit in the Horcrux [erm, I meant in Harry's scar]. If he fails to do that, it's all over. > >snip> > > It has nothing whatever to do with poor planning. Dumbledore has told him not to deliver the message until he sees Voldemort protecting the snake, and until now, the snake has not been protected. > > > Jack-A-Roe: > First off I must say I was wrong when I said Snape didn't have his wand out. It was apparently in his hand the entire time and he did raise it. > > You are exactly right when you say it's not about his cover. That point is over. He sees the snake being protected and knows he must get his message to Harry. > > As a double agent his life is in constant jeopardy. Which means that he has to be ready to defend himself and have a way out of every situation that he walks into. Being called to Voldemort during the battle should have raised a red flag. Carol: How so? Voldemort has actually told him to watch out for Harry Potter, who is on his way to Hogwarts. He knows that Voldemort has no doubts about his loyalty. He's Voldemort's righthand man; he's fooled him time and again with lies and Occlumency and is perfectly capable of sustaining the pretence; he doesn't know about the Elder Wand; and he doesn't know tha Nagini is in her bubble. That's his cue that it's time to deliver the message, and he keeps trying to get away to do it, but something else is wrong. Voldemort is talking about wands, and Snape can't answer his questions. He has no reason to suspect that he's in any kind of danger beyond the usual mortal peril until it's too late. Jack-A-Roe: Voldemort's speech should have had him working his way toward an exit. When I say he failed to plan I mean he didn't have a way out of the shack. He could never plan for every contingency but he should have had something in mind. > > His life is in danger and all he can do is raise his wand and do nothing. This is right after Voldemort tells him that "While you live, Severus, the Elder Wand cannot be truly mine." > > At that point he should have started throwing curses and working his way out the door. Voldemort just said he was going to kill him. After all he still has a mission to finish. Instead I believe he froze up under the threat, knowing he was going to fail in his mission. > > To me this is a great contrast to Harry who always fights til the end. Carol responds: You're forgetting one key thing. Snape knows that he can't fight Voldemort, whether or not the Elder Wand is working; if he does, he'll be killed instantly without delivering his message. (Have you forgotten the scene where Voldemort kills everyone in the room except the fleeing Malfoys and Bellatrix because of a message delivered by a goblin?) If Snape raises his wnad, he's dead. (Yes, he could fight any other wizard in the WW and win, but this is Voldemort.) And he knows that he can't kill Voldemort because of the soul piece in Harry's scar. The only way for Voldemort to be destroyed is for Harry to let himself be killed because the soul bit in his scar makes Voldemort immortal. Delivering that urgent message is the only thing on Snape's mind. That and the snake in the bubble telling him that it's time. He thinks he's going to die without delivering it and that all is lost. He doesn't care about dying in and of itself. Sparing his own life is not important. Delivering the message is. He knew, thanks to Voldemort, that Harry was coming to Hogwarts. If he could somehow have talked to Harry there and somehow found out that the snake was in its protective bubble, maybe, maybe, he could have passed on his message then, using his doe Patronus as the "ironclad reason" why he should be trusted. But well-intentioned McGonagall made that impossible. (He could have won the duel but she was fighting dirty and he didn't want anyone to get hurt. He has no choice but to leave without talking to Harry, and he doesn't know whether the time has come yet in any case.) Moreover, he had no reason not to obey Voldemort's summons as he had always done, thinking that lies and Occlumency could protect him. He didn't know about the Elder Wand. He knew that his disloyalty to Voldemort could not have been discovered and that even as he stands there, even as he lies dying, Voldemort does not doubt them. ("I regret this," says Voldemort coldly before he leaves with Nagini--luckily for both Snape and Harry.) The wand is a wrench in the works that makes it impossible to pretend to go for the boy to bring him to Voldie while really telling him about the soul bit and revealing his loyalties. I still don't know exactly what went wrong with Dumbledore's plan (*please* don't tell me about Draco's Expelliarmus and the wand switching loyalties--that doesn't explain what DD *intended* to happen since LV would still have thought that Snape was the master of the wand), but, obviously, Snape was somehow supposed to maintain Voldemort's trust *and* get the message to Harry, which he could only do if he was alive. DD could not have anticipated that he'd be killed by the snake. (Did he think that the wand would lose its powers altogether if he let Snape kill him? Did he trust to luck that Voldemort wouldn't find the wand in time to discover figure out why it didn't work properly for him? It sure killed a lot of people for a wand that didn't work!) As I said before, it's not just Draco's Expelliarmus but Harry's wand acting on its own and Harry's dropping the photograph of Grindelwald that made it possible for Voldemort to find the wand. And Harry had a chance to beat Voldemort to the wand and chose not to take it. For all those reasons, "that bit" went wrong, but it was no fault of Snape's. He had no reason to suspect that this summons was any different from the others and he had to find out whether the snake was being magically protected. Once he got to Voldemort and realized his predicament without understanding what had gone wrong, his wand would not have helped him. He had every reason to fear, but it was his message, not his life, that he feared for. He could not fight, he could not run, and he would not beg for Voldemort's nonexistent mercy, which in any case would not have availed him. And in the end, he did not fail. He helped to defeat Voldemort, finding a way to deliver his message that no one could have anticipated, so that Harry understood that his scar was the last Horcrux and that he must face Voldemort without fighting, willing to die, as Snape did, for the greater good. Harry, of course, had already chosen not to run for his life, to take the chance of dying. "Sometimes you've *got* to think of more than your own safety! Sometimes you've *got* to think about the greater good!" (568). But Snape's message made it clear why and how he had to die. (Of course, DD was concealing from them both that Harry might survive, but either he didn't want to give Harry false hope or it would spoil the sacrifice.) And Snape understood, too, that the defeat of Voldemort was more important than his own life. Carol, noting that courage in these books does not always mean fighting back; sometimes, it means stepping in harm's way From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 16:52:39 2007 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:52:39 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174273 I (vmonte) wrote: Well, if I found out that my daughter messed with my brain I don't think I would ever trust her again. But then again, Hermione probably made them forget that too. Katie responded: All I can say is that I see it differently and that Hermione, to me, is one of the most brave and most loyal characters in the books. I know a lot of people have problems with the whole Marietta thing. I don't. I don't have a problem with her sending birds flying at Ron's face when she was jealous and angry, either, though I know some do. I like Hermione, and I think she was trying to protect her parents from harm, and I just don't have a problem with it. Maybe I'm morally lax or something (though I don't actually think so), but I seem to not have a problem with a lot of stuff in the books that other people do. I have no problem with the twins putting Montegue in the Vanishing Cabinet. I thought it was funny. I have no problem with Harry using Crucio or Imperio in a scary and exteme situation...although I do wish that Jo had done a better job at explaining why that was excusable in that particular situation. vmonte responds: I like Hermione and think she is brave as well. And I have no problem with what she did to Marietta or Ron. I also love the twins, and was devastated when Fred was killed. (His death was completely unnecessary in my opinion.) I do, however, have a problem with some of the things the "good guys" did in this book. Harry used crucio on a DE because that DE spit at Minerva, and that's not a valid reason imo. And what Hermione did to her parents is just scary. Her parents deserved more respect than that. Katie wrote: I like the good guys, and I don't really care too much what happens to the bad guys. If that makes me morally bereft...so be it. vmonte again: It's not so much that I care about what happens to the bad guys, but what it says about the "good guys." From cottell at dublin.ie Thu Aug 2 17:02:15 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:02:15 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174274 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: vmonte again: > It's not so much that I care about what happens to the bad guys, but > what it says about the "good guys." Good is not something you are, it's something you do. From npod4291 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 16:46:05 2007 From: npod4291 at yahoo.com (npod4291) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:46:05 -0000 Subject: DH - unanswered (and irritating) questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174275 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ciraarana" wrote: > The following questions are from the list I made after the first > reading of DH. If anybody can answer them, I'd be grateful. (I > excluded most of the unanswerable questions, like What happened to > the Dursleys?) > > Q: Who is the one who, according to Rowling, performs magic quite > late in life? Nate: In the webchat she did earlier this week, she said that she changed her mind about that and decided to not have anyone do that. ciraarana: > Q: Did the Sorting Hat burn completely? What or who is Sorting now? Nate: Well, I would say that it didn't burn completely, as Harry tells his son that the Sorting Hat WILL take his choice in to consideration, inferring that it is still doing the sorting. ciraarana: > Q: Why didn't Snape know about the Horcurxes? He's a Dark wizard. > Voldemort is boasting about his near immortality. Snape is a clever > man. Why didn't he know?? Nate: What makes you say that he didn't know? Just because he wasn't actively pursuing them doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't know about them. ciraarana: > Q: Where is Snape's portrait?? He was Headmaster of Hogwarts. We > saw how their portraits pop up after their death. And I'm sure > Harry would have noticed Snape's portrait. So, where is it?? Nate: Again, in the webchat that Rowling had earlier this week, she says that he doesn't have one. Her reasoning was that Snape had technically left his post as Headmaster before he died (when he flew away) and thus wouldn't have a portrait. However, she did say that Harry would try and get him one. ciraarana: > Q: Snape wasn't yet teaching at Hogwarts when he approached > Dumbledore with the plea to keep Lily safe (otherwise they wouldn't > have met at the hilltop). So, when did that interview take place? > and why did it take Voldemort so long to find the Potters? They > only went into hiding a week before they were murdered. Nate: Where did you read that it was a week? I took it to be much longer than that. After all, the prediction speaks of a someone that WILL BE BORN that has the power to vanquish the dark lord; therefore, Snape will have told Voldemort about the prophecy more than a year before murder. As soon as Harry was born (still more than a year before James and Lill die) Voldy would think that Harry is his threat, prompting Snape to see Dumbledore. ciraarana: > Q: Snape approached Voldemort with the plea to not kill Lily? And > Voldemort agreed? He agreed to not kill a "Mudblood"?? (And he did > agree, didn't he, because he gave Lily the choice to step away.) > Looking at Voldemort's policy ... Are we supposed to accept that? Nate: Admittedly, this was a little suspect to me as well. That being said, Voldemort obviously doesn't care too much about the request, as he kills her anyway when he could have easiler stunned / moved / cursed around her. ciraarana: > Q: The Polyjuice Potion. It only lasts for an hour. That was > important in GoF. And in this book it's never even once mentioned! > And some of the adventures took longer than an hour. Is this a new > version of Polyjuice? Why aren't we told so? Nate: Agreed, this was strange. I only have two possible answers. 1.) We aren't ever told for sure that it was longer than hour (I don't think), though some of them seem unlikely to be that short, mainly trying to get the locket. 2.) At one point, something is mentioned about taking a large amount of potion, maybe taking more than one does has a longer effect? ciraarana: > Q: The prophesy business. What a mess. Dumbledore's and Trelawney's > accounts clashed ? if what Dumbledore said was true about the > evening of the Prophesy, there was no way Trelawney could have > known the eavesdropper was Snape. But she knew. And Snape still > only reported the first part. How does that all fit?? Nate: What I think happened, was that Snape was listening at the door, and half way through the prophecy, is caught by the barman, who turns out to be Aberforth, and therefore can't listen anymore. Albus and Sybll then come out after the whole prophecy (which couldn't have been more than 15 seconds) and find Alberforth scolding Snape for eavesdropping on his brother. This is just what I picture, but I think it seems likely. ciraarana: > Q: Harry peering in on Voldemort. Excuse me, but Voldemort is the > one who is in control of the connection. During HBP, he kept it > shut. And now, suddenly, Harry can creep in again? Without > Voldemort noticing? And Voldemort didn't even once use the > connection to try something like he did with Sirius? He never used > it to look in on Harry and see where the boy was? Nate: Remember, the only reason he knew about the connection in OotP was because Harry knew about Mr. Weasley, meaning he didn't feel Harry entering his mind, but knew because of the knowledge Harry gained from it. In that same webchat with Rowling, she said that LV was still implementing Occlumency, but was losing control. Remember, Dumbledore (I think its him at least) tells Harry that the bond between he and LV becomes stronger the longer it's there, a "parasitic" growth is what it's called I believe. Because of this, I think that the bond had become so strong that no amount of Occlumency could have prevented it when Voldemort felt strong emotions. He never used it back because I don't know that he was aware of it, and because it was already seen that going into Harry caused Voldy great pain. ciraarana: > Q: The Trace. Rubbish. Excuse me, but it is. I mean, in CoS Harry > is accused of having used the Hover Charm. The Ministry didn't know > it wasn't him. Somewhere, I think at the end of HBP, Dumbledore > even told Harry that the Ministry can only detect that magic is > performed, but not by whom. And now we are introduced to the Trace, > which allows the Ministry to tell exactly who performed which > spell?? No. Doesn't make sense. Or is it a new ministry policy and > I simply missed that bit? Nate: I intrepreted the Trace differently. I didn't think that it showed Ministry exactly who could perform the spell. I think that what Harry was experiencing in CoS was finally given a name. In DH, when the worried that the Trace might still be on Harry, he tells Ron and Hermione that it's no good if he can't use magic, and they can't use magic around him, showing that the Trace is no different than it was described before, that is simply showing when there is magic performed around someone with it on them. ciraarana: > Q: If Expelliarmus changes the wand's allegiance then nobody from > the DA is still using their own wand. No wizard or witch who has > ever been taught that spell at Hogwarts would be using their own > wand (although considering the DADA teacher problem ) But wouldn't > Harry have won Voldemort's wand in the graveyard scene in GoF? Nate: Ollivander says that they are subtle laws governing wand allegiance, so I don't think that disarming automatically and definitely changes a wands allegiance. "The wand chooses the wizard." This to me almost sounds as if the wand can "decide" to change its allegiance if someone is disarmed. I think that the reason the Elder Wand was switched to Harry was because it was "aware" that he was the only one worthy and capable of becoming the Master of Death, and therefore was trying to join him. Nate From mac_tire at hotmail.com Thu Aug 2 17:06:53 2007 From: mac_tire at hotmail.com (pattiemgsybb) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:06:53 -0000 Subject: Reflection on DH ( and its deaths, from a fan of Sirius, Remus and Tonks) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174276 Dana: > When in OotP Sirius falls through the veil, it is not so much that he > died (well it is but that is another point entirely ;o) but the way > the aftermath of his death was handled. To me it was for one not > totally clear from reading the text that yes he died (No explanation > about the veil or even that falling through is indeed deathly) and > secondly I found DD's aftermath speech tasteless. Hello Dana. I also grieved for Sirius's death. When you consider that the man had lived through a nightmare for twelve years, had had only a tiny taste of freedom before being (in effect) locked up once again and made useless...it was a very painful death for me, as a reader, to live through. I found the veil confusing -- I still don't understand the stupid veil! Why on earth is there a tunnel straight to death in the middle of an office, and couldn't they at least put a fence around the thing? If we can put fences around swimming pools I think we could do something around the Death Veil. And then, what made it all even worse was that little bit where Sirius seems to be gloating at Bellatrix at the end -- ie, he died because of his arrogance. Well, if JKR wrote it, I have to accept that it's "HP Reality," but I sure don't have to like it. And then, as you say, the man gets no sort of remembrance at all, no memorial of any kind. Plenty of people die without leaving a body to bury and that doesn't mean there's no funeral. Why did Sirius have to be the exception? I take it JKR had to get Sirius out of the picture because Harry needed to go on his quest alone. So Sirius fell victim to the need of the plot. And apparently the Lupins had to die -- when they weren't supposed to, initially --for similar reasons. All of a sudden JKR decides she wants to leave a second orphan, to remind people that this is one effect of war (in case we forgot how Harry wound up parentless) while at the same time taking the opportunity (via her epilogue) to illustrate that orphans can have good lives (and I'm sure the fact that their parents died an early death doesn't haunt them much). The bizarre behavior of both Lupin and Tonks throughout DH -- Remus particularly not remotely in character, and their partnership an emblem of The Marriage That Should Never Have Been -- was supposedly an opportunity for the author to drop a red herring re. Lupin's loyalties. I certainly did wonder about Remus's behavior in DH but it was more along the lines of "he seems about ready for some long-term-care at the insane asylum" rather than any worries that he'd deserted Harry's cause. And then, of course, the off-camera deaths. Couldn't we at least have seen the kick-it Auror Tonks take out ONE Death-Eater? Why not let Lupin send Fenrir to the great beyond? Nope. They just die out of sight, out of hearing, out of any reality of the battle. It's as though JKR couldn't take the trouble to write a real ending for them. I do love many aspects of each novel, and in fact there were many scenes in DH that I found quite moving or exciting -- but I hated the treatment of Sirius in OotP and I hate the treatment of Remus and Tonks in DH. pattiemgsybb From mohalagirl25 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 17:06:14 2007 From: mohalagirl25 at yahoo.com (Amy Klein) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:06:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR Encyclopaedia; what do you want to see in it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <220072.32529.qm@web44808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174277 I know that,_._,___ I know that JKR wrote a Magical Beasts book, but I would like to see an updated one, including all of the magical creatures that Harry and the Hogwarts students encountered. Every Thursday for two months before Book 7 The Star Ledger, a newspaper my family recieves, was putting in Harry Potter Q and A's and Cross Word puzzles that you needed to look into the books for. Well the one cross word had to do with magical creatures so I went to the book JKR wrote on them and there were a surprising amount of creatures that were not in the book. Amy From mohalagirl25 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 16:51:50 2007 From: mohalagirl25 at yahoo.com (Amy Klein) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:51:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Narcissa's love In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <810995.79372.qm@web44813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174278 CaroJ11 wrote: > I think we should all pause, and mentally thank Narcissa for saving > Harry's life. It was she who lied to Voldemort, saying Harry was > indeed dead. Curious, isn't it? Once again, Voldemort is defeated > my a mother caring more for her child than for his service Amy: Thank you for pointing this out, I originally did not connect Narcissa willing to do anything to get to her son and Lily protecting Harry, even if it meant she would be forfeiting her life to do so. I also think that this is a pivotal moment for the Malfoy family, when they turn from Voldemort supporters to a Hogwarts family. (In my eyes a Hogwarts family is one who is willing to do anything to protect their family, even fighting against the odds.) They were the only ex-Death Eater family sitting in that dining hall after the victory and no one said anything or noticed them, and everyone was sitting all over the hall regardless of which house's table was which. It almost seems as if it was a silent welcome for the Malfoys. I'm not saying that there will never be a Malfoy vs. Weasley and Potter rivalry, but it seems that there will never be a Malfoy the Death Eater family ever again. Which I am very happy about, it's nice to see that the Malfoys are thinking for themselves, not just following the most powerful person at the time. Ok, that's enough for now of my thoughts, Amy From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Aug 2 17:20:11 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:20:11 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174279 Betsy Hp: > I'd say he was something less than that. He was > clever I grant you, but I think he had only a > monster's worth of empathy. Empathy is something > not very much valued in this series honestly. Maybe > because it's a virtue associated with water? (She > says, still trying to make sense of the whole thing, > which she should honestly stop trying to do. ) houyhnhnm: "a monster's worth of empathy" LOL. I really like that phrase and I agree that it is a virtue associated with water and that is why we saw so little of it, especially in DD the consumate Gryffindor. I firmly believe and nothing anyone says, including Rowling, is going to change my mind , that empathy was the quality the Hat sensed in Harry that caused it to argue for sorting him into Slytherin. It was definitely *not* "a certain disregard for the rules", a Gryffindor trait if there ever was one. I am troubled by these books and I believe I share a lot of your objections, but there were a few things I liked about DH. Well, one actually. I really liked Harry's response to the viewing of Snape's memories. It rang true for me that Harry would so instantantly and completely change his mind about Snape and I don't think it was the latter memories in DD's office that did the trick, but the ones of Snape with Lily. Unlike a number of fans, Harry didn't seem to regard Snape's love for his mother as the least bit creepy, and I think it was because he empathized with Snape. He wouldn't have, three years earlier, before Cho and Ginny. >>>...Harry, the only one left to observe him, recognized Snape's bitter disappointment, and understood that Snape had been planning this moment for a while, and that it had all gone wrong ...<<< Of course he did. He's been there--babbling, drooling on himself, covered with smelly green goo. He's also known the green-eyed monster and he can empathize with Snape's jealosy as well. >>>Harry doubted that Snape had even heard her strictures on Mulciber and Avery. The moment she had insulted James Potter, his whole body had relaxed, and as they walked away there was a new spring in Snape's step ... <<< But I think it was not his young adolescent crush on Cho or even his fight with the chest monster over Ginny that sealed it for Harry; it was his more mature feelings for Ginny at the end of HBP. He gave her up because he thought it would protect her from Voldemort. Rightly or wrongly may be up for debate, but his motives are not, IMO. And that is what Dumbledore demanded of Snape and what Snape acceded to. Give up all thought of Lily for yourself and I will help you save her life. Although it is not explicitly stated, I believe Harry identified with Snape here, too. He recognized love that could renounce all claim on the loved one for that person's good, and he knew it for the sincerest kind of love because he had experienced it. (BTW, although this post is about Harry, I want to add that I don't think Snape was redeemed by his love for Lily; he was redeemed by his own honor. I like the way DG put it. "Snape's path to redemption is a path of extreme loneliness, isolation, and pain, but he stays the course right up to the end and pays the ultimate price.") So after seven books, in spite of a few ups and downs, I think I like Harry. I'm just not willing to accept him as my Lord and Savior. He was a nice boy and he grew up to be a good man. But he's just a man. Some things I hated about DH (besides Rowling's complete abandonment of the theme of integration): 1. The deathly hallows--all I can say is What The %*#$??? 2. Hermione--I was trying, at least, to be open-minded about her up to book 7, but after DH, I absolutely cannot stand her. High up in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement! What an appalling thought. I wish Rowling had kept that to herself. A part of myself regrets the time and psychic energy I invested in this series and thinks my psychological well-being would best be served by taking the books to the recycling center. Another part just can't let go. From sneeboy2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 17:30:24 2007 From: sneeboy2 at yahoo.com (sneeboy2) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:30:24 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174280 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: > Matt wrote: > C) Cruciatus and Imperius curses in the Ravenclaw common room: > > Lee did not directly discuss this scene, which I found the most > disturbing morally. Here, both Harry and McGonagall employ > unforgivable curses in a situation in which they are not only > unnecessary but hardly even provoked. All that Harry or McGonagall > needs to do is to disable Amycus. But Harry is so infuriated by > Carrow's show of disrespect that he blasts off a Cruciatus curse, > while McGonagall follows up with the Imperius just to, what, get the > Carrows close enough to tie up together? > > What is it supposed to tell us when Professor McGonagall, the adult > paragon of upstanding, rule-following morality, resorts to the > unforgivable and *unnecessary*? Is it a show of solidarity with > Harry? Is it an affirmation that this is war and anything goes? > > And what has happened to Harry to make him "really mean it," to want > to hurt Amycus so badly that his curse sends the grown man flying > through the air? The only explanation I can see is that Rowling needs > to show us what the horrors of war can do to good people. Having seen > friends maimed, tortured and killed, having been on the run for nine > months, driven to larceny and robbery, haunted by dreams of yet more > terrible things, Harry is simply a different, more brutal person than > he was in book 5. We are intended to understand, perhaps, but not to > think that this is okay. Sneeboy2: I agree with your assessment of the morality of the characters' actions, but disagree about the author's intentions here. What sort of music do you imagine should be playing in the background during this scene: dark and brooding, because we've learned two people we like are capable of such action? Or bright and triumphant, because the bad guy got what he deserved? I hear the latter. The UC is like a gun that the hero has been trying to fire since book 5, and he's finally proven himself capable of shooting it. Even better, he shoots the bad guy who gave the beloved teacher that most horrible of schoolyard disses: a loogie in the face. Whoo-hoo! We are meant to stand up and cheer, and when the movie comes out, I guarantee you people will. Matt wrote: > > D) Molly and Bellatrix: > > Does it matter whether the curse that kills is a killing curse? I > didn't think Molly had cast one, although Lee believes so. Here is > how the text reads: > > "Molly's curse soared beneath Bellatrix's outstreched arm > and hit her squarely in the chest, directly over her heart. > Bellatrix's gloating smile froze, her eyes seemd to bulge: > For the tiniest space of time she knew what had happened, > and then she toppled, and the watching crowd roared, and > Voldemort screamed." > > Ordinarily with Avada Kedavra we see a flash of green light and the > victim has no opportunity to react, no knowledge of what has happened. > I had therefore assumed that, while they were both "fighting to > kill," the curse that finished Bellatrix was some other one. > > I'm not quite sure, however, why it should matter. Is murder more > acceptable when accomplished by poison than by a gun? Are soldiers in > hand combat judged by what weapon they use? > > This is clearly a case of situational morality, but from my own > perspective, I found the right and wrong of this scene quite easy to > judge, without reference to the particular curse. Bellatrix was > attempting to kill Molly's underage daughter, had already killed her > cousin (Tonks), was gloating over the death of her older son and > throwing lethal curses around like a madwoman, all this in the middle > of an epic battle between good and evil. How could Molly possibly be > criticized for joining that battle under those circumstances and > aiming to kill? > Sneeboy2: Again I agree with your assessment of the character's morals, but find the bitch-got-what-she-deserved mood of the scene both distasteful and childish. I think the author, who's fond of using a mother's love as the ultimate motive for good, wanted to show us that a mother will kill to defend her child. And most mothers would. But this is a ridiculous, crowd-pleasing depiction of that fact. The moral issues raised by these scenes don't add complexity; they muddy the water, because they call into question what's been presented to us earlier in the books at a point where it's too late in the narrative to seriously address the discrepancy. We're discussing the issues here because the books don't address them. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 2 17:32:56 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:32:56 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174281 "sneeboy2" wrote: > My beef is with the author, not the > fictional hero. She has spent a good > bit of ink establishing that the > "unforgivable" curses are just that, > that only the bad guys use them, Well that is certainly untrue, Harry first used an Unforgivable way back in book 5, and I don't believe JKR meant for her readers to think of Harry as a bad guy since then. I think the confusion comes from the name, but who do you think gave those 3 curses their unflattering name? The, oh so very moral, holier than thou, Ministry of Magic. > she inserts a scene that indicates that, > under some circumstances, using an > unforgivable is OK, even gallant. I would imagine she did that because under some circumstances, using an unforgivable is OK, even gallant; ESESPECIALY IN A WAR! For the last several years you've endured horrible pain, both physical and emotional, you've watched good friends and good people get murdered and tortured right in front of your eyes, and you've escaped death yourself by an inch on a dozens of occasions . And now you're supposed to get all squeamish about inflicting pain on a moral monster? I don't believe it is realistic for a flesh and blood human being to act like that; although such behavior is very common in Saturday morning cartoon heroes. The trouble is Harry is not a cartoon. > I don't think the scene is intended to show the > character's flaws, or to raise a moral debate. That was part of it perhaps, but I agree there was much more to it than that. > It seems designed solely to elicit a > little cheer from an audience that, > having sat through six books in which > the good guys are rather painfully good, > is hungry for a little eye-for-an-eye justice. I couldn't have put it better myself. I certainly cheered me up! > Mrs. Weasley's "bitch" line, which felt > lifted right from "Aliens." I thought so too and I loved it, if you're going to steal then steal from the best. I hope they keep that line in movie 7. > The scene is very Hollywood You almost make that sound like a bad thing. There are worse insults you could say to a writer than "When I read your books it's like there is a movie playing in my head". Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From prep0strus at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 17:31:49 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:31:49 -0000 Subject: Victory for TEWWW EWWW?? Snape the hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174282 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Grant" wrote: > And the whole time, the ungrateful little rule-braking, glory-hound > brat not only wouldn't show him any simple respect, but actually kept > calling him out as one of the bad guys! > > Certainly reason to be a little snippy.... > > DG > Prep0strus: But not to Neville. Or Hermione. Or any of the other students he treated cruelly because he was that - a cruel person. And he used to BE one of the bad guys. You can't get too mad when people make assumptions about you that were once true. You kind of have to realize that it's part of your penance for being evil that you're not gonna be Mr. Trusted in the future. I just don't think switching to the good guy team actually wipes his slate clean from being a nasty, cruel-to-children, unfair git. I think it goes a long way towards rectifying the evil he surely did when he was a death eater. But 11 year old kids had nothing to do with that. Grow up and let it go, or accept that you're gonna be a friendless loser who is constantly under suspicion. I think we forget that Snape is an ADULT. We look at the kids and pick apart their flaws - and the marauders as kids. But Severus, no matter everything he's gone through, is a grown-up, and maybe he should act like one. I think it's telling that he can change enough to be so 'brave' in his workings against voldemorte, but doesn't change an iota in his actions towards those that are under his power. I don't think Snape is that strong or that great because his nature towards others remains as cruel and spiteful. He redeemed some of the likely great evil he did as a death eater. But we're still excusing flaws in him that are much greater than those in other characters that people harp on. Even if Harry is everything you say he is, and you're certainly welcome to that opinion... Snape should pick on someone his own size. ~Prep0strus (Adam) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 17:48:31 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:48:31 -0000 Subject: Victory for TEWWW EWWW?? Snape the hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174283 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Grant" wrote: > > > And the whole time, the ungrateful little rule-braking, glory- hound > > brat not only wouldn't show him any simple respect, but actually kept > > calling him out as one of the bad guys! > > > > Certainly reason to be a little snippy.... > > > > DG > > > > Prep0strus: > > But not to Neville. Or Hermione. Or any of the other students he > treated cruelly because he was that - a cruel person. And he used to > BE one of the bad guys. You can't get too mad when people make > assumptions about you that were once true. You kind of have to > realize that it's part of your penance for being evil that you're not > gonna be Mr. Trusted in the future. < BIG SNIP> Alla: And Harry WAS ready to show him respect, he thought he had a gift of keeping class quiet on their first lesson and Snape, dear Snape attacked him instead. Attacked eleven year old, who partially because of Snape lost the parents AND who partially because of Snape lost his chance to grew up in the world he belongs to. And as Phoenixgod once said, here Snape has a perfect chance to look into those green eyes which would remind him so much of Lily, would look at him **with love**. Harry, wanting a genuine father figure, Harry who fall for Hagrid, because he showed child a little kindness. I have very little problem believing that if Snape only wanted, he would have been Harry's favorite teacher AND father figure too. Especially now that we know that Snape did not **have to** pretend to treat Harry badly to maintain his cover as a spy and we know that it was not a pretence either, I cannot, just cannot see Snape's love for Lily as completely good, no matter how many good things he did in her name. And he surely did good things, many of them. I cannot imagine somebody truly loving a woman, hating her child that much. Prep0strus: Even if Harry is everything you say > he is, and you're certainly welcome to that opinion... Snape should > pick on someone his own size. Alla: Part of the reason why I was not that appalled at Dumbledore's manipulating Snape in the memories, is because I just realised - it worked for me as a carmic justice which I wanted so in the backwards way. Yeah, he behaved as a jerk, Dumbledore I mean IMO, but I cheered him up soooo much. I could not let the thought that this is for every nasty remark "You are just like your father" and many others Harry and Neville had to endure. So, yeah, that was satisfying for me. JMO, Alla. From muellem at bc.edu Thu Aug 2 17:50:39 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:50:39 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174284 > "sneeboy2" wrote: > > > My beef is with the author, not the > > fictional hero. She has spent a good > > bit of ink establishing that the > > "unforgivable" curses are just that, > > that only the bad guys use them, > > Well that is certainly untrue, Harry first used an Unforgivable way > back in book 5, and I don't believe JKR meant for her readers to think > of Harry as a bad guy since then. I colebiancardi: but Harry failed when he first used one back in book 5 - which led the readers to believe that Harry was too *good* to ever use an Unforgivable Curse and only the scum of the earth would use these underhanded type of curses. there is more than one way to defeat the enemy - going down to their level should not be one of them. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 17:52:30 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:52:30 -0000 Subject: Camping, ethics, structure, from 'I am about to rant....' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174285 Donna wrote: I keep thinking if I can get my thoughts organized well enough, I would like to start a thread that just discusses the book within the context of literary structure and form and allusions to works within similar genres. One thing I loved about DH was that the structure and literary blueprint of the book is even more complex than I had hoped for - with each book the writing structure has really developed, become more layered > I have heard other people comment similarly to this (about JKR growing as a writer), but I can't help wonder that perhaps the increase in the complexity of the writing was intentional on JKR's part? The reading level seems to increase; certainly the subject matter matures; and the running themes seem to multiply. > Another impression I have of DH is that it uses more literary plot devices and classic literary themes than any of the other books. > > So, one could argue she increased the reading level and subject maturity to age along with young readers who started the series, well, when they were young. But the rest of it....is it a function of her writing ability growing? Is it a function of her being tuned in to this world she created full of literary allusions and references, and therefore inserting such allusions and references, everything from using the names of Greek mythological characters to using lovingly 'plagarized' plot devices, became second nature to her? Or, was the growth in her writing from book to book completely intentional from the beginning; to reflect that HRH were growing and maturing, and that the mystery and secrets Harry has to discover with each book were becoming ever layered and complex. I kind of like to think she may have set out writing Harry's story with the intention to make each book more complex and layered in structure and form than the last one. Carol responds: I think it's a given that the increased reading level and complexity are intentional. The books grow with the age of the protagonists. The darker plots and themes require more sophisticated literary techniques. (Which is not to say that the books are without flaws, but neither is "Moby Dick.") The Christian themes and symbols are more overt in this book; she's been keeping them under wraps until now. But I'm not interested, really, in authorial intention, so much of which is unconscious or unrelizable or both. JKR has a background in the classics, IIRC, and certainly some of that would have surfaced, consciously or unconsciously as she wrote, but I think we can examine those elements when we're ready (as I, assuredly, am not) without worrying about whether JKR intended them. The hero's journey to the Underworld is *there* (obviously consciously intended), foreshadowed in almost every book. The cross that Harry puts on the grave he didgs for Mad Eye's eyeball is *there,* thes things and many others are in the text, on the page, waiting to be interpreted, and IMO as long as an interpretation fits the canon, it's valid. There's no single "right reading," but I imagine there will be plenty of wrong ones! The thing about a great work of literature (and it's possible that DH is a flawed masterpiece; certainly, it's a complex work of literature), is that it has layers of meaning. "Veil after veil may be undrawn, and the inmost naked beauty of the meaning never exposed," as Shelley famously wrote. (Of course, not all readers will agree about the beauty, but I'm talking about meaning.) JKR herself does not fully understand what she's created. The creative process is a mystical, magical thing beyond the conscious intention of the writer. The whole is larger than its parts, some of which are flawed. (We can work around inconsistencies like Moody's magical eye being aboe to see under the supposedly perfect Invisibility Cloak through willing suspensions of skepticism or off-page explanations that make sene to us individual or doublethink. But the other components--the structure, the narrative technique, the allusions, the archetypes, the classical and biblical parallels and symbols, are there for readers to see and interpret whether JKR intended them or not. I have no doubt that this tale grew in the telling and that parts of it got away from her and that she did not have the advantage of rewriting it backwards to work out flaws and inconsistencies and find out "what really happened." She's not Tolkien, and even he didn't get all the bugs out--which doesn't keep LOTR from being a masterpiece. I reserve judgment on DH and the Potter series. (We can never make the number of students at Hogwarts or the ages of the Weasleys add up because JKR can't so much as count to ten on her fingers. But that's a mote in the book's eye, a minor flaw that should not blind us to larger matters.) I have a feeling that these books are like Dumbledore, seemingly mischievous and eccentric, sometimes funny, sometimes dangerous, concealing something deep and slightly sinister in their depths. But I'm not sure. I just think that discussions of authorial intentions or what we expected from the books but didn't get will lead us to a deeper understanding. Right now, for me, it's all about Dumbledore. Until I understand him and why we're clearly supposed to see him as benevolent and wise and worthy of naming your son after, I won't be ready to look at structure and genre. Snape I get. He's the "good Slytherin," whose courage and love enabled him to risk his life repeatdly for the right side without recognition or reward. He earned his redemption. But Dumbledore reminds me too much of the Old Testament God (Yahweh) for comfort. (I'm trying to get past the Unforgiveable Curses, which, IMO, can't be rationalized. They are evil, invading the mind and the body as Dementors invade the soul, and with all the other spells in Harry's arsenal, he should not have Crucio'd even Amycus Carrow.) Maybe I expected JKR to be Tolkien and saw them as the One Ring that can't be wielded by the good side. I *am* disappointed in that aspect of the books, but I'm not going to let it blind me to what else is there.) Aside: Maybe Snape is the wily Odysseus, combining cunning and courage, while Harry is a more straightforwardly heroic figure, overcoming doubt to sacrifice himself for the greater good (he says so himself), a figure who, IMO, has more in common with literary Christ figures than any figure out of Greek epic or mythology. (I am *not* saying that he's Christ or that the story is a Christian allegory--I'm talking about parallels. Christ would not have thrown a Crucio. And Christ did not get in a last taunt at those who crucified him. "They know not what they do." Voldemort knew quite well whom he was killing and why. What he didn't know was that he was the one who would die.) But I'm not there yet. I'm still dealing with the story itself, still trying to get all of it into my head (I forgot Harry's epiphany regarding DD's memories in the cave in an earlier post). Complete, complete aside, wholly irrelevant to this post. What would have happened if Voldemort had *not* gone after the Elder Wand? Could he have used his own wand on Harry with Harry's wand broken? Did Voldemort bring about his own downfall, as Grindelwald seems to have predicted? Carol, feeling guilty for actually liking Grindelwald in his death scene and under no delusions that he's good From verosomm at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 17:49:11 2007 From: verosomm at yahoo.com (verosomm) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:49:11 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174287 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > I (vmonte) wrote: > Well, if I found out that my daughter messed with my brain I don't > think I would ever trust her again. But then again, Hermione > probably made them forget that too. > > Katie responded: > All I can say is that I see it differently and that Hermione, to me, > is one of the most brave and most loyal characters in the books. > vmonte responds: > I like Hermione and think she is brave as well. > > And what Hermione did to her parents is just scary. Her parents > deserved more respect than that. I've got to agree with Katie here (hopefully I'm not putting words in your mouth, though)... I definitely don't think what Hermione did was unforgivable; far from it... I think Hermione respected her parents tremendously, but she loved them even more (which could have turned out to be problematic) for her to go through all that trouble... her plan was very well-thought out, mind-wise (though in my opinion not heart-wise which I'll get to in the next paragraph) not to mention emotionally terrifying for her, knowing she may never see them again and if so, they may not even remember her. While Hermione is extremely smart and probably the most emotionally mature of the trio, she was feeling way too much when she went further in the modification and modified her parents' memories to not know they had a daughter. I think she did this to protect them from any pain should they never see or hear from her again, while a more rational response would have been to make them think their daughter is a completely different person so they could miss her but not be heartbroken (so IF the Death Eaters found them in Australia they could just say something like "our daughter is Elizabeth Ann, she's 19, and she's at university in Canada" or something). Protecting someone from emotional pain is a very basic human response (ask any parent!) but it is an immature one, as emotional pain is natural and necessary to human existence and causes maturity. Considering it's difficult for adults to allow emotional pain even when it would be beneficial or even necessary, I think parents could understand why their 17-year-old daughter did it... the fact that she did it so they would not be tortured and possibly killed, and to keep herself, Ron and Harry safer would also be understood. It's not a wonderful situation, hell, it sucks big time, but it IS the best she can do... think of it this way. Your adult child witnesses a crime and is put in the witness protection program with everyone thinking he/she is dead. You will never see him/her again... never get to meet the person he/she marries, never know your grandchildren. Terrible, right? But better than him/her being brutally murdered by criminals, no? Again, horrible situation, but you have to make the best of it even if it's VERY far from ideal. Veronica From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Aug 2 18:04:04 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:04:04 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174288 > colebiancardi: > > but Harry failed when he first used one back in book 5 - which led the > readers to believe that Harry was too *good* to ever use an > Unforgivable Curse and only the scum of the earth would use these > underhanded type of curses. > > there is more than one way to defeat the enemy - going down to their > level should not be one of them. Potioncat: Me too! We also have HBP where Snape prevents Potter from casting Unforgivables and is very insistant that Harry not perform them. We don't see Snape casting any either, and he makes Carrow stop the Cruciatus. Potioncat (hoping she hasn't repeated something already said.) From npod4291 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 18:26:21 2007 From: npod4291 at yahoo.com (npod4291) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:26:21 -0000 Subject: James Hatred of Snape (Was: Snapes Worst Memory) In-Reply-To: <25991.81140.qm@web86208.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174289 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > Irene: > > But haven't we seen the beginning of that hate? It was not about the Dark Arts or Lily's heart at all, they've hated Snape at first sight, since that meeting on the train. > > Was it because he was poorly dressed and ugly? Or was it because he had expressed interest in Slytherin? And if in JKR's world Slytherin equalled dark arts even before Voldemort, and so made it OK for James and Sirius to hate Snape, then it's an even worse world than what it seems post book 7. :-( > Now that you mention it, I think it was simply Snape's interest in Slytherin. I don't believe that this was before Voldemort, though, In fact, I think it was right after he started. I will explain. Because of the dates on the James' and Lilly's graves, we can figure out when everything happened. It says that they were both born in 1960 and died in 1981. This means that they would have started at Hogwarts in 1971, when they were 11 years old. In Book 1, DD excuses peoples celebration to Minerva after Voldy was "killed" by saying that "they had little to celebrate for 11 years." Since we know that this was when Harry's parents died, i.e. 1981, we can deduce that Voldemort started his reign of terror, or at least made it public, in 1970, a year before Lily or James or Snape started school. Nate, who often has a tendency to get much more mathematical then is necessary. From absinthe at mad.scientist.com Thu Aug 2 18:31:13 2007 From: absinthe at mad.scientist.com (Milz) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:31:13 -0000 Subject: Narcissa's love In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174290 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "CaroJ11" wrote: > > Hello to all. This is my first post! > > I think we should all pause, and mentally thank Narcissa for saving > Harry's life. It was she who lied to Voldemort, saying Harry was indeed > dead. Curious, isn't it? Once again, Voldemort is defeated my a mother > caring more for her child than for his service. > > --CaroJ > I don't think Narcissa's act was totally unselfish. I don't think she could have cared less if Harry survived or not. And as for their being in Hogwarts at the end...the Malfoys were there only to find and retrieve Draco. Again, I don't think they really cared if Hogwarts fell and everyone was killed. They only cared about Draco and themselves. There's nothing wrong with looking out for yourself, but their actions are in no way as noble as the Weasley's who fought for their own self-preservation but also for the preservation of the WW, imo. Milz From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Aug 2 18:37:19 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:37:19 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal )/Luna's Creepy Father In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174291 > > Magpie: > > She is not upset about it and is not doing any such thing when > > talking about it. She tells Harry that she's coming with him and > > simply reels off that she's taken care of her parents. She begins > to > > cry not because she's done something horrible to them, but because > > in talking about it she brings up the possibility of *her own > > death.* She says if she survives the Horcrux hunt she'll lift the > > enchantment. If she doesn't, well, she's cast a good enough spell > to > > make them happy as the two people they aren't. She's not crying > > about having done this completely unacceptable thing to these two > > people, but her own future. Her parents get off easy as far as > she's > > concerned. They'll be fine even if they live a lie the rest of > their > > lives. It's Hermione who will be missing out by dying. It's her > > who's felt sorry for in the scene. > <<>> > ****Katie again: > > I simply do not see the scene that way. > > ""Assuming I survive our hunt for the Horcruxes, I'll find Mum and > Dad and lift the enchantment. If I don't --- well, I think I've cast > a good enough charm to keep them safe and happy. Wendell and Monica > Wilkens don't know that they've got a daughter, you see." > > Hermione's eyes were swimming with tears again." > > I interpreted this, on first read and on subsequent ones, as > Hermione crying because her parents don't remember her. This > obviously upsets her. I never saw it as her crying for herself. > > I guess I just don't see her as so self-involved. Katie Magpie: But you just indicated the same point I'm making--she's crying that her parents won't remember HER, not because she's done something horrible to THEM. It's her we're encouraged to feel sorry for because she might die and her parents wouldn't even mourn her. The fact that her parents would probably would be ten times as horrified at this than she is doesn't come into it. Here's the whole scene : 'Let's see,' said Hermione, slamming Travels with Trolls on to the discarded pile with a rather fierce look. 'I've been packing for days, so we're ready to leave at a moment's notice, which for your information has included doing some pretty difficult magic, not to mention smuggling Mad-Eye's whole stock of Polyjuice Potion right under Ron's mum's nose. 'I've also modified my parents' memories so that they're convinced they're really called Wendell and Monica Wilkins, and that their life's ambition is to move to Australia, which they have now done. That to make it more difficult for Voldemort to track them down and interrogate them about me--or you, because unfortunately, I've told them quite a bit about you. 'Assuming I survive our hunt for the Horcruxes, I'll find Mum and Dad and lift the enchantment. If I don't--well, I think I've cast a good enough charm to keep them safe and happy. Wendell and Monica Wilkins don't know they've got a daughter, you see.' Hermione's eyes were swimming with tears again. Ron got back off the bed, put his arm around her once more and frowned at Harry as though reproaching him for his lack of tact. Harry could not think of anything to say, not least because it was highly unusual to for Ron to be teaching anyone else tact. 'I--Hermione, I'm sorry--I didn't--' 'Didn't realise that Ron and I know perfectly well what might happen if we come with you? Well, we do.' *** End canon. Hermione's setting out to help Harry--her relationship with him is not self-centered. Her parents' memories are listed along with all the packing and difficult magic and Polyjuice stealing she's done. In the third paragraph she starts talking about what will happen if she *doesn't* come back from the trip. This is where her eyes fill with tears, at the idea of being dead and her parents not mourning her at all--she's removed their memories that they even have a daughter. She's telling us she's made things good for them, but is crying about what that means to her. The fact that they will never again get their identities back is fine. This is then made clearer by Ron looking at Harry as if he's been tactless in making her think about her sacrifice, and Harry tries to apologize, at which point Hermione herself speaks up about knowing the risk she's taking--again, Hermione's sacrifice. The idea that she's robbed her parents of something by taking away their own memories of their daughter, perhaps forever, is never suggested by anybody. Nobody in the scene questions that she's done this, the focus is on comforting Hermione for what might happen to her. You yourself seemed to have gotten the same impression, that Hermione is sad at her parents not remembering her, but that taking away her parents memories is fine because they're Muggles and can't understand, so don't need to be consulted. Lisa: Heavens! That's not the scenario I imagine at all! Magpie: I'm not sure what scenario you meant. I said that if Hermione talked to her parents--and that wouldn't even mean telling them everything-- they might agree to certain protections of their own free will. It's not like Hermione's not doing what she wants has been a question for 7 years--these people couldn't even get her to fix her teeth with a brace or go on a ski trip, she's hardly going to listen to them if they tell her not to endanger themselves. But the fact is, that never comes up. She doesn't even have to tell them she's an adult now and this is what she's doing. Ron's parents can be filled in, but Hermione's parents go from years of just being kept in the dark to having their identities robbed. (Though as I said I assume it's just a throwaway joke because there's more to a new Muggle identity than thinking it.) As an aside, I was just watching a movie where this guy is kind of trapped by his wife, and he kills her with an axe. It was fun and satisfying. I don't think watching annoying people have horrible things happen to them in fiction means you would act that way in real life. But I was watching a cheesy horror movie--one in which I equally enjoyed watching the same guy get strangled in revenge by his dead wife's severed arm. It wasn't a bildugsroman dealing with good and evil, and the guy wasn't a Good Guy. And I wasn't arguing for the rightness of what the guy did. Different genres do have different expectations, and every work has its own pov it puts across in how it deals with stuff. Like I said, I get that it's just explaining away Hermione's parents, and that Muggle memory charming is played for laughs, but if it's seriously defended as a good thing to do, no I don't think it is. I think there are other things at stake than protecting people. There's a lot of ways to protect people that are scary. Guzu: Seeing as how he had been planning to give the horn to Luna as a gift,it seems the DEs actually saved her from severe injury or death by kidnapping her. I'm not sure what J.K. Rowling's intent was in writing him to be as nasty as he was, other than to make us feel even more sorry for Luna. Magpie: Me too. Maybe I shouldn't even suggest how dark that relationship came across to me. For some reason that picture of Luna with her mother looking more "kempt" stuck out to me too, since Luna was 16 now and would be taking care of herself. At first I thought, just as Betsy did, that Luna was dead (which seemed pretty cool to me) and he was crazily always waiting for her to come home. Veronica: Your adult child witnesses a crime and is put in the witness protection program with everyone thinking he/she is dead. You will never see him/her again... never get to meet the person he/she marries, never know your grandchildren. Terrible, right? But better than him/her being brutally murdered by criminals, no? Again, horrible situation, but you have to make the best of it even if it's VERY far from ideal. Magpie: The problem is Hermione deciding on her own to rob someone else of their lives without their consent or even thinking of it as far as we know, not that she would rather never see them again than have them murdered. As I said above, there are lots of ways of protecting people that are scary. And yes, sometimes you might wind up having to make decisions for them even if you think it's wrong. But this isn't presented as a moral dilemma in the slightest. Nobody once questions whether Hermione ought not to have just made this decision for her parents, and nothing in the situation that makes it dangerous for her to have tried. Her magical might is gets her out of having to do that. The books are full of Muggles being treated that way (though as someone else noted, bizarrely the Dursleys are given choices, perhaps because their choices always show them them off badly). -m From verosomm at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 18:36:37 2007 From: verosomm at yahoo.com (verosomm) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:36:37 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Age WAS: Who else should have been at 9 3/4 at the end of the book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174292 > Amontillada: > > I've wondered about that assumption. It may be that McGonagal chose to > leave the headmaster's office and return her energies to teaching. A > teacher with her great skill at Transfiguration may be harder to find > than an able headmaster. Veronica: Well, I hope McGonagall is still there in some capacity... I didn't really understand how she was too old to be headmaster at 92-ish while DD was still capable at 156-ish at the end of HBP! From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 18:39:28 2007 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:39:28 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174293 Veronica wrote: Your adult child witnesses a crime and is put in the witness protection program with everyone thinking he/she is dead. You will never see him/her again... never get to meet the person he/she marries, never know your grandchildren. Terrible, right? But better than him/her being brutally murdered by criminals, no? Again, horrible situation, but you have to make the best of it even if it's VERY far from ideal. vmonte: But the adult child does not undergo a brainwashing in which her memories of her family are wiped clean. She has the choice of whether to contact her family or not. Besides, this scenario does nothing to protect the parents from the killer's vengence. Witness protection is what should have been offered to the Grangers. ____________________________ >From another post: I wrote (regarding the careless way the "good guys" used unforgivables in DH): It's not so much that I care about what happens to the bad guys, but what it says about the "good guys." muscatel wrote: Good is not something you are, it's something you do. vmonte: That's my point. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174273 From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Aug 2 18:43:50 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:43:50 -0000 Subject: Snape finding Lily's Letter In-Reply-To: <507C1611-833A-4F1F-A1BC-DAA9E631E596@golden.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174294 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, doug rogers wrote: > > CathyD: > And he didn't show it to Harry, the kid dying to know more about his > parents, because??? > > doug: > Because adults have secrets. > > Allie: Because he was so distracted by the knowledge that his godson was going to be takings lessons with his worst enemy. From absinthe at mad.scientist.com Thu Aug 2 18:51:13 2007 From: absinthe at mad.scientist.com (Milz) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:51:13 -0000 Subject: JKR Encyclopaedia; what do you want to see in it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174295 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annette" wrote: > > A big assumption here that *if* JKR does write an encyclopaedia of > the Wizarding World that it would contain the facts and figures of > Harry's world. That is to say, that all the minutiae and details that > absorb us can be referred to as author intended. > As much as I have loved reading and even trying out a few theories of > my own these are just interpretations around the facts (and long may > they live!). However, I feel there are still outstanding little > niggles we have concerning the world of Harry Potter. What things do > it to you? > Mine for instance: > > 1. The gemstones in the hourglasses; we know the Houses are > represented by the colours, red, blue and green have rubies, sapphire > and emeralds Hufflepuffs are represented by yellow, so what's their > gemstone? > > 2.Do all Wizard families send their children off from Kings Cross > station? How do Muggleborns know how to get on to Platform 9, 3/4? > > 3. We know the history of the Bloody Baron, the Grey Lady and Nearly- > headless Nick, what about the Fat Friar? > > > I'm sure you have more. If you know the answers because they have > been disclosed in interviews please LMK :) I've not had the chance to > read all the JKR interviews (yet). > > Cariad x > I would like: 1. A detailed description of the Hufflepuff Common Room and similar descriptions of the dormitories. 2. All of her notes, including the rejected ideas. 3. Detailed bios on the characters. 4. The names of the students in the Houses. 5. The background stories of all the Hogwarts ghosts. 6. The catalog of items sold by Fred and George's business. Milz From lfreeman at mbc.edu Thu Aug 2 19:02:05 2007 From: lfreeman at mbc.edu (Freeman, Louise Margaret) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:02:05 -0400 Subject: Hermione's Parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174296 It occurred to me that Hermione's tears were at the thought of her parent's not knowing her; in that aspect she had set herself up to be in a situaion similar to Neville's. As the child of an Alzheimer's patient, I can tell you that that first occasion your parent doesn't know you is one of the saddest. Louise From absinthe at mad.scientist.com Thu Aug 2 19:06:04 2007 From: absinthe at mad.scientist.com (Milz) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:06:04 -0000 Subject: The Real HP for GrownUps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174297 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: > > > Juli wrote: > > > > I think it must have been extremely hard for Ron to > > > > live with his crush for almost a year and never slip > > > > into her bed. The boy has a huge amount of self-control. > > Milz responded: > > > I think this was 3-fold. > > > 1. They knew they were in great danger. So the thought of > > > danger might have been a romance-killer. > > > 2. I think Ron has a great deal of respect for Hermione > > > and wouldn't pressure her into anything that she wasn't > > > ready for. > > > 3. Kinda difficult to 'get it on' with Harry just a few > > > feet away. > > JW: > > Surely, you jest. These three factors are guaranteed to > > enhance, not diminish, the effectiveness of rampant > > teenage hormones. That might hold true for teenagers in movies like "Porky's" or "American Pie" or even the teenagers in horror-slasher flicks like "Evil Dead", "Friday the 13th", etc. But real-life teenagers....I don't think so, at least not the ones with IQ's greater than their panty size. Worrying about finding food and worrying about being found by the Death Eaters would be more important than worrying about getting laid. > Two comments. 1. (re #3 above) Muffliato. 2. Could help explain > Hermione's passionate (dare I say) reactions when Ron left and upon > his return. > > -- Matt > I'll have to re-read Ron's return, but Hermione yelling at him and physically beating him doesn't seem like love taps and fondling to me...unless Ron and Hermione are into BSDM. Milz From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 19:08:07 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:08:07 -0000 Subject: In defense of George (Was: Poor Fred :( ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174298 JW wrote: > As Molly observed in OotP (the scene with her boggart at 12 GP) - there were nine Weasleys, half already in the order. It was too much to hope that all would survive. > > So who would fall? > > My analysis: Ginney, Arthur, Ron and Bill already came close; I saw > no reason to bother them again. As you observed, Charlie and Percy > would not generate sufficient dramatic impact, so they were safe. > > That left Molly and the twins. The books lack solid parent-figures; > hence, I doubted that JKR would kill off the strongest mother-figure > of all. That means Molly was safe. Of the twins, Fred is the > dominant while George is the subordinate. The loss of Fred would > maximize dramatic impact - it is more shocking when the strong die, > leaving the weaker to survive as best they can. Carol responds: Not to mention that Molly's boggart involves the death of someone she loves, not her own death, which is not foreshadowed by that scene. But I disagree that Fred is "stronger" than George. As far as I can see, they are absolute equals in the production of Weasley's Wizard wheezes, and there's no question that they're a team. And I agree that Fred is the ringleader (as JKR herself has said), but (as she also said), he's also the crueler. He's the one who gives Dudley the ton=Tongue Toffess (though George is in on the joke). But as I mentioned to someone offlist (sorry--too many people to keep track of), George is more paychologically astute, has a slightly stronger moral sense (he's the one who objects to blackmailing Ludo Bagman, but then snatches the letter out of Fred's hand to mail it himself, demonstrating solidarity with Fred in opposition to nosy Ron (whom George sarcastically but accurately predicts will become a Prefect). It's George to whom Harry hands the bag of gold from his TWT winnings, George who figures out why Hermione wants to know how to get into the kitchen (to preach freedom to house-elves), George who runs with Ginny to hug his mother when she arrives at 12 GP to tell them that their father will live (Fred collapses on a sofa, IIRC). Who but George could joke about being "holey" after his ear has been blasted off? That was incredibly brave and selfless of him. How else could he have swept aside Fred's and his mother's fear and concern except with self-effacing humor? If one of the Twins had to die, and Mrs. Weasley's Boggart foreshadowed that one of them would (I agree that the characters who had already had near-misses were "safe"), I'd rather it was Fred. Far from being weaker than Fred, IMO, he's the better man. Carol, wishing that Snape could have survived to heal George's ear with his chanted countercurse (assuming that's possible), but thinking that George would only laugh at my suggestion From sneeboy2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 19:24:26 2007 From: sneeboy2 at yahoo.com (sneeboy2) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:24:26 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174299 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "sneeboy2" wrote: > > > My beef is with the author, not the > > fictional hero. She has spent a good > > bit of ink establishing that the > > "unforgivable" curses are just that, > > that only the bad guys use them, > >Eggplant107: Well that is certainly untrue, Harry first used an Unforgivable way > back in book 5, and I don't believe JKR meant for her readers to think > of Harry as a bad guy since then. I think the confusion comes from the > name, but who do you think gave those 3 curses their unflattering > name? The, oh so very moral, holier than thou, Ministry of Magic. > Sneeboy2: I may be at my limit for posts today, but here goes: Both times Harry tries to use UCs, it appears to be a mistake he makes out of anger; it's at the very least a tactical error. They don't work. I had thought that, as he matured, he would stop making the mistake. Instead, JKR gave us a different sort of character development: his failure was only because he wasn't feeling it enough. ("Use your anger, Harry!") Perhaps you see this as a good development. I don't. Sneeboy2: > > she inserts a scene that indicates that, > > under some circumstances, using an > > unforgivable is OK, even gallant. > Eggplant107: > I would imagine she did that because under some circumstances, using > an unforgivable is OK, even gallant; ESESPECIALY IN A WAR! For the > last several years you've endured horrible pain, both physical and > emotional, you've watched good friends and good people get murdered > and tortured right in front of your eyes, and you've escaped death > yourself by an inch on a dozens of occasions . And now you're supposed > to get all squeamish about inflicting pain on a moral monster? I don't > believe it is realistic for a flesh and blood human being to act like > that; although such behavior is very common in Saturday morning > cartoon heroes. The trouble is Harry is not a cartoon. Sneeboy2: Are you trying to imply that my desire for the character to take the moral high ground is childish? Perhaps you think that books or movies that appeal to our base desires for revenge or frontier justice are more grown-up or "realistic." No, Harry's not a cartoon. In this scene, he's one of those comic books that pretend to be for "adults." Call him WAR!Harry. Strap a bandolier full of wands to his chest and send him out to kill some VC, I mean, DE's. Or maybe DIRTY!Harry "They killed his parents. They killed his mentor. They killed his owl. . . . It's payback time!" > > Sneeboy2: Mrs. Weasley's "bitch" line, which felt > > lifted right from "Aliens." > > Eggplant107 I thought so too and I loved it, if you're going to steal then steal > from the best. I hope they keep that line in movie 7. Sneeboy2: Sigh. > > > Sneeboy2: The scene is very Hollywood > > Eggplant107: You almost make that sound like a bad thing. There are worse insults > you could say to a writer than "When I read your books it's like there > is a movie playing in my head". > Sneeboy2: I suppose it would be too much to ask for there to be a book playing my head. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 19:22:49 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:22:49 -0000 Subject: The Real HP for GrownUps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174300 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Milz" wrote: > Worrying about finding food and > worrying about being found by the Death Eaters would be more > important than worrying about getting laid. > > > Milz > Prep0strus: That may be so, but one doesn't supplant the other. I'm not saying that there are no teenagers so not in control they couldn't make choices - they didn't have to be 'doing it' - but to actually not show physical affection? Harry might wind up being super jealous (because they had each other, not because he wants Hermione), but I can't believe they didn't sleep in the same bed. People of any age, out with the person they care for... the fear and anxiety would make them all the more likely to want to hold tight to each other - and i'm sure go a little further, however far their morals allow. But, this is HP for GU... and her stories are HP for Everyone. It isn't as though she even really addressed the issue, because it would be too difficult to address - and I think more difficult to believe than the magic spells. I don't judge Ron & Hermione for it - but I do believe that they were a little more intimate than JKR could express. And I feel bad for Harry that he was more alone. ~Prep0strus (Adam) From graynavarre at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 18:41:01 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:41:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <946412.56231.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174301 Montavilla47 wrote: > If there *are* non-Death Eating Slytherin children and their parents > are being targeted, then shouldn't at least one or two of them be > helping out this D.A., even if they weren't in it the first time? > Don't they have a stake in the outcome of this conflict? DG replied: > Or perhaps they're just keeping their heads down. > > The Headmaster and the two most influential teachers are clearly > aligned with Voldy. Voldy's influence in the outside world is > growing daily. And those crazy Griffendors etc who try to > resist are beaten down most cruelly. In the OotP, Phineas Black said that Slytherins are brave but they know when to run. There would be no Slytherins earning immortal glory at the Alamo or the Charge of the Light Brigade. Being dead does not help win a war. They would have run away in order to fight another day. Barbara From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 19:32:07 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:32:07 -0000 Subject: Slightly OT: HP from Christian Perspective - In Perspective Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174302 I waffled between placing this link here or placing it in the OT Group; I'm still not sure. But, if the Mods think it should be in the other group, I will gladly move it. "Harry Potter and the Fire breathing Fundamentalists" By Jerry Bowyer http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JerryBowyer/2007/08/02/harry_potter_and_the_fire_breathing_fundamentalists Jerry Bowyer is a Christian with a radio talk show on KKLA, the largest Christian talk radio station in America. His most controversial, ie: generating the greatest response, program was about Harry Potter. I think he has a very wise and clear perspective on Harry, and it is well worth the read. Steve/bboyminn From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Aug 2 19:33:45 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:33:45 -0000 Subject: 7 reasons why (was Re: Snape finding Lily's Letter In-Reply-To: <006b01c7d4ff$687f7140$88c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174303 > > CathyD: > Oh, you have a different book than I have.Snape never even looked at the letter in the Canadian edition, snip Potioncat: Yeah, I do. Mine has pictures. ;-) I put in a disclaimer that only the parts between brackets are firm canon. The rest was filler---lots of filler. And all of it is 'tongue in cheek.' CathyD: As I have said before, there is no way it could come to be in that house as Sirius left the house when he was 16, to return when he was 35-36 once it was made HQ of the OotP. Potioncat: I've tried to get back to the beginning of this thread, but the server is too busy. So I'll just jump in. And another disclaimer, I've only read the book once. I actually agree with you. Snape's finding the letter makes no sense at all for these reasons: 1. If he got into the house before Moody set the curses, why did no one notice the house had been ransacked? 2. If he came after Moody died, how did he get past the curses. (Oh never mind. Fred and George cooked up worse things in the name of jokes.) And anyway, the curses should have faded when Moody died. 3. What was Snape looking for? How did he know a letter from Lily would be there? It would make sense if he was looking for something else and came across it, but if that's the case, what was he looking for? When I first read the earlier chapter, I thought someone had come looking for the locket. But we find out later that LV doesn't yet know it's missing. 4. It makes no sense for the letter to be forgotten in Sirius's childhood bedroom. In fact, I don't think it makes sense for the bedroom to still look as it did. I would think that Mrs. Black would have blasted all reminders of Sirius out of the house. (If Sirius was using that bedroom as an adult he really was emotionally stunted. Right down there with Severus.) 5. If anyone ever asks JKR, I'm sure she'll say he had his old stuff sent over. She'll either say he had it sent after he returned to 12GP, or she'll say the MoM sent it when he went to Azkaban. But first she'll have to recall that he ever had a different place. I'm sure she's forgotten. 6. As for the photo: It's been awhile since I had a one-year-old around the house. Does anyone really think a baby could sit a broom by his first birthday? (Does anyone remember the discussion about Dudley and Harry's developmental stages in SS/PS) 7. And again, how did Snape know there would be a letter/photo in the house? So my earlier post was my fairly reasonable explanation, sticking as close to canon as I could. From npod4291 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 18:48:21 2007 From: npod4291 at yahoo.com (npod4291) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:48:21 -0000 Subject: FINALLY!! Book 7 explains Snape & Neville! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174304 Ok, maybe I am the last one to have figured this out, but as I was sitting here, pretending to work when actually thinking about our favorite epic story, I came to a realization. We finally have a justification for Snape treating Neville like the dirt under his fingernails! Maybe not justification, as that implies that he had every right to treat Neville that way, and I for one, even after coming to this conclusion, don't think that he should have been that spiteful, but this at least is how Snape justified his own behavior. Snape heard the first part of the prophecy, which as we all know, could have meant to be either Harry or Neville. Snape tells Voldemort, who assumes that the prophecy refers to Harry, and ends up killing Snape's love, Lily. Now, Snape is responsible for his love's death. Or is he? This is where Neville comes in. If Neville had been the one that Voldemort went after, then not only would Lily have survived, but Snape himself would not have to devote his life trying to protect his most hated enemy's son. I think that he blames (incorrectly blames, but blames nonetheless) Neville for the situation of his life, the danger he must put himself in, and the death of his love, almost like a "survivor's guilt" type thing, but projecting in on someone else. Nate, who begs that you not laugh at me TOO hard for possibly being the last to come to this conclusion From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Thu Aug 2 19:36:17 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:36:17 -0000 Subject: First Comments on HP:DH, missing 24 hours In-Reply-To: <002501c7ce2e$20764db0$ecc25a45@dtv.gfed.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174305 Jenni wrote: (huge snip) > 6. ISSUES LEFT UNANSWERED: > > a. We still don't know what happened during the "missing" 24 hours! (more snipping) Shaunette now: popping out of lurkdom to ask what must seem to be a very silly question: what is this missing 24 hours? I 'm sure I've seen it discussed but can't seem to find it in the list search. Just interested in what that's all about...something from HBP? -Shaunette From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Aug 2 19:38:50 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 15:38:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Whose Death Was The Saddest - book 7 Message-ID: <5839569.1186083530375.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174306 From: Barbara Key >Actually, I am rather hoping that it would be at >Hogwarts. You know, maybe he would have a nice place >and a nice sign about fighting LV for 17 years. Bart: I suspect that it was near the Hogwarts Express. On the right of way. Or maybe a bit to the left of the right of way. Anyhow, they buried him right away. Bart (OK, does anybody know the reference?) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Aug 2 19:43:57 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:43:57 -0000 Subject: Snape finding Lily's Letter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174307 CathyD: > > And he didn't show it to Harry, the kid dying to know more about > his > > parents, because??? doug: > > Because adults have secrets. Allie: > > Because he was so distracted by the knowledge that his godson was > going to be takings lessons with his worst enemy. Ceridwen: How about what the letter said about Dumbledore on the second page? And, what Lily thought about Dumbledore's sanity? From verosomm at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 18:55:54 2007 From: verosomm at yahoo.com (verosomm) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:55:54 -0000 Subject: Parallels betweeen James and Dudley WAS: Re: Snape's Worst Memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174308 Julie: > > > > In the end James turned out to be much better for Lily than > > Snape likely would have ever been, but the "because he > > exists" excuse doesn't hold water for me now, as there > > was no differece between Snape and the other Slytherins > > his age (who were apparently all soon to be fitted for Death > > Eater masks) other than Snape's connection to Gryffindor's > > most popular girl. > > > > Julie, who's actually glad there was some motive for the > > Marauders continued harassment of Snape other than merely > > that he existed. Lisa: > Oh, I still think it was completely arbitrary on James' part -- > Lily wasn't the most popular girl at Hogwarts when James made his > decision that he didn't like Snape. They all met on the Hogwarts > Express in the first year. > > Snape mentioned Slytherin, James mentioned Gryffindor, they both > got a bad impression of each other, and James tried to trip Snape > as he and Lily left the compartment at Lily's urging. At that > point, either James or Sirius shouted "See ya, Snivellus!" And > that was the start of it all. No reason for the dislike, other > than pre-House-rivalry, that continued and got worse. Veronica: When I read Book 7, my thought on "because he exists" was that, day one at Hogwarts, Sept. 1, 1971 on the train, James sees a very pretty girl in his compartment and she (SHOCK!) doesn't favor him over the other boys in the compartment, in fact, she likes the poor, ugly, badly dressed one better! For an only child who's been coddled by his parents his entire life, and probably told how wonderful he is (similar to Dudley and his parents, anyone?) he doesn't understand this. So the fact that someone "better" than him, in this pretty girl's eyes, at least, is why he doesn't like Snape's existence. And Dudley doesn't understand at the beginning of Book 1 why everyone's paying attention to Harry rather than him (negative attention though it may be). Now factor in that James and Dudley are STILL bullies at the age of 15 (5th year) but by 7th year, have matured somewhat and realize their own past idiocies (I know we don't know that James has changed a ton, but he's become Head Boy and Lily deems him okay enough to date, so even though he's still carrying animosity towards Severus, he has stopped hexing him for kicks at least). In one of the recent JKR interviews, she said that Dudley saw himself with all his flaws when he was demented... it took him awhile to get to there, but he really's ok by the beginning of Book 7. I think a lot of us were hoping for huge redemption and forgiveness scenes for Snape and Draco with Harry... instead we got Snape's death in the Shrieking Shack and the Malfoys in the Great Hall for redemption and the epilogue, which, in my opinion, was even better because of the subtleties (not a sappy, drawn out, "let's all be friends now.") Instead, I think we actually saw the redemptions in majorly flawed characters through Dudley and James: James redemption partially back in 5, (with Lupin and Sirius's discussion) and resolved in 7 (willing to do something without a wand, even, for his family's safety rings nothing compared to the spoiled brat of 10 years prior or even the berk of 6 years prior) and Dudley's redemption in pieces (though we didn't undertand them all) in 5, being demented, in 6, hearing someone who he was scared of give an exact representation of the fears he'd had for the year prior (when DD tells the Dursleys about the damage they've caused him) and obviously spelled out in 7. Veronica From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 2 19:54:14 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:54:14 -0000 Subject: First Comments on HP:DH, missing 24 hours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174309 Jenni wrote: > (huge snip) > > 6. ISSUES LEFT UNANSWERED: > > > > a. We still don't know what happened during the "missing" 24 > hours! > (more snipping) > > > Shaunette now: > > popping out of lurkdom to ask what must seem to be a very silly > question: what is this missing 24 hours? I 'm sure I've seen it > discussed but can't seem to find it in the list search. Just > interested in what that's all about...something from HBP? SSSusan: Hagrid picked up baby Harry from the wreckage of Godric's Hollow on Halloween night. It was *24 hours later* that he arrived w/ Harry at Privet Drive, on Sirius' motorbike. (Remember that McGonagall had been there all day, in cat form, waiting?) Some of us developed rather elaborate theories about what might have been going on during this time. :) In this post from May '05: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/128717 I put forth one possibility, christened the DRIBBLE SHADOWS, which developed further with help from Jen Reese, Potioncat, and others. Siriusly Snapey Susan, laughing about her dinghy still being afloat by virtue of the fact thay JKR didn't tell us about the 24 hours or all 12 of the uses of dragon's blood! :) From ckc at rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 2 19:21:45 2007 From: ckc at rochester.rr.com (CK Campbell) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 15:21:45 -0400 Subject: Narcissa's love In-Reply-To: <810995.79372.qm@web44813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007301c7d53a$5dccc9b0$6701a8c0@CKC> No: HPFGUIDX 174310 Amy: >It almost seems as if it was a silent welcome for the Malfoys. I'm not saying that there will never be a Malfoy vs. Weasley and >Potter rivalry, but it seems that there will never be a Malfoy the Death Eater family ever again. Which I am very happy about, >it's nice to see that the Malfoys are thinking for themselves, not just following the most powerful person at the time. Carolyn replies: Don't you think, though, that Narcissa and Lucius might have been sent to Azkaban? Would they have been completely exonerated? After all, they did participate in the DeathEater attacks on Harry (at the very least). Carolyn From autr61 at dsl.pipex.com Thu Aug 2 20:22:08 2007 From: autr61 at dsl.pipex.com (sylviampj) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:22:08 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174311 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > Katie wrote: > I have to completely, and respectfully, disagree with you. > Hermione's Muggle parents could not begin to comprehend the danger > they, and their daughter, were in. Had Hermione come to them and > said, "Mum, dad, I am dropping out of Hogwarts to go on a long and > possibly fruitless search for the soul pieces of an evil overlord, > and after we find them, we're going to fight him to the death. > Tea?", they would have either though she was insane, or they would > have wanted to protect her. Either way, they would have been unable > to understand the real danger they were in, because these things are > not part of the Muggle world.>>> I've always found the Grangers to be more of a plot device than anything else. For her three central characters JKR created one pure blood (Ron), one half blood (Harry) and one Muggle-born (Hermione). What to do with their families? Harry was no problem - his parents were dead and as JKR herself has said, his grandparents and entire family were dead (apart from Petunia) because that made the plot simpler. Ron's large family are the central family in the series and - surprise, surprise, both Harry and Hermione end up marrying into it. But what to do with Hermione's parents? They had to be nice people because creating mean wicked Muggles was not part of JKR's worldview as it would have justified wizard prejudice. Just like Lily's parents they were extremely proud that their daughter was a witch and Hermione was obviously extremely fond of them. But did they have any inkling of what their daughter got up to at Hogwarts? Molly and Arthur Weasley seem to turn up every time when one of their children is ill or in danger. I wonder whether Hermione's parents were informed when she was partly transformed into a cat in COS or later on when she was petrified by the Basilisk and lay in the sick bay for several weeks. Did they get a letter from Mcgonagall explaining why Hermione wasn't answering their letters? Did they mind that she spent less and less time with them during the holidays? Already in CoS she spends Christmas at Hogwarts and by OOTP she has spent much of the summer holidays at Grimmauld Place. We are not told why. Ron was there presumably because his parents were there, but there was absolutely no reason for Hermione to be there. At the end of OOTP were they informed that their daughter had been fighting Death Eaters at the ministry and could easily have lost her life? I don't see any problem with Hermione modifying her parents' memories so that they forgot they had a daughter. They hardly ever saw her anyway. I adore the whole HP series but it requires an awful lot of leaps of logic! Sylvia. From irenek90 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 2 20:08:02 2007 From: irenek90 at hotmail.com (irenek90) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:08:02 -0000 Subject: Wands and other confusion about Deathly Hallows plotline Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174312 While I enjoyed a lot of aspects of the three hallows plotline, in the end, there was a lot of confusion about the wand situation and also, the hallows almost seem like a pointless diversion (though I'm hoping someone can convince me otherwise). Here are a few questions/concerns: 1. The blood of Harry in Voledemort was what saved Harry in their first confrontation in the forest, so the role of uniting the three hallows or the wand issue never came into play. 2. Also, if, for argument's sake, the drop of blood was never a factor in keeping Harry alive, how could the wand kill Harry in the forest if he was its master? (I thought the wand wouldn't kill it's own master.) I feel this takes away some of the power of the blood protection. 3. If Harry's blood in Voldemort protected him from death, then why does the "master of the wand" issue even matter in the second confrontation in the Great Hall? From salilouisa at googlemail.com Thu Aug 2 20:07:34 2007 From: salilouisa at googlemail.com (Sali Morris) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 21:07:34 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal )/Luna's Creepy Father In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174313 Magpie: Here's the whole scene [Sali: which I've now snipped]: 'I've also modified my parents' memories so that they're convinced they're really called Wendell and Monica Wilkins, and that their life's ambition is to move to Australia, which they have now done. That to make it more difficult for Voldemort to track them down and interrogate them about me--or you, because unfortunately, I've told them quite a bit about you. *** End canon. I'm not sure what scenario you meant. I said that if Hermione talked to her parents--and that wouldn't even mean telling them everything-- they might agree to certain protections of their own free will. Sali: I'm not saying here that I disagree with you. I did also interpret it as Hermione had done it to her parents rather than ask permission. But reading the quoted text literally, it doesn't actually say that she didn't ask permission or discuss it with them. It doesn't say she did either. I took the implication that she didn't but I think it's possible to assume otherwise. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 20:26:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:26:29 -0000 Subject: Slytherins: selfish, not evil + Ariana raped? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174314 > Bart: > > However, one factor I had not considered until now was that this took place in the mid-19th century Maven: > Wizards may be longer-lived than Muggles, but not THAT much longer-lived. Work it backward from Dumbledore's defeat of Grindelwald and capture of his wand - in 1945, as we are explicitly told more than once. He delayed that meeting for "five years" after Ariana died. She died quite young (16? 20? Check the details). There's simply no way the attack that disastrously damaged her can be pushed back past about the 1920's. Carol responds: Bart is right. The attack almost certainly takes place in the mid-19th century. Dumbledore is something like 150 years old in the HP books. Let's say that he's 150 in the first book, which starts in 1991. He seems to have a summer birthday like Harry (he leaves Hogwarts before he turns eighteen) so he would be 150 for that entire school year. That would mean he was born in the summer of 1841. Aberforth is three years younger and would have been born around 1844. Ariana is six years old when the Muggle boys attack her and, IIRC, only seven when she dies, apparently ten years younger than Albus (born c. 1851). Albus has finished school and says that he'll take care of her, which he manages to do, according to Aberforth, for about three weeks. He is still seventeen when he meets the sixteen-year-old Grindelwald and they spend two months together before Aberforth expresses his view to Albus, Gellert Crucios him, they get into a duel, Arizna is killed in the crossfire, and Gellert, knowing he'll be suspected and probably genuinely guilty, flees. By my calculations, the year is 1859, shortly before or just after Dumbledore's eighteenth birthday. (Oops. Minor detail wrong here. Maybe she's eleven years younger than Albus or died when she was eight. But the numbers are roughly accurate, and math is not JKR's forte.) Gellert Grindelwald has been expelled from Durmstrang and can't return for his final year, but it doesn't matter. He has other plans. The first step is stealing the Elder Wand from Gregorovitch, which he does while h'es still a boy or at least a very young man. It will be a long time before this merry-faced boy with grandiose ideas about the right of wizards to rule Muggles for "the greater good" starts building his own prisons (and perhaps concentration camps). Dumbledore does not go after him five years after Ariana's death, when they are twenty-one and twenty-two respectively. He turns, as far as I can tell, a blind eye to Grindelwald's atrocities, and waits five years after the Ministry begs him to go after his former friend. And even then, he can't bring himself to kill him. In 1945, aged by my calculations about 103 (DD is about 104), he is defeated and sent to his own prison, Nurmgard. (We have seen Dumbledore at about that age, with Tom Riddle, in CoS.) Maybe fear that Tom Riddle would become another Dark wizard pushed Dumbledore finally to confront and defeat his one-time friend, about 86 years too late. And the wizened old wizard who laughs in Voldemort's face, taunting him that he will never be the master of the Elder wand, is about 156, the same age DD was when he died if DD was 150 in the first book. To return to the attack on Ariana, which must have occurred in about 1859, is that it is not rape but an attack by three slightly older boys on a helpless little girl. Aberforth says they're afraid of her magic and are trying to force or stifle it out of her; I pictured them stoning her or choking her, shades of what medieval people would have done to a witch. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch (sorceress) to live. I very much doubt that these boys are teenage gangmembers, as you seem to imply. They're children; they've seen another child who's different, and they're afraid of her. their fear turns to fury and they get carried away--the mob mentality.) My impression was that the boys were about twelve years old, maybe even younger. Twelve-year-olds have been known to kill six-year-olds, and three on one would be terrifying for a little girl who can't control her magic. On a side note, you may be confusing Dumbledore's age with Tom Riddle's (Tom was born December 31, 1927, by my calculations.) Dumbledore is, of course, much older. Carol, who is still putting the pieces together and needs to go back for quotes From prep0strus at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 20:29:27 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:29:27 -0000 Subject: FINALLY!! Book 7 explains Snape & Neville! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174315 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "npod4291" wrote: > > Snape heard the first part of the prophecy, which as we all know, > could have meant to be either Harry or Neville. Snape tells > Voldemort, who assumes that the prophecy refers to Harry, and ends > up killing Snape's love, Lily. Now, Snape is responsible for his > love's death. Or is he? This is where Neville comes in. If > Neville had been the one that Voldemort went after, then not only > would Lily have survived, but Snape himself would not have to devote > his life trying to protect his most hated enemy's son. I think that > he blames (incorrectly blames, but blames nonetheless) Neville for > the situation of his life, the danger he must put himself in, and > the death of his love, almost like a "survivor's guilt" type thing, > but projecting in on someone else. > > Nate, who begs that you not laugh at me TOO hard for possibly being > the last to come to this conclusion > Prep0strus: Nah, it's new to me, and I like the thought... but I'm not sure it's all that neat and tidy. It aalways seemed to me Snape was ripping into Neville for being less than competant... which, let's face it, he was. I didn't get the impression that Snape was all about helping other students who were having difficulties - granted, we saw him w/ the hated griffindors and fellow slytherins - maybe we need a glance into the room when the other two houses were there, but snape didn't exactly seem beloved by anyone other than draco. i like the idea that snape put it all together with neville - he's certainly smart enough and invested enough to do that. but i think he would've treated neville just as badly simply for being slower, weaker, and a griffindor. ron and hermione i guess got the bad treatment from snape for being harry's friends if we follow the 'everything mean snape did snape did for a good reason' theory. but nowhere is it implied that our little class of griffindors were the only ones who had a tough time in snape's class. ~Prep0strus (Adam) From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Aug 2 20:59:23 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:59:23 -0000 Subject: FINALLY!! Book 7 explains Snape & Neville! and Maths! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174316 Nate: I think that > he blames (incorrectly blames, but blames nonetheless) Neville for > the situation of his life, the danger he must put himself in, and > the death of his love, almost like a "survivor's guilt" type thing, > but projecting in on someone else. Potioncat: I came to the same conclusion, so I think your idea is brilliant! To a spiteful man like Snape, it would seem reasonable to blame both Neville for not being the Chosen One and Harry for having been saved by Lily. Now we know Lily and James had been fighting LV for a while, and would be even without a child. So I wonder when it would have dawned on Severus that Lily was always going to be at risk? >Nate closed an earlier post with: Nate, who often has a tendency to get much more mathematical then is necessary. Potioncat: Your heart is going to be broken here. It is never a good idea to rely on math for a logical outcome in a JKR story. But I'll tell you, we've had some very good math-based threads. Carol has already posted a problem with the birthdates for James and Lily, but I don't think anyone else has glommed onto it. From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 21:09:40 2007 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:09:40 -0000 Subject: Wands and other confusion about Deathly Hallows plotline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174317 Irene, these are great questions. I also had a lot of questions along these lines, so I managed to read the text again last week. I will take a stab at answering to the best of my ability. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "irenek90" wrote: > > While I enjoyed a lot of aspects of the three hallows plotline, in > the end, there was a lot of confusion about the wand situation and > also, the hallows almost seem like a pointless diversion (though I'm > hoping someone can convince me otherwise). Here are a few > questions/concerns: > > 1. The blood of Harry in Voledemort was what saved Harry in their > first confrontation in the forest, so the role of uniting the three > hallows or the wand issue never came into play. Beatrice: I think that you are right that uniting the three hallows doesn't really play a role in Harry's salvation. The first time I read DH I thought as Harry went to his "death" that the ring would save him, but of course as soon as he dropped it in forest I realized I was wrong. I think that the Deathly Hallows served a couple of purposes. First, to extend the readers suspense and keep them guessing about the outcome. Second, to highlight Dumbledore's flaws and humanize him. Third, to educate Harry about the power of these three object, but to ultimately have him reject their power because Harry has never sought power for himself and this rejection reinforces his purity. Fourth, so Harry could prevent them from ending up in the wrong hands, eg another Death Eater or LV himself. > > 2. Also, if, for argument's sake, the drop of blood was never a > factor in keeping Harry alive, how could the wand kill Harry in the > forest if he was its master? (I thought the wand wouldn't kill it's > own master.) I feel this takes away some of the power of the blood > protection. Umm...I think that the wand could kill its master if it is forced to. Although the magic might be less effective when a wand is welded by someone who is not its rightful master. I think that the wand could kill Harry simply because he allowed it to. He didn't attempt to duel or resist so the wand had nothing preventing it from doing as LV asked. > > 3. If Harry's blood in Voldemort protected him from death, then why > does the "master of the wand" issue even matter in the second > confrontation in the Great Hall? This also puzzled me. I think it(Harry's speech) delays LV from acting, and it means that the magic LV performs with the wand will be less effective. So his spells aren't as powerful as usual. Also while Harry's blood saved him in the forest, he no longer has LV's soul bit to protect him like it did in his escape from Privet Drive. > From kamilaa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 21:10:22 2007 From: kamilaa at gmail.com (Kamil) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:10:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables In-Reply-To: <556308.29472.qm@web86208.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <556308.29472.qm@web86208.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174318 All I can say is that I see it differently and that Hermione, to me, is one of the most brave and most loyal characters in the books. I >know a lot of people have problems with the whole Marietta thing. I don't. I don't have a problem with her sending birds flying at Ron's face when she was jealous and angry, either, though I know some do. I like Hermione, and I think she was trying to protect her parents from harm, and I just don't have a problem with it. I like the good guys, and I don't really care too much what happens to the bad guys. If that makes me morally bereft...so be it. Katie Katie, I don't think it makes you morally bereft. You just read the books the way JKR probably intended them to be read: with the "bad guys" being cardboards who we shouldn't care much about. There are good books written this way, good children books too - Roald Dahl is the first that comes to mind. I don't mind that kind of book, generally speaking. I can read about James Bond killing a hundred "black hat" guys to get to the main villain - it's OK, he is *our* spy. I can enjoy it. But what I mind about Deathly Hallows being that sort of book is the fact that I was misled. I didn't expect it. The first six books were misleading. DH didn't do what it said on the tin for me. Rowling didn't keep her villains and her background Slytherins cardboard enough, she made me care for some of them. And in the end she laughed at me: "gotcha!" So, nothing wrong with your morals, you are lucky to stick to the original authorial intent and not to be led astray by red herrings of complexity that just was never there. I have to say I'm with Katie here. I never ever saw the fascination with the Slytherins, or Draco, or especially Snape; to me they were all extremely typical "bad guys" who were quite obviously being set up to be knocked down at a later date. Snape, granted, was a bit different, his motives were in question right up until the end. I dearly wanted him to be ESE, simply so he'd be a bit more interesting, but, alas, no interesting story for Snape, merely typical, typical, and even more typical reformed bad guy with a very bad attitude, right up until the very end. Oh well. I think that's why I'm not as dissatisfied with the books as a whole as others seem to be. To me it finished exactly like it started and sold exactly the product advertised all along. Harry and the Gryffindors are good, the Slytherins and Voldemort are bad (with one or two exceptions, to be named later), and the former shall vanquish the latter at their earliest convenience. The end. I am amazed by the number of people who apparently were reading another series altogether though. That was the big surprise of the books for me. Kamil From hansandrea1 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Aug 2 21:18:57 2007 From: hansandrea1 at yahoo.co.uk (Hans Rieuwers) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:18:57 -0000 Subject: Part 7: Death and Resurrection In-Reply-To: <467933.38669.qm@web26113.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174319 May I draw the attention to members to post No. 163788, which I sent on January 15th this year? It's reproduced in full underneath. I'd be the first to admit that my predictions didn't come true 100%. However I feel unashamed in owning up to this post and saying that "Deathly Hallows" turned out to symbolise exactly what I said it would in the post underneath. "Deathly Hallows was about death and resurrection. Harry went through the Gate of Saturn and returned. In "Deathly Hallows" the Gate of Saturn is called "King's Cross" - a very symbolic name indeed. It turned out not to be the arch with the veil, but the symbolism is nevertheless just as clear. Although Harry did not become Keeper of the Keys, he did have the choice at King's Cross of going "on" or returning to save the world from Voldemort. That is the choice I was looking for there. And Harry did not kill Voldemort. Voldemort did that himself because of Lily's love flowing in his veins. On the surface "Harry Potter" is often mundane and even banal, but if we look at the symbolism it is ineffably sublime. I believe Jo is the radio that is attuned to a divine frequency. Hans Andr?a harrypotterforseekers.com --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hans Andr?a wrote: > > To me it is obvious that Harry Potter is about death and resurrection. In fact, Parts 1-6 abound in symbols and events of resurrection from death. > In Part 1 Harry goes down past Fluffy (Cerberus) into the underworld, where he is attacked by Quirrell, who is possessed by Voldemort. Harry falls unconscious, and wakes up after three days to see Dumbledore smiling at him. He had just got to Harry in time. A symbolic death and resurrection. > > In Part 2 Harry goes into the underworld again, but this time he is fatally poisoned by a basilisk fang. He is literally pulled from death by phoenix tears. A symbolic death and resurrection. > > In Part 3 Harry is on the point of having his soul sucked out by a Dementor when a Patronus sent by his future self saves him. Death and resurrection. > > In Part 4 Harry has the Avada Kedavra curse cast at him for the second time. He is saved by his own immense willpower, which is greater than Voldemort's. Death and resurrection. > > In Part 5 Harry is possessed by Voldemort. He saves himself by driving out Voldemort with Harry's love for Sirius. Death and resurrection. > > In Part 6 Harry is dragged into the water by the inferi, but Dumbledore saves him with his circle of fire. Death and resurrection. > > Each event above is the highlight of the Part. Why should Part 7 be any different? It's one septology; one story. Part 7 will be about death and resurrection. And Love, as are all the others. > > In addition there are many symbols of resurrection in general. We all know the phoenix is the greatest symbol of them all, and the fact that he belongs to Dumbledore should make us very certain indeed! > > Sirius is also an extremely powerful symbol of the resurrection. To the ancient Egyptians Sirius was the symbol of the resurrection of life in midsummer. When it appeared as the morning star, it meant the Nile would flood, bringing fertility and life renewal. > > Fluffy, too, is a symbol of resurrection, because in Part 1 its presence is telling us that we are seeing Cerberus in the myth of Orpheus. Just like Harry, he played a musical instrument to lull the three headed dog, and, just like Harry, he came OUT of the underworld, the world of the dead. Death and resurrection! > > Then there is the great similarity to The Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross, published in 1616, another story of death and resurrection. Please note that in both books a phoenix is present at a funeral! And the Dark Mark is also present in both books. It is the symbol for eternal life; in Harry Potter misused by Voldemort for his quest for immortality at the expense of others. > > One of the most obvious clues in Harry Potter is the similarity of Harry's basic story to that of Jesus: > > A prophecy is made that a baby will be born who will change the world. The baby is born and a star appears to announce his birth. When the king of this world hears about the birth he tries to have the baby killed, but fails. The child grows up in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and man. He performs miracles at a young age. But as he grows older he knows he will have to meet his arch-enemy: Satan. > > We all know that story - that's the story of Jesus. But it's also the story of Harry Potter. In Harry's case the star is Sirius, who becomes his God-Father. (In ancient Egypt Sirius announced the birth of Horus). At a young age Harry saves many lives, wins battles against dragons and giant snakes, and dodges death by Voldemort time and again. > > The story is basically so similar to that of Jesus we can easily see that it will end the same way as Jesus' story. Just as Jesus died to save the world, so Harry will lay down his life for the wizarding world. But just as Jesus rose from the dead after three days, so will Harry. > > How will Harry do this? I think Harry will go through the arch with the veil in the Department of Mysteries. In the ancient spiritual traditions which Jo is following, this gateway is called the Gate of Saturn. > I believe the scar which Voldemort gave Harry when Voldemort tried to kill him is a Horcrux. Harry will realise this, and, after killing the other 5 Horcruxes, will enter the Gate of Saturn to sacrifice himself, making Voldemort mortal. > > Harry will meet Sirius there. Without the last Horcrux, he will then return through the arch with the veil, and confront the mortal Voldemort. I don't believe Harry will kill Voldemort. Harry will learn in Part 7 of the Septology that love cannot kill. In the power of that force Voldemort will dissipate like a puff of smoke. > > I believe that the 7 trials in Part 1 are clues to Part 7. Just as Love saves Harry in his confrontation with Voldemort in Part 1, so it will in Part 7. I believe Lily is connected with the Room of Love, which will be opened in Part 7. > > The Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross, also features a Room of Love, called "The Sepulchre of Venus". Christian Rosycross enters the Sepulchre and sees Venus, i.e. Love, in all its naked beauty. This fills him with compassion for suffering humanity and so this makes him come back to be gatekeeper of the castle. I believe that there is a strong probability that Harry will also do a similar thing, and become gatekeeper (or "Keeper of the Keys"), taking Hagrid's place. > > One further clue to what Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will be about is the titles of the seven parts. They conform to the seven elements out of which all of creation is made. > 1. Earth: Stone > 2. Air: Chamber > 3. Water: Azkaban (Island) > 4. Fire: Fire > 5. Quintessence: Phoenix > 6. Soul: Blood > 7. Spirit: Hallow (Holy) > > On my website I have explained the above elements and how they are symbolised. See http://www.harrypotterforseekers.com/book7/prognosis.php#clue1 > > What this means is that Part 7 will take place in the ineffable plane of the Spirit, which is holy. The Spirit is the lord and creator of Life. In His presence any kind of death is unreal and is therefore followed by an inevitable resurrection. > > Hans From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 21:21:14 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 14:21:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fred Foreshadowed (Was: In defense of George, which first was: Poor Fred ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <403216.88885.qm@web55002.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174320 This is a general response to the threads regarding Fred's death -- a little tidbit that you might (or might not) find interesting... In hindsight, we could have seen Fred's death coming. I didn't notice any foreshadowing the first time I read DH. However, on the second reading I did. (Before the back came out, I feared for one of the twins. But after George's injury in chapter five I relaxed thinking they've had their angst, they'll be OK. I was wrong -- or perhaps lulled into a false sense of security.) Notice references to a future that Fred didn't live to see...and, once we get past the wedding, George is pretty quiet throughout the rest of the book. Chapter 4, The Seven Potters (p. 49) [On pretending to be Harry] "Well, none of us really fancy it, Harry," said Fred earnestly. "Imagine if something went wrong and we were stuck as specky, scrawny gits forever." Chapter 5, Fallen Warrior (p.75) "Ah well," said George, grinning at his tear-soaked mother. "You'll be able to tell us apart now, anyway, Mum." Chapter 8, The Wedding (p. 138) "When I get married," said Fred, tugging at the collar of his own robes, "I won't be bothering with any of this nonsense. You can all wear what you like, and I'll put a full Body-Bind Curse on Mum until it's over." Chapter 22, The Deathly Hallows (p. 443 - 444) [Fred speaking on the broadcast] "Point is, people, don't get lulled into a false sense of security...I never thought I'd hear myself say it, but safety first!" Chapter 31, The Sacking of Severus Snape (607) [When Percy returns] Mrs. Wesley burst into tears. She ran forward, pushed Fred aside, and pulled Percy into a strangling hug... Chapter 31, Battle of Hogwarts [p. 611, Volunteering to cover passageways into the castle] "Sounds like a job for us," called Fred, indicating himself and George... [p. 621, Standing guard at a secret passage] "Nice night for it!" Fred shouted as the castle quaked again, and Harry sprinted by, elated and terrified in equal measure.... Then, on page 636 we see Percy, the prodigal son, fighting along side his brother Fred, who was the first to welcome him back and shake his hand (p. 606), who even teased him as they fought, and who would die a few paragraphs later. Christy, who really enjoys reading justcarol67's posts, and appreciates the time and effort she puts into them --------------------------------- Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 20:26:37 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 13:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape finding Lily's Letter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <429836.25970.qm@web55004.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174321 CathyD: > > And he didn't show it to Harry, the kid dying to know more about > his > > parents, because??? doug: > > Because adults have secrets. Allie: > > Because he was so distracted by the knowledge that his godson was > going to be takings lessons with his worst enemy. Ceridwen: >How about what the letter said about Dumbledore on the second page? >And, what Lily thought about Dumbledore's sanity? I don't have a few of my books because I've loaned them to a friend so I can't check for myself -- but, couldn't the letter in question be explained another way? Maybe its not the letter at all? For example, could it be a letter from Dumbledore to Sirius telling him that he has asked Snape to teach Harry Occlumency and would appreciate his support in ensuring that Harry agrees to it? Could it be a letter that Molly was drafting to Bill, which she left on the left when she went to fetch Harry? All I'm asking is ... we don't know that its the letter right? We're just wondering if it could be ... Maybe its not the letter but simply a letter. Other plausible explanations for it do exist right? (Sometimes JKR gives us details that foreshadow and sometimes she just gives us details.) Christy From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Thu Aug 2 21:36:06 2007 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:36:06 -0000 Subject: Narcissa's love In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174322 Carol wrote: >> I think we should all pause, and mentally thank Narcissa >> for saving Harry's life. It was she who lied to Voldemort, >> saying Harry was indeed dead. Curious, isn't it? Once >> again, Voldemort is defeated my a mother caring more for >> her child than for his service. Milz replied: > I don't think Narcissa's act was totally unselfish. I > don't think she could have cared less if Harry survived or > not. Whether Narcissa -- or Draco, at other points in the story -- cared what happened to Harry is left deliciously ambiguous. Clearly Narcissa's actions in the forest were utterly self-centered (in the sense of favoring her own interests over Voldemort's), calculating and manipulative. In short, she was perfectly in character for a Malfoy. If by this point she prefers Harry to survive, surely it is only for the chance that he might bring down Voldemort and thereby make her and her family's lives better. She is willing to risk lying to Voldemort not for Harry, but for her own chance to reunite with her son. The analogy to Lily's act of supreme self-sacrifice holds only in the sense that, once again, Voldemort fails to understand the bond between mother and child. In other respects, Narcissa's act is nearly the opposite of Lily's: Where Lily confronted Voldemort, Narcissa evades his command; where Lily pled for mercy, Narcissa tells Voldemort what he wants to hear; where Lily was willing to face the separation of death in order to save Harry, Narcissa's only wish is to see Draco again. I imagine, notwithstanding her name, that Narcissa does love Draco -- she certainly has always been shown as caring for his well-being -- but I hardly think we need to admire her for looking out for herself and her son. She'll surely take care of the admiring herself. -- Matt From graynavarre at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 20:58:03 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 13:58:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: First Comments on HP:Draco's threat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <453973.19028.qm@web30114.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174323 > Jenni wrote: > > (huge snip) > > > 6.ISSUES LEFT UNANSWERED: > > > > > a.We still don't know what happened during the > "missing" 24 hours! > > (more snipping) > > > > > I want to know how Draco threatened the shopkeeper (whose name escapes me) in HBP. Was he the youngest DE? Barbara From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Aug 2 22:20:44 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:20:44 -0000 Subject: Victory for TEWWW EWWW?? Snape the hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174324 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Grant" wrote: > > > > > And the whole time, the ungrateful little rule-braking, glory- > hound > > > brat not only wouldn't show him any simple respect, but actually > kept > > > calling him out as one of the bad guys! > > > > > > Certainly reason to be a little snippy.... > > > > > > DG > > > > > > > Prep0strus: > > > > But not to Neville. Or Hermione. Or any of the other students he > > treated cruelly because he was that - a cruel person. And he used > to > > BE one of the bad guys. You can't get too mad when people make > > assumptions about you that were once true. You kind of have to > > realize that it's part of your penance for being evil that you're > not > > gonna be Mr. Trusted in the future. > < BIG SNIP> > > > Alla: > I cannot imagine somebody truly loving a woman, hating her child > that much. > Valky now: Exactly Alla, Snape earned his peace with his soul for his crimes because he did brave things for the good cause, but he hated Harry for a long time and while he harboured all his cruel intent toward the boy his love for Lily was barely more than self interest. It wasn't until the last that he finally put those feelings aside and by then Harry was coming of age, his duty to protect Lily's child was at an end. Snape chose to stay at the head of the battle after he had made peace with his demons, Dumbledore knew he would and acted presumptively about it, but it was definitely Snapes choice by this time. He had even stopped hating Harry some, though he struggled to conceal it, but there's no excusing him for the years before, it was never Harry's fault or responsibility in any way. Harry was the one orphaned by Lily's death, not Snape, this is what Snape never really understood and shame on him for that, his behaviour was just plain reprehensible. He acted out his childish impulses and treated kids with outrageous cruelty, he became what he was so sure he hated about Harry. It was his own foolish mistake but the redeeming thing is that he at last rectified it, he risked and lost all he had left to finally make that right too. It took Snape all the seven years he knew Harry to wake up to himself, we can't pretend he was something that he wasn't, he *was* a bully and a horrible man who chose to do the right thing at great risk to himself. Valky From va32h at comcast.net Thu Aug 2 22:32:26 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:32:26 -0000 Subject: First Comments on HP:Draco's threat In-Reply-To: <453973.19028.qm@web30114.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174325 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barbara Key wrote: > I want to know how Draco threatened the shopkeeper > (whose name escapes me) in HBP. Was he the youngest > DE? va32h: Draco showed Borgin his Dark Mark, just as Harry said in the text. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 22:35:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:35:49 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174326 Katie wrote: > > Hermione's Muggle parents could not begin to comprehend the danger they, and their daughter, were in. Had Hermione come to them and said, "Mum, dad, I am dropping out of Hogwarts to go on a long and possibly fruitless search for the soul pieces of an evil overlord, and after we find them, we're going to fight him to the death. Tea?", they would have either though she was insane, or they would have wanted to protect her. Either way, they would have been unable to understand the real danger they were in, because these things are not part of the Muggle world. > Magpie responded: > And yet every single person reading the book is a Muggle and can > understand. Carol: Perhps because we've been reading the Potter books? Hermione hasn't even told her parents about Blast-Ended Skrewts and the everyday dangers of sports and classes at Hogwarts, AFAWK. She has spent very little time with them. The closest thing I can think of to an expression of concern or affection for them is buying them (ugh!) Self-Flossing String Mints (or some such thing for Christmas). She doesn't seem to have a very high estimation of either their intelligence or their ability to understand magic or her life at Hogwarts. In SS/PS when Ron says, "And you could ask your parents if they know who Flamel is. It'd be safe to ask them," Hermione responds, "Very safe, as they're both dentists." So, erm, going to university and dental school and whatever is required to become a dentist in England means you've never heard of a famous alchemist? (Of course, Hermione assumes that Flamel is a contemporary wizard, but she could at least have said "they're both Muggles.") The only excuse I can find for Hermione's attitude in this scene is that she's twelve years old. Magpie: Hermione's parents have been nothing but supportive of her being a witch. Carol: Would they be that suportive if they really knew what went on at Hogwarts school or during Hermione's vacations? Hermione has never told her parents the truth. I doubt very much that they know that she and her friends followed a possessed Dark wizard into a forbidden corridor; that she was Petrified by a Basilisk; that the Trio narrowly escaped being bitten by a werewolf; that her friend Harry was kidnapped, tortured, and nearly murdered by the Dark wizard whose resurrection he was forced to witness; that they and other friends were nearly killed by Death Eaters in the MoM; that their DADA teacher "murdered" their headmaster. Even when she decides to go to 12 GP instead of joining them on vacation, she says she's staying at Hogwarts to study. It seems likely that she would simply let them think that she was going back to Hogwarts this time, too, even though she's nearly an adult in the Muggle world (eighteen in September) and they would let her make her own decisions as always. I just can't see her saying, "Mum and Dad, Harry, Ron, and I are dropping out of school so we can destroy Horcruxes because a Dark Wizard and his Death Eaters are taking over the WW and Muggles like you are in particular danger." It's perfectly in character for Hermione to take things into her own hands without consulting her parents. I'm actually happy that she loves them enough to want to protect them, and there's no question that as the Muggle parents of a runaway "Mudblood" companion of Undesirable Number One, they would be in terrible danger. It seems to me that telling the truth is out. I don't see how they can possibly believe her when she's never given them a hint that the WW isn't the happy, magical world of Diagon Alley in Hermione's first year. I don't necessarily approve of her method of protecting her parents, but I can see Katie's point. Hermione's parents have even less idea than the Dursleys (who at least know about Voldemort and Dementors) what they would be facing if they stayed. And if she finally told them the truth she's been withholding about what the WW is really like and how much worse it is now, and that helpless Muggles can be victims, too, especially if they're related to friends of Harry Potter, they might well think she's exaggerating (or insane.) What, then, are her options? The happy oblivion she's given them may be reversible (I'd kind of like to know what I was doing as Monica Wendell, thank you), and Australia is certainly safer than England as of DH. It seems impossible for the Ministry and its DE minions to trace her there. OTOH, "Little Miss Perfect," that "insufferable know-it-all," doesn't seem to have consulted anybody else, any more than she did before capturing and blackmailing Rita Skeeter or putting a Sneak Hex on the DA parchment before they were even an official group. Hermione is intelligent and gifted--Harry owes his life to her in DH--but couldn't she have done something more along the lines of what the Order is doing for the Dursleys, a safe house protected by a Fidelius Charm? Even Lee Jordan (and it was nice to hear his voice again) is suggesting putting protective charms on the houses of Muggle neighbors. Why didn't Hermione protect them with a Fidelius Charm or protective spells like the ones she placed on the tent? Or, if that wouldn't protect them when they left the house to go to work, why not ask the Order to place them in one of the safe houses? The worst that could happen would be having to share a house with the Dursleys or Auntie Muriel. Magpie: To me this comes across just the way it does in canon--that Muggles are like children so Wizards can make decisions for them. Hermione has been treating her parents this way for a while now, and it's not surprising that she'd prefer to just zap them for her own convenience than want to explain anything to them. She's long since decided that they just "won't understand" so it's not worth the effort. But that doesn't make what she's doing right or not worth thinking about. > > How would Hermione have felt if her parents hired some wizard to memory charm her for a year to keep her out of the fight? They would want to protect her too, but something tells me she'd think she ought to make her own decisions about that rather than have her rights totally violated. Perhaps if Hermione had explained things to her parents they might have agreed to some protections, but she didn't give them that chance. It's easier to just do it. Carol: I think that if Hermione had been honest with her parents about the dangers she was facing from the beginning, an explanation might have worked, but I don't see how they can possibly be made to comprehend just how great the danger is. So the problem is in part of her own making. And I wonder if the reader is supposed to have exactly that reaction: How is Hermione's taking her parents' protection into her own hands, robbing them of their identities and their capacity for choice, any different from what young Albus Dumbledore was advocating on a larger scale at he same age? (I'm not comparing her with Gellert Grindelwald, who had been expelled from *Durmstrang* for the tactics he used to support his views.) Magpie: > Wanting to protect them [is not] the problem. It's the way she decides what's good for them and completely robs them of their own will and freedom and at the least an entire year of their lives that's a problem, and she does it without the slightest thought that she's done anything wrong. Carol: Which is perfectly in character for Hermione. She *is* wrong on one point in the books--the Deathly Hallows are not just a legend (so Xenophilius Lovegood is one up on Hermione), but does she make any moral progress in this book? Ron, IMO, makes enormous strides toward maturity. Hermione does a pretty good job of finally understanding Kreacher. But she also sees herself as part of a persecuted minority (Muggleborns) without seeming to see that her parents are part of a persecuted majority that doesn't even see its danger. It's a little too close to DD's original conception of "the greater good" and just a step from there to "Magic Is Might." Magpie: > It just seems like this is very indicative of the way morals are handled in the series already. In discussions of things like torture and stealing somebody's life without their permission, it's a very common response that people are asking too much of these good, good people, and questioning their ethics is a personal attack. Carol: I agree. I'm not complaining about the works in general, just about the confused or inconsistent morality and the possible messages the book might send. "We're all human, aren't we?" says Kingsley Shacklebolt. Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving" (440). And the Muggles, thanks to the Statute of Secrecy which is apparently still in force, don't even know they need to be saved. Hermione can't just hand her Muggle parents a gun and expect them to use it against Death Eaters. If only she had been honest with them all along and somehow prepared them. As it is, she has no choice but to protect them. The problem, I agree, is the method she chose to protect them. If anyone is confused by the logic of this post, it's not you. It's me. I can see both sides of the argument and don't like either of them. Carol, wondering if Ron's Muggle drivers license in the epilogue is supposed to indicate a good relationship between the Weasleys and their Muggle in-laws nineteen years down the road From irenek90 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 2 22:16:27 2007 From: irenek90 at hotmail.com (irenek90) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:16:27 -0000 Subject: Wands and other confusion about Deathly Hallows plotline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174327 > Beatrice: > I think that you are right that uniting the three hallows doesn't > really play a role in Harry's salvation. The first time I read DH I > thought as Harry went to his "death" that the ring would save him, > but of course as soon as he dropped it in forest I realized I was > wrong. I think that the Deathly Hallows served a couple of > purposes. First, to extend the readers suspense and keep them > guessing about the outcome. Second, to highlight Dumbledore's flaws > and humanize him. Third, to educate Harry about the power of these > three object, but to ultimately have him reject their power because > Harry has never sought power for himself and this rejection > reinforces his purity. Fourth, so Harry could prevent them from > ending up in the wrong hands, eg another Death Eater or LV himself. Irene: Thanks Beatrice. These are some good and thoughtful answers that make a lot of sense...I probably shouldn't analyze the issues so literally. And yes, they really did shed a lot of light on Dumbledore and his past, which I loved reading about. I think I got confused because I while I was reading the book, I just kept thinking that the united hallows were going to be what saved Harry in his showdown (even though I don't think he would have kept them and used them afterwards). But then it never happened, so in that sense, that uniting of the hallows storyline was anticlimactic. From ianuno3 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 2 22:21:50 2007 From: ianuno3 at hotmail.com (ianuno3) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:21:50 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174328 Beth: > We know that the Dursley's have a cover story for Harry's absences > to Hogwarts, but what do you think Hermione's parents tell people. > And why aren't parents or other relatives allowed to visit (that > we've seen), other than for unusual events like the Tri-wizard > Tournament? If you were Hermione's parents, wouldn't you have > liked to have seen your daughter get rescued? The only time we've > seen her parents was at Kings' Cross, looking rather nervous, IIRC. > What exactly were they nervous about? Ian: This brings to mind a concern I've had throughout the series. Being a sporadic lurker, I apologize for not finding it on another thread. Hermione spends so much time away from home, especially on the holidays as the books progressed, do you think her parents have grown to miss her at all? Are they concerned about how deeply involved she is in the moment against the horrible happenings in the WW? Do they unconditionally trust her and her decisions to be apart from them for so long? In OotP, she spent most of her summer holiday at 12 GP, and she barely spent any time at home between HBP and DH. Be that as it may, I think she -- and Ron -- showed amazing courage and love to follow Harry on his quest. She could've just joined her parents in their move to Australia, or convinced them to take her without changing their memories. She couldn't go back to Hogwarts, and she would've been persecuted horribly if she tried to remain in the WW. From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 22:51:10 2007 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:51:10 -0000 Subject: Snape's death scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174329 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol earlier: > >snip> > > > It has nothing whatever to do with poor planning. Dumbledore has > told him not to deliver the message until he sees Voldemort protecting > the snake, and until now, the snake has not been protected. > > > > > > Jack-A-Roe: > > First off I must say I was wrong when I said Snape didn't have his > wand out. It was apparently in his hand the entire time and he did > raise it. > > > > You are exactly right when you say it's not about his cover. That > point is over. He sees the snake being protected and knows he must get > his message to Harry. > > > > As a double agent his life is in constant jeopardy. Which means that > he has to be ready to defend himself and have a way out of every > situation that he walks into. Being called to Voldemort during the > battle should have raised a red flag. > > Carol: > How so? Voldemort has actually told him to watch out for Harry Potter, > who is on his way to Hogwarts. He knows that Voldemort has no doubts > about his loyalty. He's Voldemort's righthand man; he's fooled him > time and again with lies and Occlumency and is perfectly capable of > sustaining the pretence; Jack-A-Roe: Being called away from the battle is not a common occurrence, so he at least should have been wondering why. He doesn't know "for sure" that Voldemort has no doubts. His life as a double agent precludes him from ever being sure that he is safe. I've agreed that he didn't know about Nagini until he arrived and I'll agree that he didn't know anything about the wands. My next point is still valid. > Jack-A-Roe: > Voldemort's speech should have had him working his way toward an exit. > When I say he failed to plan I mean he didn't have a way out of the > shack. He could never plan for every contingency but he should have > had something in mind. > > > > His life is in danger and all he can do is raise his wand and do > nothing. This is right after Voldemort tells him that "While you > live, Severus, the Elder Wand cannot be truly mine." > > > > At that point he should have started throwing curses and working his > way out the door. Voldemort just said he was going to kill him. After > all he still has a mission to finish. Instead I believe he froze up > under the threat, knowing he was going to fail in his mission. > > > > To me this is a great contrast to Harry who always fights til the end. > > Carol responds: > You're forgetting one key thing. Snape knows that he can't fight > Voldemort, whether or not the Elder Wand is working; if he does, he'll > be killed instantly without delivering his message. (Have you > forgotten the scene where Voldemort kills everyone in the room except > the fleeing Malfoys and Bellatrix because of a message delivered by a > goblin?) If Snape raises his wnad, he's dead. (Yes, he could fight any > other wizard in the WW and win, but this is Voldemort.) And he knows > that he can't kill Voldemort because of the soul piece in Harry's > scar. The only way for Voldemort to be destroyed is for Harry to let > himself be killed because the soul bit in his scar makes Voldemort > immortal. Delivering that urgent message is the only thing on Snape's > mind. That and the snake in the bubble telling him that it's time. He > thinks he's going to die without delivering it and that all is lost. > He doesn't care about dying in and of itself. Sparing his own life is > not important. Delivering the message is. Jack-A-Roe: Why would Snape be instantly killed if he raises his wand? You've said in prior posts what a great wizard he is. I remember the scene where he killed a bunch of people. Did any of them defend themselves? Neville charged him and was disarmed and immobilized. McGonnagal, Shacklebolt, and Slughorn fight him. Yes, there were three but one of them had to start by themselves. They knew nothing about the wand and they still fought. But Snape, according to your argument has to complete his mission, he can't fight because he will be killed even though there is a chance he could survive to find Harry, decides to do nothing and be killed without even trying to complete his mission. Carol: He had every reason to fear, but it was his > message, not his life, that he feared for. He could not fight, he > could not run, and he would not beg for Voldemort's nonexistent mercy, > which in any case would not have availed him. And in the end, he did > not fail. He helped to defeat Voldemort, finding a way to deliver his > message that no one could have anticipated, so that Harry understood > that his scar was the last Horcrux and that he must face Voldemort > without fighting, willing to die, as Snape did, for the greater good. Jack-A-Roe: I guess we just see the scene differently. It's not that he could not fight and escape it's that he did not fight and try to escape. And he would have failed in his mission, and I'm sure that was going through his head, until Harry arrived. From va32h at comcast.net Thu Aug 2 23:06:47 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:06:47 -0000 Subject: Slytherins: selfish, not evil + Ariana raped? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174330 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Ariana is six years old when the Muggle boys attack her and, IIRC, only seven when she dies, . va32h: No. Ariana is fourteen when her mother dies (according to Aberforth (pg 565, US edition) "Then, when she was fourteen...see I wasn't there." Dumbledore came home after his mother's death - the confrontation with Grindelwald that resulted in Ariana's death took place that summer - so depending on Ariana's birthday she would be 14 or 15 when she died. va32h From leahstill at hotmail.com Thu Aug 2 23:10:47 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:10:47 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174331 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Freeman, Louise Margaret" wrote: > > > It occurred to me that Hermione's tears were at the thought of her parent's not knowing her; in > that aspect she had set herself up to be in a situaion similar to Neville's. As the child of an > Alzheimer's patient, I can tell you that that first occasion your parent doesn't know you is one of > the saddest. > > Louise Leah: Yes, I felt Hermione's tears were for herself, because she was no longer loved/known by her parents. What she doesn't see (and I don't think JKR does either) is that she has done to her parents something very similar to what Bellatrix Leatrange did to the Longbottoms. The fact that they are not in St Mungo's but in Australia is irrelevant, because it is not the Grangers who are enjoying that life. We are made the people we are by our experiences and by the love we have for family and friends. That has been taken from Hermione's parents. At least poor Alice had some vague thought that Neville mattered to her. Leah From muellem at bc.edu Thu Aug 2 23:18:04 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:18:04 -0000 Subject: First Comments on HP:Draco's threat In-Reply-To: <453973.19028.qm@web30114.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174332 >>barbara wrote: > > I want to know how Draco threatened the shopkeeper > (whose name escapes me) in HBP. Was he the youngest > DE? > I don't believe we ever found out if Draco had a dark mark or that he was actually a Death Eater; however, we do know that Regulus was a Death Eater at 16 years of age. colebiancardi From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 23:19:59 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:19:59 -0000 Subject: Wands and other confusion about Deathly Hallows plotline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174333 --- "irenek90" wrote: > > ... in the end, there was a lot of confusion about the > wand situation and also, the hallows almost seem like > a pointless diversion ... bboyminn: The Hallows were not a pointless diversion, they were there to force Harry to make a choice. Harry had to decide whether to empower himself with the power of the Hallows, or to remain his modest under-trained self, and struggle to weaken Voldemort. That is not as simple as it seems. How very few of us could have made the choice that Harry did? Most would opt for increase power when trying to overcome a powerful enemy. > questions/concerns: > > 1. The blood of Harry in Voledemort was what saved > Harry in their first confrontation in the forest, so > the role of uniting the three hallows or the wand > issue never came into play. > bboyminn: Most who would have chosen the Hallows as their preferred path, would have thought that physically bringing the three objects into their possession and control would have given them immense power; and it would have. Harry however, became Master of the objects and therefore Master of Death by understanding that only by using them in an unselfish way could you truly master them. > 2. Also, if, for argument's sake, the drop of blood > was never a factor in keeping Harry alive, how could > the wand kill Harry in the forest if he was its master? > ... bboyminn: It is not that the wand can't kill its Master, it's that the wand will not fully obey its holder. As to the Blood, it, in this case, is acting in a fashion similar to a Horcrux. NOTE: I said /similar to/ NOT the /same as/. As long has a drop of Harry's protected blood remains on earth, in this case in Voldemort, Harry doesn't /have/ to go 'ON'. Harry can 'go on' but he doesn't have to. This is what allowed him to come back fully formed and alive, rather than forced his continued existance as Vapor!Harry. > > 3. If Harry's blood in Voldemort protected him from > death, then why does the "master of the wand" issue > even matter in the second confrontation in the Great > Hall? > bboyminn: Harry is protected by his mother's blood, but that does not mean he has a Unlimited ability to take AK curses. He is not completely invulnerable to its effects; he is not invincible. So, there is always a chance that one of the AK curses /will/ kill him. What matters is not that Harry is the Master of the Wand, but that between Harry's sacrifice and Voldemort NOT being the Master of the Wand, the wands effects are limited. It has been set up several times in the books that spell can collide in mid-air and cause unusually effects. The first time we see this, is in the duel between Draco and Harry outside the Potions Classroom. Harry and Draco curse at the same time, their curses collide, and rebound onto innocent by- standers; Crabbe (or Goyle) and Hermione. That set the stage for Voldemort and Harry's curse to collide later in the book and instigate the Brother Wand/Twin Cores effect. In the final duel between Harry and Voldemort, the curses collide again, and that collision PLUS the 'Master of the Wand' and the Blood Protection combine to rebound the AK curse on Voldemort, and send that Wand into Harry hand. It is possible that Harry has discovered a shield that can be used against the AK curse, but it is an extremely difficult and unlikely shield. If you cast a curse at exactly the same time as the AK curse is cast against you, and those curse collide head-on, you might be able to deflect the on-coming Death Curse, but from a practical stand point, what are the odds of that happening? It is an extremely precise set of circumstances. So, while Harry may have discovered a flaw in the invulnerability of the AK curse, it is such a fine and technical flaw as to be of little use to anyone by the extremely lucky. Note, that Harry can feel Voldemort's curse coming. That is, he can sense Voldemort's mind and know precisely when the AK is coming, and can send a precisely timed counter to it. My point is, that Harry winning that final battle is not all about 'Master of the Wand' and 'Blood Protection', it is a complex combination of many diverse things. Steve/bboyminn From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Aug 2 23:26:49 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:26:49 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174334 > Magpie responded: > > And yet every single person reading the book is a Muggle and can > > understand. > > Carol: > Perhps because we've been reading the Potter books? Hermione hasn't > even told her parents about Blast-Ended Skrewts and the everyday > dangers of sports and classes at Hogwarts, AFAWK. She has spent very > little time with them. The closest thing I can think of to an > expression of concern or affection for them is buying them (ugh!) > Self-Flossing String Mints (or some such thing for Christmas). She > doesn't seem to have a very high estimation of either their > intelligence or their ability to understand magic or her life at > Hogwarts. Magpie: Yes, I agree. But while this makes Hermione's dealings with her parents unsurprising, it doesn't make it right. It shows just how deep the attitude go and, for me, the danger of all those lies along the way. Hermione was probably no older than 12 when she started lying to her parents because she decided she knew best and it was just easier (and I can certainly identify with her there--I know how it's sometimes easier to lie and I've done it myself!). So for years that means she's rather taking the adult role and sheilding them from things. It's not surprising that once she reaches adulthood she's so used to treating them like lesser beings that it's easy enough to treat them like pets and memory charm them. And that's fine for the story where her parents are really just inconveniences to be gotten rid of as quickly as possible. But I as a Muggle I find the attitude frightening. I can't believe anybody would want to be treated that way--presumably that's why when we read we all identify with the Wizards who get to make their own decisions and who are allowed to demand the truth and are the ones who make decisions for other beings rather than the other way around. > Carol: > Would they be that suportive if they really knew what went on at > Hogwarts school or during Hermione's vacations? Hermione has never > told her parents the truth. Magpie: No, she hasn't, which is why I can't blame her parents' limitations for what she does. Any parent would be nervous about their child being put in danger at school. Wizarding parents deal with it, Hermione's parents are deceived and lied to. Then when Hermione is an adult herself and no longer has to ask her parents' permission to do anything at all, she still isn't honest with them and instead manipulates them even more totally than Voldemort or Dumbledore ever manipulated Harry. Surprising? No. Just a regular way of showing she cares? No, not for me. We *know* how Harry or Ron would react if Hermione tried this one them. Muggles are no different. (One of my favorite Ron moments is when he uncovers all the hats Hermione leaves around the Common Room because "they should know what they're picking up.") Carol: Even when she decides to go to 12 GP > instead of joining them on vacation, she says she's staying at > Hogwarts to study. It seems likely that she would simply let them > think that she was going back to Hogwarts this time, too, even though > she's nearly an adult in the Muggle world (eighteen in September) and > they would let her make her own decisions as always. I just can't see > her saying, "Mum and Dad, Harry, Ron, and I are dropping out of school > so we can destroy Horcruxes because a Dark Wizard and his Death Eaters > are taking over the WW and Muggles like you are in particular danger." Magpie: Neither can I, but I don't want to use Hermione's pattern of lying and dismissing her parents to justify her most impressive display of lying to them and dismissing them. She's been choosing the easy path for so long she continues to choose it. But for me the thing that stands out is that I think the right thing to do is to treat the parents who have always treated her with respect as people whose own intelligence and free will should be respected. I get that they're treated like this because they're minor inconvenient details to deal with in the plot, but that still adds up to Hermione treating her parents as minor inconvenient details rather than as even equals let along parents. I can't imagine a Wizard child zapping his parents that way as a sign of a healthy relationship. Being a parent implies respect, and since Muggles aren't respected they can't be parents. I tried to think of any Wizard kids who manipulated their parents in a way close to Hermione here and came up with only Barty Crouch. Carol: > It's perfectly in character for Hermione to take things into her own > hands without consulting her parents. I'm actually happy that she > loves them enough to want to protect them, and there's no question > that as the Muggle parents of a runaway "Mudblood" companion of > Undesirable Number One, they would be in terrible danger. Magpie: It's absolutely in character. Hermione's got some scary stuff in her character! Carol: > It seems to me that telling the truth is out. I don't see how they can > possibly believe her when she's never given them a hint that the WW > isn't the happy, magical world of Diagon Alley in Hermione's first year. Magpie: We don't actually know what she's given them a hint of, but even if she hasn't (which is quite possible), that doesn't make telling the truth out. It makes telling the truth more difficult because she's been lying for so long. Carol: > I don't necessarily approve of her method of protecting her parents, > but I can see Katie's point. Hermione's parents have even less idea > than the Dursleys (who at least know about Voldemort and Dementors) > what they would be facing if they stayed. And if she finally told them > the truth she's been withholding about what the WW is really like and > how much worse it is now, and that helpless Muggles can be victims, > too, especially if they're related to friends of Harry Potter, they > might well think she's exaggerating (or insane.) Magpie: Speaking as a Muggle, I would always prefer to be told the truth and decide how I feel about it myself if it effects me or my family. Why should my kid decide on her own how I will react to something? And why would I think she's insane if I dealt just fine with the biggest revelation of all, that there are wizards in the world and magic exists? Iirc, in DH Harry speaks on something like this issue where he says he doesn't just want to think something's true because it's comforting, because the truth matters. I can't believe it doesn't matter to the Grangers, no matter how ugly the truth is. Carol: > > What, then, are her options? The happy oblivion she's given them may > be reversible (I'd kind of like to know what I was doing as Monica > Wendell, thank you), and Australia is certainly safer than England as > of DH. It seems impossible for the Ministry and its DE minions to > trace her there. Magpie: I think her options do include telling them the truth. Respecting them as humans who deserve to have a say in their own life rather than treating them like pets she can stick in a kennel. As to whether the charm is reversible, according to Hermione she gave them a false life and plans to "find them" when Voldemort's gone and reverse it herself. If she dies, they will live the rest of their lives as strangers. (Apparently they have no one else who cares about them who might be hurt by them suddenly disappearing.) Carol: > OTOH, "Little Miss Perfect," that "insufferable know-it-all," doesn't > seem to have consulted anybody else, any more than she did before > capturing and blackmailing Rita Skeeter or putting a Sneak Hex on the > DA parchment before they were even an official group. Hermione is > intelligent and gifted--Harry owes his life to her in DH--but couldn't > she have done something more along the lines of what the Order is > doing for the Dursleys, a safe house protected by a Fidelius Charm? Magpie: Of course. Hermione being an insufferable know it all who does extreme things to other people because she decides it's best is very canon, but I think it's also a huge black mark on her character. Not that the author necessarily sees it that way--the fact that she thinks Hermione being high up in Magical Law Enforcement shows that. But that's partly what I said in my other post--as much as we are discussing the icky implications of this, it's nowhere in canon. Nobody ever questions that Hermione isn't right to do any of these things because she's working for the right side and that justifies everything to the point where nobody ever thinks about their actions much. The same is true of Harry's Crucio. Certain readers might challenge what they're doing, but in canon it's a movie-triumph moment (the Crucio) or something that gains them sympathy. JKR herself brushes it off with "Harry's never been a saint," a defensive non-answer. Carol: > Even Lee Jordan (and it was nice to hear his voice again) is > suggesting putting protective charms on the houses of Muggle > neighbors. Why didn't Hermione protect them with a Fidelius Charm or > protective spells like the ones she placed on the tent? Or, if that > wouldn't protect them when they left the house to go to work, why not > ask the Order to place them in one of the safe houses? The worst that > could happen would be having to share a house with the Dursleys or > Auntie Muriel. Magpie: That would be good too, I agree. The pattern with Hermione I think has always clearly been not only to protect her parents but to keep them interfering with her in any way that's inconvenient. This doesn't even occur to Harry to want to do to the Dursleys. Perhaps at least partly because we know them as characters so naturally expect our hero to not just zap them into docile robots. > > > Carol: > I think that if Hermione had been honest with her parents about the > dangers she was facing from the beginning, an explanation might have > worked, but I don't see how they can possibly be made to comprehend > just how great the danger is. So the problem is in part of her own > making. And I wonder if the reader is supposed to have exactly that > reaction: How is Hermione's taking her parents' protection into her > own hands, robbing them of their identities and their capacity for > choice, any different from what young Albus Dumbledore was advocating > on a larger scale at he same age? (I'm not comparing her with Gellert > Grindelwald, who had been expelled from *Durmstrang* for the tactics > he used to support his views.) Magpie: I think two people who managed to get through dental school could understand it--though of course it would probably mean Hermione would have to confess that their relationship of the past few years has been a lie in itself, which wouldn't be pleasant (I wouldn't be surprised if they don't already suspect it, though). I just don't see the idea that they would be incapable of making the leap. I mean, Muggles have dealt with similar revelations and adjusted just fine. I don't much see any hints that we as readers as supposed to have this reaction. It's one of those muddy moments as I think Sneeboy also said. Now that I have the conclusion to the story, I no longer assume that I am supposed to be asking the question, since there's never any time in canon that anyone else does. I mean, it's fine to say, "Maybe we're supposed to ask this!" but it's meaningless when everything in the text is saying it's pretty much fine. It's like...if I'm supposed to be asking the question, why am I supposed to be asking it when the story's conclusion honestly seems to be saying it's okay? > Magpie: > > Wanting to protect them [is not] the problem. It's the way she > decides what's good for them and completely robs them of their own > will and freedom and at the least an entire year of their lives that's > a problem, and she does it without the slightest thought that she's > done anything wrong. > > Carol: > Which is perfectly in character for Hermione. She *is* wrong on one > point in the books--the Deathly Hallows are not just a legend (so > Xenophilius Lovegood is one up on Hermione), but does she make any > moral progress in this book? Ron, IMO, makes enormous strides toward > maturity. Hermione does a pretty good job of finally understanding > Kreacher. But she also sees herself as part of a persecuted minority > (Muggleborns) without seeming to see that her parents are part of a > persecuted majority that doesn't even see its danger. It's a little > too close to DD's original conception of "the greater good" and just a > step from there to "Magic Is Might." Magpie: Well said (and thanks for adding my missing words!). I also think it's very much like Magic is Might and the Greater Good. It's very in character for Hermione. My own stance is that she's absolutely wrong in that attitude. But I honestly don't think I'm supposed to be thinking that, and since she's never called on this really (even the House Elves seems in the end to have been more about Hermione's personality limitations getting in the way of her good intentions) it's hard to think the author sees it as a problem. She's okay making Hermione shown to be wrong about some things (her blunder with the centaurs, some of her romantic machinations in HBP, thinking the Hallows are fake etc.), but when she's doing stuff in the service of the greater good the book seems to be cheering her on. And many people do that--not all readers have this reaction to Hermione. But those of us who do seem to pretty much react to the same things. -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 23:33:03 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:33:03 -0000 Subject: The Mysterious Source Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174335 I haven't read every post but I have been keeping up, and I don't think anyone has touched on this. If they have, point me in that direction. Chapter 1 - Meeting at Malfoy Manor (nice house)- Snape arrives, takes a seat, ready to give his report. Voldemort: "Good. Very good. And this information comes--" "-- from the source we discussed," said Snape. Snape revealed the /actual/ date of Harry leaving the Dursleys. The source was Dumbledore's Portrait. Did Snape really discuss Dumbledore's portrait with Voldemort? Who do you suppose was the mysterious 'source' they discussed? Steve/bboyminn From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Aug 2 23:46:04 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 01:46:04 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Mysterious Source References: Message-ID: <004301c7d55f$59015f20$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 174336 Steve wrote: > Voldemort: "Good. Very good. And this information > comes--" > > "-- from the source we discussed," said Snape. > > Snape revealed the /actual/ date of Harry leaving > the Dursleys. The source was Dumbledore's Portrait. > Did Snape really discuss Dumbledore's portrait with > Voldemort? > > Who do you suppose was the mysterious 'source' they > discussed? Miles: Mundungus. AFAIR, we learnt in the Prince's Tale about Mundungus being Snape's contact person in the order. Plus, the Seven Harrys is a proposal made by Mundungus under the influence of Snape's Imperius. Miles From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 23:52:38 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:52:38 -0000 Subject: 7 reasons why - The Glass is Half Empty. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174337 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > > > CathyD: > > Oh, you have a different book than I have. Snape > > never even looked at the letter in the Canadian > > edition, snip > > Potioncat: > Yeah, I do. Mine has pictures. ;-) I put in a > disclaimer that only the parts between brackets are > firm canon. The rest was filler---lots of filler. And > all of it is 'tongue in cheek.' > > CathyD: > As I have said before, there is no way it could come > to be in that house as Sirius left the house when he > was 16, to return when he was 35-36 once it was made > HQ of the OotP. > > Potioncat: > I've tried to get back to the beginning of this thread, > but the server is too busy. So I'll just jump in. And > another disclaimer, I've only read the book once. > > I actually agree with you. Snape's finding the letter > makes no sense at all for these reasons: > > 1. If he got into the house before Moody set the curses, > why did no one notice the house had been ransacked? > bboyminn: Who says no one noticed. That is an assumption on your part. > Potioncat: > 2. If he came after Moody died, how did he get past > the curses. ... And anyway, the curses should have > faded when Moody died. > bboyminn: Well, we know he came before, so moot point. Some curse fade, some don't; the book establishes that. > Potioncat: > 3. What was Snape looking for? How did he know a > letter from Lily would be there? ... > bboyminn: He searched every room, there's no evidence he was specifically searching for Lily's letter. We don't know /what/ he was looking for, but do we need to know? How does that advance the story? Yes, we are curious, but it is enough to know he was searching. > Potioncat: > 4. It makes no sense for the letter to be forgotten > in Sirius's childhood bedroom. etc... etc... etc... bboyminn: The glass is half full; really it is. There are some who stumble across an issue like this are content to assume it is wrong wrong wrong. I, on the other hand, always assume there IS an explanation, I just don't know what it is. People keep saying that there is no explanation for that letter being there, yet when explanations are suggested, they are written off as fan-fiction and fantasy. Well, you either want an explanation or your don't; apparently, many don't. Hows this - When Sirius went to prison, his last remaining friend, Lupin, cleared out his apartment/flat and stored his possessions. When Sirius returned and was proven innocent, Lupin brought those possessions to him at Grimmauld Place, where Sirius unpack them and enjoyed reminiscing over them while he wiled way endless hours in seclusion. I'm not say that IS THE Explanation, but it could be AN explanation, if you are willing to accept that an explanation does exist. If you are convince that there absolutely is NO explanation, then no explanation will ever be good enough. It's your choice. Steve/bboyminn From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 23:58:28 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:58:28 -0000 Subject: The Mysterious Source In-Reply-To: <004301c7d55f$59015f20$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174338 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > Steve wrote: > > Voldemort: "Good. Very good. And this information > > comes--" > > > > "-- from the source we discussed," said Snape. > > > > Snape revealed the /actual/ date of Harry leaving > > the Dursleys. The source was Dumbledore's Portrait. > > Did Snape really discuss Dumbledore's portrait with > > Voldemort? > > > > Who do you suppose was the mysterious 'source' they > > discussed? > > Miles: > Mundungus. AFAIR, we learnt in the Prince's Tale about Mundungus being > Snape's contact person in the order. Plus, the Seven Harrys is a proposal > made by Mundungus under the influence of Snape's Imperius. > Juli: I don't believe Mundungus was Imperio'd. In the scene description it says his eyes were out of focus, like he was confunded. Plus, Snape worring about Harry's safety would have included a 'protect Harry' clause. JMO,Juli From jmoshier at prodigy.net Thu Aug 2 23:50:18 2007 From: jmoshier at prodigy.net (Juanita Moshier) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:50:18 -0000 Subject: Whose Death Was The Saddest - book 7 In-Reply-To: <148753.98361.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174339 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barbara Key wrote: > Actually, I am rather hoping that it would be at > Hogwarts. You know, maybe he would have a nice place > and a nice sign about fighting LV for 17 years. > > Maybe future Slytherins could point it out as the one > person who cleverly deceived the Dark Lord for 17 > years. I agree because I would like Severus to receive recognition of his accomplishments that he did not receive during his life. Perhaps that recognition could include an Order of Merlin. Juanita From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 00:13:47 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:13:47 -0000 Subject: Snape finding Lily's Letter In-Reply-To: <006b01c7d4ff$687f7140$88c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174340 Cathy: > ". . . Sirius and Snape both seated at the long kitchen table, > glaring in opposite directions. The silence between them was heavy > with mutual dislike. A letter lay open on the table in front of > Sirius. 'Er,' said Harry to announce his presence.">> > > And he didn't show it to Harry, the kid dying to know more about his parents, because??? Juli: Correct me if I'm wrong (but I don't think I am), but HOW do you know that the letter in front of Sirius was Lily's letter? Why would he show Snape evidence that Dumbledore was ever friends with the 2nd baddest wizard in history? Or why would he think that it may taunt Snape in some way to read Lily writing 'Lots of Love'? Sirius doesn't appear to know that Snape had loving feelings towards Lily. And Snape knew Sirius was close to her (wasn't he supposed to be the Secret Keeper after all)? I always asumed that that letter was from Dumbledore, explainig why (at least a part) he wanted Harry to learn Occlumency. DD wasn't a stupid man, he must have known that Sirius wouldn't Harry to study occlumency with Snape, he must have needed some form of explanation. Besides, Sirius was the one that told DD about Harry feeling Nagini inside him. Juli From juli17 at aol.com Fri Aug 3 00:36:02 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:36:02 -0000 Subject: Snape's death scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174341 > > Jack-A-Roe: > I guess we just see the scene differently. It's not that he could not > fight and escape it's that he did not fight and try to escape. And he > would have failed in his mission, and I'm sure that was going through > his head, until Harry arrived. > Julie: Is it possible that Snape somehow knew Harry was there, at least somewhere toward the end? After Voldemort strode away with Nagini, Harry *immediately* starts toward Snape though Hermione quickly tries to stop him... "He did not know why he was doing it, why he was approaching they dying man. He did not what he felt as he saw Snape's white face..." So *why* does Harry go right to Snape, feeling compelled tp do so, take off his cloak and bend down close so Snape can conveniently reach him to clutch his robes and bring Harry close enough to speak? Or, rather, why doesn't Harry just hightail it out of there, figuring the murdering bastard he so despises got exactly what he deserved? Is Harry just so morbidly fascinated he can't help himself? Is there some unconscious part of him that realizes there are flaws in Snape's oh-so-evil appearance (from his inconsistent behavior when he killed Dumbledore, to his "punishing" the DA members by sending them into the Forbidden Forest)? Or, is Snape somehow aware of Harry's presence, and in some manner is legilimizing Harry, silently communicating his desperation to see Harry before he dies? Or...(last one!) did Snape's repeated pleas to Voldemort to let him go to Harry penetrate Harry's mind subconsciously, and indicate to him that there was more to Snape's pleas than wanting to hand Harry over to Voldemort (after all Snape could have done that dozens of times over in the preceding years)? I suspect it's a mix of several things. (Really the whole "Let me go to Harry Potter/the boy" desperate pleading part was unnerving me as a reader, as desperation is *so* unlike Snape, so what was Harry feeling?) But definitely something out of the ordinary compelled Harry to ignore any risk that Voldemort might turn around and come back, and to approach a man he should have been delighted to see getting his (apparent) just desserts. Julie From cottell at dublin.ie Fri Aug 3 01:05:52 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:05:52 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174343 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > muscatel wrote: > Good is not something you are, it's something you do. > > vmonte: > That's my point. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174273 I'm truly sorry if it didn't come across as such, but my post was intended to agree entirely with yours. Mus, who must resist a tendency to be pithy. From catlady1949 at comcast.net Fri Aug 3 00:40:20 2007 From: catlady1949 at comcast.net (Phyllis Stevens) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 20:40:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The unforgivable curse argument References: <46a8242e.05358c0a.3c5e.38c1@mx.google.com> <004d01c7cf96$b139d5b0$0202a8c0@Lana> Message-ID: <019f01c7d566$df37e030$c0fe3e44@user53796g88h2> No: HPFGUIDX 174344 Sherry wrote: > As it was war, I could have accepted even Harry using the killing > curse. It's the Imperius and Cruciatus that bothered me. Cruciatus > is a torture curse, inflicting terrible agony in every fiber of > someone's body. That isn't self defense or fighting fire with > fire. We have soldiers facing court martials for torturing > prisoners. Torture is wrong, in my opinion, and I hated seeing > the hero, the good guy using it. I didn't mind Molly offing Bella, > because it was war, and soldiers do kill in war. That's their > job. I didn't want Harry to have to kill, but that would have > been far easier to accept than cruciatus for me. --- Catlady1949 now: I think that the DE's would not have hesitated to use unforgiveables on Harry and Co., so I was glad when he did them. I wouldn't call these situations torture in the situations where these curses were used, since I truly do not believe that Harry meant to torture, but to either move a DE to get through a place, situation, whatever. Besides, I feel that he had a right to finally get to use his abilities with no holes barred! I don't equate any of this to The U.S. or Britain's involvement with the Iraq situation. catlady1949 at comcast.net From witherwing at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 3 02:01:47 2007 From: witherwing at sbcglobal.net (Rebecca Scalf) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Narcissa's love - and lying to Voldemort Message-ID: <489396.56273.qm@web81208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174345 Matt wrote: Message-ID: <540134.44209.qm@web55004.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174346 Steve wrote: >People keep saying that there is no explanation for >that letter being there, yet when explanations are >suggested, they are written off as fan-fiction and >fantasy. Well, you either want an explanation or >your don't; apparently, many don't. >Hows this - >When Sirius went to prison, his last remaining friend, >Lupin, cleared out his apartment/flat and stored his >possessions. When Sirius returned and was proven >innocent, Lupin brought those possessions to him at >Grimmauld Place, where Sirius unpack them and enjoyed >reminiscing over them while he wiled way endless hours >in seclusion. >I'm not say that IS THE Explanation, but it could be >AN explanation, if you are willing to accept that an >explanation does exist. >If you are convince that there absolutely is NO >explanation, then no explanation will ever be good >enough. >It's your choice. Oh, oh, Steve. I put forth a similar possibility, among others, as an explanation a few days ago, and got slammed for it. :-) I too think that there are many plausible explanations as to why the letter was there and why Sirius never showed it to Harry. So, I must agree -- folks are either open to possible explanation or they are not. To each his or her own... Perhaps we have reached a point where we should simply agree to disagree? Christy, who is beginning to think that this horse is dead and we are cruel to keep beating it From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 02:27:54 2007 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 02:27:54 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio -- my two cents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174347 > Sneeboy2: > Fictional heroes don't behave like most people. That's why they're > heroes. And just because he's the main character doesn't make him an > "everyman." > > We could go back and list the dangers harry faced in all the books and > ask "why not here" or "why not there?" and come up with plausible > reasons. But the real reason it happens here is because the author > feels the time has come for a crowd-pleasing "kid-gloves-are-off" > moment. I think she cheapens the narrative with it and does > unintended damage to her carefully constructed message. Jack-A-Roe Fictional hero's are at their most believable when they act like real people. If you knew they were perfect what would be the enticement to follow them? The dangers I referred to all occurred that same day. If Harry is feeling overly stressed I can understand why. I think she added a bit of realism with Harry cursing the DE. A lesser curse wouldn't have fit in with the mood and tension of the story at this point. It also marks the transition of the story to the coming battle. > > I don't have any problem with Harry's reaction. From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 03:08:54 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:08:54 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal )/Luna's Creepy Father In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174348 Magpie: > The problem is Hermione deciding on her own to rob someone else of > their lives without their consent or even thinking of it as far as > we know, not that she would rather never see them again than have > them murdered. Lisa: But that was the point of my post that you quoted: we don't know that she decided this on her own. All we know is that it was done. She could've given them a choice, just like the Dursleys were given a choice. Lisa From jeopardy18 at comcast.net Fri Aug 3 02:56:30 2007 From: jeopardy18 at comcast.net (seanmulligan2000) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 02:56:30 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic (wasRe: Deathly Hallows Reactio...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174349 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" wrote: > Neri: > your analogy perhaps isn't very accurate. Being a Slytherin is not > like being a German. No one is born a Slytherin, they choose to > become one. Slytherin is an ideology, a racist ideology that is > more analog of being Nazi, not of being German. The question that > interests me isn't why after 19 years Slytherin still have a bad > image (I doubt that 19 years after the WWII neo-Nazis in the USA or > Britain, not to mention in Israel, would have a better image). The > interesting question to me is why haven't all Wizard parents, > especially those who grew up in Slytherin House, told their > children "blood purity is an evil ideology. It was responsible for > many atrocities during the war. When you go to Hogwarts to be > sorted, you tell the Hat: don't put me in Slytherin. Not Slytherin, > not Slytherin". After all, isn't this what Germans did after WWII? > Didn't they renounce Nazism and racism? Sean: I don't think that choosing Slytherin is the same as choosing evil or that Slytherin itself is a racist ideology. I am disappointed that Slytherins weren't shown united with the other houses at the Battle of Hogwarts which would have continued the theme of unity that was emphasized in the previous books. I was especially disappointed because I greatly enjoy reading the various Slytherin redemption fanfics on the web. Rowling does not give very many detail about why Slytherin opposed the admission of Muggleborns and why he left Hogwarts. The pureblood supremacy ideology of Voldemort and his Death Eaters may have been a distortion of Slytherin's teachings. Here is a link to an essay from this website where the author speculates on Salazar Slytherin. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Essays/slytherin.doc From va32h at comcast.net Fri Aug 3 04:21:55 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:21:55 -0000 Subject: Snape's death scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174350 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "julie" wrote: > So *why* does Harry go right to Snape, feeling compelled tp > do so, take off his cloak and bend down close so Snape can > conveniently reach him to clutch his robes and bring Harry > close enough to speak? Or, rather, why doesn't Harry just > hightail it out of there, figuring the murdering bastard > he so despises got exactly what he deserved? Remainder snipped va32h: Hightailing it out of there figuring the murdering SOB got what he deserved isn't Harry's style at all. He saved Draco (twice!) during the Battle of Hogwarts, he couldn't bring himself to stun Stan Shunpike on the chance that Stan was Imperiused. Back in HBP, Harry was distraught that he'd injured Draco so badly with Sectumsempra. Heck, going all the way back to Philosopher's Stone - Harry feels guilty that he doesn't feel badly about old Mrs. Figg breaking her leg. Harry is an extremely compassionate person by nature, and does not delight in seeing people suffer or in causing people pain (which is why the whole Crucio thing grates on me so very much! - but I digress) Harry may have been drawn to Snape for inexplicable or legillimency related reasons - but I would also tend to think that Harry, being Harry, would have instinctively tried to help. va32h From sk8maven at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 04:00:58 2007 From: sk8maven at yahoo.com (sk8maven) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:00:58 -0000 Subject: Slytherins: selfish, not evil + Ariana raped? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174351 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Bart is right. The attack almost certainly takes place in the > mid-19th century. > > Dumbledore is something like 150 years old in the HP books. Oops, my bad, I forgot that. {embarrassed face} All the more reason why the Muggle boys would have picked up stones and thrown them at Ariana. The 19th century was MUCH more familiar with the Bible, and there are all those passages about stoning people for this or that wrongdoing, plus the infamous "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (the King James was still the Generally Accepted translation, for non-Catholics, at the time). It would have been just about the first thing they thought of. :( One good-sized stone to the side of the head and you'd have all the ensuing consequences: concussion, probable skull fracture, brain damage - apparently to some sector that is specifically involved in controlling magical energies - and so on. Not to mention the emotional trauma from being senselessly attacked, when she was too young to understand any of it. On a side note: it's interesting that we learn so much more about Grindelwald in a few pages in DH than in all the six preceding books. I wonder if JKR didn't really intend to bring him onstage, but he sort of insisted on having his story told and properly concluded? (Any author will tell you that characters have a way of taking over control of their stories and insisting they be told *this* way instead of *that* one.) Maven From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Aug 3 03:52:16 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:52:16 -0400 Subject: Hermione's Parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174352 Ian: "Be that as it may, I think she -- and Ron -- showed amazing courage and love to follow Harry on his quest. She could've just joined her parents in their move to Australia, or convinced them to take her without changing their memories. She couldn't go back to Hogwarts, and she would've been persecuted horribly if she tried to remain in the WW. " Or she could have transferred to an Australian or other foreign wizardling school, taking her parents with her. If she had chosen the Salem Institute, they could have been dentists in Massachusetts. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Aug 3 04:03:18 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 00:03:18 -0400 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174353 How do we know that Hermione did this to her parents as an ambush? She may have sat down and explained the situation to them and what she proposed, perhaps using the well-known phrase from countless spy novels, 'what you can't know you cannot be made to reveal.' If she had done a good enough job in explaining matters to them -- perhaps bringing in one or more adult wizards whom they knew well enough to trust--they might have agreed to it, much as people in the real world agree to go into the Witness Protection program. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 04:42:36 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:42:36 -0000 Subject: Snape really was a Good Guy - Canon in the House Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174354 I just finished reading DH for the third time. On this reread, I found a lot more evidence that Snape had really turned around and wasn't just Lily's lovesick puppy anymore. First, let me say that I was very disappointed in the characterization of Snape throughout DH, after the tantalizing end of HBP. I expected to see a lot of Snape in this book, and I expected a reconciliation between him and Harry...obviously, I was quite wrong. On my first read, I was very upset that Snape's character had been reduced to Lily's puppy and Dumbledore's stooge. Snape has pretty much been my favorite adult character throughout the series and I expected more complexity and resolution for him in this book. On my first few reads, I really didn't get anything more than: Snape loves Lily, Snape hates Harry, Snape fears both Dumbledore and Voldy, Snape does what he's told. This reduced him to a big stinker in my eyes, but I felt like there was more...I felt like there must have been a sea change at some point along the way that turned Snape into a real good guy. Maybe I'm grasping at straws because I hated seeing him reduced to what he was reduced to, but... I do have some canon to back me up. DH, US version, page 681: After Snape has trapped the curse of Gaunt's ring in DD's hand... "I am fortunate, extremely fortunate, that I have you, Severus." "If only you had summoned me a little earlier, i might have been able to do more, buy you more time!" said Snape furiously. ***To me, this reaction speaks of true caring, not of a servant, but of a friend, knowing that a good man is now dying. This reaction was that of the Snape that I thought I knew through 6 books.*** DH, US version, page 687: After Dumbledore has told him Harry will probably die defeating Voldy... Dumbledore opened his eyes. Snape looked horrified. "You have kept him alive so he can die at the right moment?" "Don't be shocked, Severus. How many men and women have you watched die?" "Lately, only those whom I could not save," said Snape. He stood up, "You have used me." ***Snape is not horrified because of anything having to do with Lily. He is horrified because a teenaged boy is about to be sacrificed without his knowledge or intent and Snape feels like he has had a hand in that. He is horrified that Dumbledore could plan such a thing. This is a person, at this point, who has morality not based on obsessive love of a dead woman, but based on a sense of what is right and wrong. Also, saving people? He hasn't been saving people for Lily - he's been saving people because it's right. He has changed into a different person - the Snape I believed him to be - not a "nice" man, certainly, but a good man. I realize that a few lines after this exchange, he claims he doesn't care for Harry at all and that he has only been a good guy because of Lily...and I know JKR herself says and believes this. But her own words, coming from Snape's mouth, belie this interpretation. If all Snape wanted to do was keep Lily's son safe, he wold not be saving other people and possibly putting his cover and his life in danger. Whether Snape and JKR believe it or not, the guy has changed.*** And finally: DH, Us version, 689: Phineas Nigellus is speaking first. "Headmaster! They are camping in the Forest of Dean! The Mudblood - " "Do not use that word!" " - the Granger girl, then, mentioned the place as she opened the bag and I heard her." ***Now, many may argue that the use of the word Mudblood upsets Snape simply because of the memory associated with Lily, and that is certainly one interpretation. However, I feel that while that memory may be the satrting point, Snape is truly offended by that word. He doesn't have the same feeling, if he EVER did, of the other pureblood nasties. I think he regrets that moment with Lily so much because he lost his best friend over something that he really didn't even believe that strongly. He hung with a bad crowd, and they influenced his behavior and choices. I don't think Snape really believed all that crap.*** There's the end of my canon-based argument about Snape's moral and emotional maturation. But I really think, while it certainly started with Lily, it did not end there. He became a different, and better, person...whether his creator believes that or not. (BTW, not flaming on Jo - I love the book and have been a big defender of it - I just think she didn't understand Snape all that well. She created him, and he stole the show. But still lovin' on JK!) Cheers, Katie From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Aug 3 03:57:50 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:57:50 -0400 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174355 Some things are wrong because they are illegal; other things are illegal because they are wrong. Running a red light comes definitely into the first class. "Shooting a man in Reno just to see him die," (to paraphrase the old song) is definitely in the second. There are a great many things in between. You will note that JKR shows her 'good' characters doing Crucio and Imperio, but never explicitly Avada Kevadra. Hence, SHE apparently thinks that the first two are MIP, while the last is MIS. (Now, some people don't see a difference, but this is JKR's sandbox. She gets to make the rules.) Language is also a clue. The first two curses are in Latin, while the last is in Hebrew or Aramaic. Latin is the language of Law; Hebrew and Aramaic are the languages of the Bible. Man's law vs. God's. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 04:46:05 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:46:05 -0000 Subject: The Mysterious Source In-Reply-To: <004301c7d55f$59015f20$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174356 --- "Miles" wrote: > > Steve wrote: > > Voldemort: "Good. Very good. And this information > > comes--" > > > > "-- from the source we discussed," said Snape. > > > > Snape revealed the /actual/ date of Harry leaving > > the Dursleys. The source was Dumbledore's Portrait. > > Did Snape really discuss Dumbledore's portrait with > > Voldemort? > > > > Who do you suppose was the mysterious 'source' they > > discussed? > > Miles: > Mundungus. AFAIR, we learnt in the Prince's Tale about > Mundungus being Snape's contact person in the order. > Plus, the Seven Harrys is a proposal made by Mundungus > under the influence of Snape's Imperius. > > Miles > bboyminn: Yes, I /suppose/ it could be Mundungus, but would Voldemort really consider Mundungus a credible source; a skiving unreliable sneak thief? I know later in Snape's memories, we see Snape and Mundungus together and Snape is implanting the idea of 6 decoys. But still there is the credibility issue of information flowing in the opposite direction, from Dung to Snape. Yaxley's information comes from Dawlish in the Auror's office, and Snape's information comes from Mundungus, which has the greater credibility? It just seems from a credibilty stand point, in Voldemort's eyes it would need to be some one better than Dung. Dung is not exactly loved or trusted by the Order at that point. Still uncertain. Steve/bboyminn From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 05:02:34 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:02:34 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: <46A757D2.6090704@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174357 Mike: Some of this will piggyback on what was already posted by both CJ and Matt in this thread. So please forgive some of the repetitiveness. I have never bought into the commonly held precept that the unforgivables are morally wrong. These 3 curses are simply tools, they can be used for good or evil depending on the circumstances, and the intent of the caster. Murder is unforgivable, not the Avada Kedavra. Torture is unforgivable, not the Crutiatus Curse. Mind enslavement is unforgivable, not the Imperious Curse. And I have always believed that JKR wanted us to understand that "Unforgivable" was a legal construct placed on these 3 by the law-giving arm of the WW (the Ministry? I'm still not sure who makes the laws in the WW). Which is why the Ministry could remove the mandatory life sentences for their usage. I have *never* thought that we were suppose to attach a moral prohibition to their use. The moral prohibition should attach to the reason and/or the outcome of their usage. [If one is interested, Red Hen has formulated an idea for original devolopment of these curses without intended malice - http://www.redhen-publications.com/HistoryofMagic.html Sect. III] Who introduced us to the unforgivables? A Death Eater in disguise. As part of the introduction he tells us that the use of them on another human being earns one a life sentence in Azkaban. Nowhere is the morality of using them brought up in canon. But then later on, he *uses them on human beings* in class, supposedly with Dumbledore's approval. Was this usage immoral? I contend teaching kids how to resist the Imperious is the opposite of immoral. But Hermione complains that it's still illegal. Imprisonment would be administered by the Ministry, a legal punishment for breaking a legal prohibition. And when has the Ministry been shown as the paragon of morality? It seems obvious to me that JKR wanted us to see "unforgivable" as a legal construct, administered by a, shall we say, less than pristine enforcement arm. It's not the curse, it's how and why one uses them that determines morality, imo. As an aside - I have said before and say again, the idea that killing someone is punished the same as administering a few minutes (or seconds) of pain, no matter how excrutiating, seems ludicrous to me. Just another reason for me to see the inequity of assigning a moral equivalence to a Ministry proscribed illegality. I'll let CJ lead me for the rest of this post. > CJ > Some have argued that, as the ban on the curses was lifted during > Voldemort's first war, they were either lifted again, or the first > lifting was still implicitly in effect during the second war. But I > see too many problems with this theory: > > First, there is no indication in DH that the ban was lifted. A > single sentence from JKR would have sufficed to inform us, but > there is none. > > Second, if the ban had been lifted (or the original lifting > reinstated) we really should have seen a lot MORE of them from the > good guys. Mike: Both of these two points argue for the Unforgivables being Legally prohibited as opposed to Morally prohibited. > CJ > Third, this theory is tantemount, to my ears, to saying murder can > become acceptable simply by repealing the laws against it. But, in > fact, murder is not wrong because it's illegal; it's illegal > because it's wrong. Making it legal doesn't make it OK. Mike: If you accept my explanation of legal prohibition of the UCs, then enactment/repeal of prohibitions have nothing to do with the morality of the usage. As you say "murder is wrong" and is so regardless of what is used to perpetrate it. > CJ > Fourth, even if the Unforgivables had been made extraordinarily > acceptable, one would still expect at least a bit of moral distaste > from people who had been raised all their lives to believe the UCs > were wrong. Yet when Harry begins throwing the UCs around, he shows > not the slightest moral compunction about it. > > It really seems a case of the whole moral component of the UCs > having simply evaporated into the ether somewhere around the > latter half of HBP. Mike: Throw out the artificial moral construct attached to the UCs, would you still have a problem with how and why Harry uses Imperious here? If one realizes that the UCs don't have a moral component, I suggest that the distaste evaporates into ether. The cynic would say that Harry uses Imperious to rob a bank. But the moralist would say that Harry uses Imperius not for personal gain, nor to harm his victims, but to retrieve one of LV's Horcruxes. My opinion, of course. > CJ > Fifth, fast forward to the climactic battle: there's Harry, > standing mano a mano with the greatest and most evil wizard of all > time, with the fate (and the eyes) of the entire wizarding world > squarely on him. What more compelling case could ever be made for > the extraordinary use of the killing curse? And what does this boy, > Harry, who has already demonstrated no moral compunctions over two > of three UCs, choose? > Expelliarmus. Makes no sense. Mike: Actually, makes perfect sense to me. First, JKR loves to reuse themes, and here she repeats the spells cast in the graveyard scene in Harry's most dramatic defeat of LV until now. Second, Harry has just explained to us the whole Elder Wand acknowledging it's owner paradigm. What better way to prove he is correct than by attempting to liberate said wand from LV and thereby prove his analysis was correct. Third, if he is correct in his analysis, it matters not what spell he uses as long as he casts it to collide with the expected AK coming from LV. The Elder wand will not attack it's owner and will instead rebound the curse onto the person Harry, it's owner, is fighting. Of course, the rebounding AK brings us full circle to GH, another repeat. > CJ > Sixth, the Ministry of Magic had fallen to Voldemort. Absolutely > the first act of the new Ministry, assuming the ban had been > lifted, would have been to reinstate it. 'Nuff said. Mike: Who cares what the Voldemort controlled Ministry reinstated? Certainly not Harry or any of the opposition. Besides, with all the DEs and LV himself still using the UCs, monitoring for their usage would be problematic, if that's where you were going with this. > CJ > Finally, this theory still doesn't save Snape. He used the Avadra > Kedavra not against the enemy, not in self-defense, but against an > already-disarmed Dumbledore. Mike: This has been discussed elsewhere and I have nothing significant to add to those ruminations. Further on the use of the UCs; I have postulated that magical power comes from within the witch/wizard and that the same spell can have different results depending on the casters intent and magical abilities. Above, I have explained my position on a moral use of the Imperious Curse. Many have pointed out that the AK may be a very humane method for killing, when killing is necessary. I will also add that Crucio seems to be an efficient and effective way to stun. Notice the different results between Snape's AK of Dumbledore and Wormtail's AK of Cedric, or Tom's of his relatives. Many thought that Snape didn't cast a true AK because DD was launched over the parapet. Also, contrast Harry's Crucio of Carrow versus the Crucios against Harry in Gof & HBP and Neville in OotP. Again, Hary's Crucio blasted Carrow into the air, instead of causing him to writhe in pain on the floor. Why the disparity with Snape's AK and Harry's Crucio if not to hint that both of them had no sinister intent? (A little speculation, I think JKR has left the door open for a lot of that.) Just because Bellatrix used the Cruciatus Curse to drive the Longbottoms insane, doesn't mean everyone else has the same intent. > CJ > Killing in war is a tragic necessity. But permitting the > Unforgivables, even in time of war, strikes me (sorry to bring > politics into this) as a lot closer to the current US > administration's attempts to justify torture against "enemy > combatants" in the name of peace. Torture -- and the UCs -- lie > outside the pale of any civil society and it's use carries the > ultimate penalty: loss of the right to call oneself civilized. Mike: I too am sorry you brought politics into this. I find the parroting of the opposition party line against the "current US administration" to be most unuseful. Unless you have specific evidence of "torture" that the rest of world has yet to produce, I respectfully suggest you refrain from making accusations. And in any case, please keep such conversations off this list. Torture is indeed outside the pale. But the UCs are neither the only method of torture, nor does using them necessarily mean you are torturing. Mike From jr_pumpkin at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 05:00:55 2007 From: jr_pumpkin at yahoo.com (jr_pumpkin) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:00:55 -0000 Subject: The Mysterious Source In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174358 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Voldemort: "Good. Very good. And this information > comes--" > > "-- from the source we discussed," said Snape. > > Who do you suppose was the mysterious 'source' they > discussed? jrpumpkin: I kinda thought that he might have given Remus as his 'source'. I think I came up with this because in HBP, Remus was a spy, too, with the werewolves. Maybe Snape told Voldemort that Remus was his source in the Order, since they (Voldy and co.) already thought he (Remus) had turned on them (the Order). And, if this is the case, I doubt Remus even knew. JMO, which is probably WAAAAAAAAAAAAY off :) From juli17 at aol.com Fri Aug 3 06:03:01 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:03:01 -0000 Subject: Snape really was a Good Guy - Canon in the House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174359 Katie wrote: On my > first few reads, I really didn't get anything more than: Snape loves > Lily, Snape hates Harry, Snape fears both Dumbledore and Voldy, Snape > does what he's told. This reduced him to a big stinker in my eyes, > but I felt like there was more...I felt like there must have been a > sea change at some point along the way that turned Snape into a real > good guy. Maybe I'm grasping at straws because I hated seeing him > reduced to what he was reduced to, but... Julie: While I agree that Snape loved Lily and hated Harry (at least through HBP), and agree that he reasonably feared Voldemort's power and his unpredictable moods, I don't think he feared Dumbledore *at all.* He did Dumbledore's bidding because he made a promise, and because that promise effectively fed into his goal (to redeem himself to Lily by protecting her son). Snape could have walked away at any time, if he'd lost interest in that goal (if his love for Lily faded), or if he believed that Dumbledore had lost sight of that goal. (And it was a close call when he felt Dumbledore had used him to help prepare Harry like a "pig for slaughter," though he was ultimately stymied by the fact that *his* goal had changed over the years from merely protecting Harry for Lily's sake to doing what was ultimately right for the survival of the WW.) Katie: > I do have some canon to back me up. > > DH, US version, page 681: After Snape has trapped the curse of > Gaunt's ring in DD's hand... > "I am fortunate, extremely fortunate, that I have you, Severus." > "If only you had summoned me a little earlier, i might have been able > to do more, buy you more time!" said Snape furiously. > > ***To me, this reaction speaks of true caring, not of a servant, but > of a friend, knowing that a good man is now dying. This reaction was > that of the Snape that I thought I knew through 6 books.*** Julie: Agreed. And Dumbledore was initially much harsher with Snape than I had come to expect from the kind-hearted "everyone deserves a second chance" Dumbledore we got in the earlier books. But by the end of their long association with each other I do believe there was genuine caring between Snape and Dumbledore. That was evidenced also in Dumbledore's teary eyes when Snape reveals that he still loves Lily. Katie: > DH, US version, page 687: After Dumbledore has told him Harry will > probably die defeating Voldy... > Dumbledore opened his eyes. Snape looked horrified. > "You have kept him alive so he can die at the right moment?" > "Don't be shocked, Severus. How many men and women have you watched > die?" > "Lately, only those whom I could not save," said Snape. He stood > up, "You have used me." > > ***Snape is not horrified because of anything having to do with Lily. > He is horrified because a teenaged boy is about to be sacrificed > without his knowledge or intent and Snape feels like he has had a > hand in that. He is horrified that Dumbledore could plan such a > thing. This is a person, at this point, who has morality not based on > obsessive love of a dead woman, but based on a sense of what is right > and wrong. Julie: I totally agree with this also. Snape is horrified here on principle. Dumbledore is in fact revealing that he's doing just the *opposite* of what Snape has always thought they were doing--raising Harry to face Voldemort and survive-- yet Snape does not refuse to continue once he learns the truth. If it was all about Lily and saving her son for her, then Snape would have balked. But it has become more about doing what is right, what will destroy the evil that is Voldemort, and what will ensure the survival of the WW. Katie: > > Also, saving people? He hasn't been saving people for Lily - he's > been saving people because it's right. He has changed into a > different person - the Snape I believed him to be - not a "nice" man, > certainly, but a good man. Julie: As Snape said, he's watched people die, but "lately only those I cannot save." And those people have nothing to do with Lily, as saving Remus has nothing to do with Lily. It now has to do with who Snape has become, a man who may still be consumed with bitterness and who acts too often out of spite, but who also has adopted a set of principles. Katie: > I realize that a few lines after this exchange, he claims he doesn't > care for Harry at all and that he has only been a good guy because of > Lily...and I know JKR herself says and believes this. But her own > words, coming from Snape's mouth, belie this interpretation. If all > Snape wanted to do was keep Lily's son safe, he wold not be saving > other people and possibly putting his cover and his life in danger. > Whether Snape and JKR believe it or not, the guy has changed.*** Julie: And we agree again. How Snape feels about Harry is irrelevant. He expresses horror at the *principle* of raising a child just to send him out to be slaughtered. That the child is someone he loathes makes it even clearer that his horror is based on that principle rather than on his own feeling about the person involved. After all, if he had no principles, he'd either be pleased about Harry's fate, or he'd refuse to take part because doing so would go against his promise to keep Lily's son safe. Snape may still love Lily sixteen years after her death, but he's no longer acting solely for her benefit. It's become about more than her, or Harry. Katie: > > There's the end of my canon-based argument about Snape's moral and > emotional maturation. But I really think, while it certainly started > with Lily, it did not end there. He became a different, and better, > person...whether his creator believes that or not. > > (BTW, not flaming on Jo - I love the book and have been a big > defender of it - I just think she didn't understand Snape all that > well. She created him, and he stole the show. But still lovin' on JK!) Julie: I'm not sure JKR does believe that Snape never changed. She makes sure we know he is still mean and spiteful, but she doesn't ever say he didn't change from that young man who was only interested in saving Lily and no one else to a man who adopted some principles along the way. I suspect she does think he changed *some*, just not *enough* to make him a good person in the fullest sense (one who can let go of their bitterness and thirst for vengeance). I bet she even realizes that the person who truly suffered from Snape's unwillingness to release the past and move on is not Harry, or Neville, or any other student, but Snape himself. Which is the true tragedy of Severus Snape, after all. Julie From leahstill at hotmail.com Fri Aug 3 08:55:05 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:55:05 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174360 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > How do we know that Hermione did this to her parents as an ambush? > She may have sat down and explained the situation to them and what > she proposed, perhaps using the well-known phrase from countless > spy novels, 'what you can't know you cannot be made to reveal.' > If she had done a good enough job in explaining matters to them > -- perhaps bringing in one or more adult wizards whom they knew > well enough to trust--they might have agreed to it, much as people > in the real world agree to go into the Witness Protection program. > > Bruce Alan Wilson Leah: We don't of course know for sure, but: (i) It would have taken hardly any page space to have Hermione say "We discussed it and this is what they agreed". That would have added poignancy to Hermione's own loss, I think. If Hermione is behaving in a proper and moral way let's see it, it shouldn't be left to us to imagine it off page. (ii) Discussion and explanation isn't how Hermione operates when she believes she is doing the Right Thing. The hats for the House Elves were hidden under rubbish until Ron cleared it away. DA had no warning about what would happen if anyone betrayed them to Umbridge. People don't get a clear view of what they're choosing when Hermione knows best. Not consulting her parents is entirely in character with the Hermione of the later books. (iii) No parent IMO would agree to such a thing. You might agree to be hidden away under witness protection, to give up your old life, but not to give up every memory of your child for your own protection. (It is not as if the Grangers could give any useful information about Hermione's whereabouts etc). They weren't just been given new identities that they had to pretend were theirs as in witness protections, they actually had new identies. They were kept alive by Hermione but as different people. Who would actually agree to that? Leah From leahstill at hotmail.com Fri Aug 3 09:19:47 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:19:47 -0000 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174361 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > Some things are wrong because they are illegal; other things are > illegal because they are wrong. > > Running a red light comes definitely into the first class. "Shooting > a man in Reno just to see him die," (to paraphrase the old song) is > definitely in the second. There are a great many things in between. > > You will note that JKR shows her 'good' characters doing Crucio and > Imperio, but never explicitly Avada Kevadra. Hence, SHE apparently > thinks that the first two are MIP, while the last is MIS. (Now, some > people don't see a difference, but this is JKR's sandbox. She gets > to make the rules.) > > Language is also a clue. The first two curses are in Latin, while the > last is in Hebrew or Aramaic. Latin is the language of Law; Hebrew > and Aramaic are the languages of the Bible. Man's law vs. God's. > > Bruce Alan Wilson > Sorry, I'm disagreeing with you two posts in a row. Firstly, most things that are illegal are illegal because they are wrong. (In the UK there are bye-laws for the administrative stuff) Running a red light is not some trivial thing which the goverment has declared to be illegal because it might snag up traffic. Running a red light runs the risk of killing a driver coming the other way or a pedestrian crossing the road. I see plenty of people running red lights (no implication here that you do this btw) becuase they've decided that this is a 'trivial' law, that it's not morally wrong, this doesn't apply to me etc. If these curses are Unforgiveable, that's what they are, you don't get to pick and choose. I see no suggestion in the texts that this label is wrong because it was applied by a corrupt ministry. One of the people who could authoratively have put that view forward was Sirius- he did the opposite when he condemned Crouch Senior's legalisation of the UCs for Aurors. Secondly, you draw an interesting distinction between the use of Latin and Aramaic. You might be right, but if I'm reading what has set itself up to be a moral story, I like to have its moral framework made explicit in the text not have to go away and try and impose it myself. And Harry was pretty upset when he used that very Latin curse Sectumsempra on Draco. I'd didn't hear him saying, "Phew, at least it wasn't Aramaic". Thirdly, the text has always, always presented the UCs as wrong. If they're suddenly going to be ok, I want to hear about that. CJ has mentioned his ten year old son's reaction. My 19 year old has literally grown up with and loved Harry Potter, reading him from the age of 9 onwards. She's just now reading DH. Last night she gave a sudden exclamation in the middle of reading. I asked what was wrong, expecting her to have got to Dobby's death or something. "Harry's used Imperius" she said indignantly. She's no fool, and she has had no problem accepting FlawedHarry trashing DD's office, ranting in OOTP etc etc. This was different. These young people know they have been presented with a certain world view of moral behaviour and that suddenly the goalposts have changed. Leah From spaebrun at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 10:33:17 2007 From: spaebrun at yahoo.com (spaebrun) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:33:17 -0000 Subject: The Mysterious Source In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174362 > bboyminn: > > Yes, I /suppose/ it could be Mundungus, but would > Voldemort really consider Mundungus a credible source; > a skiving unreliable sneak thief? > > Yaxley's information comes from Dawlish in the Auror's > office, and Snape's information comes from Mundungus, > which has the greater credibility? > Reed: Well, Dawlish is an Auror in the Ministry, but Dung is a member of the Order of the Phoenix. Any information coming from an actual Order member must seem very valuable to Voldemort, as they are his strongest opponents, much more than the Ministry and plan things without the knowledge of the Ministry. As to Mundundus being an unreliable character, I don't know how Snape claimed to have gotten information out of him. If he said he used legilimency on Dung (which I think would be the best explanation), Dung wouldn't have a chance to lie. And even if he claimed that Dung betrayed the Order willingly, it would still seem unlikely that Dung actually has the nerve to be a double agent and feed Voldemort false information. (And Snape could have checked anyway - legilimency again). > It just seems from a credibilty stand point, in > Voldemort's eyes it would need to be some one better > than Dung. Dung is not exactly loved or trusted by > the Order at that point. Reed: True, Dung is not the most loved Order member, but he *is* trusted at that point, otherwise he wouldn't have participated in the plan at all and his suggestion about the 7 Harrys wouldn't have been taken up. And he never *did* betray them to Voldemort, you have to give that to him. Obviously he managed to hide from the Deatheaters after his flight, which was really fortunate for the Order. But another thing: How did Snape *really* know the date of the transfer? You said from DD's portrait, I think, but the text is not clear about that. The portrait just says that he would have to give the correct date to Voldemort. And anyway, how should the portrait know the date? Maybe Snape really *did* use legilimency on Dung... Reed From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Fri Aug 3 07:00:27 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 07:00:27 -0000 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174363 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > Some things are wrong because they are illegal; other things are > illegal because they are wrong. > > Just a polite request. Not all of is are Latinists. I have picked some up as I have meandered through life but could you just confirm for me Malum in Prohibendum.. I'm guessing Wrong because it's prohibited/illegal , it's where we get english prohibited from. Malum in se,, wrong in/of itself. Sorry, I was a secondary modern kid so never learned it as a child. Do love it though and have tried to pick up bits. Actually made me thing last night whilst re-reading HBP. Don't Wizards learn Latin? Harry says he didnt' know what Sectum Sempra did when he used it on Malfoy. Huh, even my deficient Latin was up to that one. Presuambly in the WW Latin is not a 'known' language just that used for spells. So JKR must have used Latin just to let the readers into the secret. A bit of a nod to Tolkien I felt, as he equated the Common Speech of the west to English but the character did not speak English allthecoolnamesgone From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Fri Aug 3 07:43:07 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 07:43:07 -0000 Subject: Snape really was a Good Guy - Canon in the House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174364 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > I just finished reading DH for the third time. On this reread, I > found a lot more evidence that Snape had really turned around and > wasn't just Lily's lovesick puppy anymore. I agree Katie with all your points about Snape. I am just about to start my third read having gone back to the earlier books after my second read. I finished HBP this morning. I found myself in real emotional turmoil in the first week after reading DH. The main source of which was the low key treatment and understated end of Snape. I wanted more resolution between him and Harry but after further thought I cannot see a way that his could have been accomplished. Harry had no mind for anything but revenge on Snape and it was probably only a compassionate impulse for another human being in extremis that took him to Snape's side at his dying moment. His deepest impulse was 'Lily' at that moment, I think James would have stood back and coolly watched him die. Snape made reall moral progress in his life but his tragedy was in part that this could never be open. He was 'locked' into his cover story until the mission was accomplished and I am sure he was well aware that it was likely that he would die before it was. Poor Severus. (and still so villified by so many) allthecoolnamesgone From technomad at intergate.com Fri Aug 3 11:35:02 2007 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 06:35:02 -0500 Subject: JKR And Dante Message-ID: <002f01c7d5c2$553c85f0$af510043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 174365 In some ways, the chapter "King's Cross" reminded me of Dante's _Inferno,_ which I have read in English translation, as well as Niven and Pournelle's updated SF/Fantasy version. In both versions, the narrators are at first horrified at the fates of the damned, and try to help them, but their guides (Virgil and Benito) warn them that there's nothing they can do, and they eventually accept that the damned have earned their punishments, and leave them to their fates. JKR's take on Voldemort-as-flayed-baby is a very Dantesque idea. The whole theme of _Inferno_ (both versions) is "Let the punishment fit the crime." Voldemort has torn his soul to pieces in a vain quest for immortality; therefore, he must spend eternity as a flayed piece of a soul. He has misused the great power given to him in many, terrible ways; he must spend eternity powerless and helpless and in pain. He threw away his handsome original form in his quest for power, so now he's horrible to look upon. The Dante parallel would also explain why Dumbledore, who is presented as a compassionate person who is big on second chances, won't touch the flayed baby or let Harry do anything about it. Voldemort's damnation is doubly sad and ironic, or so it seems to me, because he could have had what he thought he wanted through strictly legitimate means. Handsome, charismatic and almost universally liked, he could have become Minister of Magic; an extremely talented wizard, he could have been tapped to help Nicolas Flamel and either been given the secret of the Philosopher's Stone, or figured out how to reverse-engineer one. Instead, he took stupid shortcuts, meddled with Things Man Was Not Meant To Know, and literally damned himself. --Eric Oppen (who wonders where Cornelius Fudge would end up in Dante's version of the afterlife, and where the Trio would be. Hermione, at least, would have some serious penance to do before she got to Heaven---I'm NOT pleased with her treatment of her parents, although I'm sure she meant well.) From leahstill at hotmail.com Fri Aug 3 11:47:49 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:47:49 -0000 Subject: The Mysterious Source In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174366 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jr_pumpkin" wrote: >> jrpumpkin: > > I kinda thought that he might have given Remus as his 'source'. I > think I came up with this because in HBP, Remus was a spy, too, with > the werewolves. Maybe Snape told Voldemort that Remus was his source > in the Order, since they (Voldy and co.) already thought he (Remus) > had turned on them (the Order). And, if this is the case, I doubt > Remus even knew. > > JMO, which is probably WAAAAAAAAAAAAY off :) Leah I agreed with you for what it's worth. I actually thought during the early part of DH that Pippin's wonderfully worked out ESELupin was going to be vindicated. Since it wasn't, and we got EverSoweak Lupin instead, hen I suspect Mundungus was the source, but I don't think Lupin was a way out guess. Leah From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 12:14:53 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:14:53 -0000 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174367 > >>Bruce Alan Wilson: > > You will note that JKR shows her 'good' characters doing Crucio and > Imperio, but never explicitly Avada Kevadra. Hence, SHE apparently > thinks that the first two are MIP, while the last is MIS. (Now, > some people don't see a difference, but this is JKR's sandbox. She > gets to make the rules.) > Betsy Hp: JKR definitely makes the rules. And she's changed them here. Because what made the Unforgivables wrong in her other books is that you had to *mean* them. IOWs, you couldn't throw a Crucio at someone you just wanted to punch in the face. You had to want to pull their fingernails out. You had to want to see them writhe in pain. And it had to be for the pain's sake, not just your own "righteous" anger. You had to get in touch with your inner sadist. We had an explicit example of that in GOF. It was reasonable to infer then, that to successfully cast an Imperius you had to *want* to fully subjugate someone to your will, make them your complete slave. And that to successfully cast an AK you had to *want* someone's death. So being able to successfully cast an Unforgivable meant that you were in a dark and cruel headspace. You weren't torturing for a purpose other than enjoying seeing someone in pain. You controlled with the joy of controlling, you killed with the joy of killing. Of course in DH, things have changed. Just as polyjuice now lasts for as long as needed, Crucio has become the equivalent of punching someone in the face. Imperio has been watered down to a nicely effective Confoundis. Mainly because JKR doesn't want us to judge her characters by what they *do*. She needs us to judge them by what they *are*. Anything Harry does is, by definition, good. Betsy Hp (who notes this is the exact opposite of Batman's philosophy as per "Batman Begins" and, as per usual, agrees with Batman) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 12:22:03 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:22:03 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174368 > Mike: > Some of this will piggyback on what was already posted by both CJ and > Matt in this thread. So please forgive some of the repetitiveness. > > I have never bought into the commonly held precept that the > unforgivables are morally wrong. These 3 curses are simply tools, > they can be used for good or evil depending on the circumstances, and > the intent of the caster. Murder is unforgivable, not the Avada > Kedavra. Torture is unforgivable, not the Crutiatus Curse. Mind > enslavement is unforgivable, not the Imperious Curse. > > And I have always believed that JKR wanted us to understand > that "Unforgivable" was a legal construct placed on these 3 by the > law-giving arm of the WW (the Ministry? I'm still not sure who makes > the laws in the WW). Alla: Hmmmm, I had always thought that the concept of Unforgivables is immoral as well as illegal, but now I am sitting here and trying to figure out what in canon lead me to think that. Because surely all the reasons you stated and I snipped ( DE in disguise introducing curses, Ministry being the one imposing sentence in Azkaban, etc) to me should show their illegality and really has nothing to do with morality. Okay, I always attached an importance to what Sirius says about their usage by aurors and thought that author's voice about those times and especially about Barty Crouch rule in general and him allowing aurors to use is not approving. But now I am rereading this paragraph, it was quoted, but let me quote it again for convenience and sort of not sure. >From GoF "Padfoot returns": "Well, times like that bring out the best in some people and the worst in others. Crouch's principles might've been good in the beginning - I wouldn't know. He rose quickly through the Ministry, and he started ordering very harsh measures against Voldemorts supporters. The Aurors were given new powers - powers to kill rather than capture, for instance. And I wasn't the only one who was handed straight to the dementors without trial. Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects. I would say he became as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side. He had his supporters, mind you - plenty of people thought he was going about things the right way, and there were a lot of witches and wizards clamoring for him to take over as Minister of Magic. When Voldemort disappeared, it looked like only a matter of time until Crouch got the top job." Alla: Sirius certainly expresses distaste here, but is author with him or not? I mean is he speaking for an author here? In light of book 7 I am not sure anymore. Maybe it is indeed the bitterness of the victim of the ministry speaking and nothing more? Mike: > As an aside - I have said before and say again, the idea that killing > someone is punished the same as administering a few minutes (or > seconds) of pain, no matter how excrutiating, seems ludicrous to me. > Just another reason for me to see the inequity of assigning a moral > equivalence to a Ministry proscribed illegality. Alla: Yes, you certainly did :) and I so vehemently argued that Snape's use of AK just must means something. Ooops. Crow is cooking for me. > Mike: > Throw out the artificial moral construct attached to the UCs, would > you still have a problem with how and why Harry uses Imperious here? > If one realizes that the UCs don't have a moral component, I suggest > that the distaste evaporates into ether. > > The cynic would say that Harry uses Imperious to rob a bank. But the > moralist would say that Harry uses Imperius not for personal gain, > nor to harm his victims, but to retrieve one of LV's Horcruxes. My > opinion, of course. Alla: I would have zero problem with it - it is just I am still struggling with whether such moral component is artificial or not. It is that sentence from quoted above passage that still buggs at me: "Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects. I would say he became as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side. " - became as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark side. What is it if not the implication that Unforgivables are Immoral despite crouch making them legal? As I mentioned before, I have not had much problem with Harry using Unforgivables in the war, I just needed something more extreme than spat on Mcgonagall, I am not terribly bothered by it as Harry showing his anger, you know? > Mike: > Actually, makes perfect sense to me. First, JKR loves to reuse > themes, and here she repeats the spells cast in the graveyard scene > in Harry's most dramatic defeat of LV until now. >. Of > course, the rebounding AK brings us full circle to GH, another repeat. Alla: Word on that, word. I always thought that Graveyeard may replay itself in the end and here we go - beatifully done JKR, beatifully. Loved it :) > Mike: >> Why the disparity with Snape's AK and Harry's Crucio if not to hint > that both of them had no sinister intent? (A little speculation, I > think JKR has left the door open for a lot of that.) Just because > Bellatrix used the Cruciatus Curse to drive the Longbottoms insane, > doesn't mean everyone else has the same intent. > Alla: Yep, yummy crow for me again for difference in Snape AK and wow, I did not even realise that Harry's crucio produced a different result - still only on first reread of the book :) Genuis you :) On the other hand, doesn't Harry say that you have to mean them and that is why it works? Loved your post Mike :) From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Aug 3 12:36:33 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:36:33 -0000 Subject: Snape finding Lily's Letter In-Reply-To: <429836.25970.qm@web55004.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174369 Christy: (snipping) Maybe its not the letter but simply a letter. Other plausible explanations for it do exist right? (Sometimes JKR gives us details that foreshadow and sometimes she just gives us details.) Potioncat: JKR does give us details! It was the details that brought most of us to a list. Her details are like Bertie Botts Beans. But, to the topic at hand: The Purloined Letter I'm not sure if the letter has become a dead horse or a tennis ball. We all seem to agree that the letter was brought back to 12 GP off- page. The saga of the letter works better for some of us than others, but there are some things the letter's story does accomplish. This brief, two-part episode packs a lot into a little space. There had been a search for something.Harry doesn't know who or why or if that person found anything. Harry finds the first half of a letter and a torn photo of himself as a baby. These were apparently discarded in the search for something important. The letter establishes some names, brings the IC/DD connection to mind and teases us with an unfinished comment about DD. It also sets a mood with comments about Wormtail and general family life. Touching, I thought, that Sirius has given Harry two brooms over the years. When Harry (and the reader) does see the letter again, he gets the final bit about DD. He discovers it was Snape who went through the house. He sees Snape tearing off the section of the photo that has Lily, and sees for a second time, how deep Severus's feelings are for his childhood friend. There's several bit of irony connected to this little subplot. A character says that Moody's curses must be working, because Snape hasn't revealed the secret, yet Snape has already been there. The very thing that was taken from the house was the letter right in front of us. Harry and Snape are both hungry for keepsakes of a lost time. So again, this probably did exactly what JKR wanted it to. And, no, the letter on the table in OoP probably isn't this letter--- but I like that version and I'm sticking to it! ;-) Potioncat From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 12:36:12 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:36:12 -0000 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174370 > Betsy Hp: > JKR definitely makes the rules. And she's changed them here. > Because what made the Unforgivables wrong in her other books is that > you had to *mean* them. Alla: Oh my dear God. I just realised something. This is would do as addemdum to my previous post, but may as well stand alone. Who said that you should mean them in the first place? One DE and another DE, no? Who said that they were telling the truth. Especially Bella??? Alla. From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 12:49:11 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 05:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Mysterious Source In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <106990.5086.qm@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174371 Steve wrote: > Voldemort: "Good. Very good. And this information > comes--" > "-- from the source we discussed," said Snape. > Snape revealed the /actual/ date of Harry leaving > the Dursleys. The source was Dumbledore's Portrait. > Did Snape really discuss Dumbledore's portrait with > Voldemort? > > Who do you suppose was the mysterious 'source' they > discussed? > > Miles: > Mundungus. AFAIR, we learnt in the Prince's Tale about > Mundungus being Snape's contact person in the order. > Plus, the Seven Harrys is a proposal made by Mundungus > under the influence of Snape's Imperius. bboyminn: >Yes, I /suppose/ it could be Mundungus, but would >Voldemort really consider Mundungus a credible source; >a skiving unreliable sneak thief? >I know later in Snape's memories, we see Snape and >Mundungus together and Snape is implanting the >idea of 6 decoys. But still there is the credibility >issue of information flowing in the opposite direction, >from Dung to Snape. >Yaxley's information comes from Dawlish in the Auror's >office, and Snape's information comes from Mundungus, >which has the greater credibility? >It just seems from a credibilty stand point, in >Voldemort's eyes it would need to be some one better >than Dung. Dung is not exactly loved or trusted by >the Order at that point. >Still uncertain. I have to agree with bboyminn, esp. the still uncertain part. This might one of the those things we'll never truly know unless JKR tells us. (I haven't read the Bloomsbury webchat transcript yet. Did no one ask? I'm surprised...) Agreeing that Dung is a far from credible (through easy to manipulate) source, I spent a lot of time assuming it was Dumbledore's portrait. And, there is no reason for Voldemort to doubt that source -- the portraits serve the headmaster after all. Remember the other portraits were up in arms because N. Black hesitated to do Dumbledore's bidding back in OOTP. I get the impression that their service to the headmaster is honor bound regardless of personal feelings. So, even if Dumbledore's portrait didn't want to do Snape's bidding, he would be honor bound to do so. But, then I ran into another problem. Snape's confirmation as headmaster doesn't occur until after the event. So, my puzzlement isn't that Dumbledore's portrait could not be the source, but could it have the opportunity to be the source. So, the questions for me become: Did Snape have access to Dumbledore's portrait prior to becoming headmaster? (The Ministry hadn't fallen by this time so Snape is still a wanted man so to speak, so he can't be just strolling through the castle.) And, did Dumbledore's portrait have access to the Order and therefore means to know their plans? (Since he has Snape use Dung to suggest the decoys, I'm inclined to think Dumbledore's portrait did not access to the Order. Otherwise, he could made the suggestion himself.) Another response to this thread, but separate from the one quoted above, suggested Lupin, citing that he was a spy among the werewolves in HBP and I think tried to suggest that Voldemort therefore would consider him disloyal to the Order. I had a very different take on Lupin's duties in HBP. I think he was sent as an ambassador of sorts among the werewolves in an effort to keep them from joining Voldemort, much like Hagrid was sent among the giants. So, I totally disagree that Lupin could be the source. I think both sides consider him loyal to the Order and given the chance he would try to kill Snape. So, I'm unfortunately inclined to believe that once again our dear Hagrid spilled the beans over a few pints at the pub -- it worked for Quirrell in book 1. And, Snape, being a potions master, could make himself some polyjuice. I imagine he could have found a few of Moody's, or Lupin's, or Kingsley's, or Tonks's, etc. hairs at Grimmauld Place. In fact he could have impersonated anyone, even a stranger; the only information he needed was a date. Mix together Hagrid's naivety, a few pints, and Snape's skill at legilimens and information can be discovered. And, I think JKR raising the possibly in the book helps point us in that direction. Just a thought... however, I can accept this mystery if we never solve it... Christy From leahstill at hotmail.com Fri Aug 3 13:07:36 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:07:36 -0000 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174372 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: >> Alla: > > Oh my dear God. I just realised something. This is would do as > addemdum to my previous post, but may as well stand alone. > > Who said that you should mean them in the first place? One DE and > another DE, no? > > Who said that they were telling the truth. Especially Bella??? > > Alla. Leah The problem with all of this, Alla, is that the clear message of the early books was that the Unforgiveables were just that. We didn't get any presentation of moral or legal ambiguity, we not only got CrouchMoody and Bella, we got reinforcement from Sirius, who, as I have said could have easily just hinted at another view, we got Neville's reaction in CrouchMoody's lesson, we got Gran Longbottom, "My son and his wife were tortured into insanity by Death Eaters", we got Snape's "No unforgiveables for you, Potter". If these curses are suddenly not unforgiveable, if you don't really have to want to torture people, or perhaps just torture them a little bit, if it was all a setup by the Ministry or the Death Eaters, let's see just a little hint of that being set up or reflected on. This isn't just a passing mention like Mark Evans, this is something that was a fundamental given of the previous six books. If it's just that it's not ok to crucio decent chaps like Frank Longbottom but perfectly ok to let scum like Carrow have it, let's hear McGonagall and Harry mention it just once, instead we get a compliment on 'gallantry'. Nothing is done to change our view of the Unforgiveables until Harry starts Imperioing and Crucioing without a backward glance. It's no good everyone sitting on messageboards making up post hoc justifications if all we can deduce from the text in which these things occur is "It must be ok because these are the really good guys". Leah From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 13:07:27 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 06:07:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape finding Lily's Letter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <659402.53489.qm@web55013.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174373 Christy (that's me, the person responding to Potioncat): (snipping) > > Maybe its not the letter but simply a letter. Other plausible > > explanations for it do exist right? (Sometimes JKR gives us > > details that foreshadow and sometimes she just gives us details.) Potioncat: (snipping just a small bit) > The Purloined Letter > I'm not sure if the letter has become a dead horse or a tennis > ball. We all seem to agree that the letter was brought back to 12 > GP off-page. The saga of the letter works better for some of us > than others, but there are some things the letter's story does > accomplish. This brief, two-part episode packs a lot into a little > space. > When Harry (and the reader) does see the letter again, he gets the > final bit about DD. He discovers it was Snape who went through the > house. He sees Snape tearing off the section of the photo that has > Lily, and sees for a second time, how deep Severus's feelings are > for his childhood friend. > > There's several bit of irony connected to this little subplot. A > character says that Moody's curses must be working, because Snape > hasn't revealed the secret, yet Snape has already been there. The > very thing that was taken from the house was the letter right in > front of us. Harry and Snape are both hungry for keepsakes of a > lost time. > And, no, the letter on the table in OoP probably isn't this letter-- > but I like that version and I'm sticking to it! ;-) Very nice summary of the importance of the letter and a worthy focus of discussion -- how it got to Grimmauld Place in the first place and whether or not the letter mentioned in OOTP is the letter isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. Your observations here capture what is important very nicely. And, I too find it poignant that Sirius gave Harry his first broom and his Firebolt -- and, sadly, Harry has neither to remember him by ... Christy, who would like to think the letter on the table in OOTP is the letter but can't believe it because she thinks Sirius would have shown it to Harry and at least given him the photo as a memento if it was (so we agree to disagree on that...) From csh at stanfordalumni.org Fri Aug 3 13:22:49 2007 From: csh at stanfordalumni.org (chuck.han) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:22:49 -0000 Subject: Snape really was a Good Guy - Canon in the House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174374 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > ... > On my first read, I was very upset that Snape's character had been > reduced to Lily's puppy and Dumbledore's stooge. Snape has pretty > much been my favorite adult character throughout the series and I > expected more complexity and resolution for him in this book. On my > first few reads, I really didn't get anything more than: Snape loves > Lily, Snape hates Harry, Snape fears both Dumbledore and Voldy, Snape > does what he's told. This reduced him to a big stinker in my eyes, > but I felt like there was more...I felt like there must have been a > sea change at some point along the way that turned Snape into a real > good guy. Maybe I'm grasping at straws because I hated seeing him > reduced to what he was reduced to, but... > > I do have some canon to back me up. > ... I, too, have struggled with the complexity of Snape's character, his relationship with Harry, Dumbledore, and the rest of the Order of the Phoenix. While it was clear even before DH that Snape's remorse over the death of Lily is what turned him around, to see it in print in the Pensive was unnerving (the whole Pensive sequence is my favorite part of the whole series). While I too feel a sense of wanting more, I think that JKR did her best: we now know that the ONLY reason that Snape turned was his remorse over Lily's death. Had she not died, he wouldn't have been "saved." So does that diminish his "good" acts from that point on? Is he only being "good" because of the remorse? Also, it is not clear to me what Snape's feelings towards Harry are. Snape clearly hates the "James-ness" in Harry and Harry's association with Sirius and Lupin, he treats Harry like dirt partly as a reaction to not wanting to be discovered as Harry's protector, but I think he must love the "Lily-ness" in Harry, something about which he is initially in denial, but he can't contradict Dumbledore's observations about Harry's true inner nature. Dumbledore, too, must get beyond his initial contempt for Snape. With trust and time, he must come to love Snape, and I desperately want to believe that Snape's saving of Dumbledore from the Resurrection Stone curse is more about the love between them more than about keeping Harry alive. And just as Dumbledore wants Snape to tell Harry just at the right moment that Harry must walk into Death's arms, Dumbledore waits to tell Snape this news at the right time too, at the point where he is comfortable enough to feel that Snape has moved on from just protecting Harry, and that there is a greater good that needs to be addressed. Snape's protection of Harry is not a mother's love of a son, so Dumbledore knows that Snape will convey the message. The one thing on which I do feel cheated is the fact that Dumbledore doesn't have as much of a struggle--he truly believes that Harry will survive his encounter with Death because of Lily's blood that runs in Voldemort's veins, so JKR has given Dumbledore a convenient out. Snape's stuggle is genuine--he truly believes that Harry must now be sacrificed, yet he does indeed convey the message to Harry while Dumbledore can pretty much be rest assured that Harry will not die. Chuck From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 13:27:50 2007 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:27:50 -0000 Subject: The Mysterious Source In-Reply-To: <106990.5086.qm@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174375 > Did Snape have access to Dumbledore's portrait prior to becoming headmaster? Snip: I think that DH indicates that Snape does have access to the portrait prior to becoming headmaster. p 688 US. As the portrait seems to tell Snape that he must give LV the correct date of Harry's departure, but that Snape msut confound Dung to suggest the doubles. Reviewing the text I thought of three possibilities (granted they are just possibilities). First, that Hagrid visited Dumbledore's portrait and spilled the beans. I can certainly imagine that Hagrid might want to visit the portrait and chat with the man that he so idolized. Second, that as an important member of the WW and the Wizengamout (sp) Dumbledore has another portrait at the ministry and was able to overhear a discussion regarding Harry's departure. Third, that the information was supplied by Evard whose portrait is in the ministry per OotP. From chaomath at hitthenail.com Fri Aug 3 13:34:25 2007 From: chaomath at hitthenail.com (Maeg) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 08:34:25 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <389F512E-E582-4BDC-9A95-C4588516A3EE@hitthenail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174376 On Aug 3, 2007, at 12:02 AM, Mike wrote: > I have never bought into the commonly held precept that the > unforgivables are morally wrong. These 3 curses are simply tools, > they can be used for good or evil depending on the circumstances, and > the intent of the caster. Murder is unforgivable, not the Avada > Kedavra. Torture is unforgivable, not the Crutiatus Curse. Mind > enslavement is unforgivable, not the Imperious Curse. So why does the WW call them the "Unforgivable" Curses? Why not just call them the "Illegal" Curses? JKR chose that word, and I don't think it was chosen lightly. If it was just about the law, then why bring a highly charged, emotional word like "unforgivable" into it? Harry's casual use of Unforgivables in DH is a serious contradiction and a flaw in the construction of the book. It's not a red herring, it's not JKR being clever; she decided to show the reader that Harry is now a fully mature wizard by having him successfully use UCs -- but forgot that she gave him a conscience in the earlier books. Maeg, who finds this particularly sad considering JKR's personal statements in support of Amnesty International -- a group "focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity." From sherriola at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 13:46:40 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 06:46:40 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <46b331c4.08b38c0a.36b8.34b8@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174377 > Mike: > Throw out the artificial moral construct attached to the UCs, would > you still have a problem with how and why Harry uses Imperious here? > If one realizes that the UCs don't have a moral component, I suggest > that the distaste evaporates into ether. > > The cynic would say that Harry uses Imperious to rob a bank. But the > moralist would say that Harry uses Imperius not for personal gain, > nor to harm his victims, but to retrieve one of LV's Horcruxes. My > opinion, of course. Sherry: Yes, I would, and I do. And I am and always have been a Harry supporter, and he's my favorite character. I've never argued that the simple illegality of the Unforgivable Curses is what should prevent people using them. Taking away someone's will, basically, a magical form of mind control, is wrong, morally wrong. Torturing someone, for *any* reason is wrong, morally wrong, to me anyway. It's never acceptable, unlike the way killing can be acceptable in time of war, or by law enforcement or in self-defense. My objection was always based on my view of what the previous morality of the books had been, not on anything to do with the Ministry and its supposed laws. I'm not objecting to anything else the Trio did on the basis of its ministry approval or lack thereof. I was deeply disappointed that Harry could so easily stoop to using the weapons of his enemies. Mind control and torture just aren't excusable, to me at least. I love Harry, but DH did end up having absolutely no heroes in the end in some ways for me, and in other ways it was loaded with them, because most of my real life heroes are people I know well who are deeply flawed individuals. Sherry From CariadMel at aol.com Fri Aug 3 14:01:07 2007 From: CariadMel at aol.com (Annette) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:01:07 -0000 Subject: JKR Encyclopaedia; what do you want to see in it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174378 ---cariad wrote: However, I feel there are still outstanding little > > niggles we have concerning the world of Harry Potter. What things > do > > it to you? > > Mine for instance: > > > > 1. The gemstones in the hourglasses; we know the Houses are > > represented by the colours, red, blue and green have rubies, > sapphire > > and emeralds Hufflepuffs are represented by yellow, so what's their > > gemstone? > > > > 2.Do all Wizard families send their children off from Kings Cross > > station? How do Muggleborns know how to get on to Platform 9, 3/4? > > > > 3. We know the history of the Bloody Baron, the Grey Lady and > Nearly- > > headless Nick, what about the Fat Friar? > > > > > > I would like: > > 1. A detailed description of the Hufflepuff Common Room and similar > descriptions of the dormitories. > > 2. All of her notes, including the rejected ideas. > > 3. Detailed bios on the characters. > > 4. The names of the students in the Houses. > > 5. The background stories of all the Hogwarts ghosts. > > 6. The catalog of items sold by Fred and George's business. > > Milz > cariad now: Thanks for your responses folks! Alicia, thank you for clearing up point 2. for me, I'm sure there would've been more info given to muggle families ..., mmm, mine must have got lost in the post! LOL. So much to know, I'm sure that JKR could do with a researcher for all that background stuff ...(me, me, holding hand in air, Hermione style!!!) cariad x From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 14:14:54 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:14:54 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174379 > Leah: > We don't of course know for sure, but: > > (i) It would have taken hardly any page space to have Hermione > say "We discussed it and this is what they agreed". That would have > added poignancy to Hermione's own loss, I think. If Hermione is > behaving in a proper and moral way let's see it, it shouldn't be > left to us to imagine it off page. Lisa: It would've only taken a sentence to say how Harry got the Marauder's Map back after Moody borrowed it, but it happened, whether we were told about it or not. Like you also said, Hermione's not one to explain -- just as you think Hermione wouldn't have explained anything to her parents (sure makes her sound cold and calculating and hateful to me), I think she would've explained to them ... but I don't think she'd've necessarily told Harry & Hermione every last detail of the painful experience of convincing them. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Aug 3 14:22:10 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:22:10 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents/Malus Prohibitum/Unforgivables from a Different Angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174380 > Magpie: > > The problem is Hermione deciding on her own to rob someone else of > > their lives without their consent or even thinking of it as far as > > we know, not that she would rather never see them again than have > > them murdered. > > Lisa: > > But that was the point of my post that you quoted: we don't know that > she decided this on her own. All we know is that it was done. She > could've given them a choice, just like the Dursleys were given a > choice. Magpie: The implication is clearly that she did it on her own. Given the way her behavior has been up until this point, if she actually discussed this with her parents it would have to be said--and obviously she *would* have said it. She doesn't. She just says she did this. The idea that her parents agreed to her form in this plan makes it even more ridiculous--two normal people agreed to have their mind wipes potentiallyfor their entire lives? To not remember they had a daughter? To have her go off and maybe die with them never mourn her because they forgot they had her? No one would agree to that. Clearly Hermione's the only person whose been consulted on what she can or can't live with. She'd have to have just decided it for them-- something that she has a long history of doing (what she has *no* history of doing is discussing this sort of thing before doing it, and considering other peoples' opinions to be that important in situations like this). Lisa: It would've only taken a sentence to say how Harry got the Marauder's Map back after Moody borrowed it, but it happened, whether we were told about it or not. Like you also said, Hermione's not one to explain -- just as you think Hermione wouldn't have explained anything to her parents (sure makes her sound cold and calculating and hateful to me), I think she would've explained to them ... but I don't think she'd've necessarily told Harry & Hermione every last detail of the painful experience of convincing them. Magpie: Yes, Hermione's not one to explain. That's why we shouldn't just write in that she suddenly acted out of character and against what she's saying here herself and assume she actually consulted her parents. She actually *is* explaining to Ron and Harry what she did, including thpainful bits and in the past we have gotten an idea about how much her parents are told. In OotP she explains that she's lied to her parents about staying at school when they were expecting her for Christmas, and then briskly decides that they'll get over it, brushing over troublesome thoughts of how they're feeling. Here she shows what parts are painful too when she cries over what she's sacrificed for herself. LIke it or not, Hermione has a history of being cold and calculating in exactly this way when she's doing things to other people for the greater good. It seems like the only problem here is that you feel it makes her sound hateful, but that's just how she's seen by many people when she behaves like this throughout the series. It's totally out of character for Hermione to have had a painful experience of convincing them and if she had one I think we absolutely would see a reference to it, just as we did when she lied to them at the last minute about Christmas. With no explanation to the contrary, I think it's far more reasonable to assume that Hermione did what she always did here, which is not consult her parents. (And also, as was said above, the mere fact that the thing got done is proof positive she didn't consult them, because no one would be convinced to go through with the plan as Hermione laid it out.) Bruce: How do we know that Hermione did this to her parents as an ambush? She may have sat down and explained the situation to them and what she proposed, perhaps using the well-known phrase from countless spy novels, 'what you can't know you cannot be made to reveal.' If she had done a good enough job in explaining matters to them -- perhaps bringing in one or more adult wizards whom they knew well enough to trust--they might have agreed to it, much as people in the real world agree to go into the Witness Protection program. Magpie: Because she didn't say she did, and it wasn't the Witness Protection program. It's brainwashing and stealing of identity. No one would agree to this. Would Molly Weasley agree to potentially forget about her kids for the rest of her life? Would Narcissa? Would Lily? Would Hermione? Of course not! The only person who would agree to have their entire life and children robbed from them potentially forever (don't tell me that if her parents had actually agreed to the thing there wouldn't be a back up plan in case Hermione died!) is someone who was trying to escape from their life. The only reason the possibility has even come up that she discussed it with them (and totally new ideas like Hermione bringing in other adult wizards as well!) is because some of us have expressed horror at what was done to them, and even there it's arguing from absence of evidence. She says she zapped her parents into other people, but doesn't say her parents agreed to live as other people even for a year. Her plan completely rests on her alone, with the possibility that her parents will wind up never getting their lives back, something no parents would agree to in their right mind. On the other side we've got years of Hermione lying to her parents because they "wouldn't understand." And we've got a history of Hermione making decisions for others without consulting them. Alla: Oh my dear God. I just realised something. This is would do as addemdum to my previous post, but may as well stand alone. Who said that you should mean them in the first place? One DE and another DE, no? Who said that they were telling the truth. Especially Bella??? Magpie: Harry agrees with her once he's had the experience. That's part of his little quippy phrase after using the thing--you really do have to mean it. In this case, mean to torture someone for the sake of liking the pain. I do agree with Mike that the moral component comes not from using the wrong words, but for what they represent, but I just don't see how this kind of torture isn't bad in itself. It being "a war" isn't some vague free for all for the good guys, Harry doesn't Crucio anybody out of great need or because he's pushed into it. As Sneeboy said, it's played as a triumphant movie moment with even a wink at the audience included. It's now, as someone else said, Harry getting to do cool curses like the Death Eaters use and show his full powers. While the DEs don't have access to all the cool magic he does, he gets to use stuff like this without thinking about whether it was right. One thing I object to--not in your post--is this idea that Harry's behaving like a "real person" in this scene, as if to not use a torture spell on the guy who spit on McGonagall (and for her to not use Imperius) would somehow make him unable to identify with. This is silly. Lots of people get through wars without torturing anybody, and many of the real people reading the story are shocked when he uses Crucio (just as they're more disturbed by the results of his Sectumsempra than Harry is). Harry's reactions may be perfectly IC for Harry but that doesn't mean they're the only way for a character to behave and be real or human or not a saint. > Mike: > Throw out the artificial moral construct attached to the UCs, would > you still have a problem with how and why Harry uses Imperious here? > If one realizes that the UCs don't have a moral component, I suggest > that the distaste evaporates into ether. Magpie: I think everyone should have a problem with it. Even if you are ultimately okay with the use of Imperius due to the circumstances, that doesn't take away moral construct, because it was never artificial. To use a Muggle example that is very imperfect, what if Harry walked into the bank, picked up somebody's kid and held a gun to its head and said if the person didn't do what he said they'd kill the kid? Maybe Harry is really desperate to get into the bank for a good reason, but surely he's still doing something bad to do it? The lesser of two evils is just the lesser of two evils. The circumstances don't automatically make the bad good or even neutral. And that's Imperius, which at least has an undeniable (and dangerously tempting) practical aspect. The Crucio is a completely different matter. It's a torture spell. Somebody spits at somebody Harry likes and he tortures him briefly. It's pure pleasure in torture for punishment. Torture always has a moral component and it's never justified that I can see. Harry doesn't even try to justify it beyond his really wanting to torture the guy and enjoying it, which McGonagall finds gallant. Even he doesn't just vaguely say, "It's a war!" And Rowling doesn't seem to have any justification for it either. Except the defensive, "He's never been a saint!" as if expecting the hero not to use the torture spell is asking him to be a saint. -m From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 14:26:39 2007 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:26:39 -0000 Subject: Malum Blah Blah... Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174381 Alla wrote: Oh my dear God. I just realised something. This is would do as addemdum to my previous post, but may as well stand alone. Who said that you should mean them in the first place? One DE and another DE, no? Who said that they were telling the truth. Especially Bella??? vmonte: It's the reason why Harry couldn't Crucio Bella in OOTP. He didn't have enough hatred inside him. "Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy? You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really cause pain--to enjoy it-- righteous anger won't hurt me for long..." (OP36) http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/spells/spells_c.html#crucio From va32h at comcast.net Fri Aug 3 15:04:44 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:04:44 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174382 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lisa" wrote: > It would've only taken a sentence to say how Harry got the Marauder's > Map back after Moody borrowed it, but it happened, whether we were told about it or not. va32h: Harry nicking back his map only "happened" because a fan spotted that plot hole and asked JKR about it in a Q&A session. Once again, she just plain goofed and had to make up an explanation after the fact. Once again I ask - why is it *our* responsibility as readers to make up excuses and explanations for all the stuff the author didn't bother to make clear or just plain forgot about? JKR is like a chronically cheating spouse, and fandom the long- suffering spouse in denial. She keeps telling us she's been working late, and we believe it because we want to, deliberately ignoring the plot holes and inconsistencies that are her lipstick on the collar. va32h From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Aug 3 15:13:35 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:13:35 -0000 Subject: Harry, Snape and Occlumency Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174383 Legilimency requires eye contact. Does anyone think that one of the reasons DD wanted Snape to teach Harry Occlumency, was a vague hope that Snape would see Lily in Harry - via his green eyes? An attempt to remind Snape of his commitment to the 'cause'! Brothergib From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Aug 3 15:16:26 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:16:26 -0000 Subject: Harry, Voldemort & the Prophecy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174384 Can anyone provide a sensible explanation as to why Voldemort would spend so long attempting to procure the prophecy and thus learn how to defeat Harry, and yet on learning of it's destruction, attempt to AK Harry so casually? If he thinks it is that easy to finish off Harry, then why is he so obsessed with the prophecy? From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Aug 3 15:19:19 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:19:19 -0000 Subject: Harry, Voldemort & the Horcrux at Godric's Hollow Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174385 I think I'm right in stating that DD felt that LV wanted to use Harry's death to make his final Horcrux. The suggestion from JKR's latest interview is that the Horcrux must be created as soon as the person is killed that facilitates the soul splitting. Therefore, what object did he intend to convert into a Horcrux that night at Godric's hollow - and is it still there? The only thing I can think of is his wand. Brothergib From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 15:26:09 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:26:09 -0000 Subject: The one who would do magic later in life - book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174386 - > The closet JKR came to having a character owveal unsuspected magical > skill was when Ron found he could imitate Parseltongue well enough to > get into the Chamber of Secrets. (US children's edition, p. 623) > > BillG > Finwitch: Unless, it meant Ariana's uncontrollable magic? Although, I can see someone performing that magic-late-in-life in stead of Dobby... Or the house-elves (who aren't usually all... Though Ron *imitating* is a good one, too. Finwitch From autr61 at dsl.pipex.com Fri Aug 3 15:37:11 2007 From: autr61 at dsl.pipex.com (sylviampj) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:37:11 -0000 Subject: Inconsistencies (Was: Hermione's parents) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174387 > > Harry nicking back his map only "happened" because a fan spotted that > plot hole and asked JKR about it in a Q&A session. Once again, she just > plain goofed and had to make up an explanation after the fact. > > Once again I ask - why is it *our* responsibility as readers to make up > excuses and explanations for all the stuff the author didn't bother to > make clear or just plain forgot about? > > JKR is like a chronically cheating spouse, and fandom the long- > suffering spouse in denial. > > She keeps telling us she's been working late, and we believe it because > we want to, deliberately ignoring the plot holes and inconsistencies > that are her lipstick on the collar. > > va32h.. >>> Talking of goofs, can someone explain why the following Q/A appeared in her Bloomsbury live webchat: Blodeuwedd: Hi jk, first of all thank you for all the books I have enjoyed each and every one of them could you tell us what professions harry, hermione, ron, ginny and luna go on to have did the trio do their final year at school and take their newts who became hea J.K. Rowling: Thank you! I've already answered about Hermione. Kingsley became permanent Minister for Magic, and naturally he wanted Harry to head up his new Auror department J.K. Rowling: Harry did so (just because Voldemort was gone, it didn't mean that there would not be other Dark witches and wizards in the coming years). J.K. Rowling: Ron joined George at Weasleys' Wizarding Wheezes, which became an enormous money-spinner.>>>> and then in her interview for the Today show JKR says As for his occupation, Harry, along with Ron, is working at the Auror Department at the Ministry of Magic. After all these years, Harry is now the department head. "Harry and Ron utterly revolutionized the Auror Department," Rowling said. "They are now the experts. It doesn't matter how old they are or what else they've done." Did Ron have two careers? Or is JKR making it up as she goes along? Sylvia. From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Aug 3 16:15:23 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:15:23 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic (wasRe: Deathly Hallows Reactio...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174388 Sean: > I don't think that choosing Slytherin is the same > as choosing evil or that Slytherin itself is a racist > ideology. I am disappointed that Slytherins weren't > shown united with the other houses at the Battle of > Hogwarts which would have continued the theme of > unity that was emphasized in the previous books. > I was especially disappointed because I greatly > enjoy reading the various Slytherin redemption > fanfics on the web. Rowling does not give very > many detail about why Slytherin opposed the admission > of Muggleborns and why he left Hogwarts. The > pureblood supremacy ideology of Voldemort and > his Death Eaters may have been a distortion of > Slytherin's teachings. Here is a link to an essay > from this website where the author speculates on > Salazar Slytherin. houyhnhnm: I had a late cousin who spent all of her retirement years going to graveyards, libraries, and county courthouses researching family history. She was also one of the most progressive members of my family in terms of peace and justice issues. I have other relatives who have absolutely no interest in genealogy. I don't see a passion for family history as being connected necessarily to prejudice. So I see Slytherins as those who would always have a great interest in their ancestry and place a great deal of emphasis on kinship, but I do not see bigotry as one of their essential traits. I believe the bigoted pure-blood ideology of the Death Eaters came about as the result of three generations exposure to the malignant influence of Tom Riddle, not necessarily as the legacy of Salazar Slytherin. As the author of the essay points out, in spite of the views of Slytherins as seen through the biased eyes of Gryffindors (including Arch-Gryffindor and one-time avowed Wizard supremacist Albus Dumbledore), in spite of the wizard-of-the-month card on Rowling's web site, the black letter canon on Salazar Slytherin comes from Professor Binns who said nothing about Muggle inferiority, only that Slytherin considered Muggle-borns untrustworthy. Why might Salazar and even present and future Slytherins (after the evil influence of Voldemort has worn off) have a distrust of Muggle-borns? I think it may be connected to the Slytherin allegiance to family. The Malfoys, whatever their sins, are intensely loyal to one another. Harry won Fleur's devotion (can anyone doubt that "Phlegm" would have been sorted into Slytherin had she grown up in Britain?) by rescuing her sister. Phineas Nigellus grieved for the death of his great-great grandson in spite the the fact that he had been disowned and blasted off the family tree. Muggle-borns, on the other hand, have to leave their families behind when they enter the Wizarding World, even if they are not all as ruthless in doing so as Hermione Granger. *We* can see that they transfer their allegiance to the WW and marry into wizarding families, but to a Slytherin, for whom loyalty to family forms the basis for loyalty to the community, this may be incomprehensible. How could anyone who would abandon their family ever be trustworthy? How could their ultimate loyalty not remain with their Muggle families? I, too, was disappointed with Rowling's portrayal of Slytherins. It may be that the influence of Voldemort was still too much upon them at the end of DH. Still I wish we had seen a bit more of the virtues of water. She did a good job with fire. She showed the vices (recklessness, impulsivity, bullying) and the virtues (courage and strong heart). No too bad with earth. Air got shortchanged, IMO. Luna *is* friendly, but Xenophilius, the lover of strangers, turned out to be somewhat sinister. For the most part the Ravenclaws were flighty, pointy-headed tin hats. But where are the virtues of water, at all? And what are the virtues of water? Different sources list various traits. I settled on this one because it seemed just as good as any other: http://www.asiya.org/watercorrespondences.html >>Virtues - compassion, tranquility, tenderness, forgiveness, modesty, fluidity in creativity, receptivity, influence, graciousness, sensitivity<< We really don't see any examples in HP. But wait. Down at the bottom of the page I found this: >>Emotions - love, sorrow, *courage to continue on a difficult path with no end in sight*, enduring rage born of long, silent suffering, hope that springs eternal.<< Is that spot on or what? From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 3 16:25:07 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:25:07 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174389 "sneeboy2" wrote: > Both times Harry tries to use UCs, > it appears to be a mistake he makes > out of anger; it's at the very least > a tactical error. They don't work. The very first time Harry tried it in book 5 it did work well enough to make Bellatrix scream and stop her from using that stupid baby talk, granted it wasn't at full power but practice makes perfect. > his failure was only because he wasn't > feeling it enough. Yes, he was even angrier by book 7 because he had suffered even more. And I'll bet the curse wasn't at full power the very first time even Voldemort tried it. > ("Use your anger, Harry!") Perhaps > you see this as a good development. I do, Anger is an emotion as legitimate as any other. Yes, at times it can be inappropriate but that is true for any emotion. I think it is entirely appropriate to be angry at someone who killed and tortured your friends and is trying to kill you; and it is entirely appropriate to use every resource you have to defeat that person. This isn't Star Wars, George Lukas would not have had Harry use his anger but JKR doesn't work for the man and can do what she wants. I mean, before you didn't like it when she borrowed something from a movie and now you want her to do it. > Are you trying to imply that my desire > for the character to take the moral high > ground is childish? Assuming you have not changed your mind since your last post and your complaint is not with Harry but with JKR then the answer is yes, it's childish. A fictional character has no duty to take the moral high ground, his only duty is to be interesting. I don't happen to like Saturday morning cartoons but if you do that's fine, there is no disputing matters of taste. > Perhaps you think that books or movies that > appeal to our base desires for revenge or > frontier justice are more grown-up or "realistic." Of course it's more realistic! If a writer insist that her characters behave emotionally in ways no flesh and blood person ever would it wrenches a reader out of an alternate reality and makes them remember that they are just reading words printed on a dead tree; and that's no fun. And besides, a story with a little gratuitous sex and violence in it is just more interesting than the further adventures of Goody Two Shoes. > Call him WAR!Harry. Strap a bandolier full > of wands to his chest and send him out to > kill some VC, I mean, DE's. If JKR ever decides to write such a book I will buy it in a heartbeat. > Or maybe DIRTY! Harry Voldemort: This is the Deathstick the most powerful wand in the universe and will blow your head clean off! Harry: But I know what you're thinking, am I the true master of the Elder Wand or is Harry? Well, to tell you the truth in all the confusion I've sort of lost track myself, so you've got to ask yourself one question, "do I feel lucky today?" Well do you punk? Come on Riddle, MAKE MY DAY! > Sigh. Yawn. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From CariadMel at aol.com Fri Aug 3 16:41:22 2007 From: CariadMel at aol.com (CariadMel at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12:41:22 EDT Subject: Re; Harry using Crucio Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174390 Eggplant sez : Or maybe DIRTY! Harry Voldemort: This is the Deathstick the most powerful wand in the universe and will blow your head clean off! Harry: But I know what you're thinking, am I the true master of the Elder Wand or is Harry? Well, to tell you the truth in all the confusion I've sort of lost track myself, so you've got to ask yourself one question, "do I feel lucky today?" Well do you punk? Come on Riddle, MAKE MY DAY! > Sigh. *******************On first reading in DH, I smiled when I read the one on one duel and the Dirty Harry scenario went thru my head... it was as if Harry was challenging Riddle to work it out ( re Elder wand) and it sounded like the " do you feel lucky" challenge. cariad. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mros at xs4all.nl Fri Aug 3 17:13:19 2007 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:13:19 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry using Crucio. References: Message-ID: <000b01c7d5f1$97a5ab40$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 174391 Sneeboy: > Are you trying to imply that my desire > for the character to take the moral high > ground is childish? Eggplant >>>Assuming you have not changed your mind since your last post and your complaint is not with Harry but with JKR then the answer is yes, it's childish. A fictional character has no duty to take the moral high ground, his only duty is to be interesting. I don't happen to like Saturday morning cartoons but if you do that's fine, there is no disputing matters of taste.<<< Marion: Amazing how some people can write post after post about how dreadful, how dastardly, how *crool* certain fictional schoolteachers can be ("a teacher who treated a very nice boy - and all his friends - like shit for 6 years because he didn't like the boy's father. Is that man evil? I tend to think he is, not Hitler level evil of course, but evil nevertheless" as by your post nr 172925) , but are somehow totally okay with a fictional schoolboy's gleeful torturing. Ah well, it's a matter of taste, I suppose, but *I* wouldn't call such a boy 'very nice' :-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Aug 3 17:12:49 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 13:12:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: How Unforgivable is Unforgivable Message-ID: <1621426.1186161170060.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174392 Alla: >Who said that you should mean them in the first place? One DE and >another DE, no? > >Who said that they were telling the truth. Especially Bella??? Bart: Semi-OT Introduction: I changed the topic. FINALLY, the list has calmed down from the DH rush. At this point, with no speculation about new novels possible, I foresee this list moving more in the direction of analysis of the novels. Certainly, they are flawed, and we will have to choose a balance between Sherlock Holmes style analysis, (where fans assume that everything in the canon is true, even when it's self-contradictory, and consider it a point of honor to be the first to explain an apparent self-contradiction) and assuming that everything we don't like is an error on JKR's part (and we all know that there are enough of those!). And there's a third path; we can use the Harry Potter novels as stepping off points to consider things that, possibly, JKR never considered herself. JKR certainly includes a rather flexible morality in the Harry Potter novels; at some point in the near future, I'll give a summary of my thesis of applying fuzzy logic to morality systems (for those who are not aware, fuzzy logic is a mathematical model for examining complex logical problems, and has a rapidly growing number of real-world applications), but we're only beginning to scratch the surface, now. In any case, it is true that, in the WW, the Unforgivable Curses is a human rather than natural label, and therefore fallible. However, there is something they all have in common: the change the caster in a way that is considered to be societally undesirable. I'm interpreting what Bella said (and what others have implied) that, in order to cast the spell, there must be no doubt in your mind that you want that result). Let's look at them one by one: 1) We'll start with the The Killing Curse. Removing the "chrome", and what you come down to is truly wanting someone to be dead, and having them die. With this spell, there must be absolutely no empathy whatsoever with the victim (which is why it comes so easily for Morty). DD says that murder tears the soul. Even justified killing makes its mark; it's SOP in police departments for police who have killed in the line of duty to go through a period of therapy. Soldiers who actually see up close the people whom they have killed are often disabled for a period of time; even those who don't, who go on too many missions, can be adversely effected (I had a medium-distant cousin who, during WWII, went on about twice the so-called maximum number of bombing missions; he had to be institutionalized for the rest of his life). When you shoot someone with a gun, you make an instantaneous action that cannot be taken back. When you cast the AK spell, you are following through; completely removing yourself from humanity. Even if done in a kill or be killed situation, it makes a permanent mark. Once you have done it once, for whatever reason, you have shown yourself to be capable of doing it again. Severus Snape manages to bordeline this one (but note, in his protests in the Pensieve scene from DH, he knows what it can do to him) because DD is dying anyway, and this is giving DD the choice in HOW to die. In other words, Snape wants DD to die BECAUSE he has empathy for DD; he's killing out of love, not hate, and that makes all the difference (note that jealousy is NOT love). 2) Next, the Cruciatus Curse. In some ways, this is worse (for the caster) than the Killing Curse. Once again, one must really WANT the subject to feel the pain. However (from appearances), there is no break of empathy required here; a certain amount of enjoyment in inflicting the pain, perhaps to the point where you feel the pain, filtered, yourself. So-called "righteous anger" won't do it, because that doesn't require the infliction of pain; that just requires that the target stops their behavior. What is normally required for the CC to work is HATE, plain and simple, although a personality where one enjoys pain can make it work, too (note that Morty is not as free in casting it than Trixie; not having empathy in the first place, AK comes much more naturally to him). That Harry found himself capable of casting it is one of the reasons that I find it hard to believe that he became a full-time regular auror; like DD, I would think that he would want to remove himself from situations that activate his weakness. Until JKR says otherwise, the two can be reconciled by (to give the example I'm backing) Harry not actually doing field work, but limiting himself to instruction, consulting, and administration. Just like Snape was able to do the AK with relatively little damage, I can BARELY see cases where the CC can be used; for example, to shock a patient out of a comatose state. In other words, like DD needed to die, if the target of the CC really NEEDED the pain, then I could see the caster not needing to hate (but would still be damaged by the empathic backlash). 3) Finally, the Imperius Curse. This is a tough one, because, quite frankly, I would bet that if we took a poll, offering hypothetically the power to kill, cause pain, or control, which would people choose, that the IC would win by a major landslide. But that's fantasy. IC in reality is date rape drugs. There was an episode of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, where the "Trio" (3 magic nerds) develop a mind control device, and use it on an attractive young woman. When the effect wears off, she calls it for what it is, and the reactions of the members of the trio show them for what they really are, because for the first time, they see their own evil. What's worse is that there are some real-world drugs which are precariously close to the IC in effect right now. I've made jokes about what Draco did to Rosmerta in between chapters, but I could easily see the reality vs. the fantasy limiting his actions. Because to IC someone is to take away their individuality; their humanity, and turn them into an object. Once again, empathy goes out the window. You may notice that Draco's growing distaste for being one of the DE's started with his Imperiusing Rosmerta. Noted occultist (which means that JKR is probably unfamiliar with this) H. P. Blavatsky wrote on hypnosis that the hypnotist is, to a certain extent, taking on the karma of his/her subject (she also noted that sometimes it can be used to ease the subject into handling their own karma). You are imposing your will onto another person, a person who is not doing it voluntarily. Note that Harry is unable to keep it up for long, and he is striving for a specific highly important goal. Yet, because it's an Unforgivable Curse, certain potentialities are not examined. For one thing, and I'm not sure if JKR had the background to know this, it is almost certainly highly addictive. A similar effect was used in the WILDCARDS novels, where, when the subjects weren't directly controlled, they remained slavishly devoted to their master, because they had become addicted to the intense pleasure they felt while being directly controlled. Those here who are knowledgeable on how addictions work probably figured this out long ago. On the other hand, judiciously used, the IC might have medical applications. Consider Neville's parents, temporarily released from their terrible memories. It may be that the reason why they can't be cured is that the best possible cure is forbidden. Which brings us back to the idea of Unforgivable Curses in the first place. In the United States (and, I'm pretty sure, elsewhere), there has been, over the last decade or so, a kind of policy called "Zero Tolerance". It was based on a theory that, if exceptions are made to a rule, sooner or later, everything becomes an exception. With no exceptions, the rules are enforced. This, of course, is the logical fallacy of the slippery slope. And, in practice, "Zero Tolerance" becomes equivalent to "The enforcers of these rules are incredible idiots." You have a child who, for pointing a finger at someone else and saying "bang! bang!" is given the same level of punishment as if he had shot an actual gun. You have a girl being treated like a heroin pusher for giving a fellow student a cough drop. You have a teenage boy thrown in jail for giving his girlfriend lifesaving medication when she had a near-fatal asthma attack (he had the same condition, and used the same prescription and they both knew it; she had forgotten hers, and it was generally agreed that she would have died if it weren't for his intervention). While the Ministry of Magic might be necessary in the WW, what we had been presented with through the HP novels has been a bunch of incompetents, with a few competent people continually being pushed down. Zero Tolerance policies don't create any better an impression on the competence of the Ministry; perhaps in the post Voldemort era, things are made better. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Aug 3 17:23:37 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 13:23:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Unforgivables - from a different angle Message-ID: <3900445.1186161817570.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174393 From: Maeg >Maeg, who finds this particularly sad considering JKR's personal >statements in support of Amnesty International -- a group "focused on >preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and >mental integrity." Bart: In recent years, even Amnesty International has been carefully ignoring groups, to the point where it criticizes the way some groups defend themselves, without addressing the actions that caused them to have to defend themselves in the first place. It is sort of like the treatment of non-Wizards in the WW (cleverly getting this on-topic); when you don't hold every being up to the same standards, you are taking away the humanity of those whom you excuse. Hagrid showed the giants COULD be taught to live with each other, considering his success with Grawp in spite of everybody telling him it was hopeless. "They aren't really as good as us, therefore we have to take this into account when judging their actions." is a dangerous attitude to have; DH demonstrates this quite well. Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 17:26:54 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:26:54 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: <46b331c4.08b38c0a.36b8.34b8@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174394 > Leah > The problem with all of this, Alla, is that the clear message of the > early books was that the Unforgiveables were just that. We didn't get > any presentation of moral or legal ambiguity, we not only got > CrouchMoody and Bella, we got reinforcement from Sirius, who, as I > have said could have easily just hinted at another view, we got > Neville's reaction in CrouchMoody's lesson, we got Gran > Longbottom, "My son and his wife were tortured into insanity by Death > Eaters", we got Snape's "No unforgiveables for you, Potter". Alla: Yes, I said exactly that upthread - that in earlier books I used to think that Unforgivables were not just illegal but immoral as well. I quoted passage from Sirius, etc. I also have to clarify - I have no investment in that issue one way or another, I do not care much whether Unforgivables are illegal and immoral, or only illegal. I am Okay with Harry using that as someone getting his anger get the better of him - as in not doing the right thing. I am satisfied that Harry would not use killing spell like probably ever, etc. So, I forgive him using the Unforgivables, NOT justify that. The reason why I started doubting it is only one reason. I thought Mike made a very good argument, that's all. Therefore now I am **questioning** that the clear message of the early books was that Unforgiveables were immoral, that's all. I am still on that side of the fence, but waffling. So, let's go back to earlier books. Bella and Crouch Fake - I cannot attach too much to their words, just strike me as possible liars. Sirius - well, yes, I struggle with that passage. Gran Longbottom does not said though anything that they were tortured by Crucio, does she not? Torture is immoral, but I am just not sure now that the means of said torture are what matters or the result. Leah: > If these curses are suddenly not unforgiveable, if you don't really > have to want to torture people, or perhaps just torture them a little > bit, if it was all a setup by the Ministry or the Death Eaters, let's > see just a little hint of that being set up or reflected on. This > isn't just a passing mention like Mark Evans, this is something that > was a fundamental given of the previous six books. If it's just that > it's not ok to crucio decent chaps like Frank Longbottom but perfectly > ok to let scum like Carrow have it, let's hear McGonagall and Harry > mention it just once, instead we get a compliment on 'gallantry'. > > Nothing is done to change our view of the Unforgiveables until Harry > starts Imperioing and Crucioing without a backward glance. It's no > good everyone sitting on messageboards making up post hoc > justifications if all we can deduce from the text in which these > things occur is "It must be ok because these are the really good guys". Alla: Nothing was done to change our view on Unforgivables? In my wildest dreams I could not imagine Dumbledore's casual disposal of Snape's worry that using AK will split his soul. What is it if not changing our views on Unforgivables? Isn't it an indication that intent is what matters the most? IMO it is. Magpie: One thing I object to--not in your post--is this idea that Harry's behaving like a "real person" in this scene, as if to not use a torture spell on the guy who spit on McGonagall (and for her to not use Imperius) would somehow make him unable to identify with. This is silly. Lots of people get through wars without torturing anybody, and many of the real people reading the story are shocked when he uses Crucio (just as they're more disturbed by the results of his Sectumsempra than Harry is). Harry's reactions may be perfectly IC for Harry but that doesn't mean they're the only way for a character to behave and be real or human or not a saint. Alla: Well, yeah, definitely not in my post. I am sure there are plenty other spells Harry could have used :) > Sherry: > > Yes, I would, and I do. And I am and always have been a Harry supporter, > and he's my favorite character. I've never argued that the simple > illegality of the Unforgivable Curses is what should prevent people using > them. Taking away someone's will, basically, a magical form of mind > control, is wrong, morally wrong. Torturing someone, for *any* reason is > wrong, morally wrong, to me anyway. It's never acceptable, unlike the way > killing can be acceptable in time of war, or by law enforcement or in > self-defense. Alla: I am snipping the rest, because I totally agree with you - torture is wrong, killing is wrong, etc. My only issue is that I am no longer sure that the **means** of it matter for the potterverse, if it makes sense. Remember how vehemently I argued that Snape's use of AK is what is bad in itself? Um, ooops. Does not look like that to me anymore. Alla From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 3 17:34:36 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:34:36 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: <000b01c7d5f1$97a5ab40$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174395 "Marion Ros" wrote: > Amazing how some people can write post > after post about how dreadful, how dastardly, > how *crool* certain fictional schoolteachers > can be ("a teacher who treated a very nice boy > - and all his friends - like shit for 6 years > because he didn't like the boy's father. Is > that man evil? I tend to think he is, not Hitler > level evil of course, but evil nevertheless" > as by your post nr 172925) , but are somehow > totally okay with a fictional schoolboy's gleeful torturing. Yes, I'm totally OK with Harry making an astronomically evil man miserable, I am not OK with Snape making a very nice boy miserable because he didn't like the boy's father. > Ah well, it's a matter of taste, I suppose, > but *I* wouldn't call such a boy 'very nice' :-) I can see that book 7 didn't change one thing, Snape still gets miles of slack and Harry doesn't get an inch. Not one inch, not even in a war! Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 17:39:56 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:39:56 -0000 Subject: Inconsistencies (Was: Hermione's parents) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174396 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sylviampj" wrote: <<>> > Once again I ask - why is it *our* responsibility as readers to > make up excuses and explanations for all the stuff the author >didn't bother to make clear or just plain forgot about? va32h.. <> Sylvia: > > Did Ron have two careers? Or is JKR making it up as she goes along? > > Sylvia. > **** Katie: LOL! I think it's a little of both. It's funny, the more I dig into DH, the good parts keep getting better and the bad parts keep getting worse. Overall, I like the book very much, and there are some extraordinary parts...but wow, plot holes. I never really noticed too much before this book...and I think that's because the plot holes before were not integral to the plot. This time they were. Last night, two of my best HP pals and I went out for a beer and a HP chat. One thing we kept discussing was that if disarming someone was enough to gain control of their wand...then no one in the Dueling Club or the D.A. owned their own wand anymore! Yet, as I understand it (and maybe I don't :) )Draco disarming DD made him the owner of the Elder Wand? Is that right? If that IS the claim in DH, then she;'s got some explaining to do about all those "Expelliarus!" cries throughout the series. Of course, it's very possible I am very confused...because that whole wand thing was crazy! I still love the series and I still think JKR is generally a very talented storyteller, but something went kind of wonky in this book and I think it was editors too intimidated by her being her to tell her some stuff sucked, or didn't make sense. Anyway, any insight on the wand thing? Thanks! Katie From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 17:39:50 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:39:50 -0000 Subject: Snape really was a Good Guy - Canon in the House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174397 > >>Chuck: > I, too, have struggled with the complexity of Snape's character, his > relationship with Harry, Dumbledore, and the rest of the Order of > the Phoenix. While it was clear even before DH that Snape's > remorse over the death of Lily is what turned him around, to see it > in print in the Pensive was unnerving (the whole Pensive sequence > is my favorite part of the whole series). > > While I too feel a sense of wanting more, I think that JKR did her > best: we now know that the ONLY reason that Snape turned was his > remorse over Lily's death. Had she not died, he wouldn't have been > "saved." So does that diminish his "good" acts from that point on? > Is he only being "good" because of the remorse? > Betsy Hp: The problem I have (and the reason I so deeply dislike DH and the entire series now) is that I think DH *removed* a lot of Snape's complexity. You're correct that it was only Snape's one-sided and slavish love for Lily that caused him to work for Dumbledore. And that's because he's Slytherin. As per the books, Slytherins are bad. They cannot achieve true goodness no matter how they try. Which, in an odd and rather despicable way (IMO), gives Snape an out. Of *course* he was nasty to Harry. Of *course* he joined the Death Eaters. Of *course* his one and only reason for putting himself under Dumbledore's complete control was a sad and twisted love. He's Slytherin. His fate was determined as soon as the Hat called out his House. It's a cold and depressing way of looking at life but it's what JKR wrote. > >>Chuck: > The one thing on which I do feel cheated is the fact that Dumbledore > doesn't have as much of a struggle--he truly believes that Harry > will survive his encounter with Death because of Lily's blood that > runs in Voldemort's veins, so JKR has given Dumbledore a convenient > out. Betsy Hp: And that's because Dumbledore is a Gryffindor. It's the flip side of the coin. Gryffindors don't have moral struggles because their moral supremacy has already been determined at the Sorting. "Convenient outs" are their due for being so golden and pure. > >>Chuck: > Snape's stuggle is genuine--he truly believes that Harry must now be > sacrificed, yet he does indeed convey the message to Harry while > Dumbledore can pretty much be rest assured that Harry will not die. Betsy Hp: The interesting thing is that even as a Slytherin, even being as simplified as possible by the author, Snape *still* manages to be one of the more complex and interesting characters. But that's because most authors prefer to create characters that *do* face moral struggles. Snape becomes less complex because his struggle is, and could only be, in vain. But he's more complex than those around him because he at least has a stuggle. It's just the conversation about him is curtailed because none of what he does is in his control. He's Slytherin and that's all the motive or purpose JKR will allow. I'm not sure if this makes any sense. Frankly the Calvinist logic of Predestination that JKR has used never did make much sense to me. But that's what she did and I think that's the only way of approaching the books. Betsy Hp From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 17:54:56 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:54:56 -0000 Subject: Harry getting cut some Slack WAS: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174398 > "Marion Ros" wrote: > Amazing how some people can write post > after post about how dreadful, how dastardly, > how *crool* certain fictional schoolteachers > can be ("a teacher who treated a very nice boy > - and all his friends - like shit for 6 years > because he didn't like the boy's father. Is > that man evil? I tend to think he is, not Hitler > level evil of course, but evil nevertheless" > as by your post nr 172925) , but are somehow > totally okay with a fictional schoolboy's gleeful torturing. >Eggplant: Yes, I'm totally OK with Harry making an astronomically evil man > miserable, I am not OK with Snape making a very nice boy miserable > because he didn't like the boy's father. > >Marion: > Ah well, it's a matter of taste, I suppose, > > but *I* wouldn't call such a boy 'very nice' :-) > > Eggplant: I can see that book 7 didn't change one thing, Snape still gets miles > of slack and Harry doesn't get an inch. Not one inch, not even in a war! > > Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald **** KATIE: I agree with Eggplant so much, I don't even know where to begin! I might stutter a little bit in my anxiety to get my point made, so bearwith me! LOL. As much as I want to bring the Trio in, I will stick to Harry alone. Harry, as I have been saying for years, is a good kid. He has flaws and makes bad decisions...much like most good normal people I know. I am a good person, for example, yet I occasionally curse at a stranger in traffic, or I'm not very nice to my son when I have a headache and I'm tired and he's been begging me to go the zoo for 7 hours, or I forget to feed my dog...You get my point. I'm a good person, but I ain't no saint. Neither is Harry, and he isn't supposed to be. However, he has a core of goodness that *does* make his bad deeds less bad. When a good person does a seemingly bad thing, one has to take into account their entire lifetime of behavior, not one singular snapshot moment. Could any of us be asked to define our lives by a singular moment, picked arbitrarily by someone else? No way! Over the years, Harry has been a good person. He has been brave, empathatic, kind, and incredibly selfless. Do I have a problem with a person like that losing his temper because a despicable person did something rude after tormenting small children for a year? NO WAY. And do any of us believe for a moment that Harry would have stood there for hours on end, laughing and torturing him? Absolutely not. Harry lost his temper, used crucio as a means of getting out his own anger on this vile person, and then he stopped. And I have no problem with that at all. As for Snape, I have always had a soft (inexplicable) spot for Snape. I think I hated him momentarily when he was cruel to Hermione and Neville at various times, but I never hated him altogether. However, that being said, Eggplant's point is well taken. Snape was never nice to Harry or any of his friends, for childish and selfish reasons. His behavior was entirely unacceptable, especially as he was in a position of authority, and he should have been held at least to the standard of treating Harry and his friends with civility. While I certainly find Snape fascinating and more than a little bit pitiable, it does confuse me that Harry is held to a higher standard of behavior than an adult. It also confuses me because Harry is so normally kind and good, and Snape is normally bitter and cruel... Hope I didn't put words in your mouth, Eggplant! Correct me if I'm wrong! Cheers, Katie From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 17:55:50 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 10:55:50 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jo's OWN Words/Harry using Crucio/I am about to Rant/Danger Designating the In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40708011111v7ee09b26r5ef6331ce3e6c88@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40708031055k76f0c18fjac42e4aa253ec651@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174399 > Magpie: > I think bad groups actually have historically been described as > cunning. ...snip... > I think the word has a far more dodgy history > than something like loyalty or courage. You've dismissed the > Puritans as aribiters of Virtue, but I don't think you can just > throw out what seems like much of the history of western thought on > the topic, particularly when Harry himself liked to think of > Gryffindor as chivalrous. I only mentioned Puritans because they had > a habit of naming their children after what were already considered > Christian virtues, so the names make up a pretty good list. Yes the > Puritans considered all virtues by how they gloried God--but that > doesn't completely disconnect us from them historically. There was a > time when most Western thought did that, I would think. Nowadays we > might have a different view, but I think the history still does > carry some weight, especially since JKR isn't turning that history > on its head here. Kemper now: She may not be turning Western thought on its head, but she does challenge. If Western thought is based in Judao-Christian beliefs, then what of the euthanasia presented in HBP? I can see where aspects of the non-Slytherin houses can relate to Christian ideals. But it is the Slytherin with the low, base Human value of cunning who acts with compassion on the tower by saving Dumbledore from his suffering. > Magpie: > Snape is praised for being brave by Harry saying he was brave--and > by JKR also saying that he was brave. His love for Lily was what > inspired him to be so. I don't see Harry at all more impressed by > Snape's subtle planning than his bravery (the last thing he says > about Snape was that he was brave). JKR also included Snape and > Dumbledore talking about bravery and Snape not being a coward. Kemper now: Harry tells his son of Snape's bravery. He does not tell Voldemort or the other rapt listeners in the Great Hall, the ones who will tell their children and grandchildren of their firsthand account of Voldemort's fall. JKR said that Snape was 'immensely brave' and while he may have inspired by love, he was successful because of cunning... which Harry touches upon in the Great Hall when Voldemort attempts to deny Harry's assertions of Snape's feelings toward Lily: Am DH 740 "He desired her, that was all," sneered Voldemort, "but when she had gone, he agreed that there were other women, and of purer blood, worthier of him --" "Of course he told you that," said Harry, "but he was Dumbledore's spy from the moment you threatened her, and he's been working against you ever since! Dumbledore was already dying when Snape finished him!" Harry lists three deceptions of Snape: Of course he told you that, He was Dumbledore's spy, Dumbledore was already dying. Harry does not list anything brave. There's implied bravery in the act of being a spy against Voldemort, but again, nothing is directly said about it. What Harry praises is Snape's love (again, no House can claim) and his cunning. Based on the series as a whole, it seems apparent that JKR admires bravery first, with cunning, loyalty, and intellect (I'm not sure if I see much wisdom in the series... I'll have to think about that) tied for forth. > > > Magpie: > > > Yes, I think it's Harry's perception, the reader's perception and > > > Dumbledore's perception. The Slytherin perception is not > > > presented as equally valid. > > Kemper earlier: > > Because it's not a Slytherin story. It's a Gryffindor's. > Magpie: > Yes. So I don't understand what changes because this is a Gryffindor > story. The Gryffindor story is the only story. I don't think JKR > just picked that randomly. Those are the values the story is putting > across. Kemper now: JKR said that she values courage above the other values in the other houses way before HBP. Wisdom, intelligence, loyalty, diligence, ambition and cunning all take a back seat. I feel that I'm missing something in your arguement or disappointment, and I want to understand. > > > Magpie: > > > Luna is valued for her own bravery and is associated with her > > > friends, the Gryffindors. > > > > Kemper now: > > She is valued for her bravery by Gryffindors who value bravery and > > who's perception we see most in the books. The first book could've > > been called SuperGryffindor and the Philospher's Stone. Just like > > none of the books could be called EveryHouse Potter and the Deathly > > Hallows. > > Magpie: > Well, yeah. If the pov of the books is to value bravery, that's the > values the author is writing about. That shows in the story. It's > not EveryHouse and the Deathly Hallows. It's Gryffindor House and > Gryffindor Values. Because that's what JKR wanted to write. Kemper now: I feel like we are argueing the same thing. > > > Magpie: > > > I think it would be in [Luna's] character to admire Snape for his > > > courage, sure. But I don't think that changes things one way or > > > the other. > > > > Kemper now: > > If we are assuming off canon as I did up thread, then Luna would > > admire Snape's intellect and appreciate his cunning (as the two are > > linked) over his courage. > > Magpie: > I don't understand what "assuming off canon" means exactly. The fact > that you can imagine that Luna might value Snape's cunning has no > bearing on the story one way or the other. Kemper now: I'm sorry. I meant assuming based off canon. I'm not saying Luna would at all value Snape's cunning. I'm saying she would value his intellect (sure the two are closely related) because we see that she values it in Hermione, wondering why she wasn't sorted into Ravenclaw. Again, I'm lost. What do you think is the bearing of the story? I thought I understood where you were coming from, but it is apparent that I don't. But I want to. Kemper From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Aug 3 18:11:51 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:11:51 -0000 Subject: How Unforgivable is Unforgivable In-Reply-To: <1621426.1186161170060.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174400 Bart: > And there's a third path; we can use the Harry Potter > novels as stepping off points to consider things that, > possibly, JKR never considered herself. houyhnhnm: Oh, this is a very good point. The lasting value of the Harry Potter series, IMO, is its ability to stimulate argument and make us examine our own beliefs, not to provide a ready made world view that we can step into, shrugging off the responsibility to do our own moral reasoning. I've seen the idea put forth in several posts that Rowling is the Writer. She has the right to create it the way she wants. (And we should not question?) Of course she does. And I'm the Reader. I have the right to interpret, criticize, and speculate. (A book without readers is like the sound of one hand clapping.) In a sense, Rowling has given her characters life and sent them out into the world and now they belong to the world. From muellem at bc.edu Fri Aug 3 18:17:24 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:17:24 -0000 Subject: Snape really was a Good Guy - Canon in the House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174401 > > >>Chuck: > > I, too, have struggled with the complexity of Snape's character, his > > relationship with Harry, Dumbledore, and the rest of the Order of > > the Phoenix. While it was clear even before DH that Snape's > > remorse over the death of Lily is what turned him around, to see it > > in print in the Pensive was unnerving (the whole Pensive sequence > > is my favorite part of the whole series). > > > > While I too feel a sense of wanting more, I think that JKR did her > > best: we now know that the ONLY reason that Snape turned was his > > remorse over Lily's death. Had she not died, he wouldn't have been > > "saved." So does that diminish his "good" acts from that point on? > > Is he only being "good" because of the remorse? colebiancardi: ahhh, but doesn't Snape state he would do "anything" for Dumbledore PRIOR to Lily's death? So, I think, regardless if she lived or died, Snape would still have been saved. Snape was DD's man when he told him he would do anything for Dumbledore if DD would protect Lily & her family. The scene that takes place after she died is where DD has to manipulate Snape to stay on his side. DD tells Snape to protect Harry in Lily's memory. Snape agreed to do so. But, like I stated, if Lily hadn't of died, Snape would have still been spy for Dumbledore and done all of the things he was asked to do, because he told him he would do *anything* colebiancardi From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 18:21:59 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:21:59 -0000 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174402 --- "littleleahstill" wrote: > > --- "dumbledore11214" > wrote: > >> Alla: > > > > .... > > > > Who said that you should mean them in the first > > place? One DE and another DE, no? > > > > Who said that they were telling the truth. > > Especially Bella??? > > > > Alla. > > Leah > The problem with all of this, Alla, is that the clear > message of the early books was that the Unforgiveables > were just that. We didn't get any presentation of > moral or legal ambiguity, we not only got CrouchMoody > and Bella, we got reinforcement from Sirius, ... bboyminn: Well, I'm never one to deny anyone their rightful opinion. You are certainly welcome to yours, but I think you are taking one isolated aspect of the Books to its extreme. You say no 'moral or legal ambiguity', but there is. The Ministry authorized the use of 'unforgivables' in the first war. Second, right after telling his students that these three curses were 'unforgivable', Moody then in turn uses those very curses, specifically the Imperius, on his students. If that isn't ambiguity, then I don't know what is. According to Moody - "So...do any of you know which curse are most heavily punished by wizarding law?" He goes on to demonstrate the three Curses. "Now...those three curses -- /Avada Kedavra/, Imperius, and Cruciatus -- are know as the Unforgivable Curse. The usr of any one of them on a fellow human being is enough to earn a life sentence in Azkaban. ..." Then, later, goes on to use the Imperius on them Now, I may just be nitpicking, and casting a preferred interpretation, but I took 'enough to earn a life sentence' as being 'enough to earn /up to/ a life sentence'. Implying that it was not always an automatic /life sentence/. Also note that in the original text /Avada Kedavra/ is in italics, but the other curses are not. I'm not sure what that implies, but it does set the AK off from the other curses. In the /up to/ a life sentence, I think intent and purpose are taken into consideration. Moody did not cast the Imperius on his students with the intent of forcing his students to do things that were dark, immoral, unethical, or illegal, and he did so with their implied permission. Therefore, despite using an /Unforgivable/ on /fellow human beings/, this would not be considered an arrestable offense. You may chose not to see it, but I see clear moral ambiguity, even legal ambiguity, in the enforcement and use of the Unforgivables. Even if you don't see ambiguity, it is clear that the legal nature of the /Unforgivables/ is not absolute. But then...that's just my opinion. Steve/bboyminn From ladymela99 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 18:23:46 2007 From: ladymela99 at yahoo.com (Melanie) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 11:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Inconsistencies (Was: Hermione's parents) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <829438.46448.qm@web30006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174403 Sylvia wrote: As for his occupation, Harry, along with Ron, is working at the Auror Department at the Ministry of Magic. After all these years, Harry is now the department head. "Harry and Ron utterly revolutionized the Auror Department," Rowling said. "They are now the experts. It doesn't matter how old they are or what else they've done." Did Ron have two careers? Or is JKR making it up as she goes along? Melanie: I think that he probably had two careers. There is no reason why he couldn't help his brother with shop (I am going to take a guess in that George pretty much ran things and Ron helped in an advisory capacity). However, some of her answers seemed far to in depth to just be made up on the spot. I think she has given some thought to it. ~Melanie --------------------------------- Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sue.stanley at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 3 18:29:38 2007 From: sue.stanley at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan1) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:29:38 -0000 Subject: Snape really was a Good Guy - Canon in the House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174404 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Snip of Chuck's post> > Betsy Hp: > The problem I have (and the reason I so deeply dislike DH and the > entire series now) is that I think DH *removed* a lot of Snape's > complexity. You're correct that it was only Snape's one-sided and > slavish love for Lily that caused him to work for Dumbledore. And > that's because he's Slytherin. > > As per the books, Slytherins are bad. They cannot achieve true > goodness no matter how they try. Which, in an odd and rather > despicable way (IMO), gives Snape an out. Of *course* he was nasty > to Harry. Of *course* he joined the Death Eaters. Of *course* his > one and only reason for putting himself under Dumbledore's complete > control was a sad and twisted love. He's Slytherin. His fate was > determined as soon as the Hat called out his House. > > It's a cold and depressing way of looking at life but it's what JKR > wrote. > snip of the rest of Chuck and Betsy's posts Sue(hpfan) venturing out of lurkdum and ducking blows. I think the most fundamental question is whether the house defines the person or the people in the house define the house. I tend to think it is the latter. Remember, Slughorn and other Slytherin's came back into the castle to fight the DE's. It is, IMO, over simplifying every character in the book to look only at their house designation. Like Draco and many others, Snape wanted to be a Slytherin. JKR said in a post book interview that he saw himself, and believed that Lily would see him, as impressive for joining the DE's. Not every Slytherin was a DE and not every Gryffindor brave and loyal. It is convenient to ignore Pettigrew and frankly, James and Serius as well when taking this stance. Remember, also, that had Snape chosen to show any affection for Harry he would have put his status as a spy in jeopardy. It is also pretty clear that Voldemort would have seen love for anyone as weakness and would have made it impossible for Snape to stay in the inner circle. It is a story, well told, IMO and will really meet the needs of only the author. Some of us will love it and others not, but in the end it is her's to tell. Harry chose Gryffindor, Snape could have made the same choice as anyone under the hat could. Self fulfilling profecy to be sure, but a choice all the same. Sue(hpfan) heading back to the Hog's head. From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Aug 3 19:01:44 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:01:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jo's OWN Words/Harry using Crucio/I am about to Rant/Danger Designating the Message-ID: <8699267.1186167704402.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174405 Kemper now: >She may not be turning Western thought on its head, but she does >challenge. If Western thought is based in Judao-Christian beliefs, >then what of the euthanasia presented in HBP? Bart: Because your assumption is wrong, or, more properly, your assumption is not entirely right. For, while Western thought is based on Judeo-Christian philosophies (as opposed to beliefs, and even these are sometimes contradictory), it is ALSO based on Greco-Roman philosophies. When everything is going well, there is no conflict, but when things start going wrong, it's like the Chinese Confucianism vs. Taoism. A simple example: Greco-Roman ideals require following the law and obeying authority. Judeo-Christian ideals require that if you are required to do something that is morally wrong, then you are not to do it. They combine to form the idea of civil disobedience: You don't do what is morally wrong, but you accept the criminal penalty for it. And, sometimes, the authority is out-and-out immoral or illegitimate; the French Underground during WWII is a wonderful example of rejecting Greco-Roman philosophy in favor of the Judeo-Christian philosophy. And, sometimes, it works the other way. John Dickinson, one of the Pennsylvania delegates to the American Continental Congress, was a vociferous opponent to declaring independence from England, feeling that the American's dispute was with Parliament, and not England as a whole. However, once he was voted down, he remained loyal to his native country, personally joining the Pennsylvania Militia, and later the Delaware Militia. This is especially important because the Harry Potter stories are very much about a group of young people trying to do the right thing in spite of an authoritarian structure which was at best incompetent and at worst corrupted. The symbol of the Greco-Roman ideal was in Percy, who could not see the incompetence and corruption in the Ministry until it was too late. Sitting squarely in the middle, but not at all in a passive manner, was Arthur, who worked hard to maintain loyalty to both the forces of law and the forces of morality. Bart From carylcb at hotmail.com Fri Aug 3 17:35:29 2007 From: carylcb at hotmail.com (Caryl Brown) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:35:29 -0400 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174406 va32h: Once again I ask - why is it *our* responsibility as readers to make up excuses and explanations for all the stuff the author didn't bother to make clear or just plain forgot about? clcb58: JKR has had these stories in her head for 17 years. It would be hard for her to see the gaps since she knows the backstories and has been so close to the project for so long. I think the fault lies with the cadre of continuity editors and others at publishing houses on two continents who should be picking up on these gaps before the books go to press. Appears they're not earning their salaries. From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 18:34:41 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 11:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Mysterious Source In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <741772.18648.qm@web55001.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174407 Christy (that's me, responding to the response to my response, etc.): >> Did Snape have access to Dumbledore's portrait prior to becoming >> headmaster? Beatrice: > I think that DH indicates that Snape does have access to the > portrait prior to becoming headmaster. p 688 US. As the portrait > seems to tell Snape that he must give LV the correct date of > Harry's departure, but that Snape msut confound Dung to suggest the > doubles. > > Reviewing the text I thought of three possibilities... Christy: Ah, I stand corrected about Snape's access to Dumbledore's portrait...you're absolutely right...good catch. (Um, I still wonder how he got access, but I can with live with it.) And, you put forth plausible "alternative" portrait theories. And, to the mix we can add N. Black's portrait at Grimmauld Place since we know Snape was there and N.B. could act as a messenger between Snape and Dumbledore's portrait. I do still stand by my Hagrid in the pub theory -- when it worked for Quirrell, Voldemort happened to be attached to Quirrell's head. So, using Hagrid could have been Voldemort's idea. Christy, who got caught dropping a detail... From irenek90 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 3 18:40:59 2007 From: irenek90 at hotmail.com (irenek90) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:40:59 -0000 Subject: Wands and other confusion about Deathly Hallows plotline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174408 > bboyminn: > Most who would have chosen the Hallows as their > preferred path, would have thought that physically > bringing the three objects into their possession and > control would have given them immense power; and it > would have. Harry however, became Master of the objects > and therefore Master of Death by understanding that > only by using them in an unselfish way could you > truly master them. Irene: Fair enough and I agree...but I still think this only reinforces something we already know about Harry (and something I think he already knows about himself) rather than being of such importance that it's given the title and such a big part of the book. As I wrote in a another response, I think I was expecting something else to happen with regards to uniting the three hallows so I thought that issue was a little anitclimactic. > bboyminn: > It is not that the wand can't kill its Master, it's that > the wand will not fully obey its holder. Irene: Good Point. I'll buy that. Harry allowed V. to kill him. > bboyminn: > What matters is not that Harry is the Master of the > Wand, but that between Harry's sacrifice and Voldemort > NOT being the Master of the Wand, the wands effects > are limited. > > My point is, that Harry winning that final battle is > not all about 'Master of the Wand' and 'Blood > Protection', it is a complex combination of many > diverse things. Irene: I tend to agree wiht your assessment here, but I don't think it was made clear enough by JKR. It's more of an open interpretation explanation than a "this is what happened." In the forest encounter, DD says Harry survives because of the blood and in the Great Hall showdown, Harry says it's because of the wand. So when you try to make sense of everything from a practical standpoint, there are some flaws or at least some confusion in the logic. But I think the fact the Voldemort was weakened by Harry's sacrifice is a big factor I didn't consider before. Good answers, and I definitely feel like my wand and death protection confusions are gone. Not sold on the deathly hallows part though...still think there was a bit of a letdown there. Irene From autr61 at dsl.pipex.com Fri Aug 3 19:38:28 2007 From: autr61 at dsl.pipex.com (sylviampj) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:38:28 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174409 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caryl Brown" wrote: > > va32h: > > Once again I ask - why is it *our* responsibility as readers to make up > excuses and explanations for all the stuff the author didn't bother to > make clear or just plain forgot about? > > clcb58: > JKR has had these stories in her head for 17 years. It would be hard for her to see the gaps since she knows the backstories and has been so close to the project for so long. I think the fault lies with the cadre of continuity editors and others at publishing houses on two continents who should be picking up on these gaps before the books go to press. Appears they're not earning their salaries.>>> I've always wondered whether the need for secrecy with the later books has meant that the editing part has been 'too little, too late'. Ideally such a long series with such a convoluted plot and involving a multitude of characters and a whole alternative world would require a team of sharp-eyed pedants to pick up on continuity errors and plot holes. Perhaps they didn't dare show it to many people - the more people involved the more potential for 'leaks'. Sylvia. > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 19:39:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:39:34 -0000 Subject: The Mysterious Source In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174410 Reed: > True, Dung is not the most loved Order member, but he *is* trusted at that point, otherwise he wouldn't have participated in the plan at all and his suggestion about the 7 Harrys wouldn't have been taken up. And he never *did* betray them to Voldemort, you have to give that to him. Obviously he managed to hide from the Deatheaters after his flight, which was really fortunate for the Order. > > But another thing: How did Snape *really* know the date of the transfer? You said from DD's portrait, I think, but the text is not clear about that. The portrait just says that he would have to give the correct date to Voldemort. And anyway, how should the portrait know the date? Maybe Snape really *did* use legilimency on Dung... Carol responds: I don't see how Dumbledore's portrait could have known the date and details of the Order's plan unless Snape told him, and Snape must have had a source. "the source we discussed" (Snape to Voldemort, chapter 1) could hardly be Dumbledore's portrait. LV can't know about those conversations, can't know that the portrait does more than repeat catch-phrases, can't know where Snape's loyalties lie. The source has to be an Order member, and the only Order member who seems willing to associate with Snape at this point is Mundungus. Everyone else thinks he's a traitor and a murderer and wants him dead. (Ironically, Lupin, whose life he saves, is ready to kill him on sight. Why would Mundungus still be willing to associate with Snape? Is it because he's a smelly, lowlife sneak thief? (Note the views of him expressed in HBP by Snape, Phineas Nigellus, and Kreacher, which turn out to be true.) The man may be loyal to Dumbledore, but he has neither principles nor courage. Or is it because, unlike the other Order members, he has no particular attachment to Harry and has not heard Harry's version of the events on the tower? Maybe he, unlike them, figures without thinking much about it that Snape is under deep, deep cover and it's okay to talk to him. After all, the Daily Prophet is saying that Harry Potter killed Dumbledore. Maybe Snape has used the Imperius Curse on him to make him talk (if Harry can use it with impunity for a good cause, why not Snape?) The Confundus Charm would still be necessary to make Mundungus think that the poly-juiced Potters were his own idea. I don't think it would take much to get Mundungus to talk, and Legilimency would help. If all else failed, once Snape sat down with him, he could easily slip a few drops of Veritaserum into Mundungus's pumpkin juice. Erm, firewhiskey or whatever swill he was drinking. At any rate, I think Mundungus is the only plausible source, the only one who's been hinted at in canon and the only one that Voldemort would accept. Voldemort uses Legilimency on Snape, not realizing that Snape is concealing the one key memory, and is satisfied with what he sees. At a guess, what he sees (and hears?) is Snape extracting the plans from Mundungus. It would not do for LV to see Snape talking to Portrait!Dumbledore. It must be someone who would be likely, in LV's view, to betray the Order. Carol, trusting that the cunning and talented Snape could find a way to get Mundungus to talk without getting Mundungus into trouble with the Order for associating with a "traitor" From spaebrun at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 19:57:41 2007 From: spaebrun at yahoo.com (spaebrun) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:57:41 -0000 Subject: The Mysterious Source In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174411 Reed earlier: > > But another thing: How did Snape *really* know the date of the > transfer? > Carol responds: > I don't see how Dumbledore's portrait could have known the date and > details of the Order's plan unless Snape told him, and Snape must have > had a source. "the source we discussed" (Snape to Voldemort, chapter > 1) could hardly be Dumbledore's portrait. LV can't know about those > conversations, can't know that the portrait does more than repeat > catch-phrases, can't know where Snape's loyalties lie. Reed: Just to be clear, I imlied that the source Snape names to Voldemort must not necessarily be the true source. It *could* though. In fact, I agree that Dung is likely to be the true source, too. I don't think he would willingly associate with Snape though. I rather suspect Snape sneaked up to him somehow (either in disguise or confunding Dung somehow) and extracted the information without Dung ever realizing what happened. Later, after consulting with the portrait, he would have to get Dung again to plant the idea about the decoys. Hmmm... not as neat as I would wish, but okay as an explanation I guess. Reed From leahstill at hotmail.com Fri Aug 3 20:13:00 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:13:00 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174412 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > >(snip) Gran Longbottom does not said though anything that they were tortured > by Crucio, does she not? Leah: No, but it is said in the pensieve scene in GOF, when Harry views the trials of the Lestranges and Crouch Jnr. "The four of you stand accused of capturing an Auror-Frank Longbottom-and subjecting him to the Cruciatus curse...You are further accused...of using the Cruciatus curse on Frank Longbottom's wife..." Neville's reaction during CrouchMoody's torture of the spider with Crucio also makes it clear (with hindsight)that this curse was used on his parents > > Torture is immoral, but I am just not sure now that the means of said > torture are what matters or the result. Leah: I'm not quite sure I understand your meaning here. If you are saying other spells could be used to torture people, you are clearly right. You could for example conjure a small flock of birds to permanently fly round someone's head pecking them, that would start to drive them mad. The point is that the conjuring of small birds is not in itself an offensive act. Crucio is a spell which, properly used, causes extreme pain in the victim. There is no purpose in casting Crucio other than in causing extreme pain. If you use Crucio you must intend to intend to cause them pain. I can't think of a reason for using Crucio other than for the intent to cause pain when other spells such as Stupefy etc etc exist. > > > Alla: > > > Nothing was done to change our view on Unforgivables? In my wildest > dreams I could not imagine Dumbledore's casual disposal of Snape's > worry that using AK will split his soul. What is it if not changing > our views on Unforgivables? Isn't it an indication that intent is > what matters the most? IMO it is. Leah: Well, I'm not desperately happy about Snape having to AK Dumbledore, and neither was Snape. However, let's look at what DD says. Firstly, DD does not want Draco's soul ripped. If Draco uses the AK successfully on DD, he will have committed murder and his soul will therefore be split. DD then suggests to Snape that his soul may not be split if he kills DD with the intention of putting him out of his misery- it is euthanasia in effect. Frankly, I don't like this. I'm not an opponent of euthanasia in certain circumstances so it isn't the idea per se that I object to. It's that this isn't properly debated within in the framework of the story (and there's no plot time for that to happen, neither it this the sort of story where it would happen). So instead, we get a sudden pass for using AK in certain circumstances, because that's what the story needs. I had hoped that Snape had indeed stoppered death in DD and that the AK used was, as many speculated, a fake- Snape used a different non-verbal to remove DD's body to safety. That didn't happen- it was a proper Ak but it didn't count. In any event, this event happened during DH. The point I was making was that IMO we had been presented with a consistent picture of UCs in all the previous books which then disappears in DH. >> Remember how vehemently I argued that Snape's use of AK is what is > bad in itself? > > Um, ooops. Does not look like that to me anymore. > > Alla Leah: I think we've arguing the same point here actually, Alla. If Snape actually AK'd DD then that was wrong. Of course I can rationalise Snape's use of AK as DD invited Snape to do; I can argue that intent was what mattered. It would be possible to have a whole complex debate about what's murder, what's manslaughter, what's euthanasia, but the books don't give us that, and as said above, there's probably no room for them to do so. So what you are left with is six books saying that these curses are wrong in and of themselves, and one book that says, well actually no, they're really not that important if you don't mean them, and hey, even if you do, it doesn't matter if you aim them at a really bad guy. I think JKR's editors should really have been addressing this, because it is just moral slackness. Leah From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 20:20:07 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:20:07 -0000 Subject: JKR And Dante: Voldemort vs. Grindelwald In-Reply-To: <002f01c7d5c2$553c85f0$af510043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174413 Eric Oppen wrote: > > In some ways, the chapter "King's Cross" reminded me of Dante's _Inferno the narrators are at first horrified at the fates of the damned, and try to help them, but their guides (Virgil and Benito) warn them that there's nothing they can do, and they eventually accept that the damned have earned their punishments, and leave them to their fates. > > JKR's take on Voldemort-as-flayed-baby is a very Dantesque idea. The whole theme of _Inferno is "Let the punishment fit the crime." Voldemort has torn his soul to pieces in a vain quest for immortality; therefore, he must spend eternity as a flayed piece of a soul. He has misused the great power given to him in many, terrible ways; he must spend eternity powerless and helpless and in pain. He threw away his handsome original form in his quest for power, so now he's horrible to look upon. The Dante parallel would also explain why Dumbledore, who is presented as a compassionate person who is big on second chances, won't touch the flayed baby or let Harry do anything about it. > > Voldemort's damnation is doubly sad and ironic, or so it seems to me, because he could have had what he thought he wanted through strictly legitimate means. Handsome, charismatic and almost universally liked, he could have become Minister of Magic; an extremely talented wizard, he could have been tapped to help Nicolas Flamel and either been given the secret of the Philosopher's Stone, or figured out how to reverse-engineer one. > Instead, he took stupid shortcuts, meddled with Things Man Was Not Meant To Know, and literally damned himself. Carol responds: Excellent post and I think it would be worth following up on this idea with parallel passages. I want to point out, though, that Voldemort, or rather Tom Riddle, does have his second chance. Harry offers it to him, and he turns it down: "[B]efore you try and kill me, I'd advise you to think about what you've done," says Harry. "Think, and try for some remorse, Riddle." Voldemort appears shocked (does he recall his own out-of-body experience as a feeble, tortured, untouchable, horrible, helpless child wrapped in rags?). "It's your last chance," continues Harry. "It's all you've got left. I've seen what you'll be otherwise. Be a man. [T]ry. Try for some remorse. . . ." (DH Am. ed. 742, ellipses eliminated). Naturally, Voldemort spurns this opportunity and, as you say, damns himself. I didn't think of Dante as I read the "King's Cross" scene, but I agree that JKR must have had her reading of Dante in mind, consciously or unconsciously, as she wrote the chapter. I thought of the horrible fetus that Voldemort's fragmented soul inhabits for most of GoF, an image that JKR says she consciously chose and viewed as so horrific that she feared her editor would ask her to leave it out. It's clear to me that she could not have done so because Fetal!mort foreshadowed the form that Voldemort's shattered and unrepentant soul would take in his own personal hell. (I'm not questioning your reading, just responding to it. I think that the images work together. I would cite parallel passages, but for now I just want to point out the foreshadowing.) As for Tom Riddls possibly becoming the Minister of Magic, I think he might have done so if he had solely been pursuing power, in which case, he might have become another Gellert Grindelwald, also handsome and charming (even mischievous and merry, as Tom Riddle never was). And Tom Riddle, hating his Muggle father, pursued the same pure-blood agenda that Grindelwald, convinced of his own natural superiority, pursued, but with a vengeance foreign to the coolly intellectual Grindelwald. Both boys tortured people at a young age, Tom Riddle secretly, not knowing the source of his power; Grindelwald openly, glorying in his "superiority." (Expelled from *Durmstrang,* the supposed Dark Arts school, Durmstrang, which produced Viktor Krum. Have we been misled about Durmstrang, too?) But there's a key difference. Tom Riddle's mother died after giving birth to him, and he feared death in a way that Grindelwald (who would have created an army of Inferi) did not. And that fear of death turned Tom Riddle into Voldemort, the mangler of his own soul. Grindelwald, for all his many and terrible crimes, seems never to have created a Horcrux, never removed any part of his split soul in the unnatural act of separating soul and body. (Another of Carol's prediction for DH bites the dust.) And it seems that, unlike Voldemort, he did feel some remorse. Carol, wondering what Dantesque punishment Grindelwald is suffering in JKR's version of eternity From Meliss9900 at aol.com Fri Aug 3 20:24:31 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:24:31 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgi... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174414 In a message dated 8/3/2007 10:07:37 A.M. Central Daylight Time, va32h at comcast.net writes: Once again I ask - why is it *our* responsibility as readers to make up excuses and explanations for all the stuff the author didn't bother to make clear or just plain forgot about? I don't think that it is our responsibility but then I never worried over much how he got it back. I think I just figured at the time that it probably was left on his pillow in the same manner that the invisibility cloak had been (after he and Hermione left it on the astronomy tower while sending Norbert off to Romania). Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From csh at stanfordalumni.org Fri Aug 3 20:58:35 2007 From: csh at stanfordalumni.org (chuck.han) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:58:35 -0000 Subject: Snape really was a Good Guy - Canon in the House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174415 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > ... > ahhh, but doesn't Snape state he would do "anything" for Dumbledore > PRIOR to Lily's death? So, I think, regardless if she lived or died, > Snape would still have been saved. Snape was DD's man when he told > him he would do anything for Dumbledore if DD would protect Lily & her > family. > > The scene that takes place after she died is where DD has to > manipulate Snape to stay on his side. DD tells Snape to protect Harry > in Lily's memory. Snape agreed to do so. > > But, like I stated, if Lily hadn't of died, Snape would have still > been spy for Dumbledore and done all of the things he was asked to do, > because he told him he would do *anything* > ... We'll never know what Snape would have done if the whole Potter family had been saved. IMHO, Snape's path is "clear" BECAUSE of Lily's death. Conversely, I don't think his path would have been clear with a Potter family that was flourishing, with James and Harry (and perhaps more Potter children) having the attention and love of Lily. It would have driven Snape crazy. He easily would have had James and Harry snuffed out to save Lily. Just because he says he'll do ANYTHING for her survival doesn't mean that he could have ultimately managed it. Look at how complex his character is with the death of Lily even though his path is "clear." Think about how complex his character would have been had all the Potters survived. Chuck From autr61 at dsl.pipex.com Fri Aug 3 21:19:12 2007 From: autr61 at dsl.pipex.com (sylviampj) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:19:12 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal In-Reply-To: <46A76B76.6030202@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174416 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > horridporrid03 blessed us with this gem On 25/07/2007 09:27: > > > > Betsy Hp: > > Oh my gosh, I totally agree. We heard not hair nor hide about the > > Hallows in any of the previous books and suddenly JKR decides that > > what this great McGuffin hunt needs is... three more McGuffins. The > > hell? > > Yeah, didn't make much sense in that way. At the end of HBP Dumbledore > entrusts Harry with the sacred task of destroying Horcruxes, only to > suddenly start lobbing excruciating hints of Deathly Hallows at Harry > out of left field just to -- what? -- demonstrate some sort of sadistic > streak? Harry rationalization was that maybe there were things he was > supposed to learn, but not use. Come again? Smack in the middle of the > Great Horcrux Chase hardly seems the proper time for Dumbledore to be > distracting Harry with trivia lesson. > > I think what JKR was going for was the Revelation, a "Wow -- Harry's > Invisibility Cloak is is a Deathly Hallow? That's so-o-o KEWL!" kind of > moment. In the end, however, the cost in terms of story line was just > too high. > > CJ>>> I'm sure that JKR is telling the truth when she says that she planned the whole series from the beginning. I'm also pretty sure that the evolution in the scope and tone of the books was a response to the huge and unexpected public reaction to them. JKR started out writing delightful children's stories, with which like all good children's stories are popular with adults who like to escape into a fantasy world. But she ended up trying to write an epic, a whodunnit, a coming of age story, an allegory... And she overstretched herself. Some of the facile divisions between good guys and bad guys and the static characterisations which were adequate for the first three books were unsustainable for the remaining four and I think limited her ability to develop her characters and the storyline. I don't feel betrayed. I enjoyed the books very much and I think JKR gave it her best shot. But I think she boxed herself in from the beginning into a children's story format and never really managed to break out of it. She also boxed herself in with a seven book format. I think five or at most six books would have been enough. I personally believe that the 'Deathly Hallow's were an add-on. It was all about the Horcruxes but then JKR realised that she had to sustain the interest of her audiences for a seventh book and she introduced this new element which was supposed to test Harry's mettle in a new way. IMO the question of Harry's purity of motives and heart was settled in PS when he was able to take the Philosopher's stone because he did not want to use it for personal gain. Time after time in the books he faced death bravely or rejected limelight or popularity in favour of the truth. We didn't need the Deathly Hallows to tell us this. Sylvia. From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Aug 3 21:26:36 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:26:36 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174417 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sylviampj" wrote: > > JKR started out > writing delightful children's stories, with which like all good > children's stories are popular with adults who like to escape into a > fantasy world. SNIP >But I think > she boxed herself in from the beginning into a children's story > format and never really managed to break out of it. > Allie: You'll see them called "children's books" over and over in the media and elsewhere, but I don't think that was actually the author's intent. I've read in more than one place where JKR has said that she wasn't writing "children's" books, she just wrote the story that she envisioned, and it was purchased in the US by Bloomsbury, a children's book publisher. There are mythology and literature references in the books that most children wouldn't understand. From csh at stanfordalumni.org Fri Aug 3 21:29:00 2007 From: csh at stanfordalumni.org (chuck.han) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:29:00 -0000 Subject: Snape really was a Good Guy - Canon in the House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174418 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > ... > > >>Chuck: > > The one thing on which I do feel cheated is the fact that Dumbledore > > doesn't have as much of a struggle--he truly believes that Harry > > will survive his encounter with Death because of Lily's blood that > > runs in Voldemort's veins, so JKR has given Dumbledore a convenient > > out. > > Betsy Hp: > And that's because Dumbledore is a Gryffindor. It's the flip side of > the coin. Gryffindors don't have moral struggles because their moral > supremacy has already been determined at the Sorting. "Convenient > outs" are their due for being so golden and pure. > ... I respectfully disagree with this last point. As Sirius said, the world is not divided into Death Eaters and not. And Dumbledore himself has proven himself not to be infallible (As an aside, I have much trouble with the description of the Harry Polyjuice Potion). Are you saying that Dumbledore was entitled to not having to make a hard decision of "sacrificing" Harry because, as a Gryffindor, he was due this out? It would have been much more interesting if Dumbledore was faced with the true decision of sacrificing Harry "for the greater good." JKR prepares us for this out as she describes Dumbledore's look being victorious when told of the Dark Lord's use of Harry's blood at the end of GOF. Conversely, at the end of OOTP, she sets up the possibility of a dilemma when Dumbledore confides in Harry that he cares too much for him, and what did it matter if countless, faceless people died other than Harry? For me, it's too bad that we didn't see this struggle in Dumbledore with respect to Harry's "death." The fact that Harry (and, for that matter, Snape) has to make a sacrifice, but Dumbledore doesn't is uneven. Indeed, JKR makes Dumbledore's path clear and free from decision by condemning him to death so early. I feel cheated that Dumbledore never seems to struggle the way he did with the death of his sister. Maybe I'm just a sadist :-) Chuck From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 3 21:35:36 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:35:36 -0000 Subject: Part 7: Death and Resurrection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174419 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hans Rieuwers" wrote: Hans Andr?a: > May I draw the attention to members to post No. 163788, which I sent > on January 15th this year? It's reproduced in full underneath. > > I'd be the first to admit that my predictions didn't come true 100%. > However I feel unashamed in owning up to this post and saying > that "Deathly Hallows" turned out to symbolise exactly what I said it > would in the post underneath. > > "Deathly Hallows was about death and resurrection. Harry went through > the Gate of Saturn and returned. In "Deathly Hallows" the Gate of > Saturn is called "King's Cross" - a very symbolic name indeed. It > turned out not to be the arch with the veil, but the symbolism is > nevertheless just as clear. > > Although Harry did not become Keeper of the Keys, he did have the > choice at King's Cross of going "on" or returning to save the world > from Voldemort. That is the choice I was looking for there. > > And Harry did not kill Voldemort. Voldemort did that himself because > of Lily's love flowing in his veins. > > On the surface "Harry Potter" is often mundane and even banal, but if > we look at the symbolism it is ineffably sublime. I believe Jo is the > radio that is attuned to a divine frequency. Geoff: We have discussed and disagreed on this in the past. Although I respect your right to express your own views and beliefs about the books, I do take issue that you are attempting to integrate your ideas with the basic tenets of the Christian faith and I suspect that many Christians on this group would agree with my objections. Hans Andr?a: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hans Andr?a > wrote: > > > > To me it is obvious that Harry Potter is about death and > resurrection. In fact, Parts 1-6 abound in symbols and events of > resurrection from death. > > In Part 1 Harry goes down past Fluffy (Cerberus) into the > underworld, where he is attacked by Quirrell, who is possessed by > Voldemort. Harry falls unconscious, and wakes up after three days to > see Dumbledore smiling at him. He had just got to Harry in time. A > symbolic death and resurrection. > > > > In Part 2 Harry goes into the underworld again, but this time he > is fatally poisoned by a basilisk fang. He is literally pulled from > death by phoenix tears. A symbolic death and resurrection. > > > > In Part 3 Harry is on the point of having his soul sucked out by > a Dementor when a Patronus sent by his future self saves him. Death > and resurrection. > > > > In Part 4 Harry has the Avada Kedavra curse cast at him for the > second time. He is saved by his own immense willpower, which is > greater than Voldemort's. Death and resurrection. > > > > In Part 5 Harry is possessed by Voldemort. He saves himself by > driving out Voldemort with Harry's love for Sirius. Death and > resurrection. > > > > In Part 6 Harry is dragged into the water by the inferi, but > Dumbledore saves him with his circle of fire. Death and resurrection. Geoff: The problem is that, in each of the parts, there is no death or resurrection. Although brought close to death, Harry does not die, therefore, he is not resurrected. Hans Andr?a: > > One of the most obvious clues in Harry Potter is the similarity > of Harry's basic story to that of Jesus: > > > > A prophecy is made that a baby will be born who will change the > world. The baby is born and a star appears to announce his birth. > When the king of this world hears about the birth he tries to have > the baby killed, but fails. The child grows up in wisdom and in > stature, and in favour with God and man. He performs miracles at a > young age. But as he grows older he knows he will have to meet his > arch-enemy: Satan. > > > > We all know that story - that's the story of Jesus. But it's also > the story of Harry Potter. Geoff: With respect, the story of Jesus as you term is also the history of a real person. Harry's story is just that - a story. Hans Andr?a: > > The story is basically so similar to that of Jesus we can easily > see that it will end the same way as Jesus' story. Just as Jesus died > to save the world, so Harry will lay down his life for the wizarding > world. But just as Jesus rose from the dead after three days, so will > Harry. Geoff: But again, you are trying to combine two elements - one real and one fictional. As a Christian, I believe that, in common with other believers, I had a life-changing experince of God when I asked Jesus into my life and I believe that his Spirit lives within me. That does not turn me into an angel or a superior being - far from it; I become very conscious of my shortcomings and attempt to be Christ-like in the way I live my life. To draw parallels between Jesus Christ and Harry. let us consider the following, based on Christian belief: Jesus is divine - God in human form. Harry is human. Jesus is immortal. Harry isn't. Jesus is sinless. Harry certainly isn't. :-) Jesus died on the cross and rose again to bring forgiveness of sins of mankind because of the above mentioned criteria. Harry cannot even gain forgiveness of his own sins unless he approaches Jesus as his Saviour. Remember I said that these are what a Christian would believe. I accept that there are group members who would not agree with me because they hold a different view of the world. I am nor trying to force my views on them, just to draw attention that I think that Hans' thoughts, expressed above will not sit easily with others who have shared my experiences. Just extrapolating your thoughts about death and resurrection to Book 7, I do not believe personally that Harry died or was resurrected here either - again these are just my own interpretation. I believe that in the "real" Wizarding world, there is no break in time between the end of Chapter 34 "The Forest Again" and the beginning of Chapter 36 "The Flaw in the Plan". The action seems to go straight on; there is no sense of time having passed during the "Kings Cross" chapter. I have previously written that I believe Harry is in some form of extra- terrestrial place. I am reminded of Star Trek DS9 when Sisko meets with the Prophets of Bajor if you know the series and he seems to be removed from time into a where he is surrounded by mist - maybe JKR is a Trek fan? It takes place in an instant. 'A long time later or maybe no time at all, it came to him that he must exist...' (DH "King's Cross" p.565 UK edition) Then again, when he takes his leave of Dumbledore, the following exchange occurs: '"Tell me one last thing," said Harry. "Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?" Dumbledore beamed at him and his voice sounded loud and strong in Harry's ears even though the bright mist was descending again, obscuring his figure. "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"' (ibid. p.579) Hence, I do not see Harry being involved personally with death and resurrection throughout the series. Much as I love Harry as a character and identify with him when I recall my own teenage years, he is of the same stuff that we are: loving, angry, thoughful, rash, uncrtain, brash and in need of guidance as to how to get the best out of what life has dealt him. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 21:34:55 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:34:55 -0000 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174420 Betsy Hp: > JKR definitely makes the rules. And she's changed them here. Because what made the Unforgivables wrong in her other books is that you had to *mean* them. IOWs, you couldn't throw a Crucio at someone you just wanted to punch in the face. You had to want to pull their fingernails out. You had to want to see them writhe in pain. And it had to be for the pain's sake, not just your own "righteous" anger. You had to get in touch with your inner sadist. We had an explicit example of that in GOF. > > It was reasonable to infer then, that to successfully cast an Imperius you had to *want* to fully subjugate someone to your will, make them your complete slave. And that to successfully cast an AK you had to *want* someone's death. > > So being able to successfully cast an Unforgivable meant that you were in a dark and cruel headspace. You weren't torturing for a purpose other than enjoying seeing someone in pain. You controlled with the joy of controlling, you killed with the joy of killing. > > Of course in DH, things have changed. Just as polyjuice now lasts for as long as needed, Crucio has become the equivalent of punching someone in the face. Imperio has been watered down to a nicely effective Confoundis. > > Mainly because JKR doesn't want us to judge her characters by what they *do*. She needs us to judge them by what they *are*. Anything Harry does is, by definition, good. > Carol responds: Betsy, I understand exactly how you feel. I didn't want Harry to cast Unforgiveable Curses. I thought that his inability to cast an effective Crucio was a sign of his goodness and that his repeated attempts to do so were a sign that the desire for vengeance, first against Bellatrix and then against Snape, was starting to control him and that he would need to lose that desire for vengeance--would need to stop hating Snape, against whom he had channeled most of that desire for vengeance--need to understand and forgive him before he could perform the act of Love, the willing self-sacrifice, that ultimately destroys Voldemort. And I think that's exactly what happened. If he had confronted Voldemort hating him and seeking vengeance and willing to kill him using an AK or any other deadly curse, he would have failed. I still see the arguments that the moral relativism (it's okay for the good guys to use the weapons of the enemy as long as it's for a good cause, and Crucioing anybody, even Amycus Carrow, seems inexcusable) but consider for a moment that possibly the Unforgiveable Curses are not what we thought they were. Bellatrix says that "You have to mean them," and in the case of the Cruciatus Curse, that means you really want the person to suffer. But in the case of Avada Kedavra, we see even with the spider and with poor Cedric Diggory and with Bellatrix's fox that hatred is not necessary. So Snape's use of Avada Kedavra, which Dumbledore has told him may not damage his soul ("Only you know whether etc. ) amounts to an act of mercy. He's saving Draco's soul, he's granting a dying man a dignified death and a quick end to suffering, and, in the end, having bound himself with a UV, he's saving his own life so that he can continue to work with Dumbledore to protect Harry and the students at Hogwarts. (Snape as headmaster has to have been part of DD's plan.) Snape has to will Dumbledore's death, but he doesn't have to hate him. (I would, though, at that moment, and he surely also hates himself.) He doesn't *want* DD's death. He just has to steel himself to figuratively pull the trigger and give DD a quick, painless death vastly preferable to being torn apart by Fenrir Greyback's teeth. On a side note, I don't know what curses either the good guys or the bad guys are using in the Battle of Hogwarts, but we're seeing duels, not both sides firing AKs at each other. A Killing Curse is the quickest and most efficient of the curses, but it's not the only one for either side. Moe confusion, I agree.) As for Imperius, I think there's a difference between a sustained Imperius like the ones used by the Crouches on each other, on Bode in OoP, and on Pius Thicknesse (who seems to be treated as a bad guy even though he's Imperiused, another source of confusion for me) in DH and the quick, short-term Imperius Curses that Harry uses on Travers and the goblin Bogrod in DH. Expediency seems to justify Harry's use of the "unforgiveable" but no longer illegal curse in JKR's view (not mine, Betsy!), and certainly, Harry has to steal the Horcrux by some means. As he tells Griphook, he doesn't want it for himself (shades of the Philosopher's Stone in the mirror); he wants to destroy it to help defeat Voldemort. I think it matters, at least to JKR, that neither Travers (a DE who's already tried to kidnap Harry at the Lovegood's) or the innocent Bogrod is permanently Imperio'd. A confundus Charm would not have served the purpose. They have to be temporarily deprived of the power of choice "for the greater good." Travers, given free will, would turn Harry over to Voldemort and kill his friends. Bogrod would simply protect the Lestranges' treasure, letting the thieves be killed by the dragon or his fellow goblins. I don't like it, but it seems that Imperius is acceptable in an emergency, in self-defense, for the greater good. And now we see that Dumbledore (fallen from his pedestal) probably *did* authorize the man he thought was Mad-Eye Moody to use the demonstrate the Imperius Curse on his own students. I don't like it, but maybe we should have seen this coming. Harry's use of the Cruciatus Curse on the despicable Amycus Carrow is for me much more troubling, especially given McGonagall's view of it as gallant and Harry's remark that Bellatrix was right about having to mean the curses. Carrow has, of course, done more than spit on McGonagall. He has used that same curse to punish students in detention and taught Crabbe and Goyle, at least, to use it on other students. though Harry may still think that it was snpe who tried to Crucio him in HBP, the torturer was almost certainly Carrow. JKR probably approves of the use of his own favorite curse as Karmic justice. At least she didn't have the still noble and innocent Neville using it on Bellatrix. But Harry's use of it still seems like excessive force since Carrow presents no danger at the moment. It certainly smacks of revenge--from the same boy who prevented Lupin and Black from murdering Pettigrew in PoA. Here's my theory, which I hope you won't reject out of hand because you object on principle to the use of Unforgiveables and feel that JKR has betrayed us by having Harry use them. What if the soul bit, which Dead!DD refers to as "parasitic," is getting control, causing Harry from OoP onward to seek revenge, confusing it with justice like Lupin and Black in PoA, making him want to punish first Bellatrix and then Snape? Harry still has the soul bit in his scar when he Crucios Carrow, and none of the other good characters follows his example. (I'm ignoring McGonagall's Imperius Curse, which her defenders can argue for me.) Somehow, Snape reaches out beyond the grave to Harry. Somehow, the soul bit stops influencing him and Harry not only forgives Snape but accepts the need to face Voldemort without fighting, without seeking vengeance, doing nothing but offering himself as a willing sacrifice to destroy the soul bit that he now knows is in his scar. That renunciation of vengeance, that act of self-sacrificial love, changes everything. Voldemort's magic no longer holds. He can't prevent the wandless Neville from destroying Nagini, his last and most horrible Horcrux. Does that explain it or help at all? The Harry who Crucios Amycus Carrow has not yet chosen to substitute vengeance for love. Snape's memory, which tells him that he must walk willingly to his death, also enables him to substitute forgiveness and understanding for vengeance and even to extend a chance for remorse to the third of the "abandoned boys," Tom Riddle. From that point on, having had his epiphany, Harry casts no more Unforgiveable Curses. I realize that JKR seems inconsistent, particularly since her depiction of the Crouches shows where ths constant and unjustified use of the Unforgiveable Curses leads. I realize that she seems to be saying that the end justifies the means. But I wonder whether this renunciation of the Unforgiveable Curses is the penultimate step in Harry's journey. He has already renounced the Hallows. Now he has chosen to sacrifice himself like Lily thanks to Snape's memory, renouncing vengeance or even self-defense. He has two more choices to make: to return, facing death yet again, or "go on," and to fight Voldemort or merely do what he did in the graveyard, using Expelliarmus, and relying on the wand to choose its master. But once Harry steps into Snape's memory, we see no more Unforgiveable Curses from Harry. The soul bit is destroyed and he has had his epiphany. Voldemort, not having learned any sort of lesson, is again hoist on his own AK. Carol, still struggling with the book but trying to understand it on its own terms From va32h at comcast.net Fri Aug 3 21:50:03 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:50:03 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry (was Re: Harry using Crucio.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174421 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: (snip) Or maybe DIRTY! Harry Voldemort: This is the Deathstick the most powerful wand in the universe and will blow your head clean off! Harry: But I know what you're thinking, am I the true master of the Elder Wand or is Harry? Well, to tell you the truth in all the confusion I've sort of lost track myself, so you've got to ask yourself one question, "do I feel lucky today?" Well do you punk? Come on Riddle, MAKE MY DAY! va32h: No fair, no fair! I made that joke first in this forum and got no response! :( Okay - I am staking my claim on this joke: When the DH movie comes out, and Harry and Voldy face off in the Great Hall, I am going to start a chant of "Two wizards enter, one wizard leaves! Two wizards enter, one wizard leaves!" Whose with me? va32h, who seriously thinks that, given all the movie references, Deathly Hallows was written while JKR was at home, drinking heavily and watching Starz. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 22:00:10 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:00:10 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174422 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sylviampj" wrote: > > > > JKR started out > > writing delightful children's stories, with which like all good > > children's stories are popular with adults who like to escape into a fantasy world. > > SNIP > Allie: > > You'll see them called "children's books" over and over in the media and elsewhere, but I don't think that was actually the author's > intent. I've read in more than one place where JKR has said that she wasn't writing "children's" books, she just wrote the story that she envisioned, and it was purchased in the US by Bloomsbury, a children's book publisher. There are mythology and literature references in the books that most children wouldn't understand. > *** Katie: I agree. She wrote books *about* children, not necessarily *for* children. And I think that often, criticisms of the books come from a POV of seeing them as kids' books, which I have never believed they are. Children are often drawn to things that are not really meant for them, because at some human level, it connects. For example, my 4 year old son loves the TV show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". He saw a glimpse of it a few times when I was watching it on DVD and he came downstairs unexpectedly. (He loves age-appropriate scary stuff). Needless to say, I do not let him watch this show because he is far too young to grasp any of the philosophical points of the show - he'll just be scared to death. Now, I don't believe the first 2 books are necessarily too scary or dark for kids, but after PoA...it's definitely questionable. I really think these books happen to be about children, but aren't really for children. Just my POV, KATIE From ardiningtiyaspitaloka at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 21:17:47 2007 From: ardiningtiyaspitaloka at yahoo.com (ardiningtiyaspitaloka) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:17:47 -0000 Subject: Wands and other confusion about Deathly Hallows plotline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174423 Irene: 'But I think the fact the Voldemort was weakened by Harry's sacrifice is a big factor I didn't consider before.' Piet: Is it possible that Harry's sacrifice meaning 'love' for other, to protect other from Voldemort by his love. Isn't it such what Harry got from their parents? Love- which save Harry. Love- which Voldemort has not. Then again, love which beats Voldemort to saves other. It's also about Love and Hatred, Sacrifice and Revange. Love & Sacrifice are the winner, those what JKR shows to. -Piet From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 3 22:33:25 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:33:25 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174424 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sylviampj" wrote: > > > > JKR started out > > writing delightful children's stories, with which like all good > > children's stories are popular with adults who like to escape into a > > fantasy world. > > SNIP > > > >But I think > > she boxed herself in from the beginning into a children's story > > format and never really managed to break out of it. > > > > Allie: > > You'll see them called "children's books" over and over in the media > and elsewhere, but I don't think that was actually the author's > intent. I've read in more than one place where JKR has said that she > wasn't writing "children's" books, she just wrote the story that she > envisioned, and it was purchased in the US by Bloomsbury, a children's > book publisher. There are mythology and literature references in the > books that most children wouldn't understand. Geoff: Permit me to correct you in saying that the books were first published by Bloomsbury who are a UK publisher. It was /after/ this that Scholastic started to produce the books in the US. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 22:37:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:37:42 -0000 Subject: Harry, Voldemort & the Horcrux at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174425 Brothergib wrote: > > I think I'm right in stating that DD felt that LV wanted to use Harry's death to make his final Horcrux. The suggestion from JKR's latest interview is that the Horcrux must be created as soon as the person is killed that facilitates the soul splitting. Therefore, what object did he intend to convert into a Horcrux that night at Godric's hollow - and is it still there? The only thing I can think of is his wand. Carol responds: As far as I can see, especially after JKR's chat transcript (which states that he used the murder of an Albanian peasant for the Ravenclaw diadem and Bertha Jorkins for Nagini), Dumbledore is mistaken on this particular point. Voldemort does not reserve Horcrux-making for important murders, or the other way around. The most recent murder will do. It's the Horcrux itself that counts. Maybe he even murdered Myrtle to make the diary Horcrux. His motive in going to Godric's Hollow, however, was not to make a Horcrux. Both Dumbledore and Harry suspect that he wanted to use the Sword of Gryffindor, but he had not obtained it as of Godric's Hollow. (My theory is that his next murder, after killing Harry, would have been Dumbledore, killed to make the Sword his last Horcrux.) But his sole objective in going to Godric's Hollow, as we see in "Bathilda's Secret," is to kill Harry Potter and thwart the Prophecy. "He pointed the wand very carefully into the boy's face. He wanted to see it happen, the destruction of this one, inexplicable danger" (DH Am. ed. 345). The last Horcrux can wait until he's destroyed his future enemy. Unfortunately for him, he breaks, becoming "nothing but pain and terror" (345). wanting nothing but to hide himself far from the screaming child, unaware that he's turned him into an accidental Horcrux because his soul is so unstable. Much later, restored to a fetal body by Wormtail and knowing that he'll never obtain the Sword of Gryffindor while Dumbledore lives, he uses the murder of Bertha Jorkins to turn his dear Nagini into what he thinks is his seventh Horcrux. BTW, someone asked earlier why Harry is referred to as the only person ever to survive the Killing Curse when Voldemort also survived an (admittedly deflected) AK. I think it's because Voldemort's *body* didn't survive. It's a soulless corpse to which he can't return. Since the narrative says that he "broke," I assume that his body exploded with such force that it partially blew up the house. So Voldemort as Voldemort didn't survive the curse. Only his fragmented soul, anchored to earth by his Horcruxes and unable to enter the afterlife, survived. Carol, who thinks that if Voldie had brought an object to be made into a Horcrux, the soul bit would have entered it rather than Harry's as yet unsealed scar From kamilaa at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 22:42:23 2007 From: kamilaa at gmail.com (Kamil) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:42:23 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Malum Blah Blah... Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174426 < Alla> Oh my dear God. I just realised something. This is would do as addemdum to my previous post, but may as well stand alone. Who said that you should mean them in the first place? One DE and another DE, no? Who said that they were telling the truth. Especially Bella??? It's the reason why Harry couldn't Crucio Bella in OOTP. He didn't have enough hatred inside him. "Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy? You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really cause pain--to enjoy it-- righteous anger won't hurt me for long..." (OP36) http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/spells/spells_c.html#crucio And that is obviously what is true for her, but is it necessarily true for Harry too? Yes, he flubs the curse, but in his past he's flubbed lots of spells the first time he tried them; just ask Professors Flitwick or MacGonnagal. I have no doubt Voldemort would want his followers to mean the curses; if for no other reason than cultivating hatred and casual sadism wherever possible is just that much fun for him and he's not in the habit of depriving himself of his desires. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's true for all who use them. Kamil From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 23:22:39 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:22:39 -0000 Subject: Wands (Was: Inconsistencies) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174427 Katie: If disarming someone was enough to gain control of their wand...then no one in the Dueling Club or the D.A. owned their own wand anymore! Yet, as I understand it (and maybe I don't :) )Draco disarming DD made him the owner of the Elder Wand? Is that right? If that IS the claim in DH, then she;'s got some explaining to do about all those "Expelliarus!" cries throughout the series. Of course, it's very possible I am very confused...because that whole wand thing was crazy! Juli: I think wand ownership only changes in a real duel. While the kids were learning how to cast an Expelliarmus, they knew they were going to get disarmed, it wasn't against their will. The whole point of the excercise was to get disarmed. And yes, when Draco disarmed Dumbledore at the Astronomy tower, he won the wand, the Elder wand became his. Its 'loyalty' changed. The thing I've been thinking a lot about is that Harry had at the end 3 wands: His Phoenix wand, Draco's Hawthrone wand, and the Elder Wand... He sure has plenty of spares now. Juli From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 23:31:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:31:52 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses (Was: Lilly's eyes another let down) In-Reply-To: <1185819380.26454.1202839745@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174428 Random832 wrote: something that's always bugged me (and that didn't get addressed in any of the books as far as I can tell) > > She's [...] outraged that an Italian dust jacket shows Harry > minus his glasses. "Don't they understand that they are the > clue to his vulnerability?" > http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1200-readersdigest-boquet.htm Carol responds: If you have the Scholastic edition, take a look at the drawing of Harry accompanying the "King's Cross" chapter. Harry is not wearing his glasses. Now granted, Harry looks rather groggy and myopic in the drawing, but I think, (only think!) that Mary GrandPre has missed the point. Harry starts off naked and then, as if he were in the ROR, summons clothes by thinking about them. He summons Dumbledore without even thinking about him because he needs DD to explain the things he still doesn't understand. (He doesn't summon LV's tattered soul, which is having its own much less enlightening side trip.) But significantly, IMO, Harry is not wearing his glasses and does not mentally summon them or think about them because in "King's Cross" (as opposed to the real world), he doesn't need them. "He sat up. His body appeared unscathed. he touched his face. He was not wearing glasses anymore" (DH Am. ed. 706). Dumbledore, who appears as he did in life before his encounter with the ring Horcrux, still wears his half-moon spectacles (odd that he would need them, but maybe they're as much a part of him as his silver beard and crooked nose). But Harry, who in any case, isn't really dead, is not wearing his glasses. He doesn't need them. Why not? I don't think it has anything to do with vulnerability. I think they symbolize perception. Harry has had a very distorted view of Snape, Slytherin, DD himself, even, perhaps, his own mission, but he has made some right choices (Halows, not Horcruxes; self-sacrifice, not revenge), and he is ready, finally, to understand Dead!DD's explanations for everything except the few remaining questions that he must answer for himself (what the whimpeing thing on the floor is; whether to return or "go on"; what "going on" actually means (he'll found out when he actually dies. The reader can imagine for him or herself.) Granted, DD's explanations aren't quite as clear to the reader as they seem to be to Harry, but it seems to me that Harry understands, at last, what his preconceptions and biases and temptations and, well, general slowness on the uptake, IMO, have prevented him from seeing so far. Before he returns, he shows compassion for Dumbledore's weaknesses, trusting and loving him again even though he has been DD's puppet because he understands that DD loved him and hoped that he would survive. He has, as I said in another post, already stopped seeking vengeance and casting Unforgiveables. He has also already chosen to abandon the resurrection stone. When he returns, we see him extending mercy to the weak and undeserving (but not evil) Draco. We hear him publicly vindicating Snape with perfect understanding of a man he has always hated (and later naming his second son after him and DD). He extends a chance for remorse to Voldemort. He understands that his choice to sacrifice himself has weakened Voldemort's magic. He sees Neville's courage and chivalry earn their own reward. And then he makes one last choice, to do as he did in the graveyard and fight the Killing Curse not with another Killing Curse or even a Protego but with his own signature spell, learned long ago from Snape and used as an act of mercy on Stan Shunpike, Expelliarmus. For complex reasons that I don't fully understand, it's the right choice. Harry Potter, who has made many mistakes over the series, most obviously misjudging Snape, who has suffered doubt and despair through the middle of the book, can finally see clearly. His physical myopia remains (he always feels understandably helpless without his glasses), but his figurative myopia, his inability to perceive with his mind what he sees with his eyes, has finally cleared. That, at any rate, is how I interpret Harry's glasses and particularly their absence in the "King's Cross" chapter. Carol, welcoming reactions and alternative interpretations From dgoldens3 at aol.com Fri Aug 3 20:53:40 2007 From: dgoldens3 at aol.com (Dawner) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:53:40 -0400 Subject: Inconsistencies (Was: Hermione's parents) Message-ID: <8C9A4278171AB1A-EE8-3229@webmail-dd09.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174429 HI, I thought the wand thing was confusing - who owned what wand.? Too bad we don't have a chart or something to keep who owns what wand :-) Dawn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 23:41:08 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:41:08 -0000 Subject: Wands and ...Deathly Hallows plotline - Important! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174430 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "irenek90" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > Most who would have chosen the Hallows as their > > preferred path, would have thought that physically > > bringing the three objects into their possession and > > control would have given them immense power; and it > > would have. Harry however, became Master of the > > objects and therefore Master of Death by > > understanding that only by using them in an > > unselfish way could you truly master them. > > Irene: > Fair enough and I agree...but I still think this only > reinforces something we already know about Harry (and > something I think he already knows about himself) rather > than being of such importance that it's given the title > and such a big part of the book. > > As I wrote in a another response, I think I was > expecting something else to happen with regards to > uniting the three hallows so I thought that issue was > a little anitclimactic. > bboyminn: Let me clarify a point. When I said that the Hallows were not a /pointless/ diversion, I didn't mean to imply that they were not a diversion because they were, but they were a /pointed/ and necessary diversion. In a very metaphorical way, I see the Hallows as 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. Once Harry has a basic understanding of the Hallows, he stands at the crossroads of his life. Does he follow the Path of Power or the Path of Self-Sacrifice? That may seem insignificant to many, but I see it as supremely important. How many of us could have resisted that Path of Power? How many of us would not have rationalized that having immense power would surely be the path to defeating Voldemort? For Harry to reject that temptation is HUGE HUGE HUGE. But we know Harry, he is selfless, just as Jesus was selfless. He was willing to endure pain, death, and defeat rather than follow that overwhelming temptation. Now, this plays out very subtly and relatively small in the books, but none the less, I think the existence of the Hallows represents the turning point for Harry, just as Christ's rejection of temptation is the turning point for him and sets him on his path of destiny. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not flat out saying the Harry is playing the role of Christ, or even comparing him to a Christ figure. It's just, in my limited knowledge, Christ is the only good illustration I can think of. I'm sure those steeped in mythology or /classic/ literature can come up with other similar illustrations, but I can't. I think that is what Dumbledore intended. He intended Harry to face a crisis of conscience when he learn the nature of the Hallows. He trusted Harry to stay on the straight and narrow to reject temptation and follow the course Dumbledore had laid out for him. But he really couldn't be sure. He simply had to trust that Harry was the noble hero he thought he was, and trust he would make the right choice. The Hallows play out small in the book because Harry DOES make the right choice, and in doing so, makes their significants much less in our eyes. They certainly do have significants, and while large, it is an anti-climatic significants, which is exactly what is was suppose to be. Oddly, in choosing to reject the Hallows as the path to follow, it is actually that rejection that allows Harry to embrace the Hallows, and allows the Hallows to work for him. I think that might be called 'irony'. So, while in one way the role of the Hallows was small, from another perspective, the Hallows were immensely important to the story. But then...that's just my opinion. Steve/bboyminn From angellima at xtra.co.nz Fri Aug 3 22:32:13 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:32:13 +1200 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. Message-ID: <000901c7d61e$23be5e70$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 174431 Alla: Who said that you should mean them in the first place? One DE and another DE, no? Who said that they were telling the truth. Especially Bella??? Angel: Actually it was Harry - when he himself failed at the Crucio he cast at Bella who expounded on why. When I say fail - I mean in the same sense that Hermione fails or 'has a problem' with the Patronus charm. Which come to think of it - is weird, there has never been an implication of "unhappiness" in her life, why then she excels at all other spells and flounders on Expecto Patronum is worrying especially since evil Umbridge cast a corporeal cat that though not as bright and warm as Harry's stag still created a barrier of warmth and light from the Dementors (even with Voldemort close to her heart, so to speak). Because I had earlier assumed the Patronus was innately good magic that cannot be tapped into by impure entities I am rebuffing the explanation Harry gave of Umbridge enthralled with her power (over people) thus able to cast a Patronus, but of course things were a bit topsy turvy in DH so would accept otherwise! Perhaps Nietzsche puts this in better light and paraphrasing here: 'take care he who fights with monsters lest he himself becomes a monster' which is the problem with Harry that I am glad am not the only one to see. I have never liked Harry (he was obnoxious lol) but in DH Rowling "asserted her morals". She said so! She made Hermione go out of her way, risk their capture to pay for groceries they had nicked etc. Harry developed these giant leaps of faith, he started to question what he was told, he dropped the ego considerably, his compassion grew leaps and bounds even if it came out unkind as was in the case with Remus, we understood Harry was right. The problem though is, those things could have been subjectively judged "right" - they needed food to survive, they did not damage property, break in or anything, - they took food from a supermarket, a farm or other. Much like taking Remus would not have been too hard to explain away, but no Harry was in the absolute right then! Casting a Crucio - torture, Imperio - mind control, (even Obliterario - brain wash) could never subjectively be argued 'right' imo whether they be Latin or Aramaic (Hebrew?) - apologies I struggle enough with English . Perhaps the AK was the pinnacle of the three, but that would still imply Harry had his leg on two rungs of a three rung ladder. Apologies for my verbosity but would just like to add something about Moody. I thought it was a brilliant stroke to have a Death Eater impersonate the Auror that would not stoop to the use of these Unforgivables. The trio often dreamt up ways of sticking it to Draco but the process never passed thought. It was a Death Eater who actually dealt Draco his due for reasons then unknown to the trio. That demonstration of "good" vs "evil" renders my heart in subtlety and beauty. Then BANG! Harry jests at his successful Crucio! From prep0strus at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 23:43:16 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:43:16 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174432 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > *** > Katie: > I agree. She wrote books *about* children, not necessarily *for* > children. And I think that often, criticisms of the books come from a > POV of seeing them as kids' books, which I have never believed they > are. Prep0strus: For me, I withhold a lot of criticism BECAUSE I accept them as children's books. Now, they have a lot of complexdities, and are certainly enjoyable for adults... but I feel a lot of things in the books wouldn't be acceptable in adult fiction. Primarily, it's the level of unfairness in the world she's created. I feel that kids look at the world a lot of times as me against them. The gross, ridiculous inequities between kids and adults. And in the ww... it's not just harry's impression that things are preposterously unfair - they really are. Yes, people act with mob mentalities in the real world, but in the ww... harry can't go two seconds w/o having the entire world praise him or revile him. The things teachers get away with, from Snape to Umbridge, are utterly absurd. The way Dumbledore is usually shown as almost all knowing and all powerful (until the last book), but he can't stop obvious miscarriages of justice. We try to explain reasons why there was Quirrel, and Lockhart, and Umbridge, and Snape even allowed near children. The complete and utter ridiculousness of underage magic laws, and how Dobby can almost get Harry expelled.... these are things that belong in a children's novel. Kids can more easily relate to the level of inequity. If I were to look at these books from an adult perspective, I'd be more frustrated with the lack of explanation for the unfairness and injustice built into the world. As it is, I often get frustrated - like reading a Series of Unfortunate events, where this is taken to the extreme. Or any number of other kids books where the rules exist as foils for children, rather than out of any true logic. I love these books, and these characters, but whether she meant them for adults, for children, or for anyone who would be interested... i believe it is a children's world, w/ the rules of children's literature applying to it. ~Prep0strus (Adam) From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 22:41:04 2007 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:41:04 -0000 Subject: Questions on wands and sacrifices Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174433 I'm still trying to work out the entire ending. Here is what I think was supposed to happen according to Dumbledore's' plan: Dumbledore is killed by Snape but not defeated. The Elder Wand has no new master. Harry is supposed to destroy all the horcruxes before he meets Voldemort. Voldemort kills Harry but the blood connection keeps Harry from dying, but separates the extra soul bit from Harry. The curse rebounds on Voldemort and kills him because he no longer has anything to anchor him to life. (We know something happened to him in the forest because he was knocked down or out when he cursed Harry.) It wouldn't matter what wand he was using. Harry survives and lives happily ever after. Would his sacrifice have protected anyone? Voldemort was dead; who would he be protecting them from? Why was it that Voldemort had to cast the killing curse on him and no one else? I'm not sure what was supposed to happen to Snape as the supposed master of the Elder Wand, but I doubt that he planned for Snape to die. Instead the plan goes awry. Harry faces him without destroying the last horcrux (not counting himself). Does the Elder Wand matter in the forest? Is it a rebound that harms Voldemort? Does the wand harm him because he is using it on the rightful owner of the wand? Since a wizard can get most any wand to work for him and Voldemort says he has been doing his normal spectacular spell work with it, why does Harry tell him the wand isn't working for him? Is he bluffing because he's been casting shield charms preventing the spells from affecting the people? Is he trying to mess with Voldemort's head? Or did his sacrifice really protect everyone? Since there are no duel cores this time, why is Harry able to block an unblockable curse? Is it because the Elder Wand recognizes him? If so was the curse in the forest just enough to remove the soul bit but not actually kill him? If so, then the blood isn't actually helping him. Jack-A-Roe who is still trying to work out all the details. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 23:47:12 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:47:12 -0000 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174434 Carol: (snip.snip.snip) > But once Harry steps into Snape's memory, we see no more Unforgiveable > Curses from Harry. The soul bit is destroyed and he has had his > epiphany. Voldemort, not having learned any sort of lesson, is again > hoist on his own AK. Juli: I didn't want to get into the 'Unforgivables' discussion, but here I go... Of course Harry used thr unforgivables, he had to. It was all for the 'Greater Good'. If Harry hadn't used the Imperius curse, he would have never retrieved the Goblet Horcrux, Voldemort would have never been killed, the WW would suck. I don't think that Voldie's soul in Harry made him cast those curses, he did it all on his own, and he meant every single one of them. It's like Snape killing Dumbledore, he didn't want to cast the Avada Kedavra, he didn't desire his death, but he did mean it. He had his mind into casting the spell, therefore it was a succesful spell. I believe the reason Harry didn't cast any more unforgivables after visiting Snape's memories is that he wasn't in the battle afterwards, he had no need for them, so he didn't cast them. Juli From muellem at bc.edu Sat Aug 4 00:16:45 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:16:45 -0000 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174435 > Juli: > I didn't want to get into the 'Unforgivables' discussion, but here I > go... > > Of course Harry used thr unforgivables, he had to. It was all for > the 'Greater Good'. If Harry hadn't used the Imperius curse, he would > have never retrieved the Goblet Horcrux, Voldemort would have never > been killed, the WW would suck. I don't think that Voldie's soul in > Harry made him cast those curses, he did it all on his own, and he > meant every single one of them. > > colebiancardi: ahhh, the *greater good* argument. I was waiting for this one to show up - LOL Well, there are also those arguments against the *greater good* - such as "the ends do not justify the means" and "two wrongs don't make a right". the Imperius curse.....hmmmmm. Snape got Dung to do his bidding by Confunding him. And that worked fine. So what is the difference between the Imperious and Confunding? Luna got the same results with her stunning spell on Alecto as Harry's Crucio on Carrow's - but without the pain. It goes back to what other posters have stated. The UC's are twisted and wrong. There are other spells that achieve the same result (expect the AK) without having to twist your moral compass and *mean* it. The Crucio - you have to want to be a sadistic SOB to make it work. The Imperious - you have to want to be a controlling dicator to make it stick. The AK - you have to really really want that person to be dead and not have any remorse or guilt behind it. Before DH's release - there were many posts on this board about Snape's AK on DD. Many thought that no matter if Snape was DDM and lived through the second war, he would wind up in Azkaban because of his use of an UC. It is a moral PoV on why the Trio or the Order should not use UC's. It is a matter of what the UC's could do to your soul and core of your being. So, IMHO, the *greater good* argument doesn't hold too much sway over me. In fact, it leads to the *slippery slope* argument. I wanted Harry to be above the fray; to be more resourceful and not succumb to what Sirius referred to as the Dark Side. Alla pointed out this quote before and I do believe it bears repeating: "Well, times like that bring out the best in some people and the worst in others. Crouch's principles might've been good in the beginning - I wouldn't know. He rose quickly through the Ministry, and he started ordering very harsh measures against Voldemort's supporters. The Aurors were given new powers - powers to kill rather than capture, for instance. And I wasn't the only who was handed straight to the dementors without trial. Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects. I would say he became as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side. He had his supporters, mind you - plenty of people thought he was going about things the right way..." (GoF pg 527 US ed hardback) Sirius was totally against the Dark Arts, and I do believe that the Unforgivable Curses were the Dark Arts. Even Snape, with the exception of the AK, didn't resort to the UC's in DH. The only excuse I can give Snape about him using the AK against DD was that he was in a room full of Death Eaters and as far as we know, there is no other spell that kills someone other than the AK. Quite frankly, I am still not sure Snape *used* an AK - we never got that question truly answered in this book. Snape could have just released DD from the effects of the potion that slowed down DD's death. But I could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time. Do I think the Trio or the Order were ultimately harmed by using the UC's? I don't know. We are never privy to the direct aftermath of the battle - we jump to 19 years later. colebiancardi From va32h at comcast.net Sat Aug 4 00:21:36 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:21:36 -0000 Subject: Malum blah blah blah was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174436 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jlnbtr" wrote: > Of course Harry used thr unforgivables, he had to. It was all for > the 'Greater Good'. If Harry hadn't used the Imperius curse, he >would have never retrieved the Goblet Horcrux, Voldemort would have >never been killed, the WW would suck. I don't think that Voldie's >soul in Harry made him cast those curses, he did it all on his own, >and he meant every single one of them. va32h: I definitely agree that it isn't Voldemort's soul bit making Harry use the UCs. And I agree that he needed to use Imperio in Gringott's and I also feel that there is nothing "wrong" with Harry giving in to the very human temptation to cause someone pain when you feel deeply, deeply wronged. My only objection - EVER - has been Harry enjoying the Crucio, and not feeling the least bit uncomfortable about it. He was reluctant when he cast the Imperio - knew it was necessary but was reluctant to do it. That's very in-character for Harry. I expected him to show equal reluctance to use Crucio. This is the young man who saved Draco (twice - once at great personal risk) during the Battle of Hogwarts. The young man who tried to stop Wormtail's silver hand from strangling him. The boy who agonized over accidentally using Sectumsempra. Personally, I thought Harry was nuts for trying to save Wormtail from the silver hand. I wouldn't have done it. But that's not how Harry is - he's incredibly compassionate, even to people who totally don't deserve it, and that is why it felt very out of character to see Harry happily and satisfactorily using the Cruciatus Curse. One sentence - Harry felt a momentary thrill at Carrow's pain, followed by a twinge of guilt - would have saved the whole scenario for me. va32h From Meliss9900 at aol.com Sat Aug 4 00:40:45 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 20:40:45 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherins: selfish, not evil + Ariana raped? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174437 In a message dated 8/1/2007 11:02:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time, sk8maven at yahoo.com writes: Wizards may be longer-lived than Muggles, but not THAT much longer-lived. Work it backward from Dumbledore's defeat of Grindelwald and capture of his wand - in 1945, as we are explicitly told more than once. He delayed that meeting for "five years" after Ariana died. She died quite young (16? 20? Check the details). There's simply no way the attack that disastrously damaged her can be pushed back past about the 1920's. Her number's don't add up. Just more proof that math is definitely NOT her strong suit. She states in a Scholastic chat on Oct 2000 that Dumbledore is about 150. That would mean he was born in 1850 and would have started school in 1861(assuming that he was born before Sept 1st) and completed Hogwarts in 1868. That would make him 18. Even if we say that he was 20 when Ariana died and delayed seeing Grindelwald for 5 years that would make it 1875 at the latest . .not 1945. If Dumbledore's age is accepted as canon then the attack on Ariana took place around 1858 give or take a couple of years. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 4 00:47:07 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:47:07 -0000 Subject: Jo's OWN Words/Harry using Crucio/I am about to Rant/Danger Designating the In-Reply-To: <700201d40708031055k76f0c18fjac42e4aa253ec651@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174439 > Allie: > > You'll see them called "children's books" over and over in the media > and elsewhere, but I don't think that was actually the author's > intent. I've read in more than one place where JKR has said that she > wasn't writing "children's" books, she just wrote the story that she > envisioned, and it was purchased in the US by Bloomsbury, a children's > book publisher. There are mythology and literature references in the > books that most children wouldn't understand. Magpie: They got bought by the children's division Bloomsbury (in the UK) because that's where JKR correctly sent them--to a children's publisher. She wouldn't have sent them to that publisher if she didn't consider them children's books. What she said about writing them was not that she didn't intend them for kids (who else could she have intended PS for, really?), but that she set out to write the story she wanted to write and they happened to be childen's (and later YA) books. Children don't need to understand mythological references for them to be in their books--there's a lot of that in kidlit. These aren't books about children but not for them--it's not What Maisie Knew. Juvenile and adult publishing is separate, and JKR knew who she had written for. And that is obviously what is true for her, but is it necessarily true for Harry too? Yes, he flubs the curse, but in his past he's flubbed lots of spells the first time he tried them; just ask Professors Flitwick or MacGonnagal. I have no doubt Voldemort would want his followers to mean the curses; if for no other reason than cultivating hatred and casual sadism wherever possible is just that much fun for him and he's not in the habit of depriving himself of his desires. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's true for all who use them. Magpie: That sounds like just saying they're good because Harry's special. Harry *agrees* with Bella when he casts one. And why wouldn't the two experts on Crucio know what they're talking about? We're told what you need to have them work, Harry agrees with it, therefore he cast a Crucio the same way Bellatrix does. I don't think Harry's got a special nicer way of doing it, or the fault of Draco's wand making him do it, or Voldemort's soul bit making him do it. He just wanted to torture somebody and did it. Juli: I didn't want to get into the 'Unforgivables' discussion, but here I go... Of course Harry used thr unforgivables, he had to. It was all for the 'Greater Good'. If Harry hadn't used the Imperius curse, he would have never retrieved the Goblet Horcrux, Voldemort would have never been killed, the WW would suck. I don't think that Voldie's soul in Harry made him cast those curses, he did it all on his own, and he meant every single one of them. Magpie: He didn't "have to" cast the Crucio for any reason, he did that just because he wanted to and meant it. And torturing for the greater good seems a bit oxymoronic to me. Kemper: > Based on the series as a whole, it seems apparent that JKR admires > bravery first, with cunning, loyalty, and intellect (I'm not sure if I > see much wisdom in the series... I'll have to think about that) tied > for forth. Magpie: I snipped a lot because it seemed like at the end we pretty much realized we were not disagreeing no everything anyway. I didn't quite agree with everything--I don't think Snape euthanized Dumbledore, but I also didn't think Snape killing him necessarily went against JKR's idea of what was okay via Christianity. You can never really judge everything about a person's views by something like religion, because people are so different--to refer to the other conversation in this post, I'd think torture would be considered a bad thing by many Christians, but JKR doesn't think so. I think JKR is going by what she wants to do and feels right in any given moment, which is somewhat contradictory. The only reason I brought in virtues in terms of the houses was that I really assume that she does have the same associations with the words, and that's why Slytherin's qualities match the Slytherins. Imagine if she had given them the value of compassion or charity. She needed stuff that would fit these awful people. (I think Chastity is the wrong kind of purity for them!) In response to your list, I think would say it's bravery and then loyalty, with wisdom being the presumed reward in the end, and intelligence and cunning being skills that need to be used to the right ends. At least that's how it comes across to me. > > Magpie: > > Yes. So I don't understand what changes because this is a Gryffindor > > story. The Gryffindor story is the only story. I don't think JKR > > just picked that randomly. Those are the values the story is putting > > across. > > Kemper now: > JKR said that she values courage above the other values in the other > houses way before HBP. Wisdom, intelligence, loyalty, diligence, > ambition and cunning all take a back seat. I feel that I'm missing > something in your arguement or disappointment, and I want to > understand. Magpie: I know she did. I'm not sure where we're miscommunicating...I was disappointed because while I knew that she valued courage most of all I didn't think that would mean the kind of story it turned out to be. It's not just that the story's written from these values, but how it's done. There's all sorts of things she's putting across besides that she likes bravery because of the way she puts across that she likes bravery. I think she could have started with the same preferences and written a story that was more balanced, but in the end it just felt too smug and judgmental and easy, and saying very little of significance about anything (and what it did say was, imo, unbearably cynical). It felt very Calvinist to me--your choices *show* who you are, and certain people are the Elect, and those people never have to look at themselves and see that they've done wrong. And having these other people around is good because it's satisfying to be able to fight people while being totally righteous. JKR says she wants people to take away from the books that tolerance is important but they honestly seem to say very little significant at all about tolerance. Obviously there are times where the heroes show it, and she winds up having the designated tolerance ones win (and I believe she said later that Kingsleys made MoM for life like the traditional happy ending shown by the rightful king taking the throne) but you need more than that to actually be saying something significant about this subject, especially nowadays. And here against the bias gets in the way, since good guys' little slips ups are fine since they're the good guys, and then they get wildly over-praised for the most unremarkable behavior. And in the end I didn't feel like there had been any true victory at all. -m From va32h at comcast.net Sat Aug 4 01:17:25 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:17:25 -0000 Subject: What Did Dumbledore Know and When Did He Know It Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174440 You know I've been thinking - I'm not sure I believe that Dumbledore *was* raising Harry to die....Looking at the timeline of DD's horcrux knowledge, it's not really clear when DD realized that Harry was a horcrux himself. 1981: Voldemort tries to kill Harry, fails, and is blasted into nothingness. Dumbledore decides that Harry should be raised away from the wizarding world and suspects that Voldemort will find a way to come back. Dumbledore seems to understand how Harry was protected, and how DD can keep protecting him (the charm on 4 Privet Drive), and expresses fear that Harry will one day be endangered by Voldemort again. Skip ahead 11 years, and here's Harry at school - as Dumbledore says himself, an engaging child. And the whole thing with Quirrell happens, and Dumbledore gets confirmation that Voldemort is indeed still out there. But he still isn't sure why, or what will come of it. It isn't until CoS that Dumbledore has proof that Voldemort has created a horcrux - the diary. And since the diary was meant to be used, DD senses that it's probably not the only one. It would also be in this book that Dumbledore might start to suspect that there is a bit of LV in Harry (from the parseltongue, and from the sorting hat). But even if there is a bit of Voldemort in Harry, it's sort of a non- issue -- because Voldemort is still just floating around in Albania or wherever. Dumbledore may have brooded on the future ramifications of Harry carrying about a bit of Voldemort's soul, may have even speculated that eventually Harry would have to die to truly get rid of Voldemort, but at this point in the story - Voldemort has no body, nor any prospects of getting one. I mean - if Voldemort doesn't get his body back ever, Harry can just live a normal life and die at the age of 150 and the soul bit dies with him. The issue of Harry being a Horcrux only becomes pertinent when Voldemort gets his body back, two years later. And since the same ceremony that gives Voldemort back his body also gives Harry the means to come back from death - the problem of Harry having to sacrifice himself is already solved. Rather than Dumbledore raising Harry as a pig for slaughter - I would say there's about a 40 minute period where Dumbledore fears that Harry will have to die - permanently - to get rid of Voldemort permanently. And that's the time period between Harry saying "he's back" and Harry getting to the part of the story where Wormtail cuts open his arm. Dumbledore really doesn't know everything from the beginning. We are used to believing that (and certainly Dead!Dumbledore in King's Cross appears to know a lot of stuff that he shouldn't have any reason to know - but I think there's plenty of evidence that there are many things Dumbledore doesn't know. He didn't know that three unregistered Animagi were tromping around his school for years. He didn't know how to use the Resurrection Stone properly. He didn't know what the Room of Requirement really was (he encountered it once, full of chamber pots). He didn't know as much as he thought he knew about Draco's plan in HBP. He didn't know Moody wasn't Moody! He was apparently wrong about when and with whose deaths Voldemort created the horcruxes too - if JKR's web chat answers are accepted as canon. So - was I stupid for initially agreeing with Snape about the pig for slaughter comment, and everyone else already caught on to this or am I just a rampant Dumbledore apologist or what? I'm not sure. va32h From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 4 01:17:21 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:17:21 -0000 Subject: Malum blah blah blah was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174441 > va32h: > > I definitely agree that it isn't Voldemort's soul bit making Harry > use the UCs. And I agree that he needed to use Imperio in Gringott's > and I also feel that there is nothing "wrong" with Harry giving in to > the very human temptation to cause someone pain when you feel deeply, > deeply wronged. > > My only objection - EVER - has been Harry enjoying the Crucio, and > not feeling the least bit uncomfortable about it. He was reluctant > when he cast the Imperio - knew it was necessary but was reluctant to > do it. That's very in-character for Harry. > > I expected him to show equal reluctance to use Crucio. This is the > young man who saved Draco (twice - once at great personal risk) > during the Battle of Hogwarts. The young man who tried to stop > Wormtail's silver hand from strangling him. The boy who agonized over > accidentally using Sectumsempra. > > Personally, I thought Harry was nuts for trying to save Wormtail from > the silver hand. I wouldn't have done it. But that's not how Harry > is - he's incredibly compassionate, even to people who totally don't > deserve it, and that is why it felt very out of character to see > Harry happily and satisfactorily using the Cruciatus Curse. > Magpie: I probably shouldn't even jump in on this, but it makes my skin crawl to hear Harry Potter described as a character that's incredibly compassionate. He has a saving people thing. He's just. He is not all that compassionate. What's that expression? That in a kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is king or something like that? (I hope that expression isn't considered offensive by the blind people on the list.) This is the low level of compassion these books operate on where somebody trying to stop someone being strangled by their own hand is considered incredibly compassionate. I know that it's more of a big deal because of what Wormtail has done to Harry, but I still don't think his reactions in extreme situations like that come from a nature that's overly compassionate in general. Almost every character in canon would have done the same in these instances (and yes, I include Ron--I can't imagine he'd have let anybody burn to death if he'd been by himself). I'm not saying Harry doesn't absolutely do the right thing in trying to save Womrtail and saving Draco, and that he doesn't prove himself a Good Guy doing it--but I don't think it's all about compassion. Actually, if it did then Snape is also an incredibly compassionate character since he, too, only watches people die whom he can not save. As I said in my other post about the subject, if a character is really supposed to impress me with a virtue he has, I can't always be having more of it than he does on every page of the story (and I'm no role model either, I'm just saying this is my pov when I read the books). There are other qualities Harry has that do impress me. I need more than the flashy moments like this to give him this one. I just can't imagine anyone learning compassion from these books. What Harry doesn't do is agonize over Sectumsempra. I think I've felt more guilty about not returning a phone call than Harry feels guilty about almost gutting Draco. I was foolishly waiting for some sort of resolution on that score in DH--oops! > va32h > One sentence - Harry felt a momentary thrill at Carrow's pain, > followed by a twinge of guilt - would have saved the whole scenario > for me. Magpie: Ironically, I think that also proves my point. He tortures someone, so should feel a "twinge of guilt." It's torture. I think an incredibly compassionate character would feel more than that. (Not that Harry has to do that, I'm just saying I don't think he's ever been presented as a model of compassion in the way he's been presented as a model of other things.) -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 01:29:01 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:29:01 -0000 Subject: Malum blah blah blah was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174442 > Magpie: > I probably shouldn't even jump in on this, but it makes my skin crawl > to hear Harry Potter described as a character that's incredibly > compassionate. He has a saving people thing. He's just. He is not all > that compassionate. Alla: I am sorry it makes your skin crawl, but while you are saying that you are much more compassionate than Harry ever was, I was bringing up examples before where I am having incredibly hard time to ever show compassion to killer of my parents AND to the guy who almost killed DD. It is a proof of Harry's humanity to me that this compassionw as short lived, well actually not so short lived as to Draco, but the fact that it was there, I find incredible. And no, I personally do not see proof that Harry is not compassionate since he was not agonising over cutting Draco. And an aside, of the sort. Do you feel compassion towards Harry? Do you think he is worthy of compassion? Alla. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 4 01:33:08 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:33:08 -0000 Subject: What Did Dumbledore Know and When Did He Know It In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174443 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > You know I've been thinking - I'm not sure I believe that > Dumbledore *was* raising Harry to die....Looking at the timeline > of DD's horcrux knowledge, it's not really clear when DD realized > that Harry was a horcrux himself. > It isn't until CoS that Dumbledore has proof that Voldemort has > created a horcrux - the diary. > > The issue of Harry being a Horcrux only becomes pertinent when > Voldemort gets his body back, two years later. And since the same > ceremony that gives Voldemort back his body also gives Harry the > means to come back from death - the problem of Harry having to > sacrifice himself is already solved. > > Rather than Dumbledore raising Harry as a pig for slaughter - I > would say there's about a 40 minute period where Dumbledore fears > that Harry will have to die - permanently - to get rid of > Voldemort permanently. And that's the time period between Harry > saying "he's back" and Harry getting to the part of the story > where Wormtail cuts open his arm. > > Dumbledore really doesn't know everything from the beginning. We > are used to believing that.... > So - was I stupid for initially agreeing with Snape about the pig > for slaughter comment, and everyone else already caught on to this > or am I just a rampant Dumbledore apologist or what? I'm not sure. SSSusan: You know, va32h, I never thought DD was 'raising Harry to die' from the get-go. Like you, I figured there was a lot that DD had to figure out himself over those years between GH and when Voldy's return was confirmed.... I agree with you that it might have been quite some time before DD came to the "Harry has a bit of Voldy!Soul in him and will have to die" conclusion. However, the sticking point for me is that it appeared DD *did* still believe Harry would have to die, even after he understood about Wormtail cutting open Harry's arm. I know you've postulated that he only believed it for a few short moments, but is that so? Am I getting too hung up on what DD said to Snape? Was DD lying to Snape (or, if you prefer, 'not telling the complete story' to Snape) when he told him that, yes, Harry would need to die as well? Because if he WASN'T lying to Snape about this belief (and, yes, he could always have been wrong but if he *believed* he was not), then that means he didn't give the information to the one person who deserved to have it: Harry himself. I'll state that upon re-reading the last few chapters, I was *less* angry with DD about not revealing this part of "I've told you everything." His claim that Harry should only be told at the very last moment, otherwise how could he bear it, seemed to fit the way Harry behaved once he did hear the news. But still! Harry only had a few moments to process that information, and of course he was in shock to learn it. How do we know how Harry would have reacted if, say, he'd been given the information that DD believed Harry needed to die two years earlier? WOULD he have been unable to bear the burden? Or did he deserve to know what he would be facing if he elected to face it? Or am I missing the point altogether? Did DD not really believe Harry would have to die, and he just lied to Snape? Thoughts? Opinions? Siriusly Snapey Susan From muellem at bc.edu Sat Aug 4 02:21:23 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:21:23 -0000 Subject: What Did Dumbledore Know and When Did He Know It In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174444 SSSusan wrote: > Or am I missing the point altogether? Did DD not really believe > Harry would have to die, and he just lied to Snape? > > Thoughts? Opinions? > colebiancardi: As I am not all together thrilled with the version 3.4.7 Dumbledore, the only saving grace for him, in my eyes, is that he didn't know for sure and he didn't lie to Snape. The only thing that I can think of that could back up my PoV is that conversation in King's Cross - where DD & Harry discuss the Elder Wand and Snape's demise: DD speaking: "Poor Severus...." "If you planned your death with Snape, you meant him to end up with the Elder Wand, didn't you?" "I admit that was my intention," said Dumbledore, "but it did not work as I intended, did it?" "No," said Harry. "That bit didn't work out." The creature behind them jerked and moaned, and Harry and Dumbledore sat without talking for the longest time yet. DH US Hardcover p 721 Dumbledore is not a seer. He makes guesses, as he states about the whole Harry death thing (p710) His guesses have been usually good (paraphrasing DD here), but he *has* made mistakes before. He failed to save Harry's parents, he failed to convince them to make him the Secret Keeper; he failed to see that Sirius was not the murderer; he failed at recognizing Fake!Mad-Eye; he failed at recognizing that Snape & Harry would not work well at the Occlumency lessons - just to name a few. DD was taking a calculated risk here. He told Snape the worst case scenerio, imho. I do agree that Harry could not know his fate until the last possible moment - otherwise, Harry might get cold feet or try to find another solution instead. Heck, I would. DD is the general in this war. He does put people he cares about at risk. I do not believe he was lying to Snape about "Harry must die" - DD knew that was a possible outcome. I think DD *left* out the other outcome on purpose, however. If DD told Snape about his guesses, would Snape have held back the "Harry must die" possible outcome? He might. Afterall, Snape's reasons were for Lily and by proxy, Lily's only offspring. JMHO colebiancardi From andie1 at earthlink.net Sat Aug 4 02:19:48 2007 From: andie1 at earthlink.net (grindieloe) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:19:48 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174445 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > > Quite frankly, I am still not sure Snape *used* an AK - we never got > that question truly answered in this book. Snape could have just > released DD from the effects of the potion that slowed down DD's > death. But I could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time. > colebiancardi > Snape does not use a nonverbal spell when killing DD. He actually says the incantation (AK). I understand the the resentment many seem to have in Harry using the unforgiveables, but THIS IS WAR! There are things that happen in the during a war that certainly would not be called for anywhere else. The Carrows were using Crucio for detentions for students! No, that doesn't make it great that Harry used it, but Harry is human. This does not tarnish Harry's moral fiber for me. He is still a heroic, selfless person; it is precicely these moments that he becomes even more real to me. He does occasionally succumb to the dark side of himself - just as the rest of us sometimes do. Bottom line - Harry is a hero... unforgiveables or not. grindieloe From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 4 02:54:00 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:54:00 -0000 Subject: Malum blah blah blah was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174446 > Alla: > > I am sorry it makes your skin crawl, but while you are saying that > you are much more compassionate than Harry ever was, I was bringing > up examples before where I am having incredibly hard time to ever > show compassion to killer of my parents AND to the guy who almost > killed DD. It is a proof of Harry's humanity to me that this > compassionw as short lived, well actually not so short lived as to > Draco, but the fact that it was there, I find incredible. > > And no, I personally do not see proof that Harry is not > compassionate since he was not agonising over cutting Draco. > > And an aside, of the sort. Do you feel compassion towards Harry? Do > you think he is worthy of compassion? Magpie: Is Harry worthy of compassion? Absolutely! I can't imagine why he wouldn't be--the very word "deserving" surprised me. I don't think of it as exactly something that people deserve or don't. I should clarify, that when I say I'm ahead of Harry, I don't mean I'm better than he is, or that I would necessarily be better than he is if I were in his shoes. It's that as a reader, I'm ahead of him that way--it's one of the reasons the whole ending winds up to me feeling like just a big missed opportunity, almost as if Harry forgot to get rid of a Horcrux. To give an example where Harry is ahead of me, Harry seems to me to be very just. He's always quick to respond where he sees what he thinks is an innocent being mistreated. For instance, when Draco takes Neville's Rememberall and Harry jumps in, "Give it back!" and all that, even with Neville not there, I say: this is a thing for this kid. This injustice bothers him more than it bothers me. Harry's more demanding about justice than I am. With regards to Sectumsempra, for instance--and correct me if I'm wrong because I don't mean to speak for you, but just from the way you've described it here--it seems like you're more like Harry in this way. It's impressive that Harry feels compassion because of who Draco is and what he's done. It seems like Justice is a big factor there. I think if Harry was a character that was about compassion as I understand it (and given JKR described Ginny in HBP as warm and compassionate it seems like she may also be also thinking about what I'm calling justice more than what I think of as compassion too) it seems like the whole story would just be different because he's react to things so differently. I admit I imagine there'd be a lot more connection with some of the bad characters. I don't think it's surprising that the word "bleeding heart" has come up sometimes in response to criticism. I mean, remember, I'm responding to the idea that he's *incredibly compassionate* as if this is an area where he's really exceptional, but even your own post says that his "humanity" makes his compassion short-lived. That kind of reminded me of Lupinlore's post about how Harry forgives Snape because he's "Christ-like" as if again, being a human would make that a lot more difficult. But humans do do things like that. People have different temperments and what's difficult for one person is more natural to another. -m From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Aug 4 03:25:27 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:25:27 -0000 Subject: FILK: I Just Took His Life Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174447 I Just Took His Life To the tune of You Must Meet My Wife from Sondheim's A Riddle Night ? I mean, A Little Night Music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFm_LSTXlaQ Dedicated to CV THE SCENE: The Boy Who Lived and the Lord Who Died waltz their way through DH's final chapter. VOLDEMORT: Of him I am rid, He- Who-Lived lives no more, I guess I'm a little giddy, Help me off the floor. At long last I have won, I'm done with this strife, I just took his life. My curse diabolic, Narcissa confirms, Makes Potter ex-metabolic, He's mere food for worms. I'll use a Crucio to show how he fell I just took his life, my Bell. One hundred times he has escaped me But his funeral I found pleasant What happiness `twill bring to Snapey Oh, but wait, I'd forgotten, he's not in at present . The son of James Potter And Lily, his wife 'Twas so long ago I got her And him with my knife Just watch me now and see how far I can go-- I just took his life, you know. HARRY [aside]: Dear Narcissa, Draco's just longing to see you. In the castle. VOLDEMORT: He crumbles.. HARRY [aside]: So you think. VOLDEMORT: Like Dumble... HARRY [aside]: Not quite. VOLDEMORT: My hexes have caused him to shrink -- HARRY [aside]: This Dark Lord ain't bright. VOLDEMORT: My idiosyncratic . HARRY [aside]: Hor? VOLDEMORT: --crux are rife. I just took his life. HARRY (spoken, aside): Yes, I'll trust. I'll really trust. Now-- VOLDEMORT: Tell Hagrid . HARRY: It's awesome . VOLDEMORT: ..Convey kid . HARRY: .My ruse. VOLDEMORT: .To school. HARRY: Though I am playing possum, Voldy's still obtuse VOLDEMORT: I now reveal a---STOP! HARRY: A Harry inert. VOLDEMORT: Ha! Ha! HARRY: Now? VOLDEMORT: Flop! HARRY: He now speaks of me rude. VOLDEMORT: He's dirt. HARRY: Yet unhurt. VOLDEMORT: The Chosen One, you see him vanquished, By my Killing Curse overpowered. Resistance to me has all been squished, And so triumphs the Devil HARRY (revealing himself to Voldemort): But Neville's No coward! VOLDEMORT: You live on! HARRY: You're livid! VOLDEMORT: Fetch Bella! HARRY: She died. VOLDEMORT: You should have been slain at Privet. HARRY: That wish I've defied. VOLDEMORT: Don't call me any names-- HARRY: Like? VOLDEMORT: "Old Tommy R." HARRY: I'll go that far. VOLDEMORT: I'll re-take your life. HARRY: But you are what you are . VOLDEMORT: My certainties have turned to maybes As you urge me on to repentance. I'd rather be an ugly baby Than relinquish my power -- HARRY: You've earned your death sentence! You're monstrous! VOLDEMORT: I'm fright'ning! HARRY: Unfeeling! VOLDEMORT: Uncursed. I'll strike as the tension's tightening-- HARRY: No, I'll strike you first. VOLDEMORT: My fierce offense, my devastation-- HARRY: You're cursed! VOLDEMORT: No! HARRY: Yes! VOLDEMORT: No! HARRY: Riddle! VOLDEMORT: I just lost my life. HARRY: We'll exult with drum and with fife. VOLDEMORT: What went wrong? HARRY: You just lost your life. VOLDEMORT/ HARRY: Yes, I/you just. Yes, I/you just...... - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated 8/2/07) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 03:28:14 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:28:14 -0000 Subject: Malum blah blah blah was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174448 > Magpie: > Is Harry worthy of compassion? Absolutely! I can't imagine why he > wouldn't be--the very word "deserving" surprised me. I don't think of > it as exactly something that people deserve or don't. Alla: I was only asking if he is deserving of compassion in your mind. Like the extreme example would be to me - Voldemort is not worthy of compassion to me. Magpie: > I should clarify, that when I say I'm ahead of Harry, I don't mean > I'm better than he is, or that I would necessarily be better than he > is if I were in his shoes. It's that as a reader, I'm ahead of him > that way--it's one of the reasons the whole ending winds up to me > feeling like just a big missed opportunity, almost as if Harry forgot > to get rid of a Horcrux. Alla: Then I am not sure I understand. What does it mean you are ahead of him as a reader? Doesn't it mean that you empathise with other characters more than he does? That is what I took it to mean. Magpie: > With regards to Sectumsempra, for instance--and correct me if I'm > wrong because I don't mean to speak for you, but just from the way > you've described it here--it seems like you're more like Harry in > this way. It's impressive that Harry feels compassion because of who > Draco is and what he's done. It seems like Justice is a big factor > there. Alla: Not quite. It is impressive to me not because of who Draco IS, but definitely because of what he did. Like I am not sure if I could feel compassion towards the guy who would just be threatening to kill me and almost succeeded even if I had a weapon to defend myself and that guy would almost died. I know it is a very loose analogy and that Draco was not throwing Avada, but Crucio and in light of book 7 attitude to Unbforgivables, hmmm. But I still see it as Harry defending himself and yes, I find his compassion impressive. Like I do not think that if I later learn about that guy hard childhood or stuff like that, I won't feel anything compassionate towards him, but I think the " he almost killed me" would be the first thing on my mind. Magpie: > I think if Harry was a character that was about compassion as I > understand it (and given JKR described Ginny in HBP as warm and > compassionate it seems like she may also be also thinking about what > I'm calling justice more than what I think of as compassion too) it > seems like the whole story would just be different because he's react > to things so differently. I admit I imagine there'd be a lot more > connection with some of the bad characters. I don't think it's > surprising that the word "bleeding heart" has come up sometimes in > response to criticism. Alla: So basically it all boils down to Harry feeling more for Slytherin and Draco Malfoy? Or other bad guys? I mean, we have no other bad guys. I mean I do not want to speak for you either, but I am asking for clarification. I would like to know what would make you consider Harry to be more compassionate character. Does him feeling for Wormtail counts, because I do not see what justice would be in saving him? Does him offering to go look for Luna's things counts? Feeling for Neville? Feeling for Tom Riddle? Empathising with Snape in the pensieve, despite how Snape treated him all these years? And empathicising with Snape again? You not considering Harry to be extremely compassionate does not make my skin crawl , but I am curious what would it take for you to consider Harry compassionate? I mean, I consider his compassion to be well beyond average, but am wondering what would it take for you. Magpie: > I mean, remember, I'm responding to the idea that he's *incredibly > compassionate* as if this is an area where he's really exceptional, > but even your own post says that his "humanity" makes his compassion > short-lived. Alla: Well, yes, I do not consider his compassion to be perfect, but certainly beyond average. It WAS short lived. The fact that he was **able** to feel it at all for the killer of his parents, I find it fascinating. I find that JKR showed me glimpses of extraordinary compassion Harry can have and yeah, that culminates in Snape. I think she symbolises it in Harry at Kings cross trying to help even Riddle's soul, even though as DD says it is beyond our help. So, does Harry shows it all the time? Surely not, but what he shows I find amasing. Showing compassion for Luna IS pretty normal stuff, although Harry evolves as well IMO, showing compassion for Riddle? Um, no for me it is not. Magpie: That kind of reminded me of Lupinlore's post about how > Harry forgives Snape because he's "Christ-like" as if again, being a > human would make that a lot more difficult. But humans do do things > like that. People have different temperments and what's difficult for > one person is more natural to another. Alla: Harry saw Snape's memories, that was it and he forgave him. Somebody on another site wrote something to the effect ( NO, believe it or not it was not me :)) that she finds it beyond incredible that Harry could forgive six year emotional torture like that. I can only say me too. I am sure people do that. I do not know many people who do it easily. That is not to say that people whom I know hate the people who hurt them, but they often move on, they do NOT name their kid after such people and they do not call such people the bravest person they ever knew. I mean, I am loosely analogising obviously, I knew of couple occurrences that are rather loose, not like everybody of my friends has a person to forgive I am aware of, I am just talking of what I know, that's all. So, yeah I find what Harry did pretty impressive. We are not just talking about nasty teacher after all, we are talking about somebody without whom Harry life could have been much much better overall. JMO, Alla. From amylpark at comcast.net Sat Aug 4 03:22:42 2007 From: amylpark at comcast.net (rncamy1956) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:22:42 -0000 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174449 > > Juli: > > I don't think that Voldie's soul in Harry made him cast those > > curses, he did it all on his own, and he meant every single > > one of them. > colebiancardi: > ahhh, the *greater good* argument. I was waiting for this one > to show up - LOL > Well, there are also those arguments against the *greater good* > - such as "the ends do not justify the means" and "two wrongs > don't make a right". You might also want to note that each time he used an unforgivable curse, it was with the wand he had won from Draco. Ollivander said something about the wands personalities and if Draco's wand chose him it might be more inclined to cast an unforgivable curse. Especially since Draco had already cast them in the 6th book. Amy From muellem at bc.edu Sat Aug 4 03:38:43 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:38:43 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174450 >> colebiancardi wrote: > > Quite frankly, I am still not sure Snape *used* an AK - we never got > > that question truly answered in this book. Snape could have just > > released DD from the effects of the potion that slowed down DD's > > death. But I could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time. > > colebiancardi > > > grindieloe wrote: > Snape does not use a nonverbal spell when killing DD. He actually > says the incantation (AK). > colebiancardi: For a fact? I don't remember reading this in DH's. Is this something that JKR said in her interview? I read all of the questions/answers that were posted in livejournal, but I don't remember seeing that she verified that Snape did do an actual AK. This was one of the hot topics after HBP - did Snape actually perform the AK, or was it something else - a non-verbal spell and the AK didn't work, because he didn't *mean* it. I am very interested to see canon on this one. colebiancardi From mariabronte at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 03:52:23 2007 From: mariabronte at yahoo.com (Mari) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:52:23 -0000 Subject: DD as manipulator? A long response. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174451 This topic seems to be causing a great deal of angst on the list. Since I share Carol's revulsion to the idea of DD as a cold hearted manipulator, I'd like to offer my reading of the situation in response to eggplant's and lupinlore's posts on DD as a Godfather type figure who led Snape, Harry or both 'like a pig to the slaughter' for the sake of some kind of abstract 'greater good'. For me the key to reading the meaning of DD's actions is contained in events in the previous books, as much as DH itself. Let's begin with Chamber of Secrets. This is arguably the first possible point in JKR's narrative timeline where we can assume that DD at least suspected that Riddle had made horcruxes. This idea is supported by JKR's statements, at the time that HBP came out, that much material that was only included in HBP in the end had originally been in CoS. The discovery of the diary and its destruction is a major piece of the puzzle about what happened when the Potters were killed, and why Harry survived, and the beginning of DD putting the various pieces together in his mind. Fast forward to Goblet of Fire. Voldemort has been reborn, and DD finds out he has used Harry's blood. The 'gleam of triumph' in his eyes upon being told this information which was so heavily discussed in the group at the time, seems to me an indication that DD knew or strongly suspected that by using Harry's blood, Voldemort had sealed his own downfall without knowing it, because Voldemort now shared the protection of Lily's blood, and thus if he attempted to kill Harry the curse would rebound on him as before. Tom Riddle, as usual, has proved short sighted. Through book five and six, though I can't pin down the timing precisely, I assume that DD was trying to find confirmation that the horcruxes had been made (which he got when Harry gave him Slughhorn's memory.)At some point before this he has discovered one horcrux unwittingly, though his interest in it was because it was the resurrection ring, as we now know. Thus, in book six, DD knows, or possibly guesses, the following: 1)Though Harry shares part of Voldemort's soul, Voldemort ALSO has a part of Harry's, albeit in a different way, through the blood protection. 2) Harry has to be willing to die for the piece of Voldemort's soul that is lodged inside him to be destroyed. 3) Because Voldemort and Harry share the same blood, Voldemort, when he attempts to kill Harry, is also killing a part of himself. 4) In order for the protective function of the blood sacrifice to operate, Harry must be willing to die for the sake of others, just as his mother was willing to die for his sake. 5)In order for this to play out as it should, Harry has to know that he must be willing to die for the sake of defeating Voldemort, and also that he must allow Voldemort to do it without fighting back. Unfortunately, this being the case, Harry CANNOT have the whole truth about the blood protection before he has completed his task. Looking at what DD says to Harry in OotP, I see plenty of evidence that DD knows these things, and feels TERRIBLE at the thought of what Harry must undergo. He explicitly refers to the conflict that he is undergoing, and now at the end of DH we know it was a conflict between three competing things; one, Harry's right to know the truth, two, the necessity, at this stage, to NOT give him the full truth if he is to have ANY chance to survive the battle with Voldemort, for the reasons set out above, and three, his own love for Harry and the conflict this causes him at seeing Harry be caught up in things beyond anyone's control. In HBP we see DD move towards his death with great dignity and compassion, for Harry, Draco, and we now know, Snape. We learn in DH that DD has made some terrible choices in his past, and that he has spent the rest of his life trying to atone for them. The things that the potion in the cave in HBP made him see are explained. My feeling is that the potion makes the drinker re live their worst memory. For DD this is the fact that he caused the death of his sister. If DD has such intense horror and regret at his role in his sister's death, if he is pleading with Snape to go through with what he has to do at his own death because he KNOWS how hard this task is for the man who he has trusted more than any other,and if his internal conflicts about Harry's role in Voldemort's defeat are also made evident in OotP, these things need to be borne in mind when reading DD's overall role as revealed in DH. For me the textual evidence over the series as whole shows the reader that DD, like Snape, has made choices he regrets in the past, and has spent the remainder of his life working to atone for this mistake, no matter how hard it may be for him personally. A Godfather figure would not have acknowledged the difficulty, or felt any conflict inside himself, about what he had asked Harry and Snape to be prepared to do on his behalf. As for Snape being a 'pig to the slaughter' I personally don't see this at all. Yes, things didn't go to plan, as DD admits in the Kings Cross chapter, but what was the plan in the first place? Snape didn't have to DIE in order to become Master of the Elder Wand, it was VOLDEMORT who thought so. For me a big part of the impact of Snape's death scene lies in precisely the fact that he did NOT die as a part of some grand pre arranged plan. Voldemort, being who he was, struck Snape down without a shred of mercy, compassion or remorse, for no purpose but his own ends. DD's sorrow for Snape's death, like his compassion for Snape at the moment of his own death, and his compassion for Harry, which is what makes it so difficult for DD to do what he must (i.e withhold the whole truth from Harry, and some of the whole truth from Snape)for me read as very genuine. Unlike Voldemort DD sees those who serve him, at great risk to their own lives, as human beings, and this is what causes him pain. He has learned, as a result of his experience with the Deathly Hallows, to be wary of putting the greater good over individual human beings, and throughout the series we see him questioning his choices because of these conflicting interests. Just my twopence worth on this issue which I hope makes some kind of sense :-) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 4 04:01:48 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 04:01:48 -0000 Subject: Malum blah blah blah was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174452 > Alla: > > Not quite. It is impressive to me not because of who Draco IS, but > definitely because of what he did. > > Like I am not sure if I could feel compassion towards the guy who > would just be threatening to kill me and almost succeeded even if I > had a weapon to defend myself and that guy would almost died. > > I know it is a very loose analogy and that Draco was not throwing > Avada, but Crucio and in light of book 7 attitude to Unbforgivables, > hmmm. But I still see it as Harry defending himself and yes, I find > his compassion impressive. > > Like I do not think that if I later learn about that guy hard > childhood or stuff like that, I won't feel anything compassionate > towards him, but I think the " he almost killed me" would be the > first thing on my mind. Magpie: Can't argue with that--if somebody was going to kill me and I defended myself I think that'd be the first thing on my mind too. > Magpie: > > I think if Harry was a character that was about compassion as I > > understand it (and given JKR described Ginny in HBP as warm and > > compassionate it seems like she may also be also thinking about > what > > I'm calling justice more than what I think of as compassion too) > it > > seems like the whole story would just be different because he's > react > > to things so differently. I admit I imagine there'd be a lot more > > connection with some of the bad characters. I don't think it's > > surprising that the word "bleeding heart" has come up sometimes in > > response to criticism. > > > Alla: > > So basically it all boils down to Harry feeling more for Slytherin > and Draco Malfoy? Or other bad guys? I mean, we have no other bad > guys. I mean I do not want to speak for you either, but > I am asking for clarification. I would like to know what would make > you consider Harry to be more compassionate character. > > Does him feeling for Wormtail counts, because I do not see what > justice would be in saving him? Does him offering to go look > for Luna's things counts? Feeling for Neville? Feeling for Tom > Riddle? Magpie: Well, yeah, given that it's the bad characters that are more difficult to feel compassion for. Basically, I think it goes off in the wrong direction to make it about Harry and what would make him more compassionate, because Harry is who he is. I don't have a problem with Harry. But I think that the story Harry is in just doesn't ultimately say anything that significant about compassion. It just seems like there's a bit too much spotlight put on moments that aren't that big of a deal when it comes to this rather than it feeling like a bit concern that the author is exploring. Like when Harry sees Snape's memories in the Pensieve it doesn't really feel like a big emotional moment for me. Harry's reaction is fine, I've got no problem with it. I don't really have something that he *should* have done because like I said I don't think it's a flaw in Harry I think it's just I read these 7 books and they really didn't seem real big on this subject so no, it's not something I much associate with Harry. He's compassionate when he needs to be compassionate (though I can't think of any moment in all of canon when I was *impressed* by Harry's ability to feel it-- including the scene where he gets involved in Riddle the orphan's story and identifies with him for a second). When he sees Snape's tale of how he loved his mother and protected him he no longer hates him, it's fine (I think it would also be possible to write a story with this kind of teacher where the kid winds up feeling the same compassion without quite that dramatic a revelation as well). But when I think of the series, of which Harry is the center, I really think it's heart lies more in the justice angle. I believe it might have been Jessica Mitford who said something about how we can't always protect the innocent but we can punish the guilty, and that sentiment just seems far more where the heart of the series is, with all those delicious smack downs that are so well- deserved. But obviously I now realize I phrased it in a way that was rude and suggested other peoples' opinions were invalid. I apologize for that.I really wasn't thinking about other peoples' opinions being invalid, but was disturbed at the ideas in the story being put across as being compassionate when I found the series so lacking in it. I don't think it's wrong to think that Harry is being compassionate in any of these scenes, it's just that to me making this an extreme trait of his character is probably like what it sounds like to other people when they hear that Snape's really the victim in his relationship with Harry or something. Also, just to make this clear, my use of the phrase "makes my skin crawl" was badly chosen. It was supposed to be a joke on my jumping in to post at all, like saying that I knew I was being annoying but I had an allergic reaction to hearing this so was compelled to post. I didn't mean that people thinking Harry was compassionate made my skin crawl because it was so stupid or anything like that. It was supposed to be a joke on my overreaction and need to post about it. -m From mariabronte at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 04:54:45 2007 From: mariabronte at yahoo.com (Mari) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 04:54:45 -0000 Subject: brief correction to previous "DD as manipulator?" post Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174453 The paragraph that begins 'As for Snape being a 'pig to the slaughter' Instead of writing 'Snape didn't have to DIE to become master of the elder wand, it was Voldemort who thought so' I meant to write: "Snape didn't have to DIE, whether the plan was for him to become the Master of the Elder Wand or for the wand to have no master. It was VOLDEMORT who thought that Snape was the master of the wand and thus that he had to be killed. " sorry about that. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 06:07:48 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:07:48 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: <389F512E-E582-4BDC-9A95-C4588516A3EE@hitthenail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174454 > Maeg, > > So why does the WW call them the "Unforgivable" Curses? Why not > just call them the "Illegal" Curses? JKR chose that word, and I > don't think it was chosen lightly. If it was just about the law, > then why bring a highly charged, emotional word like > "unforgivable" into it? Mike: "Illegal" Curses doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. ;) These three curses have their own names, then they get this additional name tacked on. By who? Who does JKR envision naming these three as UCs? I suggested it was the Ministry, not the WW in general. I also suggested it was a legal construct, which I think is confirmed when Sirius informed the Trio that Crouch Sr authorized their use by his aurors. Crouch!Moody was the one that told us they garnered one an automatic life sentence. At the time we all assumed it was coming from Moody the Auror. Can we not reassess this statement in light of the fact that it was delivered by a convicted DE? Because it certainly doesn't seem that they are truly "unforgivable", does it? Crouch Jr said they were OK for his aurors. Umbridge, a Ministry official, was prepared to use one in front of 12 witnesses. And Dumbledore seemed to think it was OK for Snape to use one on himself. I am forced to conclude that "Unforgivable" was a Ministry manufactured legal construct, that the Ministry could also suspend. Please remember, it is the curses themselves that are named unforgivable, not murder, torture nor mind control. I am not arguing in favor of murder, torture or mind control as acceptable, I am arguing against these three curses themselves being what is morally unacceptable. More below on this. > Alla: > Hmmmm, I had always thought that the concept of Unforgivables is > immoral as well as illegal, but now I am sitting here and trying > to figure out what in canon lead me to think that. > Because surely all the reasons you stated and I snipped ( DE in > disguise introducing curses, Ministry being the one imposing > sentence in Azkaban, etc) to me should show their illegality and > really has nothing to do with morality. ---and--- > Leah: > The problem with all of this, Alla, is that the clear message of > the early books was that the Unforgiveables were just that. We > didn't get any presentation of moral or legal ambiguity, we not > only got Crouch!Moody and Bella, we got reinforcement from Sirius, > who, as I have said could have easily just hinted at another view, > we got Neville's reaction in CrouchMoody's lesson, we got Gran > Longbottom, "My son and his wife were tortured into insanity by > Death Eaters", we got Snape's "No unforgiveables for you, Potter". Mike: As I said above, we were distinctly told by Sirius that the Ministry itself allowed it's employees to perform Unforgivables. Doesn't that argue against this artificial name? How can they be "unforgivable" if their use can be forgiven by the people that gave them the name and enforce the unforgivableness? If Bella and company had tortured the Longbottoms by tying them up and using Aguamenti for water torture, do you think Gran would be less outraged over her son and daughter-in-law's insanity? IOW, isn't it the fact that the Longbottoms were **tortured** that matters and not what curse was used? Gran didn't even mention the curse. And in light of Snape's own moral ambiguity, plus the fact that he had just used one himself not for sinister design, I now greatly discount his words to Harry in HBP. I too thought JKR was giving us a clue with Snape's words. Turns out I was wrong, turns out it was another red herring. And it turns out TEWW EWWW was Snape's ultimate moral compass. Snape's credibility is greatly diminished in my eyes. > Mike earlier: > Throw out the artificial moral construct attached to the UCs, > would you still have a problem with how and why Harry uses > Imperious here? Sherry: Yes, I would, and I do. And I am and always have been a Harry supporter, and he's my favorite character. I've never argued that the simple illegality of the Unforgivable Curses is what should prevent people using them. Taking away someone's will, basically, a magical form of mind control, is wrong, morally wrong. Torturing someone, for *any* reason is wrong, morally wrong, to me anyway. It's never acceptable, unlike the way killing can be acceptable in time of war, or by law enforcement or in self-defense. Mike: Yes Sherry, I agree with you and said so in my previous post and in this post above. Murder, torture and mind enslavement are what is wrong. But wizards don't think logically they think magically. They didn't make torture unforgivable they made the Crutiatus Curse unforgivable because it *can* be used to torture. By extension, that means water torture with Aguamenti is not prohibited by this law, at least it's not unforgivable. You and I find this absurd, of course torture is wrong under any method. That's our morality talking. But I didn't hear anybody from the Ministry saying that. Why? I submit it's because they think magically, they zero in on spells not on moral constructs. And that's why I consider the unforgivables legally prohibited, not morally prohibited. It should be how and why one uses the curses that determine their legality. Likewise, I submit we should look at any spell in context to determine the morality, and not assume that simply because the ministry labelled them "Unforgivable" their use must automatically be considered morally bankrupt. > Alla: I would have zero problem with it - it is just I am still struggling with whether such moral component is artificial or not. "Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects. I would say he became as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side. " - became as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark side. What is it if not the implication that Unforgivables are Immoral despite Crouch making them legal? ---and--- > Sherry cont.: My objection was always based on my view of what the previous morality of the books had been, not on anything to do with the Ministry and its supposed laws. I'm not objecting to anything else the Trio did on the basis of its ministry approval or lack thereof. I was deeply disappointed that Harry could so easily stoop to using the weapons of his enemies. Mind control and torture just aren't excusable, to me at least. Mike: I spoke to both of your concerns in my previous post. Let me elaborate further. It is my contention that the spell caster's intent matters in magic and that the same spell can be used by different wizards for different effects because of their intent. Bella said this in the MoM fight about the unforgivables and Harry mimiced her in the Ravenclaw common room against Carrow with the same spell. I also purported that one's magical strength (Sirius called it being "powerfully magical" in GoF) determines not only the strength of the spell but also how the spell manifests itself. Was Harry attempting to *torture* Carrow? Or was he attempting to incapacitate Carrow with a spell that also caused pain? The result: "The Death Eater was lifted off his feet. He writhed through the air like a drowning man, thrashing and howling in pain, and then, with a crunch and a shattering of glass, he smashed into the front oa a bookcase and crumpled, insensible, to the floor." We saw LV crucio Wormtail, Avery and Harry in Gof, Bella got Neville in OotP and Yaxley did Harry in HBP. None of these caused the victim to "writhe through the air". So was Harry trying to torture Carrow, or was he using Crucio to incapacitate Carrow with the added benefit of causing pain? It should be obvious what I think Harry's intent was. I think he was going for incapacitation. Voldemort wasn't trying to incapacitate with his, he wanted to cause pain and wanted his victims conscious to experience that pain. Even if others disagree with intent, I find it a stretch to call Harry's Crucio *torture*. It certainly no way approaches what Bella and Company did to the Longbottoms. > Leah: Crucio is a spell which, properly used, causes extreme pain in the victim. There is no purpose in casting Crucio other than in causing extreme pain. If you use Crucio you must intend to intend to cause them pain. I can't think of a reason for using Crucio other than for the intent to cause pain when other spells such as Stupefy etc etc exist. Mike: After Narcissa lied to Voldemort and said Harry was dead, what did Voldemort do? He hit Harry with several Crucios. Harry said LV did it to subject his body to humiliation. And though Harry was actually alive, he felt little pain. He was also lifted off the ground by these Crucios. It seems that Voldemort's intent mattered as to how these Crucios manifested themselves, similiar to what Harry's intent up in the Ravenclaw Tower did to Carrow. Not exact because their intents were not the same, but similiar. Would one argue that Voldemort does not know how to properly use a Crutiatus Curse? Or is it possible that one can use the same curse for different intents, to achieve different outcomes? I would like to respond to more regarding the use of unforgivables. But it's getting late and this post is long enough. :) Mike PS - Yours was one Magpie, hope to get back to you tomorrow. ;) From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Aug 4 06:36:11 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:36:11 -0000 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174455 > Alla: > > Oh my dear God. I just realised something. This is would do as > addemdum to my previous post, but may as well stand alone. > > Who said that you should mean them in the first place? One DE and > another DE, no? > > Who said that they were telling the truth. Especially Bella??? > > Alla. > The use of the unforgiveables by Harry and Co. doesn't really bother me. Frankly I cheered when Remus took Harry to task for fighting with the gloves on. I was just amazed at how easy they were to cast. I it stunned me when Crabbe and Goyle can throw around killing curses like they were going out of style. I thought they were supposed to be difficult! phoenixgod2000 From leahstill at hotmail.com Sat Aug 4 09:33:37 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 09:33:37 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174456 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > Mike: > "Illegal" Curses doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. ;) These three > curses have their own names, then they get this additional name > tacked on. By who? Who does JKR envision naming these three as UCs? I > suggested it was the Ministry, not the WW in general. I also > suggested it was a legal construct, which I think is confirmed when > Sirius informed the Trio that Crouch Sr authorized their use by his > aurors. Leah: JKR was specifically asked in a webchat/inteview post-DH why Harry used Unforgiveable Curses. Her not very (IMO) satisfactory response was along the lines of Harry only being human. The questioner had clearly been disturbed by the hero using something designated as Unforgiveable. If the term Unforgiveable was indeed a Ministry construct and these curses were no better or worse than torturing someone using Augmento or whatever, intent was all, it is surprising that JKR did not take this opportunity to clarify this point. You clearly believe there would be canon to support this take. The fact that she didn't and in my view failed to deal satisfactorily with the question indicates to me that the 'Ministry construct' was not something that she had in mind. As I and others have said, the very distinct impression given by Sirius' narrative is that whether the Unforgiveables have been made legal or not by the Ministry, their use has a detrimentally moral effect on users. My problem with Harry's use of Unforgiveables is not whether they actually are worse or better than any other form of inflicting harm through curses or hexes, but the fact that IMO and obviously that of a number of other posters to this and other boards, they have been presented as such. This view is also expressed indirectly by other posters, someone for example pointed out that Harry was casting Unforgiveables using Draco's wand, and Carol pointed out that after his near-death experience, Harry did not use Unforgiveables, and, I think I am right in saying, she attributed their use to the Voldesoul in Harry. What is therefore problematic for me is that we are presented with one view in six books and then a volte face in the final book which is not satisfactorily explained or dealt with, leaving the readership to come up with their own justifications/explanations. What the book appears to give us is the wholly unsatisfactory justification that it's ok for the good guys to use the Unforgiveables by the simple fact that they are the good guys. Leah From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 09:57:30 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 02:57:30 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: References: <389F512E-E582-4BDC-9A95-C4588516A3EE@hitthenail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40708040257i11e066dbkeebb7c0e70a5b16c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174457 > > Leah: > > Crucio is a spell which, properly used, causes extreme pain in the > victim. There is no purpose in casting Crucio other than in causing > extreme pain. If you use Crucio you must intend to intend to cause > them pain. I can't think of a reason for using Crucio other than for > the intent to cause pain when other spells such as Stupefy etc etc > exist. > > Mike: > After Narcissa lied to Voldemort and said Harry was dead, what did > Voldemort do? He hit Harry with several Crucios. Harry said LV did it > to subject his body to humiliation. And though Harry was actually > alive, he felt little pain. He was also lifted off the ground by > these Crucios. > > It seems that Voldemort's intent mattered as to how these Crucios > manifested themselves, similiar to what Harry's intent up in the > Ravenclaw Tower did to Carrow. Not exact because their intents were > not the same, but similiar. Would one argue that Voldemort does not > know how to properly use a Crutiatus Curse? Or is it possible that > one can use the same curse for different intents, to achieve > different outcomes? Kemper now: I don't the Cruciatus Curse worked properly on Harry because Voldemort's wand, the Elder Wand, was rightfully the person Voldemort was Crucio-ing. If I understand wand-lore and the Elder Wand's lore, then Voldemort's use of the wand is lacking a connection. Yes, Voldemort is a powerful wizard and has used Lucius wand to kill the Muggle Studies professor, but the Elder Wand's effectiveness seems to be determined by other magic than normal wands. Not sure if that other magic is Ancient (Death) or different (Elder Twig). Even if Voldemort used the wand effectively, I can't see him considering whether he's using the curse appropriately or not. That would be out-of-character for him. Like Harry using an Unforgivable. ;) Kemper From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 10:05:15 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 03:05:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40708040305i44a2f294lbcf5dc09bd59c7c0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174458 > phoenixgod2000: > The use of the unforgiveables by Harry and Co. doesn't really bother > me. Frankly I cheered when Remus took Harry to task for fighting with > the gloves on. > > I was just amazed at how easy they were to cast. I it stunned me when > Crabbe and Goyle can throw around killing curses like they were going > out of style. I thought they were supposed to be difficult! Kemper now: As Dark Arts were taught at Hogwarts it makes sense that Professor Carrow would at least have his NEWT level classes practice the AK on some spiders or mice... maybe an House Elf during private lessons. Kemper From autr61 at dsl.pipex.com Sat Aug 4 10:24:58 2007 From: autr61 at dsl.pipex.com (sylviampj) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 10:24:58 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174459 > > Allie: > > > > You'll see them called "children's books" over and over in the media > > and elsewhere, but I don't think that was actually the author's > > intent. I've read in more than one place where JKR has said that she > > wasn't writing "children's" books, she just wrote the story that she > > envisioned, and it was purchased in the US by Bloomsbury, a children's > > book publisher. There are mythology and literature references in the > > books that most children wouldn't understand. > > Geoff: > Permit me to correct you in saying that the books were first published > by Bloomsbury who are a UK publisher. > > It was /after/ this that Scholastic started to produce the books in the > US.>>>> PS was rejected by eight publishers in the UK before being accepted by Bloomsbury on the strength of the recommendation of the chairman's eight year old daughter who read the first couple of chapters and was entranced. In a recent interview the chairman, Nigel Newton said "It was very fortunate for us, ..... We'd only just started to publish children's books in June 1994. And we hit it lucky." I suppose that it is difficult to arrive at a definition of what exactly constitutes a book for children. But the fact is that PS was taken on by Bloomsbury as a children's book and was edited and marketed as such. The whole style and tone of the book suggests this. I don't think the literary and mythological references mean that it wasn't for children. Many adults wouldn't understand them and a proportion of well-read and intelligent children would. Sylvia. > From ciraarana at yahoo.de Sat Aug 4 11:07:17 2007 From: ciraarana at yahoo.de (Cira Arana) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 13:07:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: DH - unanswered (and irritating) questions Message-ID: <724438.65798.qm@web25906.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174460 ciraarana: > Q: Why didn't Snape know about the Horcurxes? He's a Dark wizard. > Voldemort is boasting about his near immortality. Snape is a clever > man. Why didn't he know?? Nate: What makes you say that he didn't know? Just because he wasn't actively pursuing them doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't know about them. Cira: I inferred that from the memories in which he talks to Dumbledore. To me, none of those sound as though he had the faintest idea of what was going on; like he was wondering why DD had attacked the ring with Gryffindor's sword, etc. Maybe it's just me, but I got the feeling that he didn't know. And he knew that DD wasn't telling him something, and it made him extremely cross. And I really do wonder why he didn't know. As I said before, finding out other people's secrets is what he does, and he does it well. ciraarana: > Q: Where is Snape's portrait?? He was Headmaster of Hogwarts. We > saw how their portraits pop up after their death. And I'm sure > Harry would have noticed Snape's portrait. So, where is it?? Nate: Again, in the webchat that Rowling had earlier this week, she says that he doesn't have one. Her reasoning was that Snape had technically left his post as Headmaster before he died (when he flew away) and thus wouldn't have a portrait. However, she did say that Harry would try and get him one. Cira: Yeah, I know she said that. But when I compiled the questions, she hadn't yet said it, and all I had to go by was an obvious discrepancy of canon facts. ciraarana: > Q: Snape wasn't yet teaching at Hogwarts when he approached > Dumbledore with the plea to keep Lily safe (otherwise they wouldn't > have met at the hilltop). So, when did that interview take place? > and why did it take Voldemort so long to find the Potters? They > only went into hiding a week before they were murdered. Nate: Where did you read that it was a week? I took it to be much longer than that. After all, the prediction speaks of a someone that WILL BE BORN that has the power to vanquish the dark lord; therefore, Snape will have told Voldemort about the prophecy more than a year before murder. As soon as Harry was born (still more than a year before James and Lill die) Voldy would think that Harry is his threat, prompting Snape to see Dumbledore. Cira: Hagrid said the Potters had been killed a week after they had gone into hiding, right back in PS/SS. And I guess the time that elapsed between the making of the prophecy and the murder of the Potters to be something like two years. And the Potters only went into hiding one week before Halloween. What was Voldi doing all the time? ciraarana: > Q: Snape approached Voldemort with the plea to not kill Lily? And > Voldemort agreed? He agreed to not kill a "Mudblood"?? (And he did > agree, didn't he, because he gave Lily the choice to step away.) > Looking at Voldemort's policy ... Are we supposed to accept that? Nate: Admittedly, this was a little suspect to me as well. That being said, Voldemort obviously doesn't care too much about the request, as he kills her anyway when he could have easiler stunned / moved / cursed around her. Cira: Well, I wouldn't say he doesn't care much about the request. After all, the told her THREE TIMES to get away. And he didn't have to say it even once, if he was going to kill her after all. I think he was doing his "best" to honour the request. Only when Lily stubbornly refused to step aside he lost patience and killed her. However, about Snape making the request in the first place, someone else - I forgot her name, sorry - suggested that Snape might have told Voldemort he wanted to revenge himself on James by raping his wife. And surely Voldemort would have understood that. Nate: Agreed, this was strange. I only have two possible answers. 1.) We aren't ever told for sure that it was longer than hour (I don't think), though some of them seem unlikely to be that short, mainly trying to get the locket. 2.) At one point, something is mentioned about taking a large amount of potion, maybe taking more than one does has a longer effect? Cira 1) There was one time when it was mentioned to be longer than an hour. I think the trip to Godric's Hollow. And, I mean, looking at it rationally: Harry and Hermione Apparate there, stroll through the village, search the graveyard, walk to the Potters' house, meet Bathilda and walk back to her house, and then the snake keeps Harry occupied - that should take more than one hour! 2) Yep, that's the explanation I came up with as well. The only problem I have with it: why weren't we told before? Or why aren't we told at all? I mean, it wouldn't have been all that difficult to have Hermione (for example) say that she not only nicked Moody's batch but improved on it to make it last longer (whether that be possible or not is another question). ciraarana: > Q: Harry peering in on Voldemort. Excuse me, but Voldemort is the > one who is in control of the connection. During HBP, he kept it > shut. And now, suddenly, Harry can creep in again? Without > Voldemort noticing? And Voldemort didn't even once use the > connection to try something like he did with Sirius? He never used > it to look in on Harry and see where the boy was? Nate: Remember, the only reason he knew about the connection in OotP was because Harry knew about Mr. Weasley, meaning he didn't feel Harry entering his mind, but knew because of the knowledge Harry gained from it. In that same webchat with Rowling, she said that LV was still implementing Occlumency, but was losing control. Cira: That explaines why Harry was able to look into Voldemort's mind. But I still don't know why Voldemort didn't ONCE TRY to look into Harry's. Nate: >Snip< He never used it back because I don't know that he was aware of it, and because it was already seen that going into Harry caused Voldy great pain. Cira: But as far as I remember, it was only the actual, physical *possession* of Harry's body that was painful to Voldemort. I mean, he crept into Harry's mind all through the second half of OotP and even planted the false vision there. And there were no signs that *that* hurt Voldemort at all. ciraarana: > Q: The Trace. Rubbish. Excuse me, but it is. I mean, in CoS Harry > is accused of having used the Hover Charm. The Ministry didn't know > it wasn't him. Somewhere, I think at the end of HBP, Dumbledore > even told Harry that the Ministry can only detect that magic is > performed, but not by whom. And now we are introduced to the Trace, > which allows the Ministry to tell exactly who performed which > spell?? No. Doesn't make sense. Or is it a new ministry policy and > I simply missed that bit? Nate: I intrepreted the Trace differently. I didn't think that it showed Ministry exactly who could perform the spell. I think that what Harry was experiencing in CoS was finally given a name. In DH, when the worried that the Trace might still be on Harry, he tells Ron and Hermione that it's no good if he can't use magic, and they can't use magic around him, showing that the Trace is no different than it was described before, that is simply showing when there is magic performed around someone with it on them. Cira: Nope, it doesn't show the Ministry exactly who performs the magic, only *that* magic is performed. I was mislead by Harry's surprise about the fact that he hasn't been called to a hearing again for the improper use of magic. (Which, in itself, is a bit stupid. After all, there were 30 DEs and, what, 14 Order memebers, firing hexes and curses. Not even Harry can think that the Ministry interpreted that as coming from one person. In other words: the Ministry knew magic was being performed, but they couldn't tell by whom. So why in the world would they call Harry for anyother hearing? But never mind.) However, the whole thing is still a mess. In OotP, Moody uses a Disillusionment Charm on Harry - right in the kitchen of 4 Privet Drive. Days after Harry had been reprimanded for using magic to repel the Dementors. Why didn't the Ministry note that? At the time, they would have LOVED the chance to expell Harry and break his wand without a hearing! Why didn't they know? Plus, in DH, the Order members arrived Disillusioned in the garden of 4 Privet Drive, and Moody lifted that enchantment. Why didn't the Ministry note that? ciraarana: > Q: If Expelliarmus changes the wand's allegiance then nobody from > the DA is still using their own wand. No wizard or witch who has > ever been taught that spell at Hogwarts would be using their own > wand (although considering the DADA teacher problem ) But wouldn't > Harry have won Voldemort's wand in the graveyard scene in GoF? Nate: Ollivander says that they are subtle laws governing wand allegiance, so I don't think that disarming automatically and definitely changes a wands allegiance. "The wand chooses the wizard." This to me almost sounds as if the wand can "decide" to change its allegiance if someone is disarmed. I think that the reason the Elder Wand was switched to Harry was because it was "aware" that he was the only one worthy and capable of becoming the Master of Death, and therefore was trying to join him. Cira: That explains the Elder Wand. But not Draco's wand. You know, the hawthorn wand Harry won from him in Malfoy Manor. And that wand definitely changed allegiance. But yes, the "subtle laws" would explain a lot. In fact, the would explain everything. And as such, they annoy me, because, you know: oh, something happened that can't be explained! Well, let's blame it on the subtle laws of wand allegiance. That's a deus ex machina-like explanation, and that simply reads to me more like bad plotting. *shrugs* Anyway, thanks a lot, Nate, for taking your time to answer my questions. ^-^ Cira --------------------------------- Wissenswertes f?r Bastler und Hobby Handwerker.BE A BETTER HEIMWERKER! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cathio2002 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 11:31:26 2007 From: cathio2002 at yahoo.com (Cat) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 04:31:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Closure for Harry & Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <417666.32403.qm@web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174461 Hi, I'm new to the group, so I'm not sure if this has been discussed previously. But I felt somewhat unsatisfied with the closure or lack of closure between Harry and Snape. I think there should have been a scene where either Harry or Snape or both apologized to the other, or perhaps JKR could have had a scene where they showed mutual respect for each other. For instance, when Harry goes into Dumbledore's office with Snape's memories and uses the pensive, I don't understand why she didn't mention Snape's portrait. When Dumbledore died it seemed that his picture immediately appeared in the office. Snape's should have been there too since he was the headmaster. Harry could have perhaps had a conversation with him (in his portrait) after he'd seen all of Snape's memories. For me, personally, this would have been more satisfying than just leaving it hanging there with no closure. I sort of feel cheated. Does anyone else feel this way? Thanks for you input. Cathio2002 From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Aug 4 12:46:58 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:46:58 -0000 Subject: Closure for Harry & Snape In-Reply-To: <417666.32403.qm@web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174462 Cat wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm new to the group, so I'm not sure if this has been > discussed previously. Potioncat: Welcome, it's always good to have another 'cat in the group! I'm not sure, but we may actually be at the point where everything has been discussed at least once. But that's never stopped us before. Cat: But I felt somewhat unsatisfied > with the closure or lack of closure between Harry and > Snape. I think there should have been a scene where > either Harry or Snape or both apologized to the other, > or perhaps JKR could have had a scene where they > showed mutual respect for each other. Potioncat: List members had all sorts of ideas of what might happen between Harry and Snape. I was hoping for mututal respect with no decrease in animosity. I was also looking forward to Snape teaching all those new Weasleys and Potters. Alas! As to a closure between Harry and Snape--it works for me. Snape was able to complete his revised mission and gave the information to Harry. He also managed to give Harry a good deal more; his memories explained a lot! Then having Harry name his son Severus...that tells us that Harry 'got it'. That's just my take, you understand. Of course, I'd sort of like to see Portrait!Snape's face the first time he sees Albus Severus Potter. Cat: Snape's should > have been there too since he was the headmaster. Harry > could have perhaps had a conversation with him (in his > portrait) after he'd seen all of Snape's memories. Potioncat: JKR said in one of the post-DH interviews that Snape's portrait didn't appear immediately because he had abandoned his post. She added that Harry would have seen to correcting the mistake. I'm not sure if that's what she intended, or if she decided that during the interview. >Cat: I sort of feel cheated. Potioncat: The emotions this book caused are particularly strong. There are places where I feel cheated too. To my mind, there are several things going on. There are plot lines that have been turned upside down without a satisfying reason. There are plots that worked out fine, just not as one might have wanted. There are plot lines that seem to have been dropped. And, worst of all---it's over. From chaomath at hitthenail.com Sat Aug 4 13:16:58 2007 From: chaomath at hitthenail.com (Maeg) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 08:16:58 -0500 Subject: thanks for the arguments Message-ID: <08C3DF84-BD60-4A0E-9AB8-4923DA679A7D@hitthenail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174463 Thank you to everyone who tried to argue me out of my intense dislike for DH (and now the entire series). That it didn't work is my failing, not yours. To those who debated facts not personalities, my hat is off to you. It was, er, fun, while it lasted. Maeg, off to cause trouble elsewhere My mind isn't always in the gutter -- sometimes it comes out to feed. From graynavarre at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 13:28:36 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 06:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: <700201d40708040257i11e066dbkeebb7c0e70a5b16c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <376644.7653.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174464 I snipped all of the comments because I wanted share something my son, Kristofer, who is in the Army and was in Iraq and in combat, said about the Unforgivable Curses. He has only listened to the last one but knows about the other books. He said that in war and battle, if a soldier has an option to take out the enemy who is trying to kill him or his friends, then the soldier would be an "unforgivable" idiot not to use them. He said that he would not use the Crucio due to the obvious torture nature of it, but he would use the Imperious and the AK. It is rather like the prohibition against stealing and murder. It is wrong. However, if you are a Jew hiding in occupied France during WWII and you are starving and there is food in the store, then you take it. It is stealing but the timing and the nature of the offense can be discussed with God and the government once the danger is past. As for murder, within the same scenario, if you find out that a person is going to reveal your family's hiding place to the Nazis (which would mean you and your children's deaths), then there is a very good chance that you might murder this person. Sometimes, the situation determines whether an action is unforgivable or regretfully necessary. However, all that said, I don't see that Harry's use of the Crucio was either necessary or reasonable. My (and Kristofer's) two cents. YMMV Barbara From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 14:31:44 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:31:44 -0000 Subject: Malum blah blah blah was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174465 > >>Magpie: > > I should clarify, that when I say I'm ahead of Harry, I don't mean > I'm better than he is, or that I would necessarily be better than > he is if I were in his shoes. > Betsy Hp: I'm totally setting myself up for a fall but this is far too delicious to pass up. I am *so* much better than Harry. Hell, I was better than Harry all the way back in *high school*! Seriously, about the only thing I think Harry could ever be better at than me is Quidditch, but that's because I tend to get motion-sick. (It's a cross, but I bear it.) As one example: If I were sneaking into a government office to steal something, one thing I would *not* do is *rip a hole in a frigging office door*. A door that I know everyone and their uncle is *always* staring at. I think I'd have known to not do something that colossally stupid way back in grade school. But then, I read, watch TV and I have siblings. So I've got a leg up on Harry when it comes to going into stealth mode. Still, I'm better. Nyah, nyah, etc. Betsy Hp (this post is tongue in cheek, but I'm totally cool with any slings and arrows sent my way if that is your desire ) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 14:56:26 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:56:26 -0000 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174466 > >>Carol: > Betsy, I understand exactly how you feel. I didn't want Harry to > cast Unforgiveable Curses. > Betsy Hp: Honestly, by the time Harry started throwing Unforgivables around I'd ceased caring about his immortal soul. His mind-numbing stupidity earlier on in DH had killed him dead for me as far as I was concerned. (I can deal with a ruthless hero, I'm not so forgiving of a stupid one.) So for me the easy use of Imperio and Crucio said more about JKR's consistency as an author and the overarching morals of the book. > >>Carol: > If he [Harry] had confronted Voldemort hating him and seeking > vengeance and willing to kill him using an AK or any other deadly > curse, he would have failed. Betsy Hp: I disagree. It was a Gryffindor versus a Slytherin. So the Gryffindor *had* to win, because *that's* the overarching moral. Harry didn't need to be intelligent or compassionate or loving or even all that interested in justice. What he had to be was a Gryffindor. So the battle was won way back in PS/SS with Harry's Sorting. Just as Snape was doomed at his Sorting. And honestly, it's not even that Harry and Snape made a choice. The Hat just stated who they were. It's all pre-determined. Bit boring, really, IMO. > >>Carol: > Here's my theory, which I hope you won't reject out of hand because > you object on principle to the use of Unforgiveables and feel that > JKR has betrayed us by having Harry use them. Betsy Hp: I won't reject it out of hand. My beef with JKR isn't really about the Unforgivables, it's about the designated "other". You know, the whole codified bigotry thing. > >>Carol: > What if the soul bit, which Dead!DD refers to as "parasitic," is > getting control, causing Harry from OoP onward to seek revenge, > confusing it with justice like Lupin and Black in PoA, making him > want to punish first Bellatrix and then Snape? > Betsy Hp: For this to work we'd have to accept that Harry didn't love Sirius and was not all that affected by his death. That somehow McGonagall getting spit on made Harry angrier than Sirius being killed. Plus, there has to be text backing this up. Some sort of verbiage indicating that Harry is not in complete control when he casts his Unforgivables. And that language is simply not there. There's nothing to indicate that Harry is acting under an influence not his own. I *wish* your take on it was correct because it would have given Harry an interesting moral stuggle. But Harry is Gryffindor so he's automatically moral. No need for a struggle. > >>Carol, still struggling with the book but trying to understand it > on its own terms Betsy Hp: Unfortunately, I think to get the books on their "own terms" you have to wrap your head around the rather ugly idea that people are determined to be either "good" or "bad" pretty much from birth, and at the very lastest, at age eleven. (I lean towards birth, since we see Slytherin children interested in Slytherin before their Sorting, and our one exception, Sirius, was rebelling against his Slytherin family before the Sorting too.) Once you've got that bit of philosophy in place everything else clicks because it's not about actions at all. So no matter what the "good" guys do, it's good. And no matter what the "bad" guys do, it's not good enough. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 15:06:07 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:06:07 -0000 Subject: Harry's compassion WAS: Malum blah blah blah was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174467 > Magpie: > Well, yeah, given that it's the bad characters that are more > difficult to feel compassion for. Alla: And he still does it - for both Riddle and Malfoy. Magpie: > Basically, I think it goes off in the wrong direction to make it > about Harry and what would make him more compassionate, because Harry > is who he is. I don't have a problem with Harry. But I think that the > story Harry is in just doesn't ultimately say anything that > significant about compassion. But > when I think of the series, of which Harry is the center, I really > think it's heart lies more in the justice angle. Alla: Well talking about what's at the heart of the series is a bit of different angle than talking about who Harry is, for me anyways. Justice is certainly at the center, I agree, but compassion and Harry as compassionate person for me takes a big center as well. But I suspect we are running into semantics again. Here is the definition of compassion that I googled and liked ( just took the first one). Compassion - Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it. So, does Harry reflect much on the sufferings of the others? We had been shown glimpses, IMO but certainly not his long reflections, BUT I personally have no doubt that Harry wishes to relieve those sufferings and ACTS on that. That's why yeah, compassion and justice in Harry's character are tied for me very strongly. I would call his compassion an active compassion, so to speak. I brought examples before, but I also want to add that Harry wanting to relieve the sufferings of those in the battle of Hoggwarts, to not allow anybody else to die, etc, definitely counts as compassion to me. I mean, wanting to relieve Wormtail's sufferings, to me is definitely compassion. NOT a long reflection, although Harry has to think about it at least for a second, lol, but definitely to me a desire to take action and stop the pain. This kind of compassion is the one I associate with Harry . Magpie: > Also, just to make this clear, my use of the phrase "makes my skin > crawl" was badly chosen. It was supposed to be a joke on my jumping > in to post at all, like saying that I knew I was being annoying but I > had an allergic reaction to hearing this so was compelled to post. I > didn't mean that people thinking Harry was compassionate made my skin > crawl because it was so stupid or anything like that. It was supposed > to be a joke on my overreaction and need to post about it. Alla: Thank you :) Alla. From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 14:58:17 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 07:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Closure for Harry & Snape In-Reply-To: <417666.32403.qm@web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <302169.56288.qm@web55001.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174468 Cat: >I'm new to the group, so I'm not sure if this has been >discussed previously. But I felt somewhat unsatisfied >with the closure or lack of closure between Harry and >Snape. I think there should have been a scene where >either Harry or Snape or both apologized to the other, >or perhaps JKR could have had a scene where they >showed mutual respect for each other. >For instance, when Harry goes into Dumbledore's office >with Snape's memories and uses the pensive, I don't >understand why she didn't mention Snape's portrait. >... [snip]...I sort of feel cheated. >Does anyone else feel this way? Welcome, cat. I too am new to the group and have found it fun, enlightening, and challenging (which are good things)... In response to your question, no, I personally do not feel cheated. I really like both Snape and Harry as fictional characters -- Snape for his complexity and ambiguity, and Harry for his perseverance and innate goodness (not to be be confused with perfection because I'm definitely in the "Harry is not perfect" camp -- Harry has on occasion made me quite angry as has Snape). Yet, I would find a "touchy, feely" confrontation between the two of them unbelievable within the characterizations written by JKR Sometimes as I read posts I wonder if people experience disappointment because they want JKR (the characters' true creator) to write the character they have come to know in the fanfiction they read during the "in between" years. I don't confuse the two characterizations and I think that is one reason why I don't feel cheated. I'm not saying that your lack of closure is a result of that -- but I suspect some do feel disappointment because they fail to separate the two. (I have a friend who has not finished the book but who vehemently argues that Snape is good. I suspect that if Alan Rickman -- who she knows only from his romantic lead roles -- didn't play the character in the movies she would feel differently. My point is, there is so much to the world of Potter -- and not all of it comes directly from JKR -- that one can easily lose track of what is "real" -- which is what JKR writes.) So, that said, here's how I feel -- given Snape's canon-based personality and the long-term animosity between Snape and Harry, I would find a suddenly "warm and fuzzy" Snape unbelievable. And, despite his "innate goodness" I do not see Harry simply forgetting how Snape has treated him over the years (despite what he learns in the pensieve) and accepting that "warm and fuzzy" Snape. Forgetting is often harder than forgiving. Snape's memories enable Harry to understand him and with understanding comes forgiveness but forgetting and putting it all behind you, well, that's takes time. Nevertheless, I do believe that both come to respect each other; they just don't have "a Hallmark moment" to express it to each other. I suspect Snape came to respect Harry when Dumbledore told him, "If I know him, he will have arranged matters so that when he does set out to meet his death, it will truly mean the end of Voldemort" (p.687 US), if not before, because I think Snape fully believes that Dumbledore is right about Harry and that Harry would make that sacrifice if it means defeating the Dark Lord. And, of course, we see Harry's respect for Snape when we learn he names a son after him and during the exchange between him and that son ("..you were named for two headmasters of Hogwarts. One of them was a Slytherin and he was probably the bravest man I ever know." p. 758 US). I find it interesting that Harry doesn't say "one of the bravest" but "the bravest" (which in my mind means braver than Dumbledore, James, Sirius, Lupin, etc. -- all adults important to him who died for the cause). Let's not forget Harry's parting words to Snape in HBP when he called him a coward -- what a difference knowledge and understanding make. As for the portrait or lack thereof -- I didn't notice the lack until after I finished my first reading so obviously I wasn't surprised. I can explain my own acceptance of the lack of a portrait by my acceptance of the magic of the world JKR has created. Sometimes "magic happens" and we see magic that apparently is a part of Hogwarts itself (e.g., the moving staircases). I think we also see that magic when the Headmaster's office refuses to admit Umbridge in OOTP and when we see Dumbledore's portrait just minutes after his death in HBP. My specific opinion as to the lack of Snape's portrait is this: Snape wasn't truly a legitimate headmaster because he was placed there by an "illegitimate regime" -- a regime that covered the entire UK magical world and its day-to-day government and life, not just Hogwarts. So, one might ask, "well why did the headmaster's office accepted him when it wouldn't accept Umbridge?" I accept that the castle accepted him because, while Snape the Death Eater was placed in the position by an "illegitimate regime," Snape the man would protect the students to the best of his abilities within that position. (That can not be said of anyone else who the regime would have likely placed in the position.) When he died, the magic didn't happen and no portrait appeared because the castle didn't accept him 100%. Obviously my individual interpretation... Christy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 15:07:54 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:07:54 -0000 Subject: Snape really was a Good Guy - Canon in the House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174469 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Gryffindors don't have moral struggles because their moral > > supremacy has already been determined at the > > Sorting. "Convenient outs" are their due for being so golden and > > pure. > >>Chuck: > I respectfully disagree with this last point. As Sirius said, the > world is not divided into Death Eaters and not. And Dumbledore > himself has proven himself not to be infallible (As an aside, I have > much trouble with the description of the Harry Polyjuice Potion). > > Are you saying that Dumbledore was entitled to not having to make a > hard decision of "sacrificing" Harry because, as a Gryffindor, he > was due this out? Betsy Hp: I'm saying that this is what JKR is saying. I don't agree with it. I think Sirius was right. But JKR either changed her mind or didn't agree with Sirius (or maybe went with the technical out of the world being divided into Gyffindors and Slytherins?). For JKR, Dumbledore's fallibility was just a bit of spice to make him more "interesting". While I personally think it made Dumbledore a monster I'm under the impression that I'm *supposed* to still see him as a good guy. > >>Chuck: > It would have been much more interesting if Dumbledore was faced > with the true decision of sacrificing Harry "for the greater > good." Betsy Hp: I totally agree. [As an aside: "Ender's Game" by Orsan Scott Card does a wonderful job demonstrating the difficulty faced by putting up a child as a sacrifice for the greater good.] > >>Chuck: > JKR prepares us for this out as she describes Dumbledore's look > being victorious when told of the Dark Lord's use of Harry's blood > at the end of GOF. Conversely, at the end of OOTP, she sets up the > possibility of a dilemma when Dumbledore confides in Harry that he > cares too much for him, and what did it matter if countless, > faceless people died other than Harry? For me, it's too bad that > we didn't see this struggle in Dumbledore with respect to > Harry's "death." The fact that Harry (and, for that matter, Snape) > has to make a sacrifice, but Dumbledore doesn't is uneven. Betsy Hp: I absolutely agree. JKR doesn't like her heroes to suffer morally. So Dumbledore is given an out with Harry, and we're supposed to see Snape as something less than human so the "sacrifice" isn't really one on Snape's part. Which leads to a rather ugly world-view, IMO. But there we are. > >>Chuck: > Indeed, JKR makes Dumbledore's path clear and free from decision by > condemning him to death so early. I feel cheated that Dumbledore > never seems to struggle the way he did with the death of his > sister. > Maybe I'm just a sadist :-) Betsy Hp: Since I agree with you, I'll say that we're both just discerning readers. Betsy Hp From va32h at comcast.net Sat Aug 4 15:31:13 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:31:13 -0000 Subject: Harry and Voldy Mind connection (was Re: DH - unanswered questions) In-Reply-To: <724438.65798.qm@web25906.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174470 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Cira Arana wrote: (massive snippage) But as far as I remember, it was only the actual, physical *possession* of Harry's body that was painful to Voldemort. I mean, he crept into Harry's mind all through the second half of OotP and even planted the false vision there. And there were no signs that *that* hurt Voldemort at all. va32h: Remember Dumbledore said - when speaking of Harry and Voldemort, mind and soul are the same thing. Dumbledore even says - Voldemort got a taste of sharing Harry's mind and could not tolerate it. This is why Dumbledore no longer worries about Harry learning Occlumency, it isn't necessary. As to the vision - I don't think that was planted in Harry's mind. I think Voldemort planted the vision in his *own* mind and allowed Harry to see it there. Harry's use of the Voldemort mind connection did become a little too convenient in DH. It was a useful device, because Harry really didn't have any other clues to go on in his horcrux hunt, but like a lot of JKR's other devices (polyjuice, accio) when it's used over and over again, it starts to feel a little silly. Having said that, I can buy the argument that Harry can visit Voldemort's mind unnoticed, but not vice-versa, as it's been established for a few books now. Voldemort is, as Dumbledore says, so detached from the various parts of his soul at this point, that he doesn't feel them anymore. va32h From va32h at comcast.net Sat Aug 4 15:49:18 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:49:18 -0000 Subject: What Did Dumbledore Know and When Did He Know It In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174471 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: (big snip) > Or am I missing the point altogether? Did DD not really believe > Harry would have to die, and he just lied to Snape? va32h: Yes, I think Dumbledore lied to Snape. Well - misdirected. Not unlike the way JKR would misdirect, but not outright lie, in her pre-DH interviews. As soon as Snape makes the "you've been raising him as a pig for slaughter" comment, Dumbledore changes the subject and asks Snape if he has come to care for Harry. That's not a confirmation or denial. So why did Dumbledore lie? Because Dumbledore knew that Snape would have to show Harry some sort of "proof" that Snape really was trustworthy. Given the longstanding hatred between the two - is Harry really going to believe Snape if he just shows up one day and announces: "Hi Harry, it's me, Snape. Dumbledore told me to tell you that you have to let Voldemort kill you because you have a bit of his soul in your head. And you have to die willingly, can't even try to fight back or anything. No, really, I'm serious. Why are you running away? Hey, come back! I swear, it's true! He told me right before I killed him on his own orders! Because he was dying anyway! And I've always been on your side!" Clearly - no. That's not going to work. There might be time for Snape to drag Harry up to the office and get confirmation from DD's portrait, but DD is not the type to put all his eggs in one basket, as he's said. Dumbledore does know that Harry is very accustomed to seeing and trusting Pensieve memories - and conveniently Harry has seen a falsified memory, so he knows what the real thing should look like. So why not give Snape a memory that he can give to Harry that says exactly what Dumbledore wants Harry to think? Harry has to believe he's really going to die in order for his sacrifice to be a true sacrifice. As good a liar as Snape is - this is too important for DD to trust that Snape will be able to effectively lie (or be willing to, since Snape was none too keen on the "let Harry kill himself" plan in the first place). It's distressing that Dumbledore lies so easily and to so many people - but apparently that *is* DD's style - secrets and lies, as his own brother says. In this case, I would consider Dumbledore's lie justified - given what's at stake. And to go a whole other direction - Dumbledore isn't really sure that Harry will be able to come back. He's pretty sure. But not positive. Better to be able to say "Surprise! Harry can go back!" than "Whoopsie! Harry is really, permanently, dead after all." Wouldn't *that* be an awkward moment in the afterlife, for Dumbledore, Harry, and Snape. Snape: You said he'd be able to go back! Harry: Wait, I was supposed to be able to go back? Dumbledore (backing away slowly): Look, it was only a guess. My guesses aren't always right, you know. va32h From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 4 16:05:47 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:05:47 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry (was Re: Harry using Crucio.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174472 "va32h" wrote: > No fair, no fair! I made that joke > first in this forum and got no > response! :( I think it is fair actually. > Okay - I am staking my claim on this joke: I going to have to dispute your claim. Except for inserting the words, Elder Wand and Deathsticks my response comes almost verbatim for a fan fiction I wrote and posted on the net back in 2001 entitled "Dirty Harry". If you're interested drop me a line and I'll send you a copy. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Aug 4 16:09:15 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:09:15 -0400 Subject: Courage, was Re:Children's Books (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal)/Malum Blah blah/JO's Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174473 For those who don't understand JKR's valuing courage above all virtues, consider this: Without courage, all other virtues are useless. Compassion (for example) without courage will only be compassionate when it is safe to do so. Loyalty without courage will be loyal only when there is no price to pay for loyalty. Any other virtue not accompanied with courage will be virtuous only when it is not risky to be so. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 4 16:27:22 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:27:22 -0000 Subject: Harry's compassion WAS: Malum blah blah blah was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174474 > > Magpie: > > Well, yeah, given that it's the bad characters that are more > > difficult to feel compassion for. > > > > Alla: > > And he still does it - for both Riddle and Malfoy. Magpie: But I don't find those moments very meaningful. For me they just fit into the overarching attitude towards that quality for me in this story. I think Harry feels compassion for them when it's relatively easy to feel compassion for them with little required of himself in terms of personal introspection or really seeing a connection with himself in a way that's actually challenging. It just seems like those moments are given to me as moments where Harry's being shown as superior with the real emphasis being on how little these characters deserve his compassion--something the story will enjoy proving. As opposed to another story that might be more interested in how they do deserve it and can grow from it. Instead it just for me remains very removed, with Harry feeling a distant pity watching them reap what they have sown, poor bastards. Basically, I feel like we've just reached a difficult moment in fandom. The series is over, and we know what the author was saying. Some of us really didn't like what she had to say. And that seems to make it difficult not to get personal--iow, if I don't think Harry's a very compassionate character and you do, does that mean I'm saying you're not compassionate? I feel like that leaves me with two bad options: lying about the book, or being personally insulting. I don't want to be personally insulting--I honestly don't feel like having a different reaction to this aspect of the book than I do means the other person must be morally bankrupt. I think people can have different ways of approaching morality and still wind up in the same neighborhood when it comes to ethics. I honestly do think, even if I'm not always happy about it, that this provides an important balance that's needed to really get things right. I think a lot of the arguments the list has had over the years have shown that, how people have to hammer out a compromise between what values they think are most important. Take Marietta: I think it's quite possible that the people who don't like her permenant scars think it lacks compassion, and that other people think those people are too soft to administer jusice. I think that could absolutely be said to be floating around the subtext of some of those arguments, with both sides having to agree that you can't have both to the extent each side wants at the same time. I think that's the way ethics get hammered out mostly in the real world. We don't have people who are totally right and totally wrong, we have different people with different priorities compromising with each other. So if I don't want to sound personally insulting, it feels like the other alternative is to just kind of lie and say yeah, I guess the series does show exceptional compassion, but it would be lying, because that's just not what I felt reading it. I felt like it was really really stingy about it. And I don't feel highly enough of the series to give it compliments it didn't earn from me. I felt like it ultimately came down on the side of some values over others (and post- book interviews seem to confirm my impression as well). I don't know how to find a balance between saying I didn't like the book and that I had actually things I didn't like in it without making that a personal challenge to people who did. -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 4 16:47:45 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:47:45 -0000 Subject: Courage, was Re:Children's Books (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal)/Malum Blah blah/JO's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174475 Bruce: > For those who don't understand JKR's valuing courage above all virtues, consider > this: Without courage, all other virtues are useless. Compassion (for example) > without courage will only be compassionate when it is safe to do so. Loyalty > without courage will be loyal only when there is no price to pay for loyalty. > Any other virtue not accompanied with courage will be virtuous only when it is > not risky to be so. Magpie: As someone who has been discussing the topic of JKR's courage based system, I assure you I do understand it in exactly this way. I also think one could say the same about systems that used other virtues as the basis: Courage (for example) without compassion can be empty reckless. Loyalty without compassion can be loyalty to a cruel master. Any other virtue not accompanied with compassion will be can be used for bad reasons. No one virtue is enough in itself. It's not that I disagree with JKR's take on courage being necessary-- I happen to agree with it. You do need courage is necessary to put forward other values when you face opposition, even if it's not the value I'd probably put at the top for me. I think there's more to the story and problems people have with it than disagreeing that courage is necessary. This is one idea of JKR's I have no problem with. I don't fully like the way it wound up translated into a story, but I've got no problem with the premise in itself. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 17:05:35 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:05:35 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174476 Mike wrote: > Crouch!Moody was the one that told us they garnered one an automatic life sentence. At the time we all assumed it was coming from Moody the Auror. Can we not reassess this statement in light of the fact that it was delivered by a convicted DE? Carol responds: I don't see a need to reassess that statement, but I do see a need to reassess Fake!Moody's statement that Dumbledore had approved his use of the Imperius Curse on the students and the demonstration on spiders of the other two. I doubted that statement on a first reading and assumed it was a lie after Fake!Moody was revealed to be a DE. But now I think that Fake!Moody may have been following a lesson plan laid out by the real moody and that Dumbledore had indeed given his approval (behind the Ministry's backs). That Crouch enjoyed making the students act like puppets and Crucioing the spider and making Neville suffer as he watched does not take away from the importance of such a lesson, I am sorry to say. Mike: > Because it certainly doesn't seem that they are truly "unforgivable", does it? Crouch Jr said they were OK for his aurors. Umbridge, a Ministry official, was prepared to use one in front of 12 witnesses. And Dumbledore seemed to think it was OK for Snape to use one on himself. Carol: There are huge differences here, of course. Crouch Sr. (not Jr.) authorized them for his Aurors but not for the general public, rather like authorizing policemen to use guns against criminals, and even then the real Moody only killed when he had to. And he must have done so using Avada Kedavra, the Killing Curse, not so unforgiveable in that circumstance. And Dumbledore wants Snape to kill him with the instant and painless Killing Curse for a variety of reasons, one of which he withholds from Snape, and Snape is given to understand that his soul may not be harmed if he uses the curse (the only one or the best one available for the purpose) so that the already dying and helpless Dumbledore dies by his hand rather than Greyback's teeth and so that he can carry out the rest of DD's plan (including helping Harry and protecting the students at Hogwarts), which cannot happen if he lets himself be killed by the UV. It's a highly exceptional circumstance. But if the Order members are using the AK to kill DEs (surely the DA members aren't using it), then you're right. The Killing Curse isn't unforgiveable in itself. Murder of an unarmed victim like Lily Potter would be unforgiveable, presumably, but the Killing Curse seems to have its uses. It certainly isn't Unforgiveable in a moral sense as we assumed. I don't think JKR or her characters ever stated that it was. (Movie Hermione comes close, and I was with her, but I don't think that's JKR's view.) Slughorn's words on killing splitting the soul don't help, either, but I think he means murder, and particularly a murder performed with the intention of making a Horcrux (seems you were right that the Horcrux-maker can't use just any stray soul bit). At any rate, Tom Riddle's soul is split just as much by murdering Myrtle using the basilisk as by using his wand as a murder weapon. (JKR says that Myrtle's was the murder used to create the diary, as I always supposed.) So murder is murder. I don't think anyone could view Snape's death as something other than murder, and surely it was more horrible than death by Avada Kedavra. Or how about poor Regulus, suffering that horrible poison and killed by Inferi? Was that not murder, even though Voldemort was not on the spot to perform it? That, to me, seems much more unforgiveable than a painless Killing Curse. So, it seems that "Unforgiveable" *is* just a label, as Fake!Moody (pretending to be the real Moody) said. And he knew whereof he spoke regarding the Cruciatus Curse; he would have died in Azkaban had his father not yielded to his mother's pleas to let her die there instead. Umbridge's attempting to Crucio a student in front of several others is a bit different. She is (IMO) subverting Fudge, using him as her puppet. She has no respect for him ("What Cornelius doesn't know won't hurt him). Perhaps she expects to be the next MoM. Has Lucius Malfoy hinted to her about what's coming? Is she really related to the DE Selwyn? If she doesn't have DE connections, how did she get Mad-Eye's magical eye after his death? So we can't judge by Umbridge, a powerful official in a corrupt Ministry (though no match for Centaurs, ha ha!) as to whether the Cruciatus Curse is in itself unforgiveable. She could have gotten out of a sentence, or thinks she can, because of who she is, and maybe she knows what's coming. Harry gets away with his attempted Cruciatus Curse in OoP either because it was unsuccessful or because it was untraceable. Too many curses were being cast to trace it to him, and half of them were cast by DEs and/or Voldemort. By the time Harry starts casting Unforgiveables (Imperius in an emergency and Crucio when another curse would have better served the purpose of disabling a DE), the Ministry is run by Death Eaters and their allies, including Umbridge. I think we can assume that the Unforgiveables no longer result in a lifetime sentence to Azkaban. That's a sentence reserved for enemies of the new regime, supporters of Undesirable Number One, and, evidently, for Muggle-borns and "blood traitors." The new regime is lawless, and any legal connotation of "Unforgiveable" has lost its meaning. And for such people as Mulciber and Yaxley, the terms never had a moral connotation, or that moral connotation was meaningless. Mike: > I am forced to conclude that "Unforgivable" was a Ministry manufactured legal construct, that the Ministry could also suspend. > Carol: And I'm forced to agree with you. I do still think that the Crouches paid the price for their use of Unforgiveables, but I think that Sirius Black's view of Crouch Sr. as being as ruthless as a Death Eater was colored by his own experience. Crouch Sr. didn't just turn his son over to the DEs; he knew him to be guilty of a horrible crime (along with the Lestranges). And, against his own better judgement, he rescued his DE son later and paid the price. One dies remorseful; the other is soul-sucked. It's hard to believe that JKR doesn't believe that they brought their respective fates on themselves through the use of these curses, used in the one case for selfish ends and in the other for evil ones. Mr. Crouch has put himself above the law, or altered the law. At least he doesn't torture his son, but his son has no such scruples. I think we're supposed to see his rescue of his son and his control of him through Imperius and his son's use of the curses on Krum and his own father as unjustified. There's no question in my mind that Barty Jr. deserved Azkaban and should have stayed there (maybe without the Dementors). But Crouch Sr. just made a terrible mistake and paid the price of using a sustained Imperius, one of the curses that he had made legal for his Aurors. I thought that the Crouch family was part of a beautifully incorporated moral tale. Now I don't know what to think. Mike: > > And in light of Snape's own moral ambiguity, plus the fact that he had just used one himself not for sinister design, I now greatly discount his words to Harry in HBP. I too thought JKR was giving us a clue with Snape's words. Turns out I was wrong, turns out it was another red herring. And it turns out TEWW EWWW was Snape's ultimate moral compass. Snape's credibility is greatly diminished in my eyes. > Carol responds: Why? Snape's words to Harry have nothing to do with Lily, nor is he making a moral or ethical statement. Snape actually says, "No Unforgiveable Curses from you, Potter! You haven't got the nerve or the ability!" (HBP Am. ed. 602). Having just killed albus Dumbledore against his will, summoning the "nerve" and the "ability" to "mean" a curse he didn't want to cast, Snape is taunting the "mediocre" boy who is calling him a coward for performing one of the bravest acts of his life. Snape is in anguish comparable to Fang's in the burning house, the boy is flinging every curse he can think of at him while Snape parries them without deflecting them onto the sender, and we can't expect him to be nice. But, on another level, Snape is (IMO) giving Harry last-minute advice (comparable to "shut your mouth and close your mind"). It has nothing to do with the legality or morality of Unforgiveable Curses (or even, really, Harry's ability to cast them). Instead, it relates to what Dumbledore has told Snape about Harry and Voldemort. Snape knows, but can't tell Harry until Nagini is in her bubble, that Harry can't fight the Dark Lord with Unforgiveables or any other kind of curse. He (Harry) has to face him willing to die. To try to Crucio or AK the Dark Lord will result in Harry's destruction. He has to die to destroy the soul piece in the scar. ". . . [W]hile that fragment of soul . . . remains attached to and protected by Harry, Lord Voldemort cannot die." "So the boy . . . the boy must die?" . . . . "and Lord Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential" (DH Am. ed. 686). "No Unforgiveable Curses from you, Potter, because you have to let the Dark Lord kill you." That's what I think Snape means, but he can't say it for another year. Carol, who admires Snape for continuing to help and protect a boy he hates, doing the will of Portrait!Dumbledore and trying to bring about the destruction of Voldemort, after the boy has tried to Crucio him and called him a murderer From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Sat Aug 4 17:09:55 2007 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 10:09:55 -0700 Subject: Severus lives! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B4B2E3.3000802@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174477 I noticed several things that make me believe that Snape somehow didn't really die. No headmasters painting of him. He never appeared as any of the dead people Harry saw while unconscious. His line early on, in the first book about 'stoppering death'. If his body disappeared, the good guys would assume the DEs took care of it and the DEs prob wouldn't care since he wasn't close to any of them anyways. Snape had no family to claim it, so if it was still laying around, Harry or SOMEONE would have taken responsibility for his funeral. Though its likely noone would have even bothered to look for his body.. what with 50 other dead people to deal with. The light going out in his eyes could have been a coma he slipped into as potions he took before meeting with Voldemort took effect. He is a brilliant potions master and could have prepared something ahead of time, knowing that Voldemort was keeping Nagini close and the end was near, he would have prepared for it. He has no good reason to stick around. Thick headed people in the wizard world would never trust him on just the good word of even Harry Potter and a few pensive memories. He would have preferred to go and start a new life somewhere else, slipping away as only he can. Faking his own death and moving on seems more his style then being killed by some bloated snake... The idea he would WANT to die to join Lilly is foolish.. James already has her even in the afterlife, so there is no peace for him there. Jazmyn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 17:38:12 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:38:12 -0000 Subject: Closure for Harry & Snape In-Reply-To: <417666.32403.qm@web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174478 --- Cat wrote: > > Hi, > > ... But I felt somewhat unsatisfied with the closure > or lack of closure between Harry and Snape. I think > there should have been a scene where either Harry or > Snape or both apologized to the other, or perhaps JKR > could have had a scene where they showed mutual respect > for each other. > bboyminn: But how do you propose that come about? In my predictions before DH came out, I said that there would have to be some type of reconciliation between Harry and Snape. Whether he knew it or not, Harry desperately needed Snape's help, but what circumstances could possibly occur, after what happened on the tower, that would lead Harry to every trust Snape again? Let's assume the story had played out differently. Let's assume that Voldemort had allowed Snape to go and capture Harry. OK, now Snape has captured Harry and he begins talking rapidly...I love your mother, she was my best friend ...you have to willingly let Voldemort kill you, offering no resistance of any kind...etc.... Do you really think Harry would buy that? Oh, sure, he would think, I just lay down and die for Voldemort and everything will be fine -- NOT! But, if this knowledge comes from Snape's unbiased mind and objective thoughts, rather than his mouth, the ideas and concepts do have some credibility. I can't think of any words Snape could have spoken to win Harry over, I just can't. But again, thoughts in the Penseive are completely objective. They show reality just as it happened. Harry can trust those thoughts. > Cat: > > For instance, when Harry goes into Dumbledore's office > with Snape's memories and uses the pensive, I don't > understand why she didn't mention Snape's portrait. > ... Snape's should have been there too since he was > the headmaster. bboyminn: But, was Snape /really/ a legitimate Headmaster, by what authority was he appointed to the position? The only authority I recognize is the Board of Governors, and even if they cooperated, it would have been under duress, coercion, threats, and possibly torture. That doesn't make Snape very legitimate in my eyes. Further, he was Headmaster for less than a year, and DID desert his post. I think Harry, at a later date, would have recognized that Snape needed to be honored for the tremendous risk he took to help Dumbledore, and would have worked to get Snape's portrait added, but I really don't see Snape as a legitimate Headmaster. True the office of Headmaster opened to him, but that might have been Dumbledore's doing. The 'Office' might have understood Snape's true nature and intent, but even if he was working for Dumbledore, that doesn't mean he came across his office legitimately. > Cat: > > Harry could have perhaps had a conversation with him > (in his portrait) after he'd seen all of Snape's > memories. > bboyminn: For this to work, it would have to occur /after/ Harry found out he had to die at Voldemort's hand. A long heart-to-heart at that moment would have seemed very anti-climatic. It is enough that Harry continues to honor Snape and recognize his effort, even to the opoint of naming one of his children after Snape. It that doesn't constitute reconciliation, I don't know what does. Got to run. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 18:01:45 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:01:45 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174479 Leah wrote: Carol pointed out that after his near-death experience, Harry did not use Unforgiveables, and, I think I am right in saying, she attributed their use to the Voldesoul in Harry. What is therefore problematic for me is that we are presented with one view in six books and then a volte face in the final book which is not satisfactorily explained or dealt with, leaving the readership to come up with their own justifications/explanations. What the book appears to give us is the wholly unsatisfactory justification that it's ok for the good guys to use the Unforgiveables by the simple fact that they are the good guys. Carol responds: Close but not quite. I was not "attributing" Harry's use of the Unforgiveables to the soul bit in his scar. I was putting that forward as a possible explanation, which I'll return to in a minute. I agree that JKR's explanation is extremely unsatisfactory. We already know that Harry isn't perfect. How many times has he lied, sneaked, eavesdropped, deliberately spoken words to hurt a friend's feelings, procrastinated, cheated on his homework, lost his temper, ordered his friends around, taken credit for ideas that weren't his, and so on. We don't need Harry to use a Crucio to show us that he's human. I don't think we'd have read past SS/Ps if he weren't humanly flawed like his readers. Nope. If she's going to show me that he's humanly flawed, as if I didn't already, have him turn Amycus Carrow into an incredible bouncing polecat. I'd have laughed then. But Crucio? The torture curse? I don't care in what sense Crucio is Unforgiveable or what else Carrow has done besides spitting on McGonagall. I don't want the hero doing it of his own accord. This is, after all, the same hero who saved the equally scummy Wormtail from being murdered by his own former friends (and he didn't even know he was preventing their souls from being split). I don't want to make excuses for JKR or for Harry, but I do want to consider the possibility that the soul bit may be a factor. I am *not* saying that "The soul bit made him do it." However, we do see the malign influence of the locket Horcrux on all three main characters, particularly Ron. And Harry's scar bit is also a Horcrux. We saw his increased anger in OoP, when at times he felt a snake inside him wanting to strike at Dumbledore. And DD tells Snape that "the connection between [Harry and Voldemort] grows ever stronger, a parasitic growth" (DH Am. ed. 687). And as I pointed out before, once Harry enters Snape's memory and understands that he has to "set out to die" (DD's words, 687), he doesn't cast any more Unforgiveable Curses. The "King's Cross" conversation increases his understanding of what has happened. "'I let him kill me,' said Harry. 'Didn't I?' "'You did,' said Dumbledore, nodding. 'Go on!' "So the part of his soul that was in me.... has it gone?' ''Oh, yes!' said Dumbledore. 'Yes, he destroyed it. Your soul is whole, and completely your own, Harry'" (709). Whole and completely Harry's own, as it has not been since he was fifteen months old. And not only has Harry been exposed to a second Horcrux (not counting the encounter with Nagini), Voldemort has been present in his head much more in this book than in any other, and he is an increasingly furious, murderous, out-of-control Voldemort. Fortunately, Harry has at last learned to "close his mind, Snape's last-minute advice, but he is not wholly free of the contamination of that "parasitic" soul bit, as we see in his continued doubts and his feeling, even after entering the Pensieve and forgiving Snape, that Dumbledore had betrayed him. Now, having talked to Dumbledore and being free of his soul bit, he understands the truth. "Don't you get it?" he says to Voldemort. "I was ready to die to stop you from hurting these people--" "But you did not," says Voldemort. "I meant to, and that's what did it. I've done what my mother did. They're protected from you. Haven't you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding?" (738). "The power that the Dark Lord knows not," Love, has vanquished him (though he's not yet dead and we still have the mess with the Elder wand to go through). With three Horcruxes destroyed, maybe four (if RH have destroyed the cup), Harry is still capable of vengeance, even sadism, enjoying torturing the despicable Amycus Carrow. He enters the Shrieking Shack hating Snape, watches him die, doesn't know what to feel, enters the memory and leaves it understanding Snape and no longer wanting vengeance on him but still feeling betrayed by Dumbledore. He has to choose to die, setting aside any desire for vengeance, any desire to kill Voldemort. Soul bit still intact, he has to choose to die, an act of love and self-sacrifice very like his mother's. He opens the Snitch with the words, "I am about to die." His loved ones give him strength to sacrifice himself, overcoming any remaining evil influence in the soul bit. And the act of love destroys the soul bit, killing it instead of himself. After that, his soul is his own and whole, and there is no more temptation to seek vengeance. A little taunting of Voldemort, but Voldemort, has to be given a choice, remorse or murder. And Harry defeats him using Expelliarmus, the spell that marked his compassion for Stan Shunpike, who knew not what he did. Carol, just working out a canon-based esplanation for Harry's Crucio that I like better than "Harry's human," but not excusing him or blaming the soul bit for a bad choice on Harry's part and he realizes that LV's inability to cast a lasting curse From leahstill at hotmail.com Sat Aug 4 18:09:10 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:09:10 -0000 Subject: Courage, was Re:Children's Books (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal)/Malum Blah blah/JO's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174480 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > For those who don't understand JKR's valuing courage above all virtues, consider > this: Without courage, all other virtues are useless. Compassion (for example) > without courage will only be compassionate when it is safe to do so. Loyalty > without courage will be loyal only when there is no price to pay for loyalty. > Any other virtue not accompanied with courage will be virtuous only when it is > not risky to be so. > > > Bruce Alan Wilson Leah: You are of course right in what you say, and I agree with it, but I don't think that can be the whole picture. JKR seems to me to attributes a positive to a morally neutral quality. It is as you say often necessary to have courage to exercise a virtue. Equally, it is often necessary to have courage to carry out a wrong act. As Lady Macbeth said to her husband as they prepared to murder Duncan, 'But screw your courage to the sticking point, and we'll not fail'. It would have been quite possible to have been a loyal and brave member of the Waffen SS, indeed Bellatrix Lestrange is a loyal and brave woman. At no time does she put her personal well being above her loyalty to Lord Voldemort- a Gryffindor, rather than a Slytherin? In fact, Voldemort values courage as we see in the graveyard in GOF and in his speech to Neville in DH. To be a virtue, courage, like loyalty and like wisdom, and indeed like ambition, has to be informed by other qualities. Sometimes this happens. Neville for example is, I think, a personification of what a true Gryffindor ought to be. He was not a courageous boy when he started at Hogwarts, but the compassion, friendship and loyalty shown to him by others, particulary the Trio, gave him courage. And his displays of courage have always been against evil or wrongdoing. His courage was both produced by virtues in others and expressed virtuously. That balance is there. It is the balance of qualities that I think is important, not only is courage necessary in expressing good but good is also necessary to inform courage. In many ways, I do think this is expressed well in the septology which can be powerful and moving. There is moral complexity in characters. However, it seems to me that this just doesn't work when we come down to the mundane level of separating children into houses. Those qualities which inform each other are separated out and virtue or vice is attached to them. There were clear hints given that this problem was going to be resolved and it wasn't. One of the reasons that I felt the epilogue was so banal was because of its almost total IMO failure to address this problem. Leah From graynavarre at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 18:04:29 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 11:04:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Severus lives! In-Reply-To: <46B4B2E3.3000802@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: <54684.97863.qm@web30114.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174481 > Jazmyn Concolor wrote: > I noticed several things that make me believe that > Snape somehow didn't > really die. > > ... snip reasons ... > > He has no good reason to stick around. Thick headed > people in the > wizard world would never trust him on just the good > word of even Harry > Potter and a few pensive memories. He would have > preferred to go and > start a new life somewhere else, slipping away as > only he can. Faking > his own death and moving on seems more his style > then being killed by > some bloated snake... Yep, I like that. As a matter of fact, you have made my day. He was only in his late 30s, so he could have a whole other life now that there is peace. Good idea. Barbara From bdhale59 at frontiernet.net Sat Aug 4 18:01:26 2007 From: bdhale59 at frontiernet.net (Brett Hale) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:01:26 -0600 Subject: Lavender Brown: werewolf? References: Message-ID: <006301c7d6c1$7a428340$6c01a8c0@kayenta.k12.az.us> No: HPFGUIDX 174482 I just joined this group. I have a question: does Lavender Brown become a werewolf? Hale From technomad at intergate.com Sat Aug 4 18:32:46 2007 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 13:32:46 -0500 Subject: FILK: Tenting Tonight Message-ID: <005201c7d6c5$db225470$37570043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 174483 I don't think anybody has ever filked this song before... ---------- Tenting Tonight, a Deathly Hallows filk by Eric Oppen ttto Tenting Tonight/Tenting On The Old Camp Ground Harry, Ron and Hermione: We are tenting tonight in the woods of Dean, Hiding in mortal fear, >From You-Know-Who, and Death Eaters Who'd love to find us here. Many are the wizards out searching tonight Serving You-Know-Who Many are the others, fighting for the right, Who know our cause is true! Tenting tonight, tenting tonight, Tenting in the woods of Dean! Hermione: For the Death Eaters carried out a coup They took the Ministry The Wizard World's run by You-Know-Who And no one now is free! Many are the witches that tried to make a stand Who're now in a cell! Many are the wizards freed from Azkaban Who all should be in hell! Tenting tonight, tenting tonight, Tenting in the woods of Dean! Ron: We have no more food, our fires are low And our morale is frayed, The Death Eaters are in the know And we are all afraid! Many are the wizards out fleeing in the night Fleeing for their lives! Many are the wizards who tried to make a fight To save their kin and wives! Tenting tonight, tenting tonight, Tenting in the woods of Dean. Harry: All the Muggleborns now are on the run The Purebloods now have their way The Death Eaters are having fun And Voldemort holds sway! Ron and Hermione: Many are the reasons for not saying the name Because it's been Tabooed! Many are the reasons, you've just lost the game And now we all are screwed! Captured tonight, captured tonight, Captured in the woods of Dean! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 19:08:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:08:37 -0000 Subject: DD as manipulator? A long response. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174484 Mari wrote: > > This topic seems to be causing a great deal of angst on the list. Since I share Carol's revulsion to the idea of DD as a cold hearted manipulator, I'd like to offer my reading of the situation in response to eggplant's and lupinlore's posts on DD as a Godfather type figure who led Snape, Harry or both 'like a pig to the slaughter' for the sake of some kind of abstract 'greater good'. Carol responds: Thanks, Mari. I've come around myself to the conclusion that, while DD was certainly working behind the scenes, he didn't mean for Snape to die and always had hope for Harry, who nevertheless had to face Voldemort believing that he was going to die for the sake of those he left behind, duplicating Lily's sacrifice on a larger scale. (See mey previous post.) The unreliable narrator and such devices as Rita Skeeter's book and the Penseive scene that shows DD apparently engineering Harry's death and even Voldemort'r reference to Harry as "Dumbledore's puppet" are reversed by "King's Cross" just as the misdirection about Snape is reversed by "The Prince's Tale." I still don't entirely understand DD's original plan, which sadly backfired on Snape, but it also backfired, as Harry says, on Voldemort (742). Mari: > For me the key to reading the meaning of DD's actions is contained in events in the previous books, as much as DH itself. > > Let's begin with Chamber of Secrets. This is arguably the first > possible point in JKR's narrative timeline where we can assume that > DD at least suspected that Riddle had made horcruxes. The discovery of the diary and its destruction is a major piece of the puzzle about what happened when the Potters were killed, and why Harry survived, and the beginning of DD putting the various pieces together in his mind. Carol responds: I think that Dumbledore knew or guessed that LV was making Horcruxes long before CoS. In HBP, we find that he's been collecting memories from the people (counting Hokey as a person) that Tom Riddle framed for his murders. He knows about his magpie-like tendency to collect trophies and his attachment to the school. He expresses horror at the idea of Horcruxes and removes the books from the shelves, apparently too late. He sees the changes in Tom Riddle's appearance, which can only be the result of some very Dark magic. He know about Riddle's aversion to death. In the Pensieve memory in DH, he tells Snape after Godric's Hollow that he thinks Voldemort will return. CoS confirms his theory that Voldemort made more than one Horcrux. He knows about the stolen cup and locket and suspects that they may be Horcruxes. He also knows about Gaunt's Peverell ring. Surely, Riddle would have made those proofs of his ancestry or links with Hogwarts, all probably powerful magical objects in themselves, into Horcruxes. By OoP, he suspects that Nagini may be a Horcrux as well ("in essence divided"). The only question that remains for DD is how many Horcruxes Riddle made, which is why he needs Slughorn's memory. Mari: > Thus, in book six, DD knows, or possibly guesses, the following: > > 1)Though Harry shares part of Voldemort's soul, Voldemort ALSO has a part of Harry's, albeit in a different way, through the blood protection. > > 2) Harry has to be willing to die for the piece of Voldemort's soul that is lodged inside him to be destroyed. > > 3) Because Voldemort and Harry share the same blood, Voldemort, when he attempts to kill Harry, is also killing a part of himself. > > 4) In order for the protective function of the blood sacrifice to operate, Harry must be willing to die for the sake of others, just as his mother was willing to die for his sake. > > 5)In order for this to play out as it should, Harry has to know that he must be willing to die for the sake of defeating Voldemort, and also that he must allow Voldemort to do it without fighting back. Unfortunately, this being the case, Harry CANNOT have the whole truth about the blood protection before he has completed his task. Carol: In short, he knows that Harry has to duplicate Lily's sacrifice, choosing to die for the love of the WW, to kill the soul bit. He cannot fight back. He must think he is going to die. But, thanks to the shared drop of blood, he is almost certain that Harry won't die. The Horcruxes will be destroyed and Voldemort will be mortal. (Just when or how DD figured out the soul bit and Lily's sacrifice is not made clear. We're back to the missing twenty-four hours. Harry was alive, Lily was dead, Voldie's soul was blown from his body. The Horcruxes explained Voldie, but how did DD know about Lily's sacrifice? Love is ancient magic, but it had never happened exactly that way before.) At any rate, once DD knows that he is dying, that Draco is trying to kill him, that LV expects Snape to kill him, he comes up with a plan, a rather desperate and flawed plan, to have Snape kill him to destroy the power of the wand. Only Snape has to have reasons that will work for him, that have nothing to do with puppetmaster Dumbledore. He needs Snape to kill him, so he presents it as euthanasia, an act of mercy to save him from dying at the teeth of Fenrir Greyback and saving Draco's life and soul (Draco's soul would have been split through murder; Snape seems to accept that his would not be split through an act of mercy.) The UV simply adds to the reasons why Snape *must* kill DD. DD needs him to protect the students and help Harry and to get the message to him that Harry must die. So it seems to me that DD *appears* to be ruthless and is without question manipulative, but he is not heartless or unloving. He cares for both Harry and Snape. He can't let Harry know about the shared drop of blood or the willing sacrifice will not work. Nor can he tell him about the Elder Wand, which is an even riskier plan. And because Harry can't know, neither can Snape. I think that, if DD's plan had worked, LV would have found the wand in DD's grave a useless stick, entirely stripped of his powers. He would have known that, somehow, DD had tricked him. And there was always the chance that Harry would get there first. But from the moment Draco disarmed DD to the moment Harry dropped the photo of Gellert Grindelwald, the plan went wrong. Mari: > As for Snape being a 'pig to the slaughter' I personally don't see this at all. Yes, things didn't go to plan, as DD admits in the Kings Cross chapter, but what was the plan in the first place? Snape didn't have to DIE in order [for LV] to become Master of the Elder Wand, it was VOLDEMORT who thought so. Carol: Snape wasn't supposed to become master of the wand at all. It was supposed to lose its powers, to become worthless. And apparently, it wasn't supposed to be left for Voldie to find in DD's grave. Snape was supposed to have it, a fact that he could conceal through Occlumency without knowing that it was the Elder Wand, only that DD didn't want LV to have it. But Snape's having to kill an already disarmed DD in front of four DEs and two boys (I'm sure he knew that Harry was there) messed up that part of the plan. But, clearly, DD needed Snape. He was relying on him. Snape was not supposed to die. Mari: For me a big part of the impact of Snape's death scene lies in precisely the fact that he did NOT die as a part of some grand pre arranged plan. Voldemort, being who he was, struck Snape down without a shred of mercy, compassion or remorse, for no purpose but his own ends. DD's sorrow for Snape's death, like his compassion for Snape at the moment of his own death, and his compassion for Harry, which is what makes it so difficult for DD to do what he must (i.e withhold the whole truth from Harry, and some of the whole truth from Snape) for me read as very genuine. Carol: Exactly. And LV's murder of Snape backfires on him, enabling Harry to feel compassion for Snape rather than a desire for vengeance, making possible the self-sacrifice that he learns he must make from Snape's memory, from Snape's last, desperate defiance of LV's will. Carol, who wants to explore the Deathly Hallows from a different angle in relations to the themes in HP and the revelations about Dumbledore but doesn't think that discussion belongs in this post From cottell at dublin.ie Sat Aug 4 19:20:21 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:20:21 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174485 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol, just working out a canon-based esplanation for Harry's > Crucio that I like better than "Harry's human," but not excusing > him or blaming the soul bit for a bad choice on Harry's part (Re also many, many other preceding posts on the justification for Harry's Crucio.) Mus: You certainly make a good case here, but I still have a major problem with the Unforgivables and the damage they do to the story, namely McGonagall's use of one on a barely conscious man for no other purpose than to retrieve his wand from just across the room and tie him up with his Stunned sister. There's a number of things that could explain away Harry's UCs, and they have been in several threads by many posters - NeedsMustWhenTheDevilDrives, using Malfoy's wand, pure adrenalin, Voldmort's malign influence. But I honestly can't see any justification for McGonagall's action. She's not in danger, she's in the company of two people who have just shown that they can disable an opponent, but she uses a UC simply, it would seem, to tidy the place up a bit. This was, for me, even more horrifying than Harry's action - this, by the woman who was inventive enough to make even the furniture fight the good fight. She has powers, and she's not too - well - *noble* to use them. Mus, who is too appalled to sign off cleverly. From two_flower2 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 19:36:22 2007 From: two_flower2 at yahoo.com (two_flower2) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:36:22 -0000 Subject: On Dumbledore, Snape and Horcrux-Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174486 Having read DH, I was horrified at what seemed to me Dumbledore's ruthless and heartless conduct: to raise child in order to manipulate him into sacrificing himself seemed despicable to me. I could not understand why Snape went along with Dumbledore's plans even after having learned that Harry, whom Snape had strived to protect for so many years, was to be "slaughtered like a pig". But suddenly it dawned on me that Dumbledore never soughtto "sacrifice" Harry. On the contrary, he desperately tried to save him from "a fate more horrible than death". All the Machiavellian plans might not have been for the greater good at all. It might have been all about Harry. Dumbledore knew that being a Horcrux, Harry was tethered to life along with Voldemort. It means, that Harry was OMG immortal in the same nasty way Voldemort was. While a bit of Voldie's soul was in Harry's, Harry could neither live happily, nor die normally. And what if somebody had killed off Voldie and sent his disembodied spirit to an unknown destination for a hundred years? What would have happened to Harry in that case? It was crucial for D-dore to make Harry try and get murdered by Voldie ASAP, in Harry's own best interests. It was not even death Dumbledore tried to save Harry from, it was an eternity of cursed existence or something like that. Poor Dumbledore and Snape. How desperate they must have been. I think that when D-dore stopped being teary over Snape's patronus, he explained to Snape that they were STILL protecting Lily's son and in the circs it would be a mercy for the boy to actually die, and their task would be to manipulate events so that Harry would get a chance to sacrifice himself, and then, if lucky, Harry might not have to die after all due to Lily's protection. Not that their actual plan--for Snape to explain Harry about Harrycrux when the right moment came--wasn't silly. Snape was in a constant danger to be killed by minion-murdering Voldie on a whim before he had a chance to talk to Harry and that's what almost happened. Anyway, Dumbledore is not THAT Machiavellian as he seems, IMO Twoflower2, a lurker From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Aug 4 19:36:01 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:36:01 -0000 Subject: Closure for Harry & Snape In-Reply-To: <417666.32403.qm@web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174487 Cathio2002: > I'm new to the group, so I'm not sure if this has > been discussed previously. But I felt somewhat > unsatisfied with the closure or lack of closure > between Harry and Snape. I think there should have > been a scene where either Harry or Snape or both > apologized to the other, or perhaps JKR could have > had a scene where they showed mutual respect for each other. houyhnhnm: Some have interpreted Snape's request to "Look at me" as a desire to see Lily's eyes before he died. I prefer to think that it was his wish to say "thou" to Harry at long last, and that everything each needed to say to the other was said in that last second. From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Aug 4 19:33:54 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 15:33:54 -0400 Subject: Courage, was Re:Children's Books (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal)/Malu Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174488 You are, right, of course, about balance. But that isn't the question ("Are the various virtues interdependant as they draw strength from one another?" Or "Can a virtue taken to excess or in isolation become a vice?" or something similar [all valid questions, BTW); the question that has been put is "Which virtue is the most important?" JKR answers 'courage'. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 4 19:45:51 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:45:51 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174489 > Mus: You certainly make a good case here, but I still have a major > problem with the Unforgivables and the damage they do to the story, > namely McGonagall's use of one on a barely conscious man for no > other purpose than to retrieve his wand from just across the room > and tie him up with his Stunned sister. > > There's a number of things that could explain away Harry's UCs, and > they have been in several threads by many posters - > NeedsMustWhenTheDevilDrives, using Malfoy's wand, pure adrenalin, > Voldmort's malign influence. Magpie: 2 and 4 are the worst for me. Harry's so good that if he does something really bad a bad guy must be responsible, even if he's not there and it's not presented as being anything but Harry doing something he decides to do, enjoys and approves of later? I assume Malfoy's wand killing Voldemort gets credited completely to Harry, though, and that the "gallant" comment is meant totally for Harry and not the soul bit in Harry's head. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 19:50:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:50:12 -0000 Subject: DH - unanswered (and irritating) questions In-Reply-To: <724438.65798.qm@web25906.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174490 ciraarana: > > Q: Snape wasn't yet teaching at Hogwarts when he approached Dumbledore with the plea to keep Lily safe (otherwise they wouldn't have met at the hilltop). So, when did that interview take place? and why did it take Voldemort so long to find the Potters? They only went into hiding a week before they were murdered. > > Nate: > Where did you read that it was a week? I took it to be much longer > than that. After all, the prediction speaks of a someone that WILL > BE BORN that has the power to vanquish the dark lord; therefore, > Snape will have told Voldemort about the prophecy more than a year > before murder. As soon as Harry was born (still more than a year > before James and Lill die) Voldy would think that Harry is his > threat, prompting Snape to see Dumbledore. > > Cira: > Hagrid said the Potters had been killed a week after they had gone into hiding, right back in PS/SS. And I guess the time that elapsed between the making of the prophecy and the murder of the Potters to be something like two years. And the Potters only went into hiding one week before Halloween. What was Voldi doing all the time? > Carol responds: As I understand it from the much-disparaged letter from Lily to Sirius, the Potters were already in hiding long before the Fidelius Charm was placed. James had probably gone out using his Invisibility Cloak before Dumbledore borrowed it and was getting restless cooped up inside. But Dumbledore's suggestion for the Fidelius Charm does seem to have come later. I thought it was PoA, not SS/PS, which states that the Charm was only in place for a week before they died. Hagrid would not have known about it, would he? As for Snape, he obviously goes to Dumbledore as soon as he learns how Voldemort interprets the Prophecy. Given the weather, it's some time after Harry's birth on July 31. I don't think that's a summer storm they're enduring before DD casts the protective spell. In any case, Snape has to spy for DD "at great personal risk" for quite some time before DD is willing to hire him to teach at Hogwarts (certainly not in the cursed DADA post), much less testify before the whole Wizengamot that Snape is no more a Death Eater than he is. So I would say that the scene in the Pensieve memory takes place a few months after Harry's birth. The second scene obviously takes place just after Godric's Hollow, when Snape is already Potions master. I don't know why it took Voldemort so long to find the Potters. Maybe it took Wormtail awhile to find the "courage" to betray them or he was equally interested in killing off Order members or the Potters and Longbottoms had not yet defied him thrice. If I were LV and really thought that the Prophecy referred to a baby rather than an adult posing a present threat, I'd have been watching the birth announcements in the Daily Prophet. But maybe LV didn't do that and didn't yet know which boy or boys had been born at the end of July. Maybe he was debating pure-blood vs. half-blood in his mind for fifteen months. Maybe the story just required Harry to be fifteen months old rather than newly born when his parents died. Did JKR even see the discrepancy, which we've wondered about for ages? > ciraarana: > > Q: Snape approached Voldemort with the plea to not kill Lily? And Voldemort agreed? He agreed to not kill a "Mudblood"?? (And he did agree, didn't he, because he gave Lily the choice to step away.) Looking at Voldemort's policy ... Are we supposed to accept that? > > Nate: > Admittedly, this was a little suspect to me as well. That being said, Voldemort obviously doesn't care too much about the request, as he kills her anyway when he could have easiler stunned / moved / cursed around her. > > Cira: > Well, I wouldn't say he doesn't care much about the request. After all, the told her THREE TIMES to get away. And he didn't have to say it even once, if he was going to kill her after all. I think he was doing his "best" to honour the request. Only when Lily stubbornly refused to step aside he lost patience and killed her. > However, about Snape making the request in the first place, someone else - I forgot her name, sorry - suggested that Snape might have told Voldemort he wanted to revenge himself on James by raping his wife. And surely Voldemort would have understood that. > Carol responds: This one is answered in DH. Snape told LV that he *desired* Lily. Not revenge, not rape, just lust. (It was a lie, of course, but one that LV would believe and one which Snape could easily enable LV to believe with his peculiar version of Occlumency.) "'Snape's Patronus was a doe,' said Harry, 'the same as my mother's because he loved her nearly all of his life., from the time that they were children. You should have realized," he said as he saw Voldemort's nostrils flare, "he asked you to spare her life, didn't he?' "'He desired her, that was all,' sneered Voldemort, 'but when she had gone, he agreed that there were other women, and of pure blood, worthier of him--' "'Of course he told you that,' said Harry, 'but he was Dumbledore's spy from the moment that you threatened her, and he's been working against you ever since!'" (DH 740). Voldemort doesn't understand love, which he could not imagine Snape feeling, especially for an unworthy "Mudblood." But even he would be able to see that Lily was attractive, and he has no difficulty supposing that Snape, a very young man of about twenty-one, finds her sexually desirable. James doesn't even come into the picture, any more than he does when Snape pleads to DD for her life. It's all about Lily. Or that's how it starts. Carol, thinking that some of our questions may be answered on a careful rereading of a book that's still new to all of us From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 20:37:45 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:37:45 -0000 Subject: Severus lives! In-Reply-To: <46B4B2E3.3000802@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174491 Jazmyn: > I noticed several things that make me believe that Snape somehow didn't > really die. > > No headmasters painting of him. Lisa: We don't know that ... we just know that one wasn't mentioned. If it had been there, it would've been sleeping, anyway, I would assume, like Dumbledore's was originally. Jazmyn: > > He never appeared as any of the dead people Harry saw while unconscious. Lisa: Well, those were Harry's loved ones. Snape and Harry never got along, much less loved each other. Jazmyn: > His line early on, in the first book about 'stoppering death'. Lisa: I took that to mean making a potion to cause death. A bottle full of death, with a stopper atop it. Jazmyn: > > If his body disappeared, the good guys would assume the DEs took care of > it and the DEs prob wouldn't care since he wasn't close to any of them > anyways. Snape had no family to claim it, so if it was still laying > around, Harry or SOMEONE would have taken responsibility for his > funeral. Though its likely noone would have even bothered to look for > his body.. what with 50 other dead people to deal with. Lisa: Harry knew by this time that Snape was on his side, though -- I'm sure he'd've gone back. Jazmyn: > > The light going out in his eyes could have been a coma he slipped into > as potions he took before meeting with Voldemort took effect. He is a > brilliant potions master and could have prepared something ahead of > time, knowing that Voldemort was keeping Nagini close and the end was > near, he would have prepared for it. Lisa: I think Snape had come to the end of his storyline, and Nagini killed him as Voldemort intended. Jazmyn: > > He has no good reason to stick around. Thick headed people in the > wizard world would never trust him on just the good word of even Harry > Potter and a few pensive memories. He would have preferred to go and > start a new life somewhere else, slipping away as only he can. Faking > his own death and moving on seems more his style then being killed by > some bloated snake...> > The idea he would WANT to die to join Lilly is foolish.. James already > has her even in the afterlife, so there is no peace for him there. I think everyone forgives and forgets in "the afterlife," I hardly think old grudges continue. At least, I hope not ... ! Lisa From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Aug 4 19:29:13 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 15:29:13 -0400 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174492 Betsy: "And honestly, it's not even that Harry and Snape made a choice. The Hat just stated who they were. It's all pre-determined. Bit boring, really, IMO." Did you read the same book I did? Harry chose to be in Griffindor. The hat tried to put him in Slytherin. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From random832 at fastmail.us Sat Aug 4 21:09:24 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:09:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B4EB04.8090203@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 174493 >steve/bboyminn: > Also note that in the original text /Avada Kedavra/ > is in italics, but the other curses are not. I'm not > sure what that implies, but it does set the AK off > from the other curses. Well, AK is the incantation, where he merely mentions the _names_ of the other curses - that's why it's in italics anyway, no comment on why he chose to list the incantation for one and the names of the others in the first place. -- Random832 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 21:17:06 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:17:06 -0000 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174494 Carol earlier: > > If he [Harry] had confronted Voldemort hating him and seeking vengeance and willing to kill him using an AK or any other deadly curse, he would have failed. > > Betsy Hp: > I disagree. It was a Gryffindor versus a Slytherin. So the Gryffindor *had* to win, because *that's* the overarching moral. Harry didn't need to be intelligent or compassionate or loving or > even all that interested in justice. What he had to be was a > Gryffindor. So the battle was won way back in PS/SS with Harry's > Sorting. Just as Snape was doomed at his Sorting. > > And honestly, it's not even that Harry and Snape made a choice. The > Hat just stated who they were. It's all pre-determined. Bit boring, > really, IMO. Carol responds: Thank you for listening to my theory on the soul bit influencing the Crucio, which is, as I said, just a theory. But I'm trying to look at the canon and see what's there as opposed to what isn't and I do think that the canon for the soul bit as a malign influence is right there in the text. I concede that it doesn't explain McGonagall, but since she chased Snape out of Hogwarts, without even the sense to realize that *the password to the headmaster's office was "Dumbledore,"* for crying out loud, she's not very high on my list of favorite characters right now. :-) IOW, it's Harry's use of the Crucio that really bothers me. I'm afraid that Harry worship explains McG's behavior but I frankly don't care about her. As for the final battle and the series as a whole, are you sure that's not just your own preconception imposed on the books? Can you show me canon that it still holds true at the end of DH? I've presented a canon-based case for Harry's self-sacrifice as an act of love paralleling Lily's. Elsewhere, in several posts, I've shown how Harry's view of Snape evolves from "Snape is evil" to "Snape is probably the bravest man I ever met." I've talked about Regulus and Slughorn and even Phineas Nigellus' contribution. And Harry's view of Albus Dumbledore evolves, too, in a less straightforward way, to something between Elphias Doge's adulation and Rita Skeeter's half-truths about Albus, Aberforth, Aberforth, and Gellert. The book (and the series) does not boil down to Gryffindor vs. Slytherin. Many other things are going on. There's the corruption of the Ministry, the unjustified persecution of Muggles and Muggle-borns, the depiction of house-elves and goblins, who turn out to be different from human beings, with different natures, just as Ron always said. There's the role of love and self-sacrifice. There's the whole Hallows plot, which goes beyond the Elder Wand and serves to interweave HRH's quest with Dumbledore's life. We've barely touched on literary influences. For me, right now, the book is about perception, how preconceptions distort Harry's view of many things and people, as symbolized by his glasses in "King's Cross." But that's by no means all that the book is about. Nor does the Christian imagery and the parallels with Christ mean that Harry is supposed to be Jesus. But death and the afterlife are there in the book, begging to be explored. I'm asking you, please, Betsy, as a long-time list friend, to try to see beyond Slytherin and Gryffindor, beyond your dashed hopes, to the complex but flawed book (shades of Severus Snape?) that's really hear. Please. A little canon. A little objectivity. A little awareness that just because you don't see something on a first reading doesn't mean it isn't there. And one more thing. If Gryffindor is "good" by definition, how do you explain Peter Pettigrew? Or even Cormac McLaggen and Romilda Vane in HBP? I think that what JKR values isn't Gryffindor per se, it's love and courage. And she granted both of those qualities to Severus Snape, may he be ever happy in the afterlife. Carol, apologizing for preaching but really wanting Betsy and all of us to put aside our expectations and explore the words on the pages From angellima at xtra.co.nz Sat Aug 4 21:26:22 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 09:26:22 +1200 Subject: Wands and ...Deathly Hallows plotline - Important! Message-ID: <000301c7d6de$1b0f74b0$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 174495 Steve: In a very metaphorical way, I see the Hallows as 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. Once Harry has a basic understanding of the Hallows, he stands at the crossroads of his life. Does he follow the Path of Power or the Path of Self-Sacrifice? That may seem insignificant to many, but I see it as supremely important. How many of us could have resisted that Path of Power? How many of us would not have rationalized that having immense power would surely be the path to defeating Voldemort? For Harry to reject that temptation is HUGE HUGE HUGE. But we know Harry, he is selfless, just as Jesus was selfless. He was willing to endure pain, death, and defeat rather than follow that overwhelming temptation. Angel: I love your logic! The fact that Harry makes a choice which I had always assumed was the integral grain in Rowling's work. Harry's "choice" was lacking to me because he never underwent the fury of internal struggle. Jesus' last temptation was something meaningful to Him. He was doing it for people who couldn't even stay awake for and with Him, for people who would beat, curse and ridicule Him. He was to be stripped (of power, humility, clothing, self-worth). Harry's "choice" is watered down by three facts. He was never interested in power (as he had proved already in PS which for literary purposes is meaningful - a return home of sorts? However Harry makes the same choice in every book. It is the one consistent factor with him and it hinges on him being inherently good not CHOOSING to do good). He realises he is the master of the hallows before he physically set out for the last 4 er 5 horcruxes. After he made "the choice" people were still grouped into good and bad. Primarily though they made very different choices - Harry's choice was to defeat Voldemort. I believe Jesus' choice was to save us. PS I understand you are not saying Harry was playing the role of Christ but I gathered off posts here that Rowling did which has weighed me a bit since it seems to me Rowling knew what Christ went through but not necessarily what he was about and am hoping to be swayed otherwise. From angellima at xtra.co.nz Sat Aug 4 21:36:05 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 09:36:05 +1200 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic Message-ID: <000801c7d6df$7671a980$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 174496 Carol: Put another way, the third-person-limited narrator is not the voice of the author, who knows how the story will work out, but a creation of the author who describes the sensations, thoughts, perceptions, and interpretations of the pov-character, in this case, Harry. (Fans have called this device "the Harry filter.") Like human beings in RL, a character is limited by his surroundings. Harry and his companions are isolated in the middle of the book as they have never been before. Almost their only contact with events outside their microcosm is Harry's scar. Angel: I actually disagree. The reader REALISES that Harry's perception clouds his view because we SEE and HEAR not only what he looks at and listens to but that which he overlooks, mishears and misconstrues. We are privy to much more than just that which Harry coerces us to misread. His slant on what he saw was unmissable yet very distinguishable and I think Rowling meant it that way. It is part of her brilliance - my view of her views does not detract from her bag of tricks. Maybe it was easier for me as though I followed Harry around I never wore his shoes, he was never a character that captured my heart unlike the villains except Voldemort who is just too stupid to comprehend and mini minions ! (Ignoring the gasps at what that might say about me! ) What I cannot abide is righteous uppity attitudes. What I can't stand is righteous uppity attitudes from the flawed! I recognise my faults and realise we are all of us imperfect, scarred and erred. I want the chance for redemption. Harry however was 'portrayed' as above the fray. It was real in his head but not in the real world, afterall From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 21:50:27 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:50:27 -0000 Subject: Lavender Brown: werewolf? In-Reply-To: <006301c7d6c1$7a428340$6c01a8c0@kayenta.k12.az.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174497 --- "Brett Hale" wrote: > > I just joined this group. I have a question: does > Lavender Brown become a werewolf? > > Hale > bboyminn: WHY would you even speculate that Lavender Brown MIGHT become a werewolf? If you simply want the answer, you can find it by reading the books. If you are trying to start a discussion, you need to give us more to go on than a simple question; like ideas, opinions, speculations, etc.... Steve/bboyminn From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Aug 4 22:29:32 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:29:32 -0000 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174498 Bruce: > Did you read the same book I did? Harry chose to be in Griffindor. The hat tried to put him in Slytherin. Ceridwen: Apparently, we're reading different books. My copy of PS/SS says: "Hmm," said a small voice in his ear. "Difficult. Very difficult. Plenty of courage, I see. Not a bad mind either. There's talent, oh my goodness, yes -- and a nice thirst to prove yourself, now that's interesting... So, where shall I put you?" Harry gripped the edge of the stool and thought, *Not Slytherin, not Slytherin*. "Not Slytherin, eh?" said the small voice. "Are you sure? You could be great, you know, it's all here in your head, and Slytherin will help you on the way to greatness, no doubt about that -- no? Well, if you're sure -- better be GRYFFINDOR!" ~SS, Scholastic paperback, pg. 121 The Sorting Hat doesn't mention Slytherin first, Harry does. The hat affirms that Harry doesn't want to go to Slytherin, so puts him in Gryffindor. Ceridwen. From leahstill at hotmail.com Sat Aug 4 22:35:55 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:35:55 -0000 Subject: Lavender Brown: werewolf? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174499 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "Brett Hale" wrote: > > > > I just joined this group. I have a question: does > > Lavender Brown become a werewolf? > > > > Hale > > > > bboyminn: > > WHY would you even speculate that Lavender Brown > MIGHT become a werewolf? > > If you simply want the answer, you can find it by > reading the books. > > If you are trying to start a discussion, you need > to give us more to go on than a simple question; > like ideas, opinions, speculations, etc.... > > Steve/bboyminn Leah: In 'The Elder Wand', Harry sees 'a grey blur' race across the Hall to 'sink its teeth into one of the fallen'. Hermione shrieks, "No" and blasts Fenrir Greyback from 'the feebly stirring body of Lavender Brown'. Greyback is then knocked out by Trelawney. We later hear that Greyback is dispatched by Ron and Neville but no more (I think) of Lavender. I read from this that Greyback was not responsible for Lavender's injury, since he has to cross the Hall to get to her, but that he is looking for a tasty snack. It's not clear whether he manages to bite into Lavender before Hermione comes to the rescue, but I think the implication is that she is saved. She is certainly not eaten, and I would say she has not been infected with werewolfism. Whether she lives we do not know. So, I can understand why the orginal questioner was speculating given the information we have in this chapter, but agree there is not much to discuss here as the information is so limited. It is a little cameo of the battle. Leah From AllieS426 at aol.com Sat Aug 4 22:42:00 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:42:00 -0000 Subject: A Sense of Betrayal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174500 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > Geoff: > Permit me to correct you in saying that the books were first published > by Bloomsbury who are a UK publisher. > > It was /after/ this that Scholastic started to produce the books in the > US. > Allie: My mistake! I meant Scholastic but the idea is the same. From AllieS426 at aol.com Sat Aug 4 22:52:17 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:52:17 -0000 Subject: Jo's OWN Words/Harry using Crucio/I am about to Rant/Danger Designating the In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174501 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Allie: > > > > You'll see them called "children's books" over and over in the > media > > and elsewhere, but I don't think that was actually the author's > > intent. I've read in more than one place where JKR has said that > she > > wasn't writing "children's" books, she just wrote the story that > she > > envisioned, and it was purchased in the US by Bloomsbury, a > children's > > book publisher. There are mythology and literature references in > the > > books that most children wouldn't understand. > > Magpie: > They got bought by the children's division Bloomsbury (in the UK) > because that's where JKR correctly sent them--to a children's > publisher. She wouldn't have sent them to that publisher if she > didn't consider them children's books. What she said about writing > them was not that she didn't intend them for kids (who else could she > have intended PS for, really?), but that she set out to write the > story she wanted to write and they happened to be childen's (and > later YA) books. Allie again: I really don't know the answer to this one - but didn't she send the story to many publishers initially and finally it was purchased by Bloomsbury? Were they all children's publishers? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 23:01:02 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:01:02 -0000 Subject: Wands and ...Deathly Hallows plotline - Undercurrents In-Reply-To: <000301c7d6de$1b0f74b0$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174502 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Angel Lima" wrote: > > Steve: > > In a very metaphorical way, I see the Hallows as > 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. Once Harry has > a basic understanding of the Hallows, he stands > at the crossroads of his life. Does he follow the > Path of Power or the Path of Self-Sacrifice? > > ... > > Angel: > > I love your logic! The fact that Harry makes a > choice which I had always assumed was the integral > grain in Rowling's work. Harry's "choice" was > lacking to me because he never underwent the fury of > internal struggle. bboyminn: Glad you like my logic. But Harry did go through an internal struggle, from the moment he thinks he's figure out the Hallows, while still on the 'camping trip', he is obsessed with them. Ron and Hermione are determined to focus on Horcruxes, but Harry simply can't get his mind off Hallows and the immense power they represent. Further he is furious with Ron and Hermione for not seeing what he sees. After the death of Dobby, Harry does some long hard thinking about what they have to and will do next. Torn between Hallows and Horcruxes, after a long obsession, and after thinking long and hard, he decides on abandoning Hallows even though he understand the immense power they represent. Even understanding that by focusing on Horcruxes, he is literally giving Voldemort the most power Wand in the world. A wand he knows he will one day face. I would say that was a wrenching agonizing choice. > Angel: > > Jesus' last temptation was something meaningful to > Him. > bboyminn: As you note later, I was using Christ as an illustration, not as an example. JKR never claim that HP was an analogy, metaphor, allegory, or illustration of Jesus. She never claimed her works had religious 'overtones'. The most she ever said, is that her works had religious 'undercurrents', which is a very different thing. Any morality tale, any struggle between the forces of Good and Evil is going to have religious undercurrents; all religions - Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto, animistic, Hindu, Christian, etc.... But that is very very very different than trying to re-write the story of Christ in a completely different framework. Many modern movies are actually re-writes of Shakespeare, but that is not at all what JKR has done. She has written the story of a hero, even a flawed hero, who struggles with every aspect of life, but in the end, despite flaws along the way, he does the right thing. Only in that universal framework does this work have religious /undercurrents/. > Angel: > > Harry's "choice" is watered down by three facts. > > He was never interested in power (as he had proved > already in PS which for literary purposes is meaningful > - a return home of sorts? However Harry makes the same > choice in every book. It is the one consistent factor > with him and it hinges on him being inherently good not > CHOOSING to do good). > bboyminn: Harry does make the same choice in every book, but it is NOT the choice to accept/pursue, or to reject power. It is to be selfish or selfless; Harry always chooses to be /selfless/. But NOW he has a job to do, a dark and terrible and near impossible job to do against an overwhelming enemy. This creates a very different situation. Never has Harry had the opportunity to choose a path of power that would serve his desperate need so well. Logically, from his perspective at the time, if Harry could bring together all the Hallows, he would be unstoppable, he would be invincible. When you are facing such of overwhelming force, it is extremely difficult not to chose to bring that power to bear on your own behalf. That is an extreme temptation in my book; an almost impossible temptation for any human to resist. Yet, once again, Harry choses to be selfless. > Angel: > > He realizes he is the master of the hallows before > he physically set out for the last 4 er 5 horcruxes. > bboyminn: Sorry, you lost me here. It is only after he has survived death that he realized the full implications of his mastery of death. I don't see how he realizes he is 'Master of the Hallows' before that. > Angel: > > After he made "the choice" people were still grouped > into good and bad. > bboyminn: Again...confused. Harry, long before this, realizes that people are /shades of grey/. We have many examples in the book that implant this idea in his head, not the least of which is Sirius specifically saying it. > Angel: > > Primarily though they made very different choices - > Harry's choice was to defeat Voldemort. I believe > Jesus' choice was to save us. > > > PS I understand you are not saying Harry was playing > the role of Christ but I gathered off posts here that > Rowling did ... bboyminn: Harry is not Christ. Harry Potter (the Books) are not the story of Christ re-written. Neither JKR nor I (as you acknowledge) have ever made this claim. HP books do not really have significant religious overtones, but because they are a story about good struggling against evil and winning, they certainly have certain non-denominationally religious and universal undercurrents. I think these /universal undercurrents/ are what make Harry Potter so popular across such a wide range of cultures and religions. But then...that's just my opinion. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 23:21:31 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:21:31 -0000 Subject: Jo's OWN Words... Children's Books? Children's Publisher??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174503 --- "allies426" wrote: > > --- "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > >> Allie: > >> > >> You'll see them called "children's books" over and > >> over in the media and elsewhere, but I don't think > >> that was actually the author's intent. ..., she > >> just wrote the story that she envisioned, and it > >> was purchased in the US by Bloomsbury, ... > > Magpie: > > They got bought by the children's division > > Bloomsbury (in the UK) because that's where JKR > > correctly sent them--to a children's publisher. ... > > Allie again: > > I really don't know the answer to this one - but > didn't she send the story to many publishers initially > and finally it was purchased by Bloomsbury? Were they > all children's publishers? > bboyminn: JKR wrote the books for herself. Since they aren't filled with sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll, she obviously wrote it for a general audience. She sent that manuscript off to an AGENT. THE AGENT then in turn tried to figure out who might buy it and tried to sell it to them. The AGENT tried many publisher, all of whom turned the book down, until Bloomsbury read and accepted the book. Bloomsbury publishes a range of fiction and non-fiction books. Once they bought the book, they had to decide who would buy it. Naturally they assumed children would like a story about a boy wizard. But, from the point the book touched the Agents hands, it was all about marketing, not about writing. JKR wrote the books for a general audience; the publisher decide to market them to children. So says I. Steve/bboyminn From djmitt at pa.net Sat Aug 4 21:56:45 2007 From: djmitt at pa.net (Donna) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:56:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/Grindlewald duel Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174504 At first when I read the DH, one of my main complaints was "How did Dumbledore win the duel with Grindelwald when he had an unbeatable wand???" Then I thought about it and listened to the book a second time. Dumbledore stole the wand from the wandmaker using polyjuice potion to disguise himself as Grindlewald. That whole theft scene was a little weird with the thief acting like a bird (phoenix).. Now it makes sense. Grindlewald told Voldemort that he never had the wand and Voldy called him a liar. Maybe he was telling him the truth ..Dumbledore stole it..of course for the greater good Donna From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Aug 4 23:50:16 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:50:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's Compassion (Malum blah blah blah ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174505 > > Alla: > > So basically it all boils down to Harry feeling more for > > Slytherin and Draco Malfoy? Or other bad guys? I mean, we have no > > other bad guys. I mean I do not want to speak for you either, but > > I am asking for clarification. I would like to know what would > > make you consider Harry to be more compassionate character. > > > > Does him feeling for Wormtail counts, because I do not see what > > justice would be in saving him? Does him offering to go look > > for Luna's things counts? Feeling for Neville? Feeling for Tom > > Riddle? > > Magpie: > Well, yeah, given that it's the bad characters that are more > difficult to feel compassion for. > > Basically, I think it goes off in the wrong direction to make it > about Harry and what would make him more compassionate, because > Harry is who he is. I don't have a problem with Harry. But I think > that the story Harry is in just doesn't ultimately say anything > that significant about compassion. Jen: Wading in here with a few thoughts about whether Harry is characterized by compassion. My simple answer is no, he's not someone whose compassion stands out when I'm reading his thoughts and actions. There are other strengths I see in Harry. Thinking of characters who come across as compassionate in order to explain why Harry did not, Luna is one who springs to mind. She and Ollivander formed a connection to each other after their imprisonment, expressed by their good-byes to each other. Granted, after a long period of isolation and torture Mr. Ollivander might have found anyone thrown into his cell a welcome relief (and a newly imprisoned Luna might have felt the same). However, Ollivander said Luna was an 'inexpressible comfort' to him. After watching Luna for a few books, I could imagine her recognizing the suffering of Ollivander and sharing it with him, as well as attempting to relieve his misery in whatever way possible. It's what she does for Harry in OOTP, understanding his anxiety about seeing the thestrals, then later connecting with him during his grief over losing Sirius. I think of compassion as not only recognizing and hoping to relieve the pain of another but sharing the pain in such a way that the burden is lessened. Compassion can be present whether a person is able to change another's situation or not: Luna wasn't able to break Ollivander out of his prison or keep him from being tortured as Harry was, yet Ollivander found her an 'inexpressible comfort' regardless. Harry's 'saving people thing' is something else in my view. Yes, he desperately wants to save people who are suffering or dying and takes action to do so whenever he possibly can. He's heroic and brave without thought to his own safety in these moments. I'd even characterize him as empathetic with intense, immediate pain, especially the physical pain of another. But his strength isn't in sharing another's pain as much as his ability to *act* to relieve it, to make things happen, to wipe suffering away (possibly in part because it's so anxiety-provoking for him to watch or hear it happen). If I lived in Potterverse, I'd sure rather find Harry thrown into my cell because then I'd know the author was about to save me. In real life or a fictional setting where Harry didn't have the means to save people almost every time he sets his sights on it, I'd take someone like Luna, with an ability to make my emotional or physical pain more bearable. Jen From sainthellsing at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 23:14:40 2007 From: sainthellsing at yahoo.com (Saint Hellsing) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:14:40 -0000 Subject: Lavender Brown: werewolf? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174506 Leah: > So, I can understand why the orginal questioner was speculating > given the information we have in this chapter, but agree there is > not much to discuss here as the information is so limited. It is a > little cameo of the battle. ...Lavender Werewolves... But Leah, it's in the "little cameo(s)" of any battle that the joy and agony lie. St. Hell From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Aug 5 00:16:19 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:16:19 -0000 Subject: Jo's OWN Words/Harry using Crucio/I am about to Rant/Danger Designating the In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174507 > > Magpie: > > They got bought by the children's division Bloomsbury (in the UK) > > because that's where JKR correctly sent them--to a children's > > publisher. She wouldn't have sent them to that publisher if she > > didn't consider them children's books. What she said about writing > > them was not that she didn't intend them for kids (who else could > she > > have intended PS for, really?), but that she set out to write the > > story she wanted to write and they happened to be childen's (and > > later YA) books. > > Allie again: > > I really don't know the answer to this one - but didn't she send the > story to many publishers initially and finally it was purchased by > Bloomsbury? Were they all children's publishers? Magpie: If somebody has a clue about what they're doing, they won't be sending out their manuscripts to lots of publishers of different types. I can't imagine an adult publisher would even look at PS/SS. They'd read the beginning and reject it. A cover letter to publishers usually expects you to say what age group it's for etc. PS/SS is clearly a book for kids. bboyminn: JKR wrote the books for herself. Since they aren't filled with sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll, she obviously wrote it for a general audience. She sent that manuscript off to an AGENT. THE AGENT then in turn tried to figure out who might buy it and tried to sell it to them. The AGENT tried many publisher, all of whom turned the book down, until Bloomsbury read and accepted the book. Magpie: A writer also chooses which agents to send a manuscript to based on what it is. Not all agents deal with children's books. The Agent, having a clue as anyone in publishing would, of course would also send it to children's publishers. But one of the things a professional level writer would need to know is what genre/age group etc. the book was for. Claiming the story is "for everyone" or can't be boiled down to anything marketable is a common mark of the amateur who probably isn't professional level. This sort of thing isn't something that other people take care of for them. bboyminn: Bloomsbury publishes a range of fiction and non-fiction books. Once they bought the book, they had to decide who would buy it. Naturally they assumed children would like a story about a boy wizard. But, from the point the book touched the Agents hands, it was all about marketing, not about writing. JKR wrote the books for a general audience; the publisher decide to market them to children. Magpie: Agents do not send manuscripts to publishers. They send it to specific editors who work in specific divisions that are appropriate. The juvenile division is completely different form the adult division. Of course JKR wrote the books for herself. I believe she's also said that she recognized the story that she wrote was correctly a children's book--I can't imagine anyone in publishing reading PS/SS and thinking it was an adult book. I don't understand this need to think this was imposed on JKR by marketing people, as if the book could have just as easily been published by the adult division if not for the whim of somebody outside the author. As an author *you* are partially responsible for placing your manuscript with the appropriate agent or publisher. If you send it to someone inappropriate, they reject it (they might direct you to the appropriate type of agent or imprint if they're so inclined). Writing strictly to marketing purposes will probably lead to an empty story, but knowing what you're writing for in terms of audience, genre etc. is a basic part of writing. -m (who also notes that JKR does not have a cadre of editors whose job it is to pick through her books for inconsistancies) From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sun Aug 5 01:07:29 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 01:07:29 -0000 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: <700201d40708040305i44a2f294lbcf5dc09bd59c7c0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174508 > Kemper now: > As Dark Arts were taught at Hogwarts it makes sense that Professor > Carrow would at least have his NEWT level classes practice the AK on > some spiders or mice... maybe an House Elf during private lessons. > > Kemper True. But this is Crabbe and Goyle we're talking about! Have they used their wands for anything besides picking their noses to this point? It just seemed out of character for them to be good at them. Phoenixgod2000 From bamf505 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 01:18:09 2007 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lavender Brown: werewolf? In-Reply-To: <006301c7d6c1$7a428340$6c01a8c0@kayenta.k12.az.us> Message-ID: <745330.38851.qm@web31512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174509 --- Brett Hale wrote: > I just joined this group. I have a question: does > Lavender Brown become a werewolf? > > Hale > > bamf: We don't even know if she survived the attack. There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast. ***** Me t wyrd gewf ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC From sk8maven at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 01:24:23 2007 From: sk8maven at yahoo.com (sk8maven) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 01:24:23 -0000 Subject: Jo's OWN Words about Political and Religious Overtones in... In-Reply-To: <32807549.1185995769630.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174510 > Bart: > However, JKR a WICCAN? No, no, no, no, NO! First of all, she has > specifically stated that she is not, and Wiccans rarely keep their > religion a secret if asked directly; a number of Wiccan/neopagan > sects actually have as a basic rule not to lie about one's > religion. > Similarly, if you look at the occult as expressed in the Harry > Potter novels, you will note that there are certain basic, well, > I guess you would call them "errors", which no Wiccan (or at least > no knowledgeable Wiccan) would commit. We went over that here > during a discussion of the 4 houses vs. the 4 elements, where I > pointed out that the characteristics given the houses by JKR > do not match their elemental aspects (if they did, Gryffindor > would be fire, Ravenclaw air, Hufflepuff water, and Slytherin > earth; in addition, fire and air are masculine elements, and earth > and water are feminine elements, so, whether Slytherin was water or > earth, Salazar should have been a woman). As a matter of fact, it hardly matters which system you try to apply - at least two Houses are at least partially switched, and their Founders should have been, say, "Rowland Ravenclaw" and "Sabrina Slytherin". > So, although I think that the Christianity in the HP series goes beyond a simple "Jesus allegory", JKR is no Wiccan. Nor is she an astrologer, nor a Taoist, nor a Jungian, nor much of any kind of occultist. Apparently she just grabbed a handful of symbols and applied them willy-nilly, without any deeper thought about it. She's even got two-and-a-half of the Four Evangelists, but once again carelessly and incompletely applied. "The Lion of St. Mark" matches well to the Gryffindor lion (why a lion and not a griffin?), while "the Eagle of St. John" is at least a visual match to Ravenclaw's eagle (again, why an eagle rather than a raven?). But then it all goes to pot, because the symbol of St. Luke is an ox, not a badger (at least it's still Earth-related) - and St. Matthew's symbol is a winged being of human appearance (an angel?). Snakes don't enter into it at all. Another counter-example besides Baum, and perhaps a more apt one, is Katherine Kurtz, who is a practicing Gnosticist and really knows her religious/occult symbology. When she uses a symbol, she knows what she's dealing with and she doesn't make silly mistakes. (She's got other faults, though, like a relatively weak gift for names and a total inability to keep clanking anachronisms out of her writing. Ursula LeGuin sent her up good and proper on her flat-footed writing style, in an essay titled "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie". Fun reading!) Oh well - no writer is perfect. Not even Tolkien. ("Teleporno" as the Quenya form of "Celeborn"? ROFLOL! :D :D :D ) All things considered, JKR isn't as "bonk you over the head" with her Christian overtones as C.S. Lewis, who leaves you in NO doubt whatsoever what and Who he's writing about. And Lewis was nowhere near as hamhanded as Stephen King is ("The Stand", e.g.). Maven From sudeeel at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 01:27:51 2007 From: sudeeel at yahoo.com (sudeeel) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 01:27:51 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174511 >> >> Leah wrote: What the book appears to give us is the wholly unsatisfactory justification that it's ok for the good guys to use the Unforgiveables by the simple fact that they are the good guys. > Carol wrote: I agree that JKR's explanation is extremely unsatisfactory. We already know that Harry isn't perfect. We don't need Harry to use a Crucio to show us that he's human. sudeeel responds: I've been thinking about this since Harry cast his first Imperius Curse. I consider it possible that JKR was using Harry's Unforgivables as a plot device ? to make us think Harry might be capable of using an AK on Voldemort when the time came. She starts him off with the "least offensive" of the three in a very crucial situation, something we might be able to justify. When he Crucios Amycus, it seems to us unnecessary. But if Harry is building up to being able to use an AK, Amycus is an excellent practice target for the Crucio. Harry has been agonizing over the fact that he will need to be either a killer or a victim since the end of OoP when Dumbledore first tells him about the Prophecy and what it means. If he can use the AK successfully on Voldemort, he won't need to be a helpless victim. Of course with DD & Snape's help, he finds a way to be a victim who isn't helpless ? a willing sacrifice. And that makes all the difference. sudeeel, who would like to put the "practice" theory out there for comment From greendayisawesome at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 00:58:54 2007 From: greendayisawesome at yahoo.com (greendayisawesome) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:58:54 -0000 Subject: an 8th year??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174512 I was just thinking, will Harry, Ron and Hermione need to return for their last year at Hogwarts? I mean, in their 7th year, they never attended classes. I guess I don't want the series to end and I am grasping at straws or looking for any loophole I can :o) Sally Brown From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 01:51:57 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 01:51:57 -0000 Subject: Slytherins: selfish, not evil + Ariana raped? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174513 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Meliss9900 at ... wrote: > Even if we say that he was 20 when Ariana died and delayed > seeing Grindelwald for 5 years that would make it 1875 at the > latest . .not 1945. Melissa, DD didn't delay his battle with Grindelwald for 5 years after Ariana's death, he delayed it for 5 years after he was asked to deal with G-wald, IMO. He was "forced to do so by the pleas of the wizarding world". It seems quite clear from the "King's Cross" chapter that many years passed between the two wizards first meeting and their last battle. zanooda From andie1 at earthlink.net Sun Aug 5 01:56:34 2007 From: andie1 at earthlink.net (grindieloe) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 01:56:34 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174514 > > colebiancardi: > > For a fact? I don't remember reading this in DH's. Is this something > that JKR said in her interview? I read all of the questions/answers > that were posted in livejournal, but I don't remember seeing that she > verified that Snape did do an actual AK. > > This was one of the hot topics after HBP - did Snape actually perform > the AK, or was it something else - a non-verbal spell and the AK > didn't work, because he didn't *mean* it. > > I am very interested to see canon on this one. > > colebiancardi > I do believe it was the AK! He does actually say the incantation on top of the tower after HBP, and I believe he means it - not because he is ESE!Snape, but because did INTEND to kill DD. Yes, it was through DD orders; thus, I do not believe that he has "split his soul" (at least not with DD murder). It was a "mercy" killing (for lack of a better word), so I believe Snape's soul remains in tact. Of course, that does not take into account whether or not he already split it during his Death Eater days. grindieloe :) From Meliss9900 at aol.com Sun Aug 5 02:06:14 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 22:06:14 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] an 8th year??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174515 In a message dated 8/4/2007 8:33:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time, greendayisawesome at yahoo.com writes: I was just thinking, will Harry, Ron and Hermione need to return for their last year at Hogwarts? I mean, in their 7th year, they never attended classes. I guess I don't want the series to end and I am grasping at straws or looking for any loophole I can :o) Sally Brown I was actually wondering the same thing. After all the Trio aren't the only ones who didn't have a 7th year. Dean Thomas was on the run all year. Luna was kidnapped for half of it. Ginny missed a quarter of the year and all the Muggle Borns in the other houses would have missed a year. Then there are all the Muggle Borns that should have came in as 1st years. Not to mention the students that were at Hogwarts that didn't have a proper year either. (all the residents of the RoR) A "Repeat Year" story sounds like a job for the Fan Fiction authors out there. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sk8maven at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 02:16:10 2007 From: sk8maven at yahoo.com (sk8maven) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:16:10 -0000 Subject: Love of Power vs the Power of Love Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174516 One of the central themes in the Harry Potter books would seem to be the choice between the love of Power and the power of Love. It can be seen as early as the very first book, where various characters face, or have faced, that choice in various forms. And this theme is developed, with variations, over the course of the series. Harry has known Love and lost it, but has never known Power and has experienced it - used against him - only as cruel and painful. Thus it takes a long time (six books) before he is even able to be seriously tempted by it. Hermione comes from a loving family, but one in which power has simply not been an option - and she's tempted by it in petty ways which she isn't always able to resist. But she never has to face the greater temptations. Ron's family has faced that choice, made it and put it firmly behind them, all but Percy - who makes the wrong choice, but is given, and seizes with both hands, the chance to reverse it. The Weasleys are a close family because they are bound to each other by Love. Dumbledore, brought up in a loving family, finds himself seriously tempted by the love of Power, teeters on the brink - and loses his family, after which, having been taught his lesson most harshly, he renounces the desire for Power. (He remains emotionally scarred by it for the rest of his life.) The Malfoys are a loving family, too - we're left no doubt of that - but one severely tainted by the love of Power. One by one, they come to a crossroads, hesitate - and take a small step back toward the way of Love. Bellatrix Lestrange totally confuses the love of Power with the power of Love, and it destroys her. Snape was brought up with very little love in his home (possibly from his mother, but surely not from his father), but finds the possibility of it in Lily Evans. Unfortunately, he finds the love of Power too strong a lure, goes too far down that dark road, loses everything, and almost loses himself. What sustains and ultimately redeems him is his choice to live up to the memory of that lost love as best he can (and, being as deeply flawed as he is, that is very, very difficult). We aren't told enough about Grindelwald to make much of him, but he clearly fell to the love of Power - and only after many long powerless years in prison is he able to see how futile it all was. And then there's Tom Riddle/Lord Violdemort, who on the surface of it had everything - good looks, intelligence, charisma - but because there had never been so much as a jot of love in his life, he knew nothing of Love and was incapable of loving anyone or anything. For him there was only the love of Power, and it was as deadly a poison as basilisk venom. It destroyed everything about him - his intelligence first (given that he made stupider and stupider mistakes, and never learned from any of them), then his looks and ability to charm people (long before we actually meet him in the first book, those who serve him do so out of fear and greed, and not for any positive qualities he might once have hat), and finally his soul. The final confrontation between Voldemort and Harry in DH is as clear an example of "the love of Power vs. the power of Love" as there is. Maven From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 02:29:51 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:29:51 -0000 Subject: an 8th year??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174517 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "greendayisawesome" wrote: > > I was just thinking, will Harry, Ron and Hermione need to return for > their last year at Hogwarts? I mean, in their 7th year, they never > attended classes. > > I guess I don't want the series to end and I am grasping at straws or > looking for any loophole I can :o) > > Sally Brown > Lisa: I wish. ;0) However, I think Harry and friends pretty much don't need anymore Hogwarts education -- they've LIVED it. Lisa From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Sun Aug 5 02:25:29 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:25:29 -0000 Subject: HP - not about magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174518 It's occurred to me that HP is not about magic at all. It's more about wand-aided wish fulfillment. There is no, or little, description of magic rites that go along with say Kabala, Tarot, or Wicca or even Mahayana Buddhism. Lessons in magic are presented as science classes. I think this is why HP has proved to be so popular. It's magic without the occult. Because it's more about wishing than magic, Rowling has her wizards/witches, ghosts etc do what she wants for the story and not according to any consistent theory of what the different entities are. Barry From minorsocialite at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 02:29:42 2007 From: minorsocialite at yahoo.com (Stephanie) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:29:42 -0000 Subject: an 8th year??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174519 > Melissa: > Ginny missed a quarter of the year and all the Muggle Borns in > the other houses would have missed a year. Then there are all > the Muggle-borns that should have came in as 1st years. Not to > mention the students that were at Hogwarts that didn't have a > proper year either. (all the residents of the RoR) And this leads me to wonder how many muggle born wizards and witches have parents who, after all of this LV bruhaha, decided, "To heck with it! Pete and Amarantha are going to public school like everyone else. That wizard school stuff is just too dangerous and I have too little access to them." I mean, if my son were at some school I couldn't even get into and some mad wizard was trying to kill him because he was a two bit son-of-a-muggle, I'd want to keep him near me in the mundane world and send him to the school up the street where I understood the dangers and felt equal to them! Imagine all the muggle parents trying to storm platform 9 3/4 when they heard there was a problem at the school and their child might be in danger. "Wall won't open? If I dynamite it it will!" That could get verrrry tricky. Stephanie (Accio Jason Isaacs!--- guess it doesn't work for a muggle) From bartl at sprynet.com Sun Aug 5 02:54:20 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:54:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jo's OWN Words about Political and Religious Overtones in... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B53BDC.9040502@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174520 sk8maven wrote: > Another counter-example besides Baum, and perhaps a more apt one, is > Katherine Kurtz, who is a practicing Gnosticist and really knows her > religious/occult symbology. I actually knew Katherine Kurtz; we both lectured in the same venues a number of years back. Also at one of these venues was Jacqueline Lichtenburg, from whom I first heard the idea of Western Society being made from the often conflicting Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian philosophies. Bart From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 03:12:09 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 03:12:09 -0000 Subject: an 8th year??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174521 > > Sally Brown said: > > I was just thinking, will Harry, Ron and Hermione need to > > return for their last year at Hogwarts? I mean, in their > > 7th year, they never attended classes. >Lisa said: > I wish. ;0) However, I think Harry and friends pretty much > don't need anymore Hogwarts education -- they've LIVED it. marion11111: I'm willing to bet that when JKR is asked this (and she will be), that's exactly how she will answer. I'm afraid this answer doesn't really work for me unless we believe that senior year is only about defense skills. And maybe camping and sullen pouting. With each book I've found myself thinking "What a lousy education this particular group of kids is getting." Year 7 was a waste with the kids in hiding or not there at all or being taught by maniacs. Year 6 ended early with Dumbledore's death. Year 5 is another near waste with Umbridge and the ministry controlling the curriculum. Year 4 was filled with the distraction of the tournament. Year 3 - my goodness - a normal year. Well, except for those dementors all over the place and Hagrid's bad teaching. Year 2 was filled with more distraction with a monster loose and people getting cursed all over the school and an awful Defense teacher. Year 1 - a normal year for everyone except Harry. From bartl at sprynet.com Sun Aug 5 03:46:17 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:46:17 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: an 8th year??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B54809.60602@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174522 Stephanie wrote: > I mean, if my son were at some school I couldn't even get into > and some mad wizard was trying to kill him because he was a two > bit son-of-a-muggle, I'd want to keep him near me in the mundane > world and send him to the school up the street where I understood > the dangers and felt equal to them! Bart: I suspect that more than a few of Morty's goons got offed by Muggleborns armed to the teeth, saying, "Voldemort", and then shooting in all directions. Or perhaps setting up explosives with a "dead man's switch" and apparating away right after saying "Voldemort". It HAS been established that wizards can be hurt, or even killed, from straight physical damage. Bart From bdhale59 at frontiernet.net Sat Aug 4 22:45:21 2007 From: bdhale59 at frontiernet.net (Brett Hale) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 16:45:21 -0600 Subject: Lavender Brown: werewolf? References: Message-ID: <00bd01c7d6e9$23d7ae90$6c01a8c0@kayenta.k12.az.us> No: HPFGUIDX 174523 In Chapter 32, on page 646, ..."sinks his teeth into one of the fallen"...[with a blast from Hermione's wand]..."Fenrir Greyback was thrown backwards from the feebly stirring body of Lavender Brown." Inquiring minds want to know... Brett From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 06:33:53 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 06:33:53 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174524 > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174456 > > Leah: JKR was specifically asked in a webchat/inteview post-DH why > Harry used Unforgiveable Curses. Her not very (IMO) satisfactory > response was along the lines of Harry only being human. Mike: I have decided I'm no longer going to consider JKR's interviews on anywhere near the same footing as canon. After what happened concerning the Fidelius on 12 GP, I've decided she just doesn't pay attention to her answers in interviews. If she hadn't told us that the secret dies with the secret keeper's death there would not have been any contradictions in canon. But when she revealed in her interview that with Dumbledore's death the secret stays and noone else can learn it... not what happened in canon, was it? There are several other examples of contradictions between interviews and canon, not to mention her post-DH very unsatisfactory answers. So, for me, it is either explained by canon or it isn't. YMMV, but it seems your opinion of interview information is not so different. In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174457 > > Leah: > > > > Crucio is a spell which, properly used, causes extreme pain in > > the victim. There is no purpose in casting Crucio other than in > > causing extreme pain. > Kemper now: > I don't the Cruciatus Curse worked properly on Harry because > Voldemort's wand, the Elder Wand, was rightfully the person > Voldemort was Crucio-ing. Mike: Yeah Kemper, I consider this a real viable explanation for the lack of pain. But let's reference Leah's statement above. If Voldemort thinks Harry is dead, of what value would a pain causing Crucio be against a dead body? Dead bodies don't experience pain. And, c'mon, if anyone understands the Crutiatus Curse it's gotta be VoldeRiddle. I already pointed out how these three Crucios from LV manifested themselves differently than others we've seen by LV against Harry. After rereading Harry's Crucio on Bella I found that one knocked her off her feet. And that's the one Bella explained to us about intent. This, and what I presented in previous posts in this thread, are my canon for the spell reacting to intent. And the differing results is my canon for Harry's and LV's Crucios aiming for different results from the oft insisted upon *torture*. > Leah: > What is therefore problematic for me is that we are presented > with one view in six books and then a volte face in the final book > which is not satisfactorily explained or dealt with, leaving the > readership to come up with their own justifications/explanations. Mike: To be fair, we only learned about "Unforgivables" in the 4th book. Also, we learned most of it from a Death Eater in disguise. Isn't it possible that we got the DE explanation of how to employ the UCs? As to the rest: In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174380 Magpie: I do agree with Mike that the moral component comes not from using the wrong words, but for what they represent, but I just don't see how this kind of torture isn't bad in itself. Mike: Thank you Magpie and I would agree with you if I thought Harry was *torturing* Carrow. But that's not the way I read the scene. Sure, Harry wanted to cause some pain, but he mostly wanted to put Carrow out of commission, imo. I also have no problem with the causing pain component against this sadistic bastard. And I'll bet he'd received worse from Voldemort. > Mike previously: > Throw out the artificial moral construct attached to the UCs, > would you still have a problem with how and why Harry uses Imperious > here? If one realizes that the UCs don't have a moral component, I > suggest that the distaste evaporates into ether. Magpie: I think everyone should have a problem with it. Even if you are ultimately okay with the use of Imperius due to the circumstances, that doesn't take away moral construct, because it was never artificial. Mike now: This is what I don't get. Most everyone thinks that murder, torture, and mind enslavement are the things that are morally wrong. You said it yourself just above. But those aren't what's unforgivable, the spells are, and then again they aren't when the Ministry wants to use them. Spells don't have morals, spell casters supply that component, good or bad. Just because the DEs told us how they use them, we have to agree that anyone using them has crossed a moral boundary? Because a Death Eater would use Imperious to cause bad things to happen, it can't be used to cause good things to happen? Because a Death Eater would use Crucio for torturing via intense pain, it can't be used for anything less than torture? Because Voldemort uses Avada Kedavra to murder innocents, good wizards can't use the same spell to kill Death Eaters in a time of war? Why do I have to accept the Death Eater explanation of how to use these three spells as the definitive word and therefore assign them a moral component, when we *know* that intent is a major component of these spells? Because the Ministry named them "Unforgivable"? Even though the same Ministry can make them "forgivable" if they so choose. > Leah once more: > As I and others have said, the very distinct impression given by > Sirius' narrative is that whether the Unforgiveables have been made > legal or not by the Ministry, their use has a detrimentally moral > effect on users. Mike: Sirius will forever be my favorite HP character. But I read his speech in GoF as a condemnation of Crouch Sr more than his aversion to the UCs. In that same talk Sirius evinces the utmost respect for Mad Eye, saying he never killed unless he had to. Which means Sirius knew, as do we from a Pensieve scene, that Moody did kill and that he most probably used the AK to do it. Yet Sirius doesn't seem to have a problem with a justified use of an AK. Sirius takes the same position that I'm outlining, the usage and not the spell is what determines whether it is morally detrimental, imo. It seems I'm not alone: In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174476 > Carol: > And I'm forced to agree with you. I do still think that the Crouches > paid the price for their use of Unforgiveables, but I think that > Sirius Black's view of Crouch Sr. as being as ruthless as a Death > Eater was colored by his own experience. Mike: Yay! A convert. > Carol: > [T]he Killing Curse seems to have its uses. It certainly isn't > Unforgiveable in a moral sense as we assumed. I don't think JKR or > her characters ever stated that it was. > > > So, it seems that "Unforgiveable" *is* just a label, as > Fake!Moody (pretending to be the real Moody) said. Mike: Thank you Carol, glad to see we agree on this one. And that is one of my points, nowhere in canon, imo, does someone assign a moral postion to the "Unforgivables". We in fandom have done that. I'm challenging the reading that the spells and not the intentions carry the moral reprocussions. > Leah lastly: > You clearly believe there would be canon to support this take. Mike: I feel over three posts I have presented my canon. I welcome canon that refutes my position. **************** > Carol responds: > Why? Snape actually says, "No Unforgiveable Curses from > you, Potter! You haven't got the nerve or the ability!" > (HBP Am. ed. 602). Having just killed Albus Dumbledore against > his will, summoning the "nerve" and the "ability" to "mean" a > curse he didn't want to cast, Mike: You know I don't like Snape, Carol. ;) But it's the hypocrisy of Snape telling Harry that he can't use a UC when he has just used one. Snape has just proved that one can use the worst (imo) UC for a noble purpose, yet he's telling Harry he can't do the same. We both thought that this was a clue and a final attempt at teaching. It turns out it wasn't, so I reassessed my reading of this passage. > Carol: > "No Unforgiveable Curses from you, Potter, because you have to let > the Dark Lord kill you." That's what I think Snape means, but he > can't say it for another year. Mike: Except Snape won't find this out himself for almost another year. > Carol, who admires Snape for continuing to help and protect a boy he > hates, doing the will of Portrait!Dumbledore and trying to bring > about the destruction of Voldemort, after the boy has tried to > Crucio him and called him a murderer Mike, who found himself much less impressed with the character of Severus Snape once it was revealed he did it all for the love of Lily From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 5 06:35:02 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 06:35:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/Grindlewald duel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174525 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Donna" wrote: > > At first when I read the DH, one of my main complaints was "How did > Dumbledore win the duel with Grindelwald when he had an unbeatable > wand???" Then I thought about it and listened to the book a second > time. Dumbledore stole the wand from the wandmaker using polyjuice > potion to disguise himself as Grindlewald. That whole theft scene was > a little weird with the thief acting like a bird (phoenix).. Now it > makes sense. Grindlewald told Voldemort that he never had the wand > and Voldy called him a liar. Maybe he was telling him the truth > ..Dumbledore stole it..of course for the greater good Geoff: Musing over this yesterday, a simpler scenario crossed my mind. If Dumbledore decided to meet up with Grindelwald, when the latter wasn't expecting it, might it just be that he hadn't got the Elder Wand immediately near him and did not have the opportunity to summon it? Maybe we'll have to await the Encyclopaedia - as we will have to for so many other bits and pieces of information which are exercising our speculative faculties at the moment! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 07:36:49 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 07:36:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/Grindlewald duel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174526 --- "Donna" wrote: > > At first when I read the DH, one of my main complaints > was "How did Dumbledore win the duel with Grindelwald > when he had an unbeatable wand???" Then I thought > about it and listened to the book a second time. > > Dumbledore stole the wand from the wandmaker using > polyjuice potion to disguise himself as Grindlewald. > That whole theft scene was a little weird with the > thief acting like a bird (phoenix).. Now it makes > sense. Grindlewald told Voldemort that he never had > the wand and Voldy called him a liar. Maybe he was > telling him the truth..Dumbledore stole it..of course > for the greater good > > Donna > bboyminn: Nice speculation, but just speculation. I don't think a literal read of the books supports it. But it does, none the less, bring up a valid question. How did Dumbledore win against an allegedly unbeatable wand? I suspect that the answer is, it was not an unbeatable wand EXCEPT when in the hand of its recognized Master. Grindelwald took the wand by stealth and trickery. So might say he outwitted Gregorovitch, and that outwitting implies a defeat, but does it? Lovegood says the wand must be captured. Many people in history have killed and taken the wand from its owner. As the book goes on, we see that there must be some kind of defeat of the Master for the wand allegiance to change, but defeat doesn't mean death. My point is that what constitutes a valid capture and therefore a sure change in allegiance is very unclear. Even Ollivander doesn't really understand it. So, perhaps the wand was generally well matched to Grindelwald, but since he simply stole it, he was not the Wands true Master. Therefore, when he met Dumbledore, it was simply one brilliant talented wizard against another brilliant talented wizard. Since Dumbledore does defeat Grindelwald, the wand might have transferred allegiance to Dumbledore even though Grindelwald was not the true Master. But now, I'm speculating. None the less, the question remains, was Grindelwald ever the true master of the wand? The next question is, does it matter with regard to Dumbledore /capturing/ the wand? Does the allegiance transfer to the obviously superior wizard? All that said, I really don't know. Steve/bboyminn From Meliss9900 at aol.com Sun Aug 5 08:13:16 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 04:13:16 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lavender Brown: werewolf? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174527 In a message dated 8/5/2007 1:33:36 A.M. Central Daylight Time, bdhale59 at frontiernet.net writes: In Chapter 32, on page 646, ..."sinks his teeth into one of the fallen"...[with a blast from Hermione's wand]..."Fenrir Greyback was thrown backwards from the feebly stirring body of Lavender Brown." Inquiring minds want to know... Brett Melissa: Well actually it says "Two bodies fell from the balcony overhead as they reached the ground, and a gray blur that Harry took for an animal sped four-legged across the hall *to sink* its teeth into one of the fallen. "No!" shrieked Hermione, and with a deafening blast from her wand, Fenrir Greyback was thrown backward from the feebly stirring body of Lavender Brown." "To sink its teeth" as written in JKR's original text is a passive verb. The action has not yet taken place. When you paraphrased the text you changed the passive verb "to sink" into an active verb "sinks" and, in doing so, the meaning of the text changes. So if we read JKR's text the "biting" was stopped before it took place by a well aimed blast from Hermione's wand. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greatraven at hotmail.com Sun Aug 5 08:32:48 2007 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 08:32:48 -0000 Subject: Closure for Harry & Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174528 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Let's assume the story had played out differently. Let's > assume that Voldemort had allowed Snape to go and > capture Harry. OK, now Snape has captured Harry and > he begins talking rapidly...I love your mother, she > was my best friend ...you have to willingly let > Voldemort kill you, offering no resistance of any > kind...etc.... Do you really think Harry would buy > that? Oh, sure, he would think, I just lay down > and die for Voldemort and everything will be fine -- > NOT! Sue here: I agree with this. It's just easier and works better to use the Pensieve than having Snape try desperately to tell Harry the truth. "Harry, would you PLEASE stop trying to Stun me? We have to talk!" A bit like Darth Vader and Luke in that scene in The Empire Strikes Back, and it didn't help that Vader had to cut Luke's hand off... :-) >> bboyminn: > > > > > > > Harry could have perhaps had a conversation with him > > (in his portrait) after he'd seen all of Snape's > > memories. > > > > bboyminn: > > For this to work, it would have to occur /after/ Harry > found out he had to die at Voldemort's hand. A long > heart-to-heart at that moment would have seemed very > anti-climatic. It is enough that Harry continues to > honor Snape and recognize his effort, even to the > opoint of naming one of his children after Snape. It > that doesn't constitute reconciliation, I don't know > what does. Sue: Again, I agree. I have now just about read the book twice. I got it for reviewing and had to get it finished very quickly the first time, to send my review in on time, but now, re- reading it at my own pace. I have been able to re-think. My first thought was, "Oh, Snape's death wasn't as dramatic as I'd expected, I thought he was going to save Harry or something, and be redeemed..." Thing is, for THAT to work, he would have had to be working for Voldemort. He wasn't, though. He had, in fact, been risking his life for Harry, or at least for the good guys, for sixteen years, and had been redeemed long ago. The reconciliation by Harry naming one of his kids for Snape is a lot more subtle than simply having him talk to a portrait would have been. And personally, I think the portrait would have told him to get lost anyway! ;-) > > Got to run. > > Steve/bboyminn > From ma_vicsua at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 07:29:02 2007 From: ma_vicsua at yahoo.com (ma_vicsua) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 07:29:02 -0000 Subject: Question: Cadmus Peverell & Voldermort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174529 Dear All, It's my first time to post after being a long-time lurker. I just finished reading Book 7 and am confused about how Marvolo Gaunt could have inherited the ring with the resurrection stone. Cadmus Peverell is supposed to have lived alone. He used the resurrection stone to call back the girl he had once hoped to marry before her untimely death. Did he have children with another woman? How did the stone end up in the ring of Marvolo Gaunt, grandfather of Riddle? Is Gaunt a descendant of Cadmus Peverell? How did he have children with the "girl he had once hoped to marry" if she was dead? If he had, could that account for the way the descendants looked or behaved? Thanks in advance for inputs. Regards, Victoria From darksworld at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 09:48:36 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 09:48:36 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/Grindlewald duel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174530 Actually, to throw my $0.02 in, I thought that an unbeatable wand did not necessarily mean an invincible wizard, despite the speculation of Voldemort and others. I took the unbeatable wand to mean that it would always cast any spell successfully in battle despite shield charms, etc. For example, any stunner would not be deflected by a protego or any other shield charm. The reason I think that it does not make an invincible wizard is the way it is said to change hands, which is by the defeat of the wizard who owns it. DD must have recognized that GG had the elder wand and outsmarted him by not using shield charms and rather using apparition and other techniques to keep GG from cursing him. Then again, maybe Rita was onto something. :-P Charles, who thinks that winning the elder wand was done by outsmarting Grindelwald, not overpowering him or his wand. From angellima at xtra.co.nz Sun Aug 5 09:38:36 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:38:36 +1200 Subject: Wands and ...Deathly Hallows plotline - Undercurrents Message-ID: <002201c7d744$6647adb0$1201010a@AngelLima> No: HPFGUIDX 174531 bboyminn (with snippage): But Harry did go through an internal struggle, from the moment he thinks he's figured out the Hallows, while still on the 'camping trip', he is obsessed with them. Ron and Hermione are determined to focus on Horcruxes, but Harry simply can't get his mind off Hallows. Angel: During their camping trip, Harry's obsession was with the images of Voldemort galumphing around the globe over his own obsession with the Eldar wand. Only Harry did not know it was the Eldar wand Voldemort was after. He was then unaware of what the hallows were, let alone their power(s). Harry was only clued into the hallows after speaking with Xeno and even then the objects were hypothetical. The lapse between their talk with Xeno and their stint in the Malfoy Manor is very short. After that, particularly Dobby's death, Harry becomes enlightened with electrifying omniscient knowledge which he begins to keep closely guarded from the reader. By then though he presupposes the Elder wand's allegiance was to him even though the reader did not! The reader suspected something by the way in which Rowling wrote the disarming of Draco - in the midst of the turmoil and confusion, that one act was crystal clear we just did not know why. Bboyminn: I don't see how he realizes he is 'Master of the Hallows' before that. Angel: By the time he made the CHOICE to pursue the horcruxes over the one hallow not in his possession, he was ALREADY the owner if not the master of all three hallows. His questioning of Ollivander confirms it. Witnessing Voldemort dispose of Snape to master the wand reaffirms it. bboyminn: Harry does make the same choice in every book, but it is NOT the choice to accept/pursue, or to reject power. It is to be selfish or selfless; Harry always chooses to be /selfless/. Angel: I am treading on thin ice here . DH has cast a different light on the previous books for me you see. In PS Harry wins the stone because he wants to thwart Voldemort In CoS -he brings Fawkes to him because he stands up for Dumbledore - to belittle Riddle. Ahh he seeks the basilisk because Ron wants to go save his sister GoF - in the graveyard he fights out of instinct, holds the PI under encouragement from Fawkes' song and instruction from Voldemort's victims, even bringing Cedric back was under instruction okay plea OotP is when he is most selfless. After risking all his friends' lives he does not mind dying so he could see the closest thing he had to a family again HBP - disgusted he still feeds Dumbledore poison which even a cold hearted Muggle hating Death Eating Slytherin does not inflict upon his enslaved Elf DH - he chooses horcruxes - again to finish off Voldemort over three items that could render him immortal, two of which he possessed and the third he already owns! I am begging to be shown the selflessness in all these acts, I once knew them off by heart but now cannot recall Bboyminn: When you are facing such of overwhelming force, it is extremely difficult not to chose to bring that power to bear on your own behalf. That is an extreme temptation in my book; an almost impossible temptation for any human to resist. Yet, once again, Harry choses to be selfless. Angel: It was impossible for Boromir to resist the ring that way because he saw all the good he could achieve with it. It was his good intentions that became his fatal flaw. All perfect Harry was told about the hallows was that it would conquer Death. What is so selfless in that? He does not yet know he has to give up his life. Another way to look at it would be Harry decides to overlook life for death - forego his chance at immortality to end Voldemort's existence. Selfless only if you crave immortality which Harry has never had an inkling for... in fact he wanted the stone most when the three of them joked at which they'd choose. The stone which he knew after speaking with Xeno when things were still hazy that Dumbledore had willed to him in the snitch. I of course am making the distinction of Harry's CHOICE to pursue and destroy HORCRUXES rather than attain the HALLOWS and powering them up not his actual LIFE-SACRIFICE, which I am still not sold on but believe to be more selfless than "giving up the pursuit of the hallows". What was there to pursue? He had two in his pocket already and he would be meeting Voldemort soon for the third. This great phenomenal choice of startling selfless profundity - hallows or horcruxes took less than two seconds to read. Why? Because there was nothing to entice Harry or the reader to it - the book was already three quarters through and they were already in Harry's ownership, their power unbeknownst to the reader and Harry when he had acquired them. The only hallow Voldemort sought was the Eldar wand. It is the only one he wanted unaware and disinterested in the other two had he even known about them, according to Dumbledore. He saw the power of the ring in it - Harry did not. Ron could but Harry having outsmarted Voldemort (how many times now I lose count) does not see the need in acquiring a powerful wand, his own had saved him countless times and performed unheard of magic coming to his defence against Voldemort! What other wand could best that? Harry was neither interested in what the hallows could do for him nor in disturbing Dumbledore's remains to get the remaining hallow that was out of his reach. Voldemort and Ron had reason to lust after the Eldar wand. Volders wanted greatness, renown, power over all, ra ra ra. Ron to be distinguished as an accomplished wizard of his own. To be unique and not just Harry Potter's friend, another Weasley etc. Harry only wanted to thwart Voldemort. He could not be tempted by the power of the hallows because he does not know power. He has not been overpowered by anyone whereas Voldemort and Ron obviously have, they have lived in the shadow of someone else, a sensation yet unexperienced by Harry. Thus had the choice been Ron's I would agree wholeheartedly it was a temptation and a mighty difficult CHOICE to make. Harry however is already a renowned powerful wizard. His wand acts of its own volition. His sole focus is to finish off Voldemort. He already has two hallows in his knapsack and the one the idiotic evil dude is after, is already under his command. Oh yes, hmmmmmmmm what to choose...the three I own or the four he owns ... hallows or horcruxes ... In the end his choice was to thwart Voldemort by destroying the horcruxes - Volder's anchors to life. The same choice he has made since book 1, he is shortsighted Harrahs . It helps that the one hallow he does not physically tangibly have is in his legion. Ollivander explained this. Harry knew this. That is my point in seeing his CHOICE diminished or am I just whack? bboyminn: HP books do not really have significant religious overtones, but because they are a story about good struggling against evil and winning. I think these /universal undercurrents/ are what make Harry Potter so popular across such a wide range of cultures and religions. Angel: My apologies for that. I have not myself read or heard what Rowling has said on the matter but gauged enough of it from the array sprawled across her pages but since it has no bearing, we shall depart those murky waters. Alas, I think I have used up my quota for the day . From angellima at xtra.co.nz Sun Aug 5 09:58:00 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:58:00 +1200 Subject: Courage, was Re:Children's Books (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal)/Malu Message-ID: <004f01c7d747$1c0359e0$1201010a@AngelLima> No: HPFGUIDX 174532 > Bruce Alan Wilson > For those who don't understand JKR's valuing courage above all > virtues, consider this: Without courage, all other virtues are > useless. Angel: Oh gosh I love it! You see I thought Rowling's message was love lol. Love being the magic Voldemort could not comprehend. Love overpowering strength. It was Lily's love that saved and gave Harry power. Not Jame's courage who fought Voldemort without a wand when he came upon them. It was love that took Harry to the MoM Love that repelled Voldemort from Harry's body when he attempted to enter him (sorry my English fails me at times!) LOVE LOVE LOVE! Then I thought how weird, she doesn't really know or show love, just tells us. I'm glad to know now it was courage because whilst Snape was courageous he did not know love...(yeah I know a recurring sore point with me!!! :)) Maybe I should get my head out of 1 Corinthians 13. Or maybe love does conquer all just not in Rowling's world :D Yes I am rather daft, no wonder I find Volder's so reprehensible. Hope this one sneaks in over the quote From catlady at wicca.net Sun Aug 5 11:53:40 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:53:40 -0000 Subject: Too many posts to list here, please scroll down to search for yours Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174533 Donna wrote in : << I get the distinct impression that the creature under the bench (whether literally or metaphorically speaking) is the fate of that last piece of soul in LV as well (snip) Dumbledore warned Voldy as well, "...your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness." (OOP pg 814) >> The creature under the bench being LV's fate after death is a good reason for him to think death is a worst thing. Carol said it better in : << If, like Harry, he has crossed over into the afterlife without being dead, he has not had a pleasant, edifying experience. His brief exposure to his future as a mangled fetus beyond help or hope or redemption, condemned to suffer eternally, would merely confirm his view that death is to be feared and avoided at all costs. >> Carol wrote in : << Lupin wants to protect Tonks knowing that marrying him will subject her to great danger, but succumbs to peer pressure, quietly marries her, >> It's possible that the real reason why Remus didn't want to marry Tonks was that he didn't love her (except maybe to love her like a sister or like a daughter) and/or that he really didn't enjoy prolonged doses of her companionship. Other than the clumsiness, she didn't seem too tedious or annoying to me in OoP, but maybe if OoP had shown more of her conversations with the Trio, we'd have discovered that she spends hour upon hour praising her favorite wizarding bands, giving her opinion of several small variations in the wand motion for the Stunning Spell, or something else I get tired of very quickly. Yes, it was weak to submit to peer pressure to marry someone he didn't want to live with, but it was kindly to not want to tell her those real reasons. << and brilliantly gets her pregnant (probably yielding to her persuasion). >> I have met women who wanted a baby even tho' their husband or boyfriend didn't, who stopped taking the Pill but claimed they still were taking it, and then were surprised that the man didn't share their joy at announcing the pregnancy. Shagufta wrote in : << Nevill Longbottom Hat: Hmm..lots of potential but no self confidence, maybe i should put you in Hufflepuff, they'll be kind to you Nevill: My parents were in Gryfindor. if I'm not there my Gran will kill me Hat: Gryffindor...you might have a tough time there.. Nevill: Oh please put me in Gryfindor.. Hat..well if you insist... >> I've always envisioned it pretty much the opposite: Neville: I'll be Sorted into Hufflepuff. Hat: Why not Gryffindor? Neville: Because I'm almost a Squib and I'm not good at anything. Hat: You have plenty of courage. Neville: No I don't. I don't deserve to be in Gryffindor. Hat: You're brave enough to argue with a powerful magical artifact like me. That's brave enough for GRYFFINDOR! The conversation would be a bit longer than either of us summarized it, as PS/SS says that the Hat took a long time to Sort Neville. PS/SS also said that the Hat took almost a whole minute to Sort Seamus, and I was kind of expecting that eventually we'd find out what that was about ... maybe the Hat had to decide between Gryffindor and Hufflepuff, considering his distrust of Harry just because his mum and the Daily Prophet said so to be an example of group loyalty... Jim Ferer wrote in : << I'm very curious about JKR's future. Somehow I just can't imagine much more major work from her - I blame the "you can't go back to Woodstock" effect for that, and everything she ever did again would be unfairly compared to Harry and found wanting by too many people. >> I have long assumed that she'll write at least one novel under a pseudonym, to make sure that any success it has is due to its own merits rather than her famous name. montims wrote in : << taking slight issue with the phrase above: "she didn't want to give away that people live on after death, as in Heaven" - I'm not convinced that JKR is referencing a heaven at all. I suppose one is entitled to ask where she feels dead people go (or not, if they are scared, like Sir Nick), (snip) I can also envisage them being reincarnated, when they are ready to use the lessons learned in their earlier life/lives. >> I suppose I have a simplistic and mechanical idea of reincarnation, but I don't see how reincarnation can co-exist with calling back the souls of the dead -- does the person they reincarnated as go into a coma when its soul flies off to the necromancer? montims wrote in : << but the Slytherins don't hate each other, and I don't imagine the Hufflepuffs hate them all that much. >> I always thought it was the Ravenclaws, rather than the Hufflepuffs, who don't hate the Slytherins all that much. I think Hufflepuffs are about fairness (Cedric wanting to replay the match), hard work ('unafraid of toil'), and group loyalty. And maybe a little bit about obeying the rules. So I think they would feel specific distaste for Slytherin traits of using 'cunning', connections, or cheating instead of hard work to achieve their goals. Eggplant wrote in : << And now I sign this post with my full name for the first time: Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald >> My jaw dropped at that. Could you have had inside information of Grindelwald's first name's initial when you chose the name E.G.G.plant? I don't know that JKR had even chosen his given name yet. If you aren't really Gellert Grindelwald, why do you admire him? And if you are really Gellert Grindelwald, why do you admire Harry? Matt wrote in : << I think, for instance that the fiendfyre is intended to allude among other things to the use of incendiaries in Vietnam >> If it's intended to allude to the use of incendiaries in war, the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo would be more pointed allusions than Vietnam. Milz wrote in : << That led them to believe that there is a genetic link between some forms of mental illness and that depending on how the gene was expressed in a person, it could mean the difference between life-long institutionalization and a MENSA membership. >> A MENSA membership indicates only high IQ. High IQ is a very nice thing, associated with high ability at schoolwork and bookishness. But I think even extremely high IQ is not enough to be a genius -- to me the word indicates exceptionally creative and original excellent ideas. As it's possible to be a genius painter or violinist or clockwork maker, not just a genius mathematician or scientist, I don't know that a genius even *has* to have a high IQ. I am aware of one theory that artistic (literary, visual arts, whatever) genius can be related to bipolar disorder. Because the talented person in the depressed phase observes the world passively but in detail, and in the manic (actually the hypomanic) phase has immense energy to write or paint or compose the art work based on those observations. The article mentioned a number of artistic geniuses who had committed suicide, and a number of relatives of artistic people who had been institutionalized with bipolar disorder. I suppose that the creativity and originality might be associated with some hallucinatory or delusional disorder, fortunately turned to inventing scientific theories or novel plots rather than to inventing paranoid conspiracy theories. Magpie wrote in : << the other houses are all Sorted for virtues...and Slytherin isn't. I don't think "cunning" or "ambition" have ever been really considered virtues >> Would you feel better if the Sorting Hat had spoken of Resourcefulness and Ingenuity instead of Cunning? << the way courage, wisdom and loyalty have been. >> The Sorting Hat once called Ravenclaw House 'wise old Ravenclaw", but its characteristic is high IQ and perhaps also bookishness, *not* wisdom. American Heritage Dictionary at says 'wisdom' is '1. The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight. 2. Common sense; good judgment: "It is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things" (Henry David Thoreau).' Surely that trait comes more from experience than from high IQ. Bookishness is one way of learning from other people's experiences, but empathy is an even better way... Chuck wrote in : << So it seems to me that Bellatrix is capable of love (or something close to it), but it's a one-way street which doesn't exclude Voldemort of taking what he feels is rightfully his from their relationship. >> I personally believe that Voldemort lost his sexual desires and sexual organs (along with his nose) when he turned into a red-eyed snake-man. Katie wrote in : << One thing we kept discussing was that if disarming someone was enough to gain control of their wand...then no one in the Dueling Club or the D.A. owned their own wand anymore! >> The Deathstick passes to a new owner when the new owner defeats the old owner, but I don't think canon says that that applies to other wands. With ordinary wands, the wand works better for a wizard whose magic is tuned to the same frequency as the wand's magic is, and works better for a wizard the longer the wizard keeps using it, but ordinary wands can be handed down (Ron starting school with Charlie's old wand, which was so worn that it may have been Grandpa's old wand before it was Charlie's) or resold ('broken wands' were one of the items mentioned in the junk shop in CoS where Percy was found reading Prefects Who Gained Power) or stolen (Harry stealing Draco's wand). Leah wrote in : << I'm not desperately happy about Snape having to AK Dumbledore, and neither was Snape. (snip) DD then suggests to Snape that his soul may not be split if he kills DD with the intention of putting him out of his misery- it is euthanasia in effect. >> I read that as Dumbledore not much caring whether Snape's soul was ripped and using words to guilt-trip Snape into doing it anyway. Victoria wrote in : << how Marvolo Gaunt could have inherited the ring with the resurrection stone. Cadmus Peverell is supposed to have lived alone. He used the resurrection stone to call back the girl he had once hoped to marry before her untimely death. Did he have children with another woman? >> I had the same question, but then I thought he might have married another girl a few years after the one he loved died, and fathered a child before the marriage collapsed due to his lack of love for his live wife. From leahstill at hotmail.com Sun Aug 5 12:31:13 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 12:31:13 -0000 Subject: Lavender Brown: werewolf? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174534 In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Meliss9900 at ... wrote: >> Melissa: > > Well actually it says > > "Two bodies fell from the balcony overhead as they reached the ground, and a > gray blur that Harry took for an animal sped four-legged across the hall *to > sink* its teeth into one of the fallen. > > "No!" shrieked Hermione, and with a deafening blast from her wand, Fenrir > Greyback was thrown backward from the feebly stirring body of Lavender Brown." > > "To sink its teeth" as written in JKR's original text is a passive verb. The > action has not yet taken place. When you paraphrased the text you changed > the passive verb "to sink" into an active verb "sinks" and, in doing so, the > meaning of the text changes. > > So if we read JKR's text the "biting" was stopped before it took place by a > well aimed blast from Hermione's wand. > > Melissa Leah: I think it could also be interpreted as the actions of speeding and sinking following on from each other and both taking place, as in: 'I ran into the room to find it full of my relatives', so I didn't find the non-biting entirely clear myself. However, in the example I use, I would prefer the sentence to read something like 'only to find it full of my relatives' or 'and found it full...', so I prefer your interpretation and agree we are meant to thin Greyback did not bite Lavender St. Hell: >But Leah, it's in the "little cameo(s)" of any battle that the joy >and agony lie. Leah: I agree. I didn't use the word `cameo' as a criticism, but as an explanation as to why we weren't really getting enough information for a full discussion. I like cameos. bamf: >We don't even know if she survived the attack. Leah: I think she survived Greyback's attack, thanks to Hermione, but not whether she succumbed to her original injury, or what was that was. It would have been interesting to have a `Henry V' moment: "What are the numbers of our English dead?", with the fallen on both sides listed, but I can see this may have distracted from the flow. Leah From cottell at dublin.ie Sun Aug 5 13:47:20 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:47:20 -0000 Subject: Lavender Brown: werewolf? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174535 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Meliss9900 at ... wrote: >> "To sink its teeth" as written in JKR's original text is a > passive verb. The action has not yet taken place. When you > paraphrased the text you changed the passive verb "to sink" into > an active verb "sinks" and, in doing so, the meaning of the text > changes. Mus responds: "To sink" is an infinitive form of an active verb. Infinitives lack tense, and tense is what allows us to make a statement whose truth can be assessed: "I went to the Forest to see a unicorn" makes no claim about the truth of whether a unicorn was actually seen. The tensed (active) form "I saw a unicorn" makes a statement which can have a truth value. "The unicorn was seen by Quirrell" is a passive. Passive foreground the 'logical object' of the verb by putting it in subject position: "the unicorn" is the thing that gets seen. Passives aren't the opposite of infinitives - they can have infinitive forms, such as "to be saved" in "I wanted to the unicorn to be saved". JKR's infinitive here doesn't assert that Greyback bit Lavender - that's quite right. Mus, who's a linguist. :-) From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Aug 5 14:07:17 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (duffypoo) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 14:07:17 -0000 Subject: Severus lives! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174536 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lisa" wrote: > > Jazmyn: > > I noticed several things that make me believe that Snape somehow > didn't > > really die. > > > > No headmasters painting of him. > > Lisa: > > We don't know that ... we just know that one wasn't mentioned. If it > had been there, it would've been sleeping, anyway, I would assume, > like Dumbledore's was originally. >From JKR's live chat: "Was the absence of Snape's portrait in the headmaster's office in the last scene innocent or diliberate? JKR: It was deliberate. Snape had effectively abandoned his post before dying, so he had not merited inclusion in these august circles. However, I like to think that Harry would be instrumental in ensuring that Snape's portrait would appear in due course." CathyD From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Aug 5 15:02:51 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:02:51 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/Grindlewald duel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174537 Geoff: > Maybe we'll have to await the Encyclopaedia - as we > will have to for so many other bits and pieces of > information which are exercising our speculative > faculties at the moment! houyhnhnm quotes: [Harry] looked away trying not to betray the resentment he felt. There it was again: Choose what to believe. He wanted the truth. Why was everybody so determined that he should not get it? (Scholastic, p. 185) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Aug 5 15:07:19 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:07:19 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174538 > Magpie: > I think everyone should have a problem with it. Even if you are > ultimately okay with the use of Imperius due to the circumstances, > that doesn't take away moral construct, because it was never > artificial. > > Mike now: > This is what I don't get. Most everyone thinks that murder, torture, > and mind enslavement are the things that are morally wrong. You said > it yourself just above. But those aren't what's unforgivable, the > spells are, and then again they aren't when the Ministry wants to use > them. > > Spells don't have morals, spell casters supply that component, good > or bad. Just because the DEs told us how they use them, we have to > agree that anyone using them has crossed a moral boundary? Because a > Death Eater would use Imperious to cause bad things to happen, it > can't be used to cause good things to happen? Because a Death Eater > would use Crucio for torturing via intense pain, it can't be used for > anything less than torture? Because Voldemort uses Avada Kedavra to > murder innocents, good wizards can't use the same spell to kill Death > Eaters in a time of war? Magpie: I think I'm giving a false impression of what my own view actually is, because I haven't actually given it, really. I really got into the conversation because I thought I understood the view other people were putting forth where they thought the Unforgivables had been presented as something that good guys didn't do--and certainly didn't do casually. My own thoughts on them is that okay, they were presented in GoF as a big deal, I think because they represent these bad impulses in their purest form. Presumably forcing people to do things against their will in other ways is just as bad--it's just that since these spells represent that crime in its essence, they're illegal in themselves. In OotP when Harry almost used one and couldn't I thought this was a sign that Harry was in danger of being swallowed up by hate--because they require you to tap into parts of yourself that are objectively bad. This is why I don't think Crucio can be that casual--it is a torture spell, imo, because it's done out of the sadistic desire to enjoy someone's incredible pain. However, in HBP I began to see that the UF really weren't as bad as fandom seemed to assume. I never thought, for instance, that Draco was in big trouble and would be put in jail for using or trying to use one. Crucio in particular seemed to be something that teenage boys tried to throw when they were angry--it was like throwing your pain at another person. However again, I had OotP as a guide that however they tried to throw it like that, a true Crucio was actually sadistic and came from another place. In DH I think Rowling did sweep away *a lot* of the stuff that was there before by having Harry use it that way. Either she had suddenly decided that this was a spell that didn't require you to have an inner sadist, or else it was okay for Harry to have one. I do think that the UVs have a moral component outside the Ministry-- nobody in fandom cares what the Ministry says or bases their judgments on what the Ministry says. They were basing this stuff on things like McG talking about DD being too "noble" to use certain methods, and Sirius imo very reasonable claim that when Crouch authorized their use and started using them a lot he dropped to the level of DEs. The spells all have a moral component, imo, because even though there are other ways to do all the things they do, the spells represent these acts in their pure state: taking away someone else's will, causing torturous pain (we've been on the receiving end of Crucio from Harry's pov and to me saying that when Harry uses it it's just a quick way of incapacitating someone--which can be done more humanely-- gets into an area I think is already disturbing in the books, where the pain of the good guys is just more serious than pain in bad guys), and killing someone. I can see situations where the Imperius and AK might still get used where I might think it was okay--they both have practical uses. Sometimes you really might have to kill somebody or force them to do something. I think the moral component is still *there*--you're doing something serious when you use them. You just might feel it's necessary. Avoiding the smaller wrong might lead to a bigger one. Bizarrely, in the Ravenclaw common room, none of this is true. Harry and McGonagall both use these spells for the pure pleasure of them. While I completely respect your not considering JKR's interview on this as canon, the only reason I would refer to her in this case is because I think her answer is reflected in canon. It's defensive and not really an answer--Harry's not a saint. Mike: > Why do I have to accept the Death Eater explanation of how to use > these three spells as the definitive word and therefore assign them a > moral component, when we *know* that intent is a major component of > these spells? Because the Ministry named them "Unforgivable"? Even > though the same Ministry can make them "forgivable" if they so choose. Magpie: I accept it because canon gives me no reason not to accept it and plenty of reasons to accept it. Barty and Bellatrix both love these spells and it's not OOC for them to want to brag about them and teach them. (DEs are also teaching the spells at Hogwarts.) Harry himself, once he performs one, iirc, even says Bellatrix was right. Making it not true in DH, rather than making Harry's actions make sense, just seems to make the whole thing sloppy and inconsistent. So not believing the DEs in this case to me just seems to much like not liking the way things are presented and re-writing things to get a better answer in one isolated scene--at least for me. I consider Bellatrix and Barty perfectly credible witnesses for this information, there's no scenes where somebody disproves it, iirc Harry himself verifies it once he's done a Crucio successfully. So why would it be wrong? > > Leah once more: > > As I and others have said, the very distinct impression given by > > Sirius' narrative is that whether the Unforgiveables have been made > > legal or not by the Ministry, their use has a detrimentally moral > > effect on users. > > Mike: > Sirius will forever be my favorite HP character. But I read his > speech in GoF as a condemnation of Crouch Sr more than his aversion > to the UCs. In that same talk Sirius evinces the utmost respect for > Mad Eye, saying he never killed unless he had to. Which means Sirius > knew, as do we from a Pensieve scene, that Moody did kill and that he > most probably used the AK to do it. Yet Sirius doesn't seem to have a > problem with a justified use of an AK. Sirius takes the same position > that I'm outlining, the usage and not the spell is what determines > whether it is morally detrimental, imo. Magpie: I agree with that view as well-and I don't think Sirius' admiring Mad- Eye contradicts or weakens what he said about the use of them in general. He sees that there are times when killing is necessary (for those who believe the spells themselves are bad because of the intent, we don't know how Moody killed) and admires Moody because he only does it when he had to, like a good policeman or soldier. But even he who sees that still sees a danger in using the spells just to fight fire with fire. He says that Moody never killed unless he had to, perhaps implying that the trouble with Crouch was that he lost sight of when he "had to" and just concentrated on satisfying his hatred on DEs in the most painful ways possible. (That's kind of what it sounds like.) So Harry using the UF doesn't, imo, go against Sirius' advice because he's used one at all, but it does go against it that he and McG are now using them out of vengeance and not because they have to. > > Carol responds: > > Why? Snape actually says, "No Unforgiveable Curses from > > you, Potter! You haven't got the nerve or the ability!" > > (HBP Am. ed. 602). Having just killed Albus Dumbledore against > > his will, summoning the "nerve" and the "ability" to "mean" a > > curse he didn't want to cast, > > Mike: > You know I don't like Snape, Carol. ;) But it's the hypocrisy of > Snape telling Harry that he can't use a UC when he has just used one. > Snape has just proved that one can use the worst (imo) UC for a noble > purpose, yet he's telling Harry he can't do the same. We both thought > that this was a clue and a final attempt at teaching. It turns out it > wasn't, so I reassessed my reading of this passage. Magpie: Actually, Snape isn't necessarily being hypocritical there at all, given his position. He's damned himself and is trying to protect Harry; it would make perfect sense for his view to be that he has done this bad thing but that Harry shouldn't because Snape's already damned, and didn't want to use the UF to begin with, while Harry is the one being protected for a different job. Not that I'm saying that's what Snape has to be doing, just saying that Snape's whole position in canon is that his role is different from Harry's. > Mike, who found himself much less impressed with the character of > Severus Snape once it was revealed he did it all for the love of Lily -m (who had the same experience as Mike on that one) From va32h at comcast.net Sun Aug 5 15:30:22 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:30:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/Grindlewald duel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174539 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: >I suspect that the answer is, it was not an unbeatable >wand EXCEPT when in the hand of its recognized Master. va32h: Here's my take: First,the wand is only unbeatable if you are dueling to the death. According to the legend (and yes I know that Dumbledore discounts the legend, but we also know that Dumbledore isn't always right) - the Hallows were gifts from Death. Death, who was irritated that the three brothers had defied him. Death, who wanted to trick the brothers, so he could have their souls anyway. So the oldest brother wants a wand that will never lose in a duel - to the death. Which doesn't mean the owner of the wand can't be killed (just killed in non-dueling methods) and is also doesn't mean the owner can't lose a duel - if the intent of the opponent is not to cause death. Grindelwald did not try to kill Gregorovitch, merely stunned him. Dumbledore did not try to kill Grindelwald, merely to capture and imprison him. Draco was able to win the wand because - as we learned on the tower in HBP - his heart was not in it; he could not bring himself to kill Dumbledore. An intention the Elder wand would have sensed. (What would have happened to Snape? Well, we really don't know. I doubt Dumbledore's big plan to have Snape kill him involved falling off the astronomy tower in front of several witnesses, and having Death Eaters amok in the school. If Dumbledore wanted to die with dignity, he probably would have asked Snape to give him a potion or something that would let him drift off. There's no canon evidence that Dumbledore intended Snape to use any wand-based method of killing him. But Dumbledore does say he wanted the power of the wand to die with him, which suggests to me that he and Snape planned a different kind of death. ) So anyway - back to the Elder Wand. When Voldemort uses it on Harry in the Great Hall, he is definitely intending to cause death, which is why the wand works exactly as it should, and protects its master. Now - why does the AK work in the forest and not in the Great Hall? Because - in the forest, Harry did not draw his wand (which is really Draco's wand). The Elder wand does not know the *wizard* who defeated it, it knows the *wand* that defeated it. In the normal course of events, the Elder Wand would then be physically possessed by the wizard who wielded the wand that defeated it and so the EW would come to know its new master's touch. But Draco didn't know about the EW, and so he left the wand untouched. So when the Elder Wand meets *the last wand to defeat it* whomever the holder of that wand is, gets the full benefit of its mastery of the EW. Which is - protection in a duel to the death. Since Harry is the possessor of the wand which last defeated the Elder Wand, he becomes the master of the Elder wand as well. Unlike Draco, however, Harry understands this relationship and physically takes power of the EW, which is why Harry can go back to using his phoenix wand and still be the master of the EW. Whew! Well, that's my understanding anyway. va32h From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 15:35:50 2007 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:35:50 -0000 Subject: Lavender Brown: werewolf? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174540 > Leah: In 'The Elder Wand', Harry sees 'a grey blur' race across > the Hall to 'sink its teeth into one of the fallen'. Hermione > shrieks, "No" and blasts Fenrir Greyback from 'the feebly > stirring body of Lavender Brown'. Greyback is then knocked > out by Trelawney. We later hear that Greyback is dispatched > by Ron and Neville but no more (I think) of Lavender. > I read from this that Greyback was not responsible for > Lavender's injury, since he has to cross the Hall to get > to her, but that he is looking for a tasty snack. It's not > clear whether he manages to bite into Lavender before Hermione > comes to the rescue, but I think the implication is that she is > saved. She is certainly not eaten, and I would say she has not > been infected with werewolfism. Whether she lives we do not > know. I agree we don't *know* whether Lavender survived (either Fenrir's attempt to bite her, or the attack preceeding it that left her 'feebly stirring'). However, I'm pretty sure that if she was among the dead, it would have been mentioned. She was, after all a member of the DA, a Gryffindor of Harry's year, and had been a 'featured extra' in more than one sub-plot in previous books (Prof Trelawney, Won-Won and maybe others that I'm not remembering). I'd like to think that she would have warranted a specific mention if she *had* died. Also, assuming (which I am) that she survived, even if Fenrir did bite her before Hermione intervened, he was not transformed at the time. It amounts to the same scenario as when Bill was bitten, doesn't it? I don't have an opinion about whether or not she was bitten, but I think that *if* she was, it'll just mean (once she recovers) that she's eating more raw steak! Stel ****Elf Note**** Hi Stel, Your e-mail address listed under your membership details is bouncing, can you please contact the List Elves to resolve this minor technicality at HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com from an alternative working e-mail address. Thank you! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 15:37:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:37:04 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174541 Carol earlier: > > Why? Snape actually says, "No Unforgiveable Curses from you, Potter! You haven't got the nerve or the ability!" (HBP Am. ed. 602). Having just killed Albus Dumbledore against his will, summoning the "nerve" and the "ability" to "mean" a curse he didn't want to cast, > > Mike: > You know I don't like Snape, Carol. ;) But it's the hypocrisy of Snape telling Harry that he can't use a UC when he has just used one. Snape has just proved that one can use the worst (imo) UC for a noble purpose, yet he's telling Harry he can't do the same. We both thought that this was a clue and a final attempt at teaching. It turns out it wasn't, so I reassessed my reading of this passage. > > Carol earlier: > > "No Unforgiveable Curses from you, Potter, because you have to let the Dark Lord kill you." That's what I think Snape means, but he can't say it for another year. > > Mike: > Except Snape won't find this out himself for almost another year. Carol again: Oops, Mike, Not true. Check "The Prince's Tale." Snape finds out that Harry has to walk willingly to his death on the night of the argument in the forest (DH Am. ed. 685), and we know from HBP that the argument occurs on Ron's birthday, March 1. Harry hears about it from Hagrid while they're visiting Ron in the hospital wing after he's been poisoned (HBP Am. ed. 404). Snape's words to Harry about not casting an Unforgiveable curse (HBP 602) occur two months later, after DD's death in early June. Snape does not find out that Harry has to let LV kill him from DD's portrait after DD's death. He finds it out from the living Dumbledore, and he knows it as he gives his last advice to Harry. It's *Harry* who doesn't find out till more than a year later thanks to Snape's memory. BTW, I wonder whether Snape, who thought that Harry would die when the soul piece in his scar was destroyed, intended to AK Voldemort himself after Harry was dead and Voldemort was mortal. He hated Voldemort and wanted him dead, and DD's plan, as Snape saw it, would not accomplish that. In which case, what he really meant was, "No Unforgiveables from you, Potter. That's my job." (I still disagree with you on one other point, your view of Crucio, but I want this post to be about Snape, so I won't discuss it here.) Carol, who sees no hypocrisy whatever in Snape's words and nothing weak or ignoble about Snape's love for Lily as the reason he ended up on the good side From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 5 15:56:39 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:56:39 -0000 Subject: Private Drive evacuation date Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174542 So how did the Death Eaters know the exact time Harry would evacuate Private Drive? Yes, I know, Snape told them, but who told Snape? If it was Dumbledore then who told Dumbledore? Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Aug 5 16:33:07 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:33:07 -0000 Subject: Severus lives! In-Reply-To: <46B4B2E3.3000802@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174543 Jazmyn Concolor: > I noticed several things that make me believe that Snape > somehow didn't really die. houyhnhnm: Snape's eyes have always been so important--they glitter; they gleam; they pierce--that when something in their depths seems to vanish, leaving them fixed, blank and empty, I think it is a fairly sure sign that he has died. Add to that the fact that he was much more severely injured than Arthur Weasley by Nagini, beyond the help of his own magic or the aid of any healer and I am hesitant to agree that Snape escaped death in a very literal or concrete sense. But. There is a long tradition of the hero (and Rowling has acknowledged Snape a hero) with the unknown grave, from Owain Glyndwr to A.C. Sandino to Raoul Wallenberg. I have a very strong feeling that with omission of any reference to Snape's body or grave, or hardly any more reference to Snape at all except in the child with Lily's eyes who bears his name, that we are given permission in a mystical sense, at least, to believe. Severus Snape: Presente Presente Presente. From muellem at bc.edu Sun Aug 5 16:45:37 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:45:37 -0000 Subject: Severus lives! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174544 > houyhnhnm: > > Snape's eyes have always been so important--they glitter; > they gleam; they pierce--that when something in their > depths seems to vanish, leaving them fixed, blank and > empty, I think it is a fairly sure sign that he has died. colebiancardi: ahh, but prior to Nagini's bite, Harry described Snape's eyes as blank: "And now Snape looked at Voldemort, and Snape's face was like a desth mask. It was marble white and so still that when he spoke, it was a shock to see that anyone lived behind the blank eyes." (p 655 US ed) I still cling to the hope that Snape didn't die, although the rest of the WW thinks he is dead. He has taken off to live in some other country, far, far away from the Potter boy :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 16:51:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:51:20 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/Grindelwald duel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174545 va32h wrote: > > Here's my take: > > First,the wand is only unbeatable if you are dueling to the death. > > According to the legend (and yes I know that Dumbledore discounts the legend, but we also know that Dumbledore isn't always right) - the Hallows were gifts from Death. Death, who was irritated that the three brothers had defied him. Death, who wanted to trick the brothers, so he could have their souls anyway. > > So the oldest brother wants a wand that will never lose in a duel - to the death. Which doesn't mean the owner of the wand can't be killed (just killed in non-dueling methods) and is also doesn't mean the owner can't lose a duel - if the intent of the opponent is not to cause death. > > Grindelwald did not try to kill Gregorovitch, merely stunned him. > Dumbledore did not try to kill Grindelwald, merely to capture and > imprison him. Carol responds: I agree with this interpretation except for one thing. I think that Dumbledore surprised Grindelwald, who was expecting fancy, powerful spells, by using Expelliarmus. So he captured and kept the wand, defeating Grindelwald without killing him. Expelliarmus, as I understand it, does not alter a wand's allegiance when the wand is returned to its owner, only when it's used to defeat him. The kids in the DA can use it against each other because they're not really fighting each other, and even Snape using it against Lockhart in the Duelling Club doesn't change the wand's allegiance because he doesn't take and keep Lockhart's wand. (What might have happened if Harry had found Lockhart's wand after using Expelliarmus to send it out the window is more complicated and I won't get into it here.) In any case, I think we have some canon to back up the hypothesis that DD beat GG using Expelliarmus. Lupin, in shoot-to-kill mode, expresses surprise that Harry would use Expelliarmus against Stan Shunpike. He says that Harry's use of Expelliarmus against LV in the graveyard "under imminent threat of death" was "a very unusual move," and he adds that "the Death Eaters--frankly, most people!--would have expected you to attack back " (71). Grindelwald, showing off his stuff to DD and expecting him to do the same (I don't think they wanted to kill each other even though they certainly wanted to defeat each other) would not have anticipated such a move, either. Expelliarmus defeats Voldemort in the graveyard, it transfers the allegiance of Draco's wand to Harry (as it would not have done, IMO, if Harry had given it back--not that he would have done so under the circumstances), and it defeats Voldemort in the final battle. Carol, appreciating the delicious irony that it's Snape who taught Harry his "signature spell" " From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Aug 5 16:57:31 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 5 Aug 2007 16:57:31 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 8/5/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1186333051.8.91570.m41@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174546 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday August 5, 2007 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 5 17:03:14 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:03:14 -0000 Subject: DD as manipulator? A long response. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174547 justcarol67 Wrote: > [Dumbledore] always had hope for > Harry, who nevertheless had to face > Voldemort believing that he was going > to die [ ] thanks to the shared drop > of blood, he is almost certain that Harry won't die When they met in the Forbidden Forest Harry didn't die because Voldemort didn't die, but Voldemort was hurt by the encounter, he was knocked unconscious for as long as Harry was hence the ugly baby at King's Cross. The reason Voldemort was only injured and not killed is that one Horcrux remained, the Snake. Dumbledore had not expected this "If I know him [Harry] he will have arranged matters so that when he does set out to meet his death, it will truly mean the end of Voldemort". If things had gone according to Dumbledore's plan both would have died right then. I don't believe Dumbledore dreamed Harry had the slightest chance of survival until the King's Cross scene, and that's why he's so happy. And I'm still not convinced that the Dumbledore at King's Cross was really Dumbledore and not Harry's mind working out the last pieces of the puzzle. > He can't let Harry know about the shared > drop of blood or the willing sacrifice > will not work. But Dumbledore didn't let Snape know about it either and even sneered at Snape is for being reluctant to be as pragmatic as he is. > it seems to me that DD *appears* > to be ruthless and is without > question manipulative, but he is > not heartless or unloving. That is true, Dumbledore was not heartless or unloving, far from it, but when he needed to be he could be utterly ruthless. It is necessary for The Greater Good. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From claire.kavanagh at yahoo.co.uk Sun Aug 5 16:40:30 2007 From: claire.kavanagh at yahoo.co.uk (claire.kavanagh) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:40:30 -0000 Subject: Harry and Betrayal in DH - some issues Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174548 clara says: Harry is preoccupied with "betrayal" at least for the first half of DH. We know this theme has come from Wormtail/Lily & James and is central to Harry's belief system. My interpretation of the text is that this belief is more meaningful than simply "friends do not betray each other" and goes along the same road as Dante into "betrayal- the worst crime in the history of the world?"- Judas Escariot et al. He reacts strongly to a suggestion from Fleur that Hagrid may have actually let the real departure date slip (sorry can't qoute- no book at work) in the early stages and is haunted by the potential/as yet unknown betrayal committed by DD following discussion with Muriel etc. However, Harry strikes a deal with Griphook in full knowledge that he will betray it by keeping the sword for an undetermined amount of time until the Horcruxes are destroyed. Thoughts? The two don't sit well together as far as I am concerned but maybe I'm missing something. It seems to me that this betrayal, like the UC as discussed in another post, is "bad, bad, bad, OK now its fine!" Maybe there are alternative view? From mac_tire at hotmail.com Sun Aug 5 16:33:40 2007 From: mac_tire at hotmail.com (pattiemgsybb) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:33:40 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174549 eggplant: >A fictional character has no duty to take the moral high ground, his only duty is to be interesting. patricia: JKR intends that we should see Harry as a particular kind of hero; while flawed, he is not written as a dark hero. As such he cannot lightly employ the most evil (and unnecessary) of measures, even against an enemy. Even in fiction there are certain "duties" -- based on the author's characterization of each individual. And I believe JKR would not agree that the sole purpose of her characters is to be interesting. eggplant: >I think it is entirely appropriate to be angry at someone who killed and tortured your friends and is trying to kill you; and it is entirely appropriate to use every resource you have to defeat that person. patricia: Torture in HP is performed for the sake of *sadistic satisfaction.* That's true when Bellatrix does it, and it's true when Harry does it. As many others have pointed out, the use of this curse is not necessary to *defeat* Carrow. eggplant: > Of course it's more realistic! If a writer insist that her characters behave emotionally in ways no flesh and blood person ever would it wrenches a reader out of an alternate reality and makes them remember that they are just reading words printed on a dead tree; and that's no fun. patricia: Many flesh and blood people would never agree that torturing ANYONE is ethically acceptable, even in wartime. Certainly there can be great satisfaction in such vengeance against those who have wronged us. And it's very easy to give in to the worst of our impulses, and easy (while we're overwhelmed by emotion) to tell ourselves that a given individual deserved that treatment. But in HP we're supposed to have this ethic of choosing what is RIGHT over what is EASY. I bet someone here has quoted this already as it's quite famous, but in case they haven't: Nietzsche said, "He who fights monsters should be careful lest he thereby becomes a monster. And if thou gaze long into the abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee." If we readily embrace the tools of those who are evil with the excuse that this is the only means by which we can defeat evil, then Good and Evil may become words with no meaning. And we may find that once "evil" has been defeated, we've learned to relish the power of those tools, and have forgotten what goodness means. From claire.kavanagh at yahoo.co.uk Sun Aug 5 16:45:48 2007 From: claire.kavanagh at yahoo.co.uk (claire.kavanagh) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:45:48 -0000 Subject: Private Drive evacuation date In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174550 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > So how did the Death Eaters know the exact time Harry would evacuate > Private Drive? Yes, I know, Snape told them, but who told Snape? If it > was Dumbledore then who told Dumbledore? > > Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald > clara says: DD was in charge of the OOP, he didn't need to be told the plan, he made the plan. I think. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Aug 5 17:14:12 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:14:12 -0000 Subject: DD as manipulator?/Greater good In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174551 Maria: > Unlike Voldemort DD sees those who serve him, at great risk to > their own lives, as human beings, and this is what causes him pain. > He has learned, as a result of his experience with the Deathly > Hallows, to be wary of putting the greater good over individual > human beings, and throughout the series we see him questioning his > choices because of these conflicting interests. Jen: Nice post, Maria.:) Thanks for gathering up information from all the books for consideration. My impression of Dumbledore's plan is changing while reading DH for the second time, especially given how the phrase 'for the greater good' is framed as a justification rather than a truth, a rationalization for controlling and hurting others. DD is saying as much in OOTP: Is it possible for people who love to truly put the greater good above those they hold closest to them? My answer - at least for Potterverse- is no, they cannot. In fact, to make the assumption one knows the greater good is in itself a fallacy: Such a belief can only imagined by one seeking the power to control others. Dumbledore, who struggles with power, is more prone to fall into the trap of rationalizing his actions as the greater good than another might; thus his struggle isn't to keep reminding himself to put the greater good above an individual he loves but rather *not* to act on such an impulse. Dumbledore was saved from himself in OOTP by his love for Harry just as Grindelwald threatening his family turned Dumbledore from his plans for Muggle domination as a young adult. Jen From graynavarre at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 17:07:14 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore/Grindelwald duel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <987118.11408.qm@web30115.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174552 Carol: > Expelliarmus defeats Voldemort in the graveyard, it > transfers the allegiance of Draco's wand to Harry (as it would not > have done, IMO, if Harry had given it back--not that he would have > done so under the circumstances), and it defeats Voldemort in the > final battle. I just reread DHs and I came to a different conclusion. Draco had been the one who disarmed DD with Expelliarmus, but, since the Elder Wand had flown out of the window, Draco had never possessed it. However, the Elder Wind accepted Draco's ownership due to the fact that he had disarmed its previous owner. But Draco never had the Elder Wand in his hands. While Harry and company were making their escape from the Malfoy mansion of evil, Harry physically took Draco's wand from him. This changed the ownership of the Elder Wand from Draco to Harry. When LV attacked a fighting Harry in the duel in Hogwarts, the Elder Wand would not fight against its master and turned the AK against LV. Barbara From graynavarre at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 17:17:24 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Courage, was Re:Children's Books (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal)/Malum Blah blah/JO's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <828021.89378.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174553 --- Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > For those who don't understand JKR's valuing courage > above all virtues, consider > this: Without courage, all other virtues are > useless. Compassion (for example) > without courage will only be compassionate when it > is safe to do so. Loyalty > without courage will be loyal only when there is no > price to pay for loyalty. > Any other virtue not accompanied with courage will > be virtuous only when it is > not risky to be so. That could be said about all of the virtues. Courage without compassion could lead to a warrior who fights without regard to the innocent or helpless. Courage without Loyalty could lead to a mercenary who courageously destroy everyone and everything. Barbara From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 17:24:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:24:12 -0000 Subject: Severus lives! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174554 houyhnhnm wrote: > > > > Snape's eyes have always been so important--they glitter; they gleam; they pierce--that when something in their depths seems to vanish, leaving them fixed, blank and empty, I think it is a fairly sure sign that he has died. > > colebiancardi: > > ahh, but prior to Nagini's bite, Harry described Snape's eyes as blank: > > "And now Snape looked at Voldemort, and Snape's face was like a desth mask. It was marble white and so still that when he spoke, it was a shock to see that anyone lived behind the blank eyes." > (p 655 US ed) > > I still cling to the hope that Snape didn't die, although the rest of the WW thinks he is dead. He has taken off to live in some other country, far, far away from the Potter boy :) > Carol responds: While it's true that snape's face is like a death mask before he dies, I think we're seeing the face of despair: He thinks that he has failed to deliver his message and that Voldemort will win. When he realizes that Harry is present and he can give him the message, along with other memories that will allenable Harry to accept the message and understand Snape at last, he stops despairing and accepts death, with that last, highly moving look into Harry's eyes. Whether Snape is seeing Lily's eyes or Lily in Harry or both, Harry is seeing Snape and feeling something other than hatred for him, the first step toward a forgiveness and understanding that I don't think could have happened with a living Snape. I'm almost certain that Snape died and, more important, died redeemed. I think our glimpse of the afterlife--DD with his hand healed, Sirius Black healed of the taint and suffering of Azkaban, Lupin healed of the suffering imposed on him by being a werewolf, holds out equal promise for Snape, who was never happy in life and has a chance to be forgiven in death, even by not-so-heroic James. (whatever happened to James heroically battling the Dark Lord? Snape has done far more to defeat him than we ever see James do.) We even see Harry as he would be if he had died. Death, as DD has always said, is nothing to fear. Earlier, we were told and now we have been partially shown, that death really is "the last great adventure." (Luna suggested as much in HBP, as did NHN, who tells Harry that Sirius Black "will have gone on." Only for Voldemort, who feels no remorse for his many and monstrous crimes, is death a punishment. Snape has felt remorse and served out his long repentance in a figurative Purgatory. While I wanted Snape to live, I think his death is a release and he will be whole and happy in the afterlife. "DEATH be not proud, though some have called thee Mighty and dreadfull, for, thou art not so, For, those, whom thou think'st, thou dost overthrow, Die not, poore death, nor yet canst thou kill me. >From rest and sleepe, which but thy pictures bee, Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow, And soonest our best men with thee doe goe, Rest of their bones, and soules deliverie. Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men, And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell, And poppie, or charmes can make us sleepe as well, And better then thy stroake; why swell'st thou then; One short sleepe past, wee wake eternally, And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die." As Hermione tells Ron, she could run him through with a sword but his soul wouldn't die. The soul in the HP books (unless it's sucked by a Dementor) is immortal. DD tells Harry not to pity the dead but pity the living, especially those who are without love. There are fates far worse than death. So Snape, like Dumbledore and Sirius Black and all the other dead characters who are either good or redeemed, *is* in a far country, and he's at peace. (Of course, if you prefer to believe that he's in your own home town working as a Healer, I won't deny you your fantasy!) Carol, who wonders whether the scene in which Harry cuts his hand on the mirror and can't heal the cut foreshadows his helplessness as he watches Snape bleed to death; Snape, who can heal Sectumsempra but can't, or won't, heal himself From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Aug 5 17:25:41 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:25:41 -0000 Subject: Severus lives! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174555 colebiancardi: > ahh, but prior to Nagini's bite, Harry described > Snape's eyes as blank: > "And now Snape looked at Voldemort, and Snape's > face was like a desth mask. It was marble white > and so still that when he spoke, it was a shock > to see that anyone lived behind the blank eyes." > (p 655 US ed) > I still cling to the hope that Snape didn't die, > although the rest of the WW thinks he is dead. He > has taken off to live in some other country, far, > far away from the Potter boy :) houyhnhnm: Oh, good point! Maybe it really was Snape I saw at the supermarket last summer--in his jogging clothes. And he looked happy. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 17:35:59 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:35:59 -0000 Subject: Descendents of the Peverells, WAS: Question: Cadmus Peverell & Voldermort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174556 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ma_vicsua" wrote: <<>> > I just finished reading Book 7 and am confused about how Marvolo > Gaunt could have inherited the ring with the resurrection stone. > > Cadmus Peverell is supposed to have lived alone. He used the > resurrection stone to call back the girl he had once hoped to > marry before her untimely death. > > Did he have children with another woman? How did the stone end up > in the ring of Marvolo Gaunt, grandfather of Riddle? Is Gaunt a > descendant of Cadmus Peverell? > Regards, <<>> > Victoria **** Katie: I don't believe that it is said whether Marvolo Gaunt is a DIRECT descendant. He could be descended from one of the other Peverell brothers, or even another branch of the Peverell family, and the ring passed to him because they were the last remaining branch of the family. Although, I just brought up another question...If that's true, and the Gaunts are not directly descended from Cadmus, then the ring could easily have gone to the Potters...descendents of Ignotius. Hmmm.... Very interesting. Now there are two questions! Lol. Anyone else? Katie From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 17:38:35 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:38:35 -0000 Subject: Molly and Arthur's Age Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174557 I woke up this morning thinking about HP...and it popped into my head that Molly and Arthur must be quite a bit older than Harry's parents, Sirius, Snape, and all that group. Because when the books began, Bill and Charlie were already into their careers and out of school, so maybe 20 and 21? How old do we think the Weasley parents are? Who would have been their contemporaries at school? Katie From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 5 17:40:51 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:40:51 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174558 "pattiemgsybb" wrote: > I believe JKR would not agree that > the sole purpose of her characters >is to be interesting. I am quite certain she would agree! > Many flesh and blood people would > never agree that torturing ANYONE I dare you to find a single soldier in the real world who had as much combat experience as Harry did who would find that scene unexpected. It rings true, it's what people do under such circumstances. > Nietzsche said, "He who fights monsters should > be careful lest he thereby becomes a monster. > And if thou gaze long into the abyss, the > abyss will also gaze into thee." It's odd, I once used that entire quote in a Harry Potter fan fiction I once wrote. I did it because I thought it was true and because I thought it was interesting. justcarol67 Wrote: From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Aug 5 18:01:14 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:01:14 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174559 Magpie: > I consider Bellatrix and Barty perfectly credible > witnesses for this information, there's no scenes > where somebody disproves it, iirc Harry himself > verifies it once he's done a Crucio successfully. > So why would it be wrong? houyhnhnm: Well, there is the scene Harry witnesses through the Voldemort connection of Rowle being crucio'd by Draco. (Scholastic, p.174) Draco doesn't seem to be enjoying it very much. His face is described as white and terrified, petrified and gaunt. His motivation seems to come from the fear of having the same thing done to him if he doesn't comply. Before DH came out there was a discussion about whether or not Snape could cast a Patronus (answered by DH, of course). I liked Mike's suggestion that a happy memory might be necessary for beginners learning to cast a Patronus, but not for someone who was proficient. I was not so taken with the idea of Love being the force behind them, but someone else suggested something like muscle memory. Kind of like learning a song. You might need mnemonic devices to remember the words initially, but once learned, the words come out automatically. Maybe it's the same with Crucio. To learn to do the spell properly, one has to concentrate on the sadistic pleasure it gives, but once the caster becomes proficient it may be possible to toss them off quite casually (Bellatrix is stuck on sadism because she's Bellatrix). If that's the case, it makes the use of Crucio even more evil, IMO, and it doesn't let Harry off the hook by any means. I don't like the use of Unforgiveables by supposedly good characters in DH. Rowling's answer was unsatisfactory. I liked Carol's a little better, at least with respect to Harry's use of them. I don't have an answer of my own. Maybe I will when I finish my second reading of the book. I had to read it through the first time really fast and I'm nowhere near the end on the second go. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 18:12:25 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:12:25 -0000 Subject: Closure for Harry & Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174560 bboyminn wrote: > > But, was Snape /really/ a legitimate Headmaster, by > what authority was he appointed to the position? The > only authority I recognize is the Board of Governors, > and even if they cooperated, it would have been under > duress, coercion, threats, and possibly torture. That > doesn't make Snape very legitimate in my eyes. > > Further, he was Headmaster for less than a year, and > DID desert his post. > > I think Harry, at a later date, would have recognized > that Snape needed to be honored for the tremendous > risk he took to help Dumbledore, and would have > worked to get Snape's portrait added, but I really > don't see Snape as a legitimate Headmaster. > > True the office of Headmaster opened to him, but that > might have been Dumbledore's doing. The 'Office' might > have understood Snape's true nature and intent, but > even if he was working for Dumbledore, that doesn't > mean he came across his office legitimately. Carol responds: Steve, I agree with you about Snape's reconciliation with Harry (not really the right term, since they were nerver friends--Understanding and forgiveness come closer, IMO.) But I disagree that Snape was never the rightful headmaster. First, the length of time he held the post makes no difference. Pope John Paul I was pope for a mont before he died, but he was still pope. William Henry Harrison was president of the U.S. for one month, but he was still president. As for being the rightful headmaster, he was appointed to the post. Minerva McGonagall, the only other possible candidate, apparently retained her post as deputy headmistress (thanks to Snape). And better Snape than a loyal DE. His mere presence prevents the Carrows from taking over Hogwarts. Imagine if, say, Yaxley had been appointed headmaster. Would McGonnagall, Flitwick, and Hagrid have kept their posts? Snape is counting on them to keep the Carrows in check, to the extent that that's possible, just as they undermined Umbridge. McGonagall does not say that Snape was not a legitimate headmaster. She says that "our headmaster has taken a short leave" and later that he had "done a bunk," exactly the reason JKR gives for his not having a portrait in the headmaster's office--yet. It's clear from the fact that Snape (somehow) had access to DD's office before his official appointment and from DD's extracted promise from Snape to protect the students of Hogwarts *after* Snape kills him that DD expects Snape to return to Hogwarts. If McGonagall is headmistress, that can't happen. She's not going to appoint the man she thinks is DD's murderer to teach Potions or DADA or any other subject. The only position in which Snape can do what DD wants him to do--protect the students from the Carrows to the degree that that's possible (without giving away his true loyalties), to help Harry without Harry's knowledge, and to have access to the Sword of Gryffindor, is for Snape to be headmaster. I'm almost certain that Snape as headmaster was part of DD's plan, as indicated by his access to the office (in contrast to Umbridge) and by the password, "Dumbledore." (How could Mcgonagall not have known? I guess she was blinded by Harry's view of events. But it's interesting that Slughorn inquiringly asks, "Severus?" Evidently, he's reverted to his old view of Snape.) We glimpse Snape's smooth, cool style as headmaster, not acting remotely like the Carrows but not blowing his cover, either, when he talks to McGonagall before she attacks him. It's only the presence of Harry that triggers the mutiny. Before that, he seems to have been in control, unable to keep the Carrows from torturing students but quietly allowing the other teachers to thwart the Carrows and inciting rebellion against his own regime by reposting Umbridge's decrees. He even allows the students to go home for Christmas and Easter vacations. I imagine that he presides over banquets, makes announcements, and holds staff meetings exactly as any other headmaster would do. And since Hagrid is teaching his students about unicorns, we have some indication that all classes except DADA and Muggle Studies are being taught normally. A bit of speculation: Since Snape has ostensibly killed DD on LV's orders and LV quite literally regards him as his right-hand man (note where LV tells him to sit in chapter 1), it seems likely that LV asked Snape to name his reward once the DEs take over the government and Snape, who has promised DD to protect the students at Hogwarts, requests that he be named headmaster in DD's place. LV would certainly consider that a fitting reward and (wrongly) a coup for himself. JKR has Harry refer to Snape in the epilogue along with Dumbledore as a headmaster of Hogwarts. She tells us in a chat that she expects Harry to see that Snape has a portrait in the headmaster's office. And, as numerous posters have pointed out, the office does not close itself to him as it does to Umbridge (whose regime Snape quietly undermines in OoP), I can only conclude that Snape is a true headmaster, and Draco, who suggests back in OoP that Snape should become headmaster, is an unwitting prophet foreshadowing what for me was one of the most unexpected plot twists in DH. Carol, trying to put together every piece of evidence we have regarding Snape, including what the characters misinterpret or fail to see From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Aug 5 18:24:58 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:24:58 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174561 > Magpie: > > > I consider Bellatrix and Barty perfectly credible > > witnesses for this information, there's no scenes > > where somebody disproves it, iirc Harry himself > > verifies it once he's done a Crucio successfully. > > So why would it be wrong? > > houyhnhnm: > > Well, there is the scene Harry witnesses through > the Voldemort connection of Rowle being crucio'd by Draco. > (Scholastic, p.174) > > Draco doesn't seem to be enjoying it very much. > His face is described as white and terrified, petrified > and gaunt. His motivation seems to come from the fear > of having the same thing done to him if he doesn't comply. Magpie: I was thinking of that scene actually, though I didn't bring it up. It's one of the scenes (along with the kids being made to do the curse in class) that indicates that JKR just needed it to be different for the plot in DH and didn't think through the implications completely to explain them to us. Clearly you can do them without wanting to do them given what we see of Draco and the implications that normal students are being forced to do them, and yet in the same book we've also got Harry saying his little quip and the other implication that Crabbe and Goyle are good at them because they're naturally sadistic. In the end I wind up with a similar idea about them as you do, that like the Patronus there are times when how you do it is important and times when it isn't. Basically, Rowling has a lot of torturing going on in the story, and she needs it to be different metaphorically at different times. Sometimes it's about connecting with whatever makes you do it. Other times she's showing the evilness in people in forcing others to do it. That the two things don't completely fit with each other doesn't seem to be a problem for her. Apparently you can do a Crucio while being repulsed by what you're doing, because that scene is about a different kind of torture, in a way. A kind more focused on in DH, where the DEs are forcing everybody to be like them. This is maybe doubly noticable since we have a bad character, Draco, being the one not wanting to use the curse while Harry's being all Errol Flynn about it. The implications seem to be that the author has little trouble with the actual act of hurting someone to the extent Crucio hurts them, but sees differences in when it's being used and why and against whom. And also the series has a pattern of changing how it presents pain in general. I mean, I personally not only get the impression that Draco is reluctant and Harry is happy to do their Crucios, but that Ollivander is portrayed as someone being given painful electric shocks that should make us all wince while Carrow's getting the equivalent of a punch in the face, all due to the people involved and the context. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Aug 5 18:51:42 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:51:42 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174562 houyhnhnm: > I don't like the use of Unforgiveables by supposedly > good characters in DH. Rowling's answer was unsatisfactory. > I liked Carol's a little better, at least with respect > to Harry's use of them. I don't have an answer of my > own. Maybe I will when I finish my second reading of > the book. I had to read it through the first time really > fast and I'm nowhere near the end on the second go. Jen: My answer even after a re-read is there is no answer, sort of a Ravenclaw password in the making . Ambiguity reigned when Harry chose destruction of the Horcruxes over seeking the Hallows then shortly after enjoyed the sensation of 'heady control' from casting the Imperius curse - power over another, right? Maybe there's some message in there, Harry's still struggling with 'knowing but not seeking' when he casts the Imperius. If so, there's no explanation in the text (and Harry receiving praise for the Crucio later diminishes this idea). Ah, and now I'm back to the circle having no beginning.... Jen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 18:53:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:53:20 -0000 Subject: Molly and Arthur's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174563 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > I woke up this morning thinking about HP...and it popped into my head > that Molly and Arthur must be quite a bit older than Harry's parents, > Sirius, Snape, and all that group. Because when the books began, Bill > and Charlie were already into their careers and out of school, so maybe > 20 and 21? > > How old do we think the Weasley parents are? Who would have been their > contemporaries at school? > > Katie > Carol responds: It depends on whether you believe that Molly and Arthur went to school before Hagrid became gamekeeper (his predecessor was "a man named Ogg") and before Filch became caretaker (his predecessor, Apollyon Pringle, supposedly gave Arthur some scars that he still retains) or the statement in HBP that Arthur and Molly married right out of school at the beginning of VW1. If the first is true, they have to be older than Hagrid, who was expelled and made gamekeeper, or more likely assistant gamekeeper at thirteen and is three years younger than Tom Riddle. The Apollyon Pringle part is not so problematic: McGonagall says in DH that Filch has been caretaker for twenty-five years, which would mean that he became caretaker eight years before Harry was born, when MWPP/S were about twelve years old. Another clue is Arthur Weasley's rivalry with Lucius Malfoy, whom we know to be five years older than Severus Snape and MWPP (see the fistfight in CoS). If Molly and Arthur left school immediately before MWPP/S entered it as first-years, he (and Molly) would be about three years older than Lucius Malfoy. So the only piece that can't be made to fit is Ogg, the gamekeeper before Hagrid. Hagrid, expelled in 1943, would have had to be the assistant gamekeeper as late as 1970, when he was fifty years old. But then, we have two conflicting versions of when DD became headmaster (when Tom Riddle applied for a job and when Lupin became a student) and the whole impossible mess of Charlie Weasley's age. JKR forgets details (completely natural given the number of pages she's written and the number of years she's been writing--and the editors can't be expected to remember details over all the books, either. They're human, too, and working to tight deadlines). She even has Harry say that DD "never killed if [he] could help it" when the remark originally (and more logically) applied to Mad-Eye Moody. She is utterly hopeless at math. I think, though, that we're supposed to believe that the Weasleys are about eight years older than Snape and the Marauders and Lily, finishing school the year before that group enrolled at Hogwarts. And I think that Bill, the oldest son, is supposed to be about nine years older than HRH and Charlie is supposed to be seven years older. ("We haven't won the cup since Charlie left" cannot be made to fit with "we haven't won the cup for seven years" matter how hard we struggle.) I recommend a combination of willing suspension of disbelief and Double-think. Oh, and can someone please explain to me how Lily's Muggle parents and sister got onto Platform 9 3/4 in Snape's memory? Never mind. It was necessary to the plot just like Lupin's transformation when the moon peeped out from behind a cloud in PoA. On another note altogether, did she mean for Albus Severus Potter's initials to spell ASP? (I take no credit for this observation, which was made by someone dear to me.) Carol, who thinks that JKR weaves a powerful story and would rather examine theme and character than plotholes and inconsistencies From twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 18:52:55 2007 From: twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com (Jo) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:52:55 -0000 Subject: Private Drive evacuation date In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174564 eggplant107 wrote: So how did the Death Eaters know the exact time Harry would evacuate Private Drive? Yes, I know, Snape told them, but who told Snape? If it was Dumbledore then who told Dumbledore? clara wrote: DD was in charge of the OOP, he didn't need to be told the plan, he made the plan. I think. Jo writes: I had the same question because DD was dead at that time and his only portrait (I'm assuming) was in the headmaster's office at Hogwarts and Severus was Headmaster. Jo. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 18:24:10 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:24:10 -0000 Subject: the peverell's hallows In-Reply-To: <20070725024054.9BB1FE000520@socom4.uol.com.br> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174565 >james black potter > I tend to agree with Dumbledore, when he says that the Hallows were human made. Powerfull they are, but far from perfect. > > The Wand - Dumbledore beat Grindelwald (to say the least) JW: I take this opportunity to comment on a common point of confusion. It is NOT the case that somehow DD overcame the power of the EW in his duel with GW. The fact is that GW NEVER HAD the wand. It was actually DD, disguised as GW (polyjuice, I assume) who stole the wand from Gregorovich. Please recall that when LV visited GW at the top of the black tower GW said that HE NEVER HAD THE WAND. Refer to page 436 (US): "Your journey was pointless. I never had it." Later on, the EW was found in DD's tomb. It got there because DD had it all along - it never went through GW. It was the WINNER of the GW/DD duel - not the loser - who held the wand. From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 19:24:40 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:24:40 -0000 Subject: Molly and Arthur's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174566 Kate: > How old do we think the Weasley parents are? Who would have been their > contemporaries at school? > > Katie > Lisa: Katie, check out the timeline on the Harry Potter Lexicon; they have calculated all these dates. There's also another thread about this somewhere here -- I think it's been determined that the Weasley parents would've been in their 70s ... making them contemporaries of Tom Riddle, actually! Lisa From muellem at bc.edu Sun Aug 5 19:29:01 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:29:01 -0000 Subject: Severus lives! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174567 > colebiancardi: > > > ahh, but prior to Nagini's bite, Harry described > > Snape's eyes as blank: > > > "And now Snape looked at Voldemort, and Snape's > > face was like a desth mask. It was marble white > > and so still that when he spoke, it was a shock > > to see that anyone lived behind the blank eyes." > > (p 655 US ed) > houyhnhnm: > > Oh, good point! Maybe it really was Snape I saw at > the supermarket last summer--in his jogging clothes. > And he looked happy. > colebiancardi: heee! More quotes that depict Snape's eyes as cold or dead or empty: DH US ed p597 "He had forgotten the details of Snape's appearance in the magnitude of his crimes, forgotten how his greasy black hair hung in curtains around his thin face, how his black eyes had a dead, cold look." >From the very FIRST book: SS US hardcover ed, p. 136 "His [Snape's] eyes were black like Hagrid's, but they had none of Hagrid's warmth. They were cold and empty and made you think of dark tunnels." OotP, US hardcover ed, p 744 "His cold, dark eyes were boring into Harry's, who met his glaze unflinchingly..." so, yes, we have scenes where Snape's eyes glitter and such, but we also have canon that states his eyes have a dead, empty and cold look when he is very much alive and kicking. I wonder if this is a nasty by-product of combining Legilimency and Occlumency for way too long. maybe you did see a happy, jogging Snape :) colebiancardi From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 19:34:04 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 12:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Molly and Arthur's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <852659.48706.qm@web52709.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174568 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: <> > How old do we think the Weasley parents are? Who would have been their > contemporaries at school? > > Katie > Carol replied: <<>> I think, though, that we're supposed to believe that the Weasleys are about eight years older than Snape and the Marauders and Lily, finishing school the year before that group enrolled at Hogwarts. <> I recommend a combination of willing suspension of disbelief and Double-think. <> Carol, who thinks that JKR weaves a powerful story and would rather examine theme and character than plotholes and inconsistencies *** Katie: Thanks for the reply! I agree that JKR's story is remarkable and profound, and I often ignore the threads that have to do with little things like age, moon cycles, and the such. I just like to have a basic understanding of who, where, and how as the background for the more in depth and philosophical stuff. So, it helps me to assume M and A are approx. 8 years older than Lily, James, Snape and the others. I can file that information away and just know its there. And that helps me to be able to move on to other (more interesting) things! Katie . --------------------------------- Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From graynavarre at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 17:25:46 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:25:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry and Betrayal in DH - some issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <970876.53946.qm@web30110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174569 --- "claire.kavanagh" wrote: > > However, Harry strikes a deal with Griphook in full > knowledge that he > will betray it by keeping the sword for an > undetermined amount of > time until the Horcruxes are destroyed. > The time is not so undetermined. I can't see them finding the Horcruxes and not destroying them just so they can keep the sword. "But, Harry, if you destroy that last Horcrox, you'll have to give Griphook the Sword," wails Ron. "You're right, Ron. Let's not destroy the last one for years and years. People might be a little upset that You Know Who is still around, but, they will be fine once they know that we have the sword," says Harry with determination. "Boys!!!" snarls Hermonie has she grabs the sword and destroys the last Horcrux. Barbara (my imagination only) From jellocat at comcast.net Sun Aug 5 18:02:53 2007 From: jellocat at comcast.net (Me) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:02:53 -0000 Subject: Who originally owned Dobby? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174570 I searched for this and couldn't find any info - maybe someone here has a theory. Why did Dobby originally care so much about Harry Potter? He was "owned" by the Malfoys - aren't house elves supposed to show loyalty only to their masters? I theorized, originally, that Dobby was owned by the Potters and was "taken" by the Malfoys after the Potters were killed, hence he would've had an affinity for Harry. I thought JKR would bring this to light in the 7th book but she didn't. So why did Dobby care about Harry at all, then? Isn't that off the charts for a house elf to be? jellocat From GAP5685 at AOL.com Sun Aug 5 19:53:03 2007 From: GAP5685 at AOL.com (gwen_of_the_oaks) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:53:03 -0000 Subject: Harry and Betrayal in DH - some issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174571 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "claire.kavanagh" wrote: > > > clara says: > > Harry is preoccupied with "betrayal" at least for the first half of > DH. > {Snippage} > However, Harry strikes a deal with Griphook in full knowledge that he > will betray it by keeping the sword for an undetermined amount of > time until the Horcruxes are destroyed. > > Thoughts? The two don't sit well together as far as I am concerned > but maybe I'm missing something. It seems to me that this betrayal, > like the UC as discussed in another post, is "bad, bad, bad, OK now > its fine!" > Maybe there are alternative view? Clara - Just in my pov, JKR didn't really write Harry's deal with Griphook to be a betrayal. I took it as more of a misdirection. I think Harry (who was given the sword and obviously feels to have legitimate ownership of it) may have been perfectly happy to hand the sword over to Griphook once he had finished with it. It was the "once he was finished" portion that he was clearly dodgy about - not the intent to ultimately make good on his promise. And, ultimately, the double-crossers get the worst of the deal in the end: Harry lies to Griphook and loses the sword, Griphook takes the sword & turns on Harry and ultimately loses it to Neville via the sorting hat. So,apparently, it doesn't pay to be sneaky. But while I'm not necessarily thrilled with the idea that one should rely on white lies to get a deal done, the plot-line sits poorly with me for a different reason: the theme of mistreatment of other magical creatures. After Bill's speech about cheating the Goblins and how they view ownership of their creations, what are we to think? In the Goblin's mind the wizards have once again stolen something they do not own and this new generation of witches and wizards will be just as imperious towards the "wandless ones" as the last. Why bring up the whole issue of the sword & the Goblins if all she was going to do with that plot-line was to reinforce the idea that other races are inherently untrustworthy, thereby making it OK for wizards (Harry) to manipulate them? The sword wound up in its rightful place, but only with bitter feelings all around. So much for "uniting the magical brethren". Gwen From apoe at nmu.edu Sun Aug 5 19:23:03 2007 From: apoe at nmu.edu (socrates49855) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:23:03 -0000 Subject: Filk: The Ballad of Harry Potter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174572 This is to the tune of "The Ballad of Davy Crockett." The Ballad of Harry Potter by Andy Poe Lost both his parents in the Wizard War. Started using magic at the age of four. Then he went to Hogwarts, trained with Dumbledore To fight the final battle 'gainst Lord Voldemort. HARRY! HARRY POTTER! The boy who had no peer. His first year at Hogwarts, it was kinda swell Played Seeker at Quidditch and he played it well. To save the Sorceror's Stone, he cast many a spell To find the villain wasn't Snape; it was really Quirrell! HARRY! HARRY POTTER! The Dark Lord was getting near. His second year at Hogwarts was quite a hook With giant snakes and spiders everywhere you look. To clear Hagrid's name, a flying car he took And he rescued Ginny Weasley from a cursed book. HARRY! HARRY POTTER! Saved by a phoenix tear. His third year at Hogwarts, well, it wasn't slow Even though to Hogsmeade he was forbidden to go, But a bunch of new people he got to know Like his god-dog, a rat-fink, and a Seeker named Cho. HARRY! HARRY POTTER! The hippogriff makes us cheer. His fourth year at Hogwarts, he couldn't hide >From his duties as a Champion and he had to confide In Myrtle and in Dobby, and though he really tried To vanquish the Dark Lord, still Cedric died. HARRY! HARRY POTTER! The Yule Ball's his greatest fear. His fifth year at Hogwarts, couldn't find his niche. Kicked off the team, couldn't catch the Snitch. And though writing lines made his right hand twitch, He still saved Hogwarts Castle from an evil witch. HARRY! HARRY POTTER! That prophecy was mighty queer. His sixth year at Hogwarts, how could it be? Draco fixed the Cabinet, set the Death Eaters free. He watched Dumbledore die and his murderer flee. He vowed to take a year off with Ron and Hermione. HARRY! HARRY POTTER! His quest was hardly mere. And in his seventh year, he was really pissed. His NEWT examinations, he certainly missed. "Horcruxes, not Hallows," his friends did insist. And Voldemort died; one more corpse on the list. HARRY! HARRY POTTER! The end is finally here. And so the Harry Potter series comes to a head. Good triumphed over evil, just as Dumbledore said. Now it's time to relax, put the children to bed. There can't be no more books?'cause everyone's dead! HARRY! HARRY POTTER! Enjoy your last butterbeer! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 19:54:12 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:54:12 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio -- Code of the Playground In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174573 --- "pattiemgsybb" wrote: > > eggplant: > > A fictional character has no duty to take the moral > > high ground, his only duty is to be interesting. > > patricia: > JKR intends that we should see Harry as a particular > kind of hero; while flawed, he is not written as a > dark hero. As such he cannot lightly employ the most > evil ... of measures, even against an enemy. ... > > > >eggplant: > >I think it is entirely appropriate to be angry at > >someone who killed and tortured your friends and is > >trying to kill you; and it is entirely appropriate > >to use every resource you have to defeat that > >person. > > patricia: > Torture in HP is performed for the sake of *sadistic > satisfaction.* That's true when Bellatrix does it, > and it's true when Harry does it. ..., the use of > this curse is not necessary to *defeat* Carrow. > > > eggplant: > > Of course it's more realistic! If a writer insist > >that her characters behave emotionally in ways no > >flesh and blood person ever would it wrenches a > >reader out of an alternate reality ... > > patricia: > Many flesh and blood people would never agree that > torturing ANYONE is ethically acceptable, even in > wartime. Certainly there can be great satisfaction > in such vengeance against those who have wronged > us. ... > > Nietzsche said, "He who fights monsters should be > careful lest he thereby becomes a monster. And if > thou gaze long into the abyss, the abyss will also > gaze into thee." ... bboyminn: Patricia, in concept and idealistically, I think you are right. But, much to my own amazement, I find that I must once again invoke "The Code of the Playground". Like it or not, from a realistic perspective, "The Code of the Playground" guides our lives whether we are on the school playground or on the playground of life. In idealistic life, we have social and legal rules that guide our lives. But in reality, our peers expect us to solve our own problems. In real-life, there is very much a 'gunslinger' mentality that guides us. Fortunately for society, while gunslinger mentality guides us, it doesn't totally rule us. If you are a kid being bullied on the playground, outsiders will tell you to go to a teacher or the principal, or if severe enough, to the police. But the reality is, you are more likely to get into trouble by doing any of those things, than you are by dealing with it yourself. If you are bullied, the undercurrent of society expects you to defend yourself. If someone punches you or harasses you, you are expected to punch them back because that is what 'real men' do. I think the Gunslinger Code of the Playground is one of the greatest sources of dysfunction in our society. So, don't get the idea that I am presenting it as the ideal solution to problems. Further, Harry being a flawed hero, makes mistakes along the way. He gambles his life and the protection of his parent's death for a bag full of tricks, and when it is presented to him in that way, he is rightly ashamed. But, then the chips are down, when it really really really counts, Harry always does the right thing. I think I can easily forgive the small errors when they are offset by the tremendous courage and virtue of making the right decision at the right time when IT REALLY REALLY COUNTS. That is the test of all our lives. We will make mistakes along the way. We will get it wrong, but do we stand up when it counts? Do we get it right when it really really matters? I don't think it really really matters that Harry used the Cruciatus against Carrow, because at more crucial and trying times, Harry does what is right and does so in the most noble and heroic way. The good far outweighs the bad. Further, people reading Harry Potter and searching for moral and spiritual lessons will see that you can make mistakes in life; you don't have to be a saint. But you must learn from your mistakes, and you must strive to be and do good. Despite all his mistakes, Harry does far more good, and set a far more heroic and noble example than can be imagined. I think it is in his minor flaws and mistakes, and yet his striving to do the right thing when it count, that we see ourselves and our own heroic potential. I think that is why the books are popular, because Harry isn't some idealized hero, a bastion of moral perfection. He does wrong, he makes mistakes, he does things we might even classify as terrible, but he always, deep down, is striving to do what is right, and succeeds when it counts. While in general, I will concede that the Cruciatus Curse is "performed for the sake of *sadistic satisfaction.*" But in this specific case that is not what I see happening. Harry is not doing this for the joy of torture; he is doing it in part as a means of vengeance and to 'teach Carrow a lesson'. Carrow is the most vile of people, who tortures and kills without hesitation or consideration. Harry wants him to feel the pain he has cause, and he wants to punish him for his disrespect of Professor McGonagall. But note that Harry does not sustain the curse. He casts it, then once Carrow has felt a dose of his own medicine and is disable (ie: no longer a threat), Harry releases him. The whole think lasts a few seconds. I hardly consider that 'sadistic'. Was Harry wrong? Yes, but as the Gunslinger's code and the Code of the Playground dictate, Harry metered out his own justice. I think in reality, many people fail to realize to what extent 'The Code of the Playground' dominates the lives of boys and men across the entire span of their lives. I can forgive Harry his metering out of a little Street Justice because his noble, heroic, and selfless acts far far out way his indiscretions. And sometime, when the 'system' is stacked against you, street justice is the only justice there is. So says I. Steve/bboyminn From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Aug 5 21:16:10 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 21:16:10 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio -- Code of the Playground In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174574 Steve: > I don't think it really really matters that Harry > used the Cruciatus against Carrow, because at more > crucial and trying times, Harry does what is right > and does so in the most noble and heroic way. The > good far outweighs the bad. > > Further, people reading Harry Potter and searching > for moral and spiritual lessons will see that you > can make mistakes in life; you don't have to be a > saint. But you must learn from your mistakes, and > you must strive to be and do good. Despite all his > mistakes, Harry does far more good, and set a far > more heroic and noble example than can be imagined. Magpie: Harry doesn't really have to learn from his mistakes either--and why should he when he's already doing the right thing the only time it "counts?" Crucio definitely isn't presented as a mistake he has to learn from, either in canon or here. You've described someone who's exactly as he should be, a man living by the Code of the Playground. The Code of the Playground, as its very title suggests, rejects serious thought about ethics at all. Children haven't even reached their full ethical development. If you do the right thing "when it matters" the other stuff doesn't count. Far from being an exploration of morals, as one would think was expected in a bildugsroman, it's a reason morals need to be tossed out in favor of tips on how not to be a victim at lunch. Those can certainly be some good tips, but they're pretty shallow--and I think they're presented a lot better elsewhere-- "Bells of Saint Mary's" for instance. In canon this works in a way that's perfectly consistent, but not very positive for me. The good guys are not just good, they're cool. The trouble with being good and actually struggling with moral issues seriously is you might not end up cool (as I think words like "saint" and "perfect" suggest). Harry doesn't struggle with moral issues. When "it counts" his instinct is always right, or else not wrong in any way that means he has to think about it later. He doesn't have to face failure or humiliation or have to rethink his image of himself. As an aside, I've been thinking about a thread from months ago about Snape and Pride and Prejudice. Some people felt that in that book Lizzie was never really wrong about Wickham and Darcy to begin with. I disagreed, and I believe it was Sydney who provided the canon showing that in fact the most important moment was Lizzie seeing that she was very wrong about the two men, and suddenly seeing her own behavior as shameful. She goes through a whole description of how disorienting and humbling this experience is, but she comes out of it a better person. At the time many of us assumed that Harry needed a moment like that with Snape, but in fact Harry gets through the whole series without anything like that with anybody. So in terms of the Unforgivables, is it really bad that Harry used it? No. Unforgivables are bad in themselves when the good guys can look good by not doing them or suffering through them. Unforgivables are not so bad when the good guys can look good doing them. Harry's cool in the good way and cool in the bad way. Not only is it fine in the Common Room, it's not even that awful to watch. It's just a quick burst to incapacitate the guy, not the torturous thing Harry suffered through in the graveyard. Harry's letting the bully have it; that's really all that matters. Steve: > I think it is in his minor flaws and mistakes, and > yet his striving to do the right thing when it counts, > that we see ourselves and our own heroic potential. > I think that is why the books are popular, because > Harry isn't some idealized hero, a bastion of moral > perfection. He does wrong, he makes mistakes, he > does things we might even classify as terrible, but > he always, deep down, is striving to do what is > right, and succeeds when it counts. Magpie: Harry's right in every way it counts--therefore he's not struggling with anything. His mistakes are simply "minor" flaws, and not during any time that counts--in fact, they aren't flaws at all, because if he didn't have them he'd be--ick!--some sort of idealized hero or a bastion of moral perfection. Even when he's doing terrible things he's always "deep down" still a really good guy. Far from showing the books are popular because Harry isn't an idealized hero, it seems to me this suggests that the books are popular because Harry is an idealized hero even when he's behaving really badly. If it's that easy I don't even have to see the potential for my own heroism there-- perhaps I'm already a good person deep down. I don't have to always show it. The odd thing about that perspective is that when I hear it in my head it always seems to have a tone that's kind of inherently defensive and sulky. (I don't mean Steve is defensive and sulky, I mean the argument by itself seems to naturally sound that way to me.) Harry's the hero of a seven book epic about the battle against evil, where he's the figurehead of good, yet questions of his morals get: He's not perfect! He's good when it counts! You wouldn't be any better! This is the kind of defense that, imo, I'd associate more with somebody who was a bit challenged in this area. I don't think this problem would exist if Harry actually was shown to be struggling, if he was sometimes shown to make real mistakes that did matter and that caused the kind of breakdown followed by regrowth in P&P. Unfortunately, the books seem to be taking something more like this position: Lay off Harry. He's a great little trooper. Do you want him to be a goody-two shoes? I feel like we're expected to see him exactly as he sees himself, as somebody who always tries to do the right thing when it counts and isn't a plaster saint. Since nobody in the books ever challenges it, it's not surprising that some readers pick up the slack. -m From sherriola at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 21:37:05 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 14:37:05 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Severus lives! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <46b64307.1997600a.5318.3ffa@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174575 colebiancardi: I still cling to the hope that Snape didn't die, although the rest of the WW thinks he is dead. He has taken off to live in some other country, far, far away from the Potter boy :) Sherry commiserating: Join the club. some of us hoped the same thing about Sirius, as we did not ever see his body there either! And all we got was a sappy walk through the forbidden forest with Harry, his dead parents, his dead godfather and dead Lupin. Sigh. So, though we wish different characters were still alive, I can understand your wish that Snape still lives, somewhere else. Unfortunately, I guess I'll have to stick to fan fiction now to have Sirius come back! LOL. Sherry From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 21:37:34 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:37:34 +0800 Subject: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B6431E.5030308@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174576 Matt> remember that your original complaint was that Rowling had Matt> been "inconsistent" by neglecting in DH the *reasons* that Matt> the unforgivable curses are unforgivable: I'm afraid you have misconstrued my original complaint. Here are the first words I posted on this subject, from a message entitled "A Sense of Betrayal": LK> Moral Inconsistency LK> ----- ------------- LK> But I thought they were bad? LK> My 11-year-old actually asked me this as we read HP7 together, LK> and I had no answer except to say I thought JKR was wrong. LK> He was referring to the Unforgivable Curses. LK> ... LK> The thing is, I had had more than one discussion with my son LK> previously about what made the Unforgivables unforgivable.... Note that I opened my discussion with my son's question, which concerns itself only with the flip-flop on the moral status of the UCs, not on the reasons behind their status. In fact, I don't recall ever complaining about JKR neglecting the reasoning, though I did once note that she never provided any. My entire complaint was, and continues to be, that the whole moral arc of the UCs is neglected, and finally set aside in DH. Since many of the points of your message were predicated on a misconstrual of my argument, I consider the above sufficient reply to them. LK> US, which still permits capital punishment, the form of LK> death is chosen to be as humane as possible..... Matt> Right, but as your example points out, the only moral criteria Matt> usually applied in this sort of a circumstance are humaneness Matt> to the deceased and no potential danger to others. I'm afraid you're inferring too much here. Three points. First, "no potential danger to others" were your words (not that I disagree; I'd just rather stick to things I did say :-) ). Second, I did not say "only". And third, the example of capital punishment was intended only to support my assertion that justifying killing does not justify any FORM of killing. To try to find in it some sort of definitive list of moral criteria is to burden it with more than it was intended to bear. Matt> wasn't your whole point from the beginning that we should Matt> focus on the reason for the unforgivable curses being Matt> unforgivable? I'm afraid not. See above. Matt> That was why you said that Harry's attempt to Matt> use the same curse on Snape was "understandable" in a way Matt> that you said Snape's killing of Dumbledore never could be. I always try to choose my words carefully. I said that Harry's attempt at the AK in book six was "understandable", in that I meant it was to some degree sympathetic. Please don't mistake "understandable" for "forgivable" in any sense. Matt> Now, you seem to be retreating to labels. Ah, labels. Labels are very important. Wars have been fought over them. Societies have been torn asunder by them. And Harry Potter discussion groups have been filled with debates over them. Here's a label. It's not my label. It's JKR's: Unforgivable. As I read the word, I take away two essential points. First, forgiveness is a moral quality, not legal. The legal equivalent is justification (from Latin "iustitia", whence our modern word justice). Second, unforgivable has but one meaning: "Cannot be forgiven". If you think I'm hiding behind JKR's words, or reading too much into them, then perhaps your beef is more with her than it is with me. She is, after all, a wordsmith, and should understand the impact of her words. But I will note that I'm far from the only person to take JKR at her labels. Harry Potter discussions all over the Internet are filled with this same discussion led by other people who also thought "unforgivable" meant it. I'll address a number of your other points in a separate posting to Matt, entitled, "Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables". Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 21:39:54 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:39:54 +0800 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B643AA.7020501@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174577 I think this discussion has run its course. It's been several days at least since anything substantive has been added to the debate, and nor is there likely to be in the future. So before it devolves into endless rehashings of the same points, I'm going to make a few general comments, then bow out. It should be apparent both from a casual reading of the texts and from JKR's own words, that the focus throughout the series has been on the morality of the UCs. JKR certainly spills a lot more ink over it than she does their legal status. Goblet of Fire -------------- We aren't introduced to the UCs until chapter 14 of Goblet of Fire, "The Unforgivable Curses", in which DE/Moody both introduces and demonstrates them to his class, with spiders as his victims. In the passage, Moody makes mulitiple references to their legality: "illegal Dark Arts curses", "most heavily punished by wizarding law", "earn a life sentence in Azkhaban", and so forth. Clearly, the UCs are illegal. But that's hardly a point against their immorality, and for all his talk, it's not Moody's words, but the reaction of the students, that sets the tone of this passage. And clearly the students aren't listening to a lecture on Cushioning Charms. These are Curses whose very names are spoken in shuddering whispers, who mere mention causes students to turn white with fear. Because they're illegal? Get real. Mike> Above, I have explained my position on a moral use of the Mike> Imperious Curse.... I will also add that Crucio seems to be Mike> an efficient and effective way to stun. When the WW already has an effective Stunning Spell? C'mon, Mike, you're reaching. You're also, apparently, forgetting your Latin: "crucio" (from "cruciare" (v.)) -- "I torture"; "cruciatus" (n.) -- "torture, torment". There IS only one purpose for the Cruciatus, and it's no Tickling Charm. You sure you want to be arguing for a moral use of torture? In any case, if the UCs are neither moral nor immoral, why are they described as sitting at the pinnacle of the Dark Arts? So what of DE/Moody's special dispensation to use them in DADA? Surely that proves they're not unforgivable. But it should be noted that DE/Moody only performs one (not "them", as Mike incorrectly noted) of the curses on the students, and it's doubtful that, for obvious reasons, the dispensation extended byond the Imperius. The most that can be argued, then, is that the Imperius is not strictly unforgivable. And yet, the text may not even support that much. I'm not convinced DE/Moody ever had permission to perform the curse ON the students. Note the wording: "I'm not supposed to show you what illegal Dark curses look like until you're in the sixth year.... But Professor Dumbledore's got a higher opinion of your nerves.... How are you supposed to defend yourself against something you've never seen?" And Harry's later query on the way back to the Gryffindor Common Room: "Wouldn't Moody and Dumbledore be in trouble with the Ministry if they knew we'd seen the curses?" From my reading, it appears Dumbledore's permission was no more than a special dispensation to SHOW the curses two years earlier than usual. DE/Moody may well have been acting beyond his purview in Imperiusing the students (but then he was a DE, after all). Is it ever stated that DE/Moody had permission to Imperius the students? Hermione's Objection -------------------- In OotP, chapter 32, "Out of the Fire", as Umbridge attempts to Crucio Harry, Hermione blurts out, "Professor Umbridge -- it's illegal.... The Ministry wouldn't want you to break the law ... !" I return to an earlier point: granted the UCs are illegal, Hermione is correct. So what? Many immoral things are illegal. BECAUSE they're immoral. Hermione's objection on legal grounds hardly says anything one way or the other about their morality. Secondly, Hermione is engaged in a desparate attempt to dissuade Umbridge from using the Cruciatus on Harry. Since Umbridge has already demonstrated all the ethical compunctions of a loaf of moldy bread, it's probable that any appeal to conscience would have been a waste of good breath. Hermione's appeal to the law and the Ministry -- of which Umbridge was of course a member -- was in all likelihood simply a tactical strategy. That is, at any rate, how I interpret the passage. In any case, it's difficult to see how anyone can point to this passage and say, "See! They're 'unforgivable' because the Ministry says so!" Sirius on the Unforgivables ---------------------------- The passage from GoF, "Padfoot Returns" has been quoted often enough; I won't repeat it here. The conclusions of the passage are inescapable: 1. Sirius is providing a moral assessment of Crouch -- "ruthless" and "cruel" are hardly legal judgments -- and the Unforgivables are the specific example he provides of that cruelty. 2. Sirius' assessment is trustworthy. That his description of Crouch is spot on is evident through comparison of what we know of Crouch from other sources, such as Dumbledore's memories in the pensieve. That Crouch IS ruthless and cruel is not just Sirius' take; it cannot simply be dismissed as the misrememberances of an aggrieved man. It is, in fact, the voice of the author, speaking through Sirius, that we are hearing in this passage. And if Sirius is spot-on in his moral assessment of Crouch, we have no choice but to accept his take on the immorality of the UCs as well. The Ministry may have the power, Sirius (and JKR) is saying, to set aside the legal proscriptions, but even the MoM cannot assuage the moral damage their use has caused. The Author Speaks ----------------- Which brings us to the central passage in this debate. Which brings us to the scene at the center of the debate. I begin by noting JKR's own words, when challenged (by a member of this group, I believe) about Harry's Cruciatus: "Harry's no saint." Clearly, JKR had intended to make a moral statement about Harry, and to do so she chose a UC. The whole scene would hardly work if Harry's act were the moral equivalent of jaywalking. There can be only one conclusion: the UCs, by the design and intent of the author, carry moral weight, and not for the good. Harry in Ravenclaw Commons -------------------------- It's war. Harry is mad with grief. He's watched friends die, he's passed within inches of death himself on multiple occasions. His Cruciatus is understandable. Is it? Understandable, maybe. Unfathomable, certainly. In "The Seven Potters" Harry fights a desparate battle, outnumbered four to one by AK-wielding DEs, passing within millimeters of death with his friends risking their own lives on his behalf. Yet he never succumbs to a UC. We're supposed to believe that Harry Potter, who had seen death a hundred times, who had demonstrated time and again, in the most dire and perilous of circumstances, a level-headed coolness well beyond his years, was, in the Ravenclaw Commons, pushed beyond the snapping point by a -- Death Expectorator? A Salivating Slytherin? A Loogie Launcher? A Hocking Henchman? And less than an hour later we find Harry engaged in desparate battle once again, this time against Malfoy, Crabbe and Doyle in the Room of Requirements, once again watching his friends passed within inches of death: "'It's that Mudblood! Avada Kedavra!' "Harry saw Hermione dive aside, and his fury that Crabbe had aimed to kill wiped all else from his mind. He shot a Stunning Spell at Crabbe...." Harry's outrage at Amycus' act is supposed to excuse his use of the Cruciatus. But then what of the duel in the Room of Requirement? With Malfoy, Crabbe and Doyle furiously battling our heroic trio, with spells ricocheting off every wall, with Malfoy and Crabbe throwing AKs at his two best friends, with Harry's mind white-hot with fury over Hermione's near-death experience, what spells does he choose? Expelliarmus and a couple of Stupefys. It's Carrow's spittle, in the end, not Crabbe's AK, that earns a UC in reply. Sorry, I just don't buy it. I understand what JKR was attempting with the Ravenclaw Commons scene. Unfortunately, I think she botched the execution. Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 5 21:57:46 2007 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (PJ) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 21:57:46 -0000 Subject: Harry and Betrayal in DH - some issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174578 > Clara - > > Why bring up the whole issue of the sword & the Goblins if all she was > going to do with that plot-line was to reinforce the idea that other > races are inherently untrustworthy, thereby making it OK for wizards > (Harry) to manipulate them? The sword wound up in its rightful place, > but only with bitter feelings all around. So much for "uniting the > magical brethren". > PJ I think the whole purpose of that plot line was to show that, while a nice idea, uniting the magical brethren is pretty much impossible, and why. Goblins think everything they create is theirs forever but they're more than willing to take Wizard money for them. This, IMO, make the Goblins MORE at fault since, even though they know full well that the Wizards feel the items are theirs to pass down thru generations once money changes hands, Goblins never set them straight by saying "for lease during your lifetime only". They just sit and stew on the "thefts". PJ From catlady1949 at comcast.net Sun Aug 5 19:24:25 2007 From: catlady1949 at comcast.net (Phyllis Stevens) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 15:24:25 -0400 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle References: Message-ID: <01c801c7d796$3c893640$c0fe3e44@user53796g88h2> No: HPFGUIDX 174579 Magpie wrote: And also the series has a pattern of changing how it presents pain in general. I mean, I personally not only get the impression that Draco is reluctant and Harry is happy to do their Crucios, but that Ollivander is portrayed as someone being given painful electric shocks that should make us all wince while Carrow's getting the equivalent of a punch in the face, all due to the people involved and the context. catlady1949:: I think that all this discussion about how curses are intended making the difference, and whether once wrong is always wrong was portrayed very accurately in this series of books. I see the whole thing as very real world realistic. That's the way human beings really are! You can state all day long that you would die before you would do this or that, and you can maintain forever that you so wouldn't cast this or that spells due to what you decide is plain immoral etc., but if it came down to real life, you just might do what you say that you'd never do, or act in a way you say that you could absolutely never act. We go back to Christian thinking and the Bible again. Pilot asked Jesus "what is truth?" Is truth a relative thing? Are not some of us more wise and, therefore, more truthful? Is what I think, the truth, even if I've been wrong, misinterpreting, etc? I see this series as a whole both a good and bad commentary on human beings and their basic nature, and if we can rise above all of it, these books help us see what we should be trying to do, not debating the intent, disappointment, personality of J. K. Rowling! catlady1949 at comcast.net From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 22:14:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:14:31 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: <000801c7d6df$7671a980$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174580 Carol earlier: > Put another way, the third-person-limited narrator is not the voice of the author, who knows how the story will work out, but a creation of the author who describes the sensations, thoughts, perceptions, and interpretations of the pov-character, in this case, Harry. (Fans have called this device "the Harry filter.") Like human beings in RL, a character is limited by his surroundings. Harry and his companions are isolated in the middle of the book as they have never been before. Almost their only contact with events outside their microcosm is Harry's scar. > Angel responded: > I actually disagree. The reader REALISES that Harry's perception clouds his view because we SEE and HEAR not only what he looks at and listens to but that which he overlooks, mishears and misconstrues. We are privy to much more than just that which Harry coerces us to misread. His slant on what he saw was unmissable yet very distinguishable and I think Rowling meant it that way. It is part of her brilliance - my view of her views does not detract from her bag of tricks. Carol responds: I don't think we disagree, actually, although it's possible that you didn't understand my point. (It's hard to disagree with the definition of an established literary term like "third-person limited omniscient narrator" and you seem to acknowledge that the narrator is a creation of the author.) You snipped the part of the post which shows how Harry's perception starts out as inaccurate and becomes accurate at the end. I wasn't talking about the reader at all, just the difference between narrator and author--one of several forms of misdirection that JKR uses, detectable by a sophisticated reader. I think you've just taken my point a step farther to say that by the time we get to DH, the disconnect between Harry's pov as given to us by the narrator and the evidence presented by the author that Harry's perception is inaccurate is more obvious than it's been in previous books. (Up until DH, posters were arguing that Harry was right about Severus Snape. Obviously, that view was as wrong as my certainty that Harry wasn't a Horcrux.) But even those of us who were sure that Snape was Dumbledore's man may have found ourselves in doubt, not sure what was a clue and what was misdirection because our emotions got in the way. And a lot of us aren't sure even yet regarding Dumbledore because we're limited to Harry's pov about him. We may not share Harry's perceptions, but we have to sort through the same pieces of evidence that he does. We can be pretty sure that Rita Skeeter isn't giving us the full truth, but what about that letter in DD's handwriting? As I said, HRH are more isolated than ever in this book. Dumbledore is dead. Snape is in Hogwarts and they hear only whispers about him, which they naturally misconstrue based on their preconceptions. We should, by now, be aware of Harry's tendency to leap to conclusions, but in HBP he was right about Draco. Could he be right about Snape, too? And what *is* the truth about Dumbledore? DH is in part the usual detetive story, putting together clues about Horcruxes and Hallows, but it is also a journey to maturity for Harry in particular. And part of that journey, the only part I'm concerned with here, is the clearing of Harry's perception. By the end of the novel, the narrator, reflecting Harry's pov, is no longer unreliable. "Dumbledore's betrayal was almost nothing," DH Am. ed. 692) is one of the last instances. Another is "Dumbledore had overestimated him. He had failed" (693). The last instance I can find is "He saw the mouth move and a flash of green light and everything was gone," which tricks us for a second into believing that Harry is dead. Unless, of course, we have the Scholastic edition and see a myopic-looking Harry floating bodiless above the chapter title, "King's Cross.") At any rate, by the end of the book, JKR's narrator has become reliable. Harry's pov as reflected by the narrator and JKR's as author have merged. When Harry says that Severus Snape was probably the bravest man he ever knew, we know that JKR believes that, too. And the name of his second son, Albus Severus, shows that he forgave both headmasters, one for his spiteful bitterness redeemed by courage and love, the other for his manipulation, which Harry no longer regards as a betrayal. The reader, by now, is used to being manipulated by JKR, used to her misdirection, but nevertheless, she can play with us like puppets if we drop our guard. But a reader who is not caught up in hopes and fears and excitement, who can coolly watch as she drops her red herrings and clues, who knows that the narrator is unreliable, can, as you say, determine where Harry is going wrong, but, like Harry, the reader will not have all the answers until the end. (And most of us are more confused than Harry seems to be or find those answers less satisfactory or complete than he does.) All I'm saying is simply that Harry's perception of events as presented by the narrator is not and never has been the same as the author's view. By the end of the book, however, he has most of the answers he's been seeking (note his insistence on learning the truth about Dumbledore) as well as answers he wasn't seeking: He thought he wanted revenge on Snape and instead he nderstandins and forgives him. By the time we get to DH after having read the other six books, we should be aware of JKR's fondness for the unreliable narrator and other forms of misdirection (Snape under cover as a DE, first seen in "Spinner's End"; overheard conversations; incorrect conclusions reached by a variety of characters; clues mixed in with red herrings). A reader's awareness of the unreliable narrator or JKR's other forms of misdirection does not mean that the unreliable narrator does not exist. I don't see how you can argue against a device whose existence you're aware of. Nor does it mean that the author is the same as the narrator. Clearly, the narrator is merely a device for telling the story, and our narrator doesn't know what JKR knows, only what Harry knows or thinks he knows. Even at the end of the book, we're limited to Harry's point of view, but at least his perception is clear. Carol, who thinks that arguing against the definition of a literary term is like arguing against the definition of a refrigerator: it is what it is From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 22:25:24 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:25:24 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle // Power of Love In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174581 > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174538 > > Mike previously: > > Why do I have to accept the Death Eater explanation of how to use > > these three spells as the definitive word and therefore assign > > them a moral component, when we *know* that intent is a major > > component of these spells? > Magpie previously: > I accept it because canon gives me no reason not to accept it and > plenty of reasons to accept it. Barty and Bellatrix both love these > spells and it's not OOC for them to want to brag about them and > teach them. > > I consider Bellatrix and Barty perfectly credible > witnesses for this information, there's no scenes > where somebody disproves it, iirc Harry himself > verifies it once he's done a Crucio successfully. > So why would it be wrong? > houyhnhnm (in message 174559): > Well, there is the scene Harry witnesses through the Voldemort > connection of Rowle being crucio'd by Draco. (Scholastic, p.174) > Draco doesn't seem to be enjoying it very much. His face is > described as white and terrified, petrified and gaunt. His > motivation seems to come from the fear of having the same thing > done to him if he doesn't comply. > Magpie now: > I mean, I personally not only get the impression that Draco > is reluctant and Harry is happy to do their Crucios, but that > Ollivander is portrayed as someone being given painful electric > shocks that should make us all wince while Carrow's getting the > equivalent of a punch in the face, all due to the people > involved and the context. > The implications seem to be that the author has little trouble > with the actual act of hurting someone to the extent Crucio hurts > them, but sees differences in when it's being used and why and > against whom. Mike now: As Captain Jack Sparrow might say, 'We have an accord, then.' That's all I've been trying to say. It's not the curse it's the caster. LV and his DEs use Crucio for torture, Harry used it, as you say, to punch Carrow in the face. I have no disillusios, Crucio is a nasty piece of work and can easily be used as LV and his pals like to use it. So when Harry used it in the Ravenclaw tower, I got it, Harry wanted to cause Carrow pain and a lot of it. But I also got that Harry can and does resist the temptation that apparently most DEs cannot, to hold the spell, to go from a punch in the face into the torture territory. > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174559 > houyhnhnm: > Before DH came out there was a discussion about whether > or not Snape could cast a Patronus (answered by DH, of > course). I liked Mike's suggestion that a happy memory > might be necessary for beginners learning to cast a > Patronus, but not for someone who was proficient. I > was not so taken with the idea of Love being the force > behind them, but someone else suggested something like > muscle memory. > Magpie: > In the end I wind up with a similar idea about them [UCs] as you > do, that like the Patronus there are times when how you do it is > important and times when it isn't. Mike: Thanks for reminding me houyhnhnm. But I see I never explained myself very well regarding the power of Love. I was never very good at the esoteric. That, combined with JKR's reluctance to explain the mechanics of magic, meant my attempt faired worse for wear. Ah well, once more into the breech. My take is that a witch/wizard draws her/his magic from an internal source. That this source informs how their spells are manifested. Hogwarts teaches kids the words, wand movements and other minutia needed to cast a spell. That's where and when muscle memory takes place. After this initial learning, it falls to the wizards inate power to determine the effectiveness and intent of his spells. Harry has the power of Love in spades to draw from. And Dumbledore has informed us that the power of Love is the most powerful fount to draw from. But power is not the only thing ones inate ability informs. If love is your predominate source of magical ability, your spells will be affected by the goodness of your source. So Harry could never truly torture someone with a Crucio because his base power cannot sustain the hate needed to torture. *That's* what we were shown by Harry's Crucio against Bella in OotP. And after all the death and destruction Harry has witnessed in the past two years, he was able to cast a more effective Crucio against Carrow. But it was still no more than Magpie's "punch in the face". It caused some pain, but mostly flung him through the air and knocked him out. BTW, that's what I meant when I said that the power of Love allowed Harry to cast that most powerful Patronus in PoA. Side note to Carol: You are right again. Snape did learn about "the pig to slaughter" in HBP's timeframe. I should know better by now than to question you on knowledge of canon. :) Also, to both Carol and Magpie re Snape's "no unforgivables for you", I thought that Dumbledore was telling Snape that his euthanasia killing would not split Snape's soul. Did I read that wrong? Mike From bdhale59 at frontiernet.net Sun Aug 5 22:11:56 2007 From: bdhale59 at frontiernet.net (Brett Hale) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 16:11:56 -0600 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables References: <46B643AA.7020501@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <020d01c7d7ad$a330d8f0$6c01a8c0@kayenta.k12.az.us> No: HPFGUIDX 174582 Lee Kaiwen: <...Harry's outrage at Amycus' act is supposed to excuse his use of the Cruciatus...Sorry, I just don't buy it. I understand what JKR was attempting with the Ravenclaw Commons scene. Unfortunately, I think she botched the execution.> First of all, let me state that I belong to a couple of yahoo groups and have never had so much reading of posts as I have with this group! Y'all are very prolific! Since we are discussing a work of fiction, it is assumed that whatever was put on the pages was what the author wanted to be there. Secondly, for those parents out there who are not perfect; have you ever behaved badly and disciplined out of anger? Later, you find yourself in a position where you needed to discipline again, and your past behavior guided the next 'discipline session'? Possibly, Harry did crack a bit, let his emotions get away with himself, and reverted back to his normal pattern of defending against his enemies... Brett From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 22:40:03 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:40:03 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B651C3.7010109@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174583 Mike blessed us with this gem On 04/08/2007 14:07: > After Narcissa lied to Voldemort and said Harry was dead, what did > Voldemort do? He hit Harry with several Crucios. Harry said LV did it > to subject his body to humiliation. And though Harry was actually > alive, he felt little pain. He was also lifted off the ground by > these Crucios. I personally thought the answer to this was rather obvious. DH, "The Flaw in the Plan": "You won't be killing anyone else tonight", said Harry.... "You won't be able to kill any of them ever again. Don't you get it? I was ready to die to stop you from hurting these people... They're protected from you. Haven't you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding? You can't torture them...." Or, apparently, Harry. His sacrifice had robbed Voldemort of his power. Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Aug 5 23:19:18 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:19:18 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: <01c801c7d796$3c893640$c0fe3e44@user53796g88h2> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174584 catlady1949:: > I think that all this discussion about how curses are intended making the difference, and whether once wrong is always wrong was portrayed very accurately in this series of books. I see the whole thing as very real world realistic. That's the way human beings really are! You can state all day long that you would die before you would do this or that, and you can maintain forever that you so wouldn't cast this or that spells due to what you decide is plain immoral etc., but if it came down to real life, you just might do what you say that you'd never do, or act in a way you say that you could absolutely never act. We go back to Christian thinking and the Bible again. Pilot asked Jesus "what is truth?" Is truth a relative thing? Are not some of us more wise and, therefore, more truthful? Is what I think, the truth, even if I've been wrong, misinterpreting, etc? I see this series as a whole both a good and bad commentary on human beings and their basic nature, and if we can rise above all of it, these books help us see what we should be trying to do, not debating the intent, disappointment, personality of J. K. Rowling! Ceridwen: This is a series of children's and young adult books, not real life. While I do prefer my characters to be like real people, I also expect something different from a book than I do from real life. In a book, I expect a clear resolution at the end of each book, and a resolution to the major plot at the end of a series. In a book I expect to be shown only the necessary things for the movement of plot: I don't need to know that the hero went to the bathroom, or ate three times a day, or showered in the morning or evening, unless it has something to do with the plot. In a mystery, I expect to be shown the same clues as the sleuth so I can play along. I expect rules of physics, morals and law to be followed consistently. They don't have to be the same rules as in real life, just consistent in the depiction of their world. I expect morals to be static, not mutating. When they change, I expect an explanation in the text. I expect good deeds to earn rewards, and bad deeds to earn punishment. I expect moral crises to be shown on-page. I expect mistakes which take place on-page to be rectified on-page. I expect the hero to fail a number of times before succeeding, learning lessons along the way. I expect a hopeful outcome at the end, even if that means the hero dies to find happiness with his deceased family. I do not expect the hero to be so unwaveringly right that he or she has no moral crisis. I do not expect that the hero is perfect in either the absolute sense of the word, or in the greater scheme of things. This is an unbelievable characterization, and no amount of peripheral mistakes will erase the core issue of the hero not needing to learn lessons or to change. The entire point of a story is to effect change. A story is a journey from point A to point B, with scenery in between. Once wrong is not always wrong in real life. It was once all right to own slaves, and to tether people to professions and to the land. The changes which occurred in these and other real life issues took decades, sometimes centuries. They did not change in the course of a year or two. When these things changed, certain members of the population were not still allowed to keep slaves or peasants; other members of society were not forced to give up these things while others kept them. Slavery was outlawed, feudalism went the way of the dodo. Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" And has been vilified by various denominations since. He had Truth right there in front of him and still had to ask. Pilate is portrayed in the scriptures as being Less Than because of his moral relativism. There were several stories outside of scripture, of his going mad and washing his hands maniacally for the rest of his life because of his failure. Whether these stories were true or not, it was what people expected as the outcome of Pilate's arc in the crucifiction story. These books did not, in the end, show what we should be trying to do. The message is conflicting. We should not be like the Bad Guys, yet the Good Guys can be as much like the Bad as they like. There is no higher message, no means of rising above. Everyone is as devious as the next person, therefore, Good and Bad must be relevant to who is on Our Side and who is Against Us. The books, to me, actually say, "If you are not for Harry, you are against him." Is it surprising that people don't care for that message? Ceridwen. From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 23:24:24 2007 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:24:24 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174585 > Carol responds: >Snip> And part of that journey, the only part I'm concerned > with here, is the clearing of Harry's perception. By the end of the > novel, the narrator, reflecting Harry's pov, is no longer unreliable. > "Dumbledore's betrayal was almost nothing," DH Am. ed. 692) is one of > the last instances. Another is "Dumbledore had overestimated him. He > had failed" (693). The last instance I can find is "He saw the mouth > move and a flash of green light and everything was gone," which tricks > us for a second into believing that Harry is dead. Jack-A-Roe: Don't all those statements actually make the narrator and Harry incorrect? Dumbledore didn't betray him, he manipulated the scene with Snape because he couldn't give them the truth otherwise Harry's sacrifice wouldn't have been so selfless. Up to that point their was one other horcrux left, but he did also inform Neville who eventually killed it. So he didn't really fail. Well we know the flash of green light didn't really kill him. So it seems like all three examples were incorrect. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 23:23:05 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 07:23:05 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: <020d01c7d7ad$a330d8f0$6c01a8c0@kayenta.k12.az.us> References: <46B643AA.7020501@yahoo.com> <020d01c7d7ad$a330d8f0$6c01a8c0@kayenta.k12.az.us> Message-ID: <46B65BD9.9060009@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174586 Brett Hale blessed us with this gem On 06/08/2007 06:11: > for those parents out there who are not perfect; have you ever behaved > badly and disciplined out of anger? Later, you find yourself in a > position where you needed to discipline again, and your past > behavior guided the next 'discipline session'? Well, I've promised myself I'm quitting the Unforgivables discussion, but I understand what you're getting at here. Not from personal experience, because this is one point I am *VERY* carefult with my children on. I NEVER discipline (and never have disciplined) when I'm angry. I walk away. I don't mean to hold myself up as a paragon of virtue; it's simply because I know my weaknesses and live in virtual terror of them that I've taught myself to flee at their first flush. So, OK, what does that say about Harry? I guess it's a little difficult for me to accept him cracking under the strain of seeing McGonagall spat on when he has clearly demonstrated his ability to handle himself in much tougher and more dire situations. If JKR had wanted that to be the point, she could easily have written the scene that way. Give Harry a roomful of AK-wielding DEs, and McGonagall in immanent danger of death, and his cracking becomes understandable (perhaps even defensible). But all we get is a mouthful of spittle. Lee Kaiwen (who now really IS going to bow out. Or not. Umm, yeah.) From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 23:26:54 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 07:26:54 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: <46B651C3.7010109@yahoo.com> References: <46B651C3.7010109@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46B65CBE.9010408@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174587 Lee Kaiwen blessed us with this gem On 06/08/2007 06:40: > I personally thought the answer to this was rather obvious. On re-reading, it occurred to me how snotty this sounds. I apologize. I was really going more for a "Here's the way I read it" tone, not the "I'm smarter than you are" one. Lee Kaiwen, who's struggling to remember how to spell "mea culpa". From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 00:27:06 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 00:27:06 -0000 Subject: Who originally owned Dobby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174588 Jellocat: > > Why did Dobby originally care so much about Harry Potter? He was > "owned" by the Malfoys - aren't house elves supposed to show loyalty > only to their masters? > Juli: Dobby said during CoS (I think) that before the dark lord fell House Elves were treated like garbage, so I'm guessing he's very grateful for Harry finished voldemort 17 years ago, and then after, elves had a slightly better life. I believe house elves are born into a family, I don't think they can be taken... From bawilson at citynet.net Mon Aug 6 00:24:09 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 20:24:09 -0400 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174589 "Ceridwen. The Sorting Hat doesn't mention Slytherin first, Harry does. The hat affirms that Harry doesn't want to go to Slytherin, so puts him in Gryffindor." Either way, it was HARRY's choice, not the Hat's. Which Dumbledore confirms. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From que_44601 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 01:21:22 2007 From: que_44601 at yahoo.com (que_44601) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:21:22 -0000 Subject: House elves question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174590 I wondered about this. In DH, the house elves were fighting in the kitchen. But, didn't Hermione knit clothing for the house elves, therefore making them free? Did Hogwarts then do without the house elves or just go out and get more? Didn't anyone know that it was Hermione that was freeing them? Shouldn't she have gotten into trouble for making the house elves free? que_44601 From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 01:55:35 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:55:35 -0000 Subject: House elves question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174591 que_44601 wrote: > In DH, the house elves were fighting in the kitchen. But, didn't > Hermione knit clothing for the house elves, therefore making them > free? Goddlefrood: Would that 'twere the case. Dobby collected all the clothes Hermione knitted while the other elves generally refused to clean Gryffindor Tower. IOW, SPEW sucked somewhat and no elves were manumitted, either in GoF or thereafter as it happens. Thus the elves backing Kreacher in the Battle were the same ones that had been at Hogwarts all along and not a new battalion. Toodle Pip From honepie at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 01:53:04 2007 From: honepie at yahoo.com (honepie) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:53:04 -0000 Subject: Did Snape really care for Harry? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174592 Upon reading the book a second time, I was left to wonder whether Snape really did care for Harry after all. I am unsure if the snippet from the Prince's Tale (pg 687) leads us to believe that Snape cared for Harry or just for Lily. What are you all's thoughts? honepie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 02:00:31 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:00:31 -0000 Subject: Did Snape really care for Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174593 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "honepie" wrote: > > Upon reading the book a second time, I was left to wonder whether Snape > really did care for Harry after all. I am unsure if the snippet from > the Prince's Tale (pg 687) leads us to believe that Snape cared for > Harry or just for Lily. What are you all's thoughts? Alla: Opinions are varied on that one, but I am absolutely convinced that Snape could not care less about Harry as a person and never did till he died. Him answering DD question whether he grew to care for Harry is in my mind confirming it 100%. So, my answer is no. And I am very happy that JKR thinks that as well :) NO, I do not take her answer outside of the text, to me it is just an extra support of what I think on that topic. To me text itself is clear. BUT Snape certainly cared that Harry should live as part of Lily, as Lily's son, which was certainly more than I ever expected. JMO, Alla From liliput99ar at yahoo.com.ar Mon Aug 6 01:50:14 2007 From: liliput99ar at yahoo.com.ar (liliput99ar) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:50:14 -0000 Subject: Deathly Hallows Reaction - Could do Better, Sorry/ Slytherins portrayal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174594 > Alla: > > Let me put it this way. I am not and had NEVER been the fan of what > Slytherin house stands for. I argued for years on this list that in > JKR' story Slytherin house stands for evil, for very real evil and > when many good people take a stand against what Slytherin stands for, > they are not prejudicing Slytherins, but fight against very real, > very chilling evil. > > Am I pleased to be right? Sure I do, but at the same time while > within the story I have no major problems with Slytherin being a > house of evil ideology, I do have some disappointments, minor ones to be sure. > I mean, sure there are bad kids in RL at eleven, very bad, kids who commit very real crimes, etc. But that many? I mean, really *** > that** many? > >> > All hope is gone for them? For all of them? At eleven years of age? Nora A. now: Excuse me Alla, but I disagree. I do not think that Slytherin House is the House of Evil. I do not see that in the books as such definite and absolute truth. The house existed from the very beginning of Hogwarts, and it is described that differences between the founders started later on, with the development of the pureblood supremacy ideology, etc. But, in my opinion, it does not means that every person sorted for the house is evil or will develop in the equivalent of a DE of their corresponding time. It has been one Slytherin Headmaster -Phineas Nigellus- and it does not appear to have been a tragedy for the rest of houses. Slughorn is a Slytherin, and no Dark at all. I think that there is all sort of people sorted at Slytherin, and they receive the same education than the rest of the students. The rest, is coming from home. And even in LV time, not everyone was a DE (even if they shared the ideology). In the real world, there are people that share horrible ideologies, but they do not practice them, and for the rest of the society it is necessary to live with this fact. There are societies, brotherhoods, etc, even political parties, that are legal, and that support ideologies similar to that of pureblood supremacy. I see Slytherin House as something like this, for one part. And for the other, surely there were many Slughorns, and many businessmen (or the equivalent in WW), and WW lawyers, and just snob people. So I think that Slytherin House post-LV defeat, can be cleaned up of Dark magic and bad ideologies practitioners, as long as the WW is judging and convicting Dark criminals and DE. Alla: > I mean do not get me wrong, all of this does not take me from major > enjoyment of the story. My heart had always been with Harry and his > friends and I enjoyed their triumphs. > > But I am scratching my head over it, not as much as people who were > hoping for full blown redemption of Slytherin house, since I always > despised those Slytherins we had been shown for the most part, but it makes me wonder why JKR made the choice she did. > > I mean she showed us **some** good Slytherins of the sort, but isn't that more in line with DD remark of "we sort too early"? Since they turn out to have courage that their house not supposed to? Nora A.: Maybe he was thinking about the bad companies that Snape had in Slytherin. If he had been sorted in other house, maybe the tale would have been different. If all the students were together during, say one year, and then sorted, maybe they could have asked the Hat for something different than what they could have preferred the year before. We can imagine that in some future, this idea of Dumbledore's will be taken by the school, and the Sorting ceremony will be changed from a thousand years tradition. I hope I made myself clear, and made my point accurately enough (as you can see English is not my mother language) Nora A. (as I have seen there is another Nora) From thaijasmine1 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 02:08:41 2007 From: thaijasmine1 at yahoo.com (jasmine) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:08:41 -0000 Subject: House elves question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174595 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "que_44601" wrote: > > I wondered about this. In DH, the house elves were fighting in the > kitchen. But, didn't Hermione knit clothing for the house elves, > therefore making them free? Did Hogwarts then do without the house > elves or just go out and get more? Didn't anyone know that it was > Hermione that was freeing them? Shouldn't she have gotten into trouble > for making the house elves free? Dobby took all the things that Hermione knitted (he showed up one time with dozens hats on his head), the other house elves refused to clean Gryffindor common room because of it. No Hogwarts' house elves were freed. jasmine From va32h at comcast.net Mon Aug 6 02:24:14 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:24:14 -0000 Subject: House elves question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174596 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "que_44601" wrote: > I wondered about this. In DH, the house elves were fighting in the > kitchen. But, didn't Hermione knit clothing for the house elves, > therefore making them free? Did Hogwarts then do without the house > elves or just go out and get more? Didn't anyone know that it was > Hermione that was freeing them? Shouldn't she have gotten into trouble > for making the house elves free? va32h: Hermione did not have the authority to free the house elves of Hogwarts - they are "owned" by the school, their master is the school's headmaster, not one of its students. Besides - the elves were disgusted at Hermione's attempts to free them and refused to clean the Gryffindor common room when they realized that she was surreptitiously leaving them clothes. va32h From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Aug 6 02:31:49 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:31:49 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: <01c801c7d796$3c893640$c0fe3e44@user53796g88h2> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174597 > Magpie wrote: > > And also the series has a pattern of changing > how it presents pain in general. I mean, I personally not only get > the impression that Draco is reluctant and Harry is happy to do their > Crucios, but that Ollivander is portrayed as someone being given > painful electric shocks that should make us all wince while Carrow's > getting the equivalent of a punch in the face, all due to the people > involved and the context. > catlady1949:: > I think that all this discussion about how curses are intended making the difference, and whether once wrong is always wrong was portrayed very accurately in this series of books. I see the whole thing as very real world realistic. That's the way human beings really are! You can state all day long that you would die before you would do this or that, and you can maintain forever that you so wouldn't cast this or that spells due to what you decide is plain immoral etc., but if it came down to real life, you just might do what you say that you'd never do, or act in a way you say that you could absolutely never act. We go back to Christian thinking and the Bible again. Pilot asked Jesus "what is truth?" Is truth a relative thing? Are not some of us more wise and, therefore, more truthful? Is what I think, the truth, even if I've been wrong, misinterpreting, etc? I see this series as a whole both a good and bad commentary on human beings and their basic nature, and if we can rise above all of it, these books help us see what we should be trying to do, not debating the intent, disappointment, personality of J. K. Rowling! Magpie: So is the idea that people suck, I'd be no better, and I'm supposed to try to be better than the people in the books? I see the books showing me what I should be trying to do in some ways, and what I would try to avoid doing in others (though that second part seems maybe unintentional). If you're suggesting we shouldn't be debating their intent or any disappointment some might have had, this is a book discussion list. Those things are completely appropriate here even more than other places. How would I even figure out what the books are saying I'm supposed to be trying to do if I don't analyze them and figure out their intent and my own disappointment? It just seems like the more I read the more it sounds like I should lower all my expectations--not my expectations for a good story or what I might have wanted specifically, but my expectations about human nature and the possibility of transformation and heroes and good people and myself and good guys--and then call it realism and so apply it to life and not demand anything more from this fantasy series. And all this could totally work in a different kind of story-- it's a perfectly valid thing to write a story about and it could be a masterpiece, but that doesn't seem to be the way it's being presented in this story. Nor is the story presented as realistic, since it's a fantasy. Mike: As Captain Jack Sparrow might say, 'We have an accord, then.' That's all I've been trying to say. It's not the curse it's the caster. LV and his DEs use Crucio for torture, Harry used it, as you say, to punch Carrow in the face. Magpie: Yes, except that torture is not a punch in the face, is it? So Harry is torturing Carrow and presenting it like punching him in the face, which is rather screwed up to me. If he approached it with the seriousness that the spell's name and effect implies, it might be a moment of struggle and interesting. Instead it's like saying you can torture without torturing, which I don't see how you can do outside of a fictional universe where you change the rules around your heroes. I mean, isn't that a bad way to approach you actions, by separating yourself from their seriousness? Or saying that when you do it it's fundamentally different--I mean, not just because you have better justification but because it becomes a different thing? Just to be clear, I think I understand how this works in the story as fiction. I just think that it does kind of say something disturbing if you think you're supposed to take the characters as the kind of role models the genre suggests they're going to be. This wasn't a big sticking point for me, but I can understand why other people, especially since the way the UFs were dealt with before I think people had a reason to take them as standing for something specific via the rules of this fantasy universe. -m From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Aug 6 02:40:26 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:40:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Private Drive evacuation date In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B68A1A.6000102@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174598 eggplant107 wrote: > So how did the Death Eaters know the exact time Harry would evacuate > Private Drive? Yes, I know, Snape told them, but who told Snape? If it > was Dumbledore then who told Dumbledore? Bart: I'm surprised; you're usually on top of such things. There was no need for them to know; all they needed was to have a few well placed spies, and alert the rest to apparate in. Bart From MadameSSnape at aol.com Mon Aug 6 02:41:21 2007 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 22:41:21 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House elves question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174599 In a message dated 8/5/2007 10:24:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, thaijasmine1 at yahoo.com writes: > I wondered about this. In DH, the house elves were fighting in the > kitchen. But, didn't Hermione knit clothing for the house elves, > therefore making them free? Did Hogwarts then do without the house > elves or just go out and get more? Didn't anyone know that it was > Hermione that was freeing them? Shouldn't she have gotten into trouble > for making the house elves free? Dobby took all the things that Hermione knitted (he showed up one time with dozens hats on his head), the other house elves refused to clean Gryffindor common room because of it. No Hogwarts' house elves were freed. Sherrie here: Additionally, Hermione's actions were moot, anyway. Technically, she was not the mistress of the house elves of Hogwarts - that would have been the Headmaster. Therefore, she could not free them - she just insulted them by trying. Sherrie ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From trog at wincom.net Mon Aug 6 02:41:31 2007 From: trog at wincom.net (Dennis Grant) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:41:31 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio -- Code of the Playground In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174600 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > Harry's the hero of a seven book epic about the battle against evil, > where he's the figurehead of good, I think this is where you get into trouble; Harry isn't the figurehead of good; he is the figurehead of HUMAN. Other people keep trying to cast him as the "figurehead of good" and he keeps rejecting it. He is NOT some sort of archetype. He is a poor, orphaned kid, forced into direct conflict with the premiere evil of his time by nothing more than sheer happenstance, and he manages to overcome that evil through a lot of messy hard work and an act of duty, involving the supreme sacrifice. The kid isn't a saint; he a soldier - and those that know soldiers know they ain't plaster saints. DG From sk8maven at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 02:32:05 2007 From: sk8maven at yahoo.com (sk8maven) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:32:05 -0000 Subject: the peverell's hallows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174601 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jmwcfo" wrote: > I take this opportunity to comment on a common point of confusion. > It is NOT the case that somehow DD overcame the power of the EW > in his duel with GW. The fact is that GW NEVER HAD the wand. It > was actually DD, disguised as GW (polyjuice, I assume) who stole > the wand from Gregorovich. This is not a "fact" - merely your interpretation. And unfortunately it is flatly contradicted by Dumbledore himself (see chapter "King's Cross"). That WAS Grindelwald who stole the wand from Gregorovich, he DID use it to further his plans and his power, and Dumbledore DID somehow get it away from him. > Please recall that when LV visited GW at the top of the > black tower GW said that HE NEVER HAD THE WAND. Refer to page 436 > (US): "Your journey was pointless. I never had it." Grindelwald is lying, pure and simple. He does not want LV to find the wand, and is hoping to throw him off the track. People come up with some way-out theories regarding this or that aspect of the Harry Potter books, and this is one of the more way-out ones. Maven From sherriola at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 02:51:27 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 19:51:27 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House elves question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <46b68cb5.1498600a.1d44.ffffbf83@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174602 Sherrie here: Additionally, Hermione's actions were moot, anyway. Technically, she was not the mistress of the house elves of Hogwarts - that would have been the Headmaster. Therefore, she could not free them - she just insulted them by trying. Sherrie The other Sherry: And now, after knowing Dumbledore's story, and the lengths to which he'll go to achieve his end, it is no longer confusing to me that as headmaster he would own slaves, uh, I mean house elves. I always found it so hard to understand why DD did not have only free elves working at Hogwarts, because I'll never be able to get myself to accept that they actually like being slaves of wizards. After DH, I find it pretty much in character for DD. That's one story line I wish had been resolved, the freedom for house elves. oh well, if she'd tied up every possible story line, we'd probably all still be trying to read the book, because it would be so long! Sherry From trog at wincom.net Mon Aug 6 02:53:06 2007 From: trog at wincom.net (Dennis Grant) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:53:06 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: <46B643AA.7020501@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174603 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > You're also, apparently, forgetting your Latin: "crucio" (from > "cruciare" (v.)) -- "I torture"; "cruciatus" (n.) -- "torture, > torment". > There IS only one purpose for the Cruciatus, and it's no Tickling > Charm. > You sure you want to be arguing for a moral use of torture? Harry doesn't use it as a form of torture; he uses it as a powerful immobilizing spell. I'm going to come back to the real world Microwave Pain Gun used as a nonlethal (but very powerful) mob dispersing tool that is effectively the exact same thing as the fictional "crucio" spell. Yes, it *could* be used to torture (and based on descriptions of its effects, it would be a particularly horrible form of torture) but used in short doses, it is an act of mercy compared to the alternative (a bullet, or an Avra Kedavra) Whatever his motive for using it, be it a white-hot fury and a desire to punish, or a more reasoned justification (maybe it's tougher to block than stupify, or maybe it is more likely to work on a tough, battle-hardened Death Eater) it is effective in disabling his target *and then he stops using it* Call that what you want, but it isn't torture. DG From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 03:07:18 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:07:18 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B69066.4020503@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174604 Dennis Grant blessed us with this gem On 06/08/2007 10:53: > Call that what you want, but it isn't torture. Harry raises his wand, points it at Carrow says, "I torture you" and meant it. It doesn't get any plainer than that. Lee Kaiwen, who wonders when words stopped meaning what they say From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 03:14:14 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 20:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: <46B643AA.7020501@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <879948.42884.qm@web55010.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174605 Lee Kaiwen: >I think this discussion has run its course. It's been several days at >least since anything substantive has been added to the debate, and nor >is there likely to be in the future. So before it devolves into endless >rehashings of the same points, I'm going to make a few general comments, >then bow out. [snip] I agree -- this discussion has run its course -- I'm exhausted trying to keep up with the posts... I responded in the very beginning of the discussion with my simplistic two cents and pretty much stayed out of it since then because I had nothing to add that hadn't already been said. I think you make excellent points in your lengthy, well-referenced, and well-constructed discussion, most of which I agree with. I would like to respond to two small things that, while small, I think important to make distinctions... Lee Kaiwen: >In "The Seven Potters" Harry fights a desparate battle, outnumbered four to one >by AK-wielding DEs, passing within millimeters of death with his friends >risking their own lives on his behalf. Yet he never succumbs to a UC. >We're supposed to believe that Harry Potter, who had seen death a >hundred times, who had demonstrated time and again, in the most dire and >perilous of circumstances, a level-headed coolness well beyond his >years, was, in the Ravenclaw Commons, pushed beyond the snapping point >by a -- Death Expectorator? A Salivating Slytherin? A Loogie Launcher? A >Hocking Henchman? First, I wouldn't use the words "level-headed coolness" in connection with Harry during the escape from the Death Eaters and Voldemort after leaving Privet Drive. I was exhausted after reading that chapter -- the tone was one of terror, and panic, and desperation and I saw Harry reacting in terror, and panic, and desperation. The closest thing I can think of that we can relate to in a similar fashion is avoiding a horrific traffic accident or other life-threatening situation -- one might instinctively take the evasive maneuvers necessary to remove oneself from danger but the panic is always there. Except for using Expelliarmus on Stun, I think he acted on instinct alone, not thought, up until the point he realized he was safe at the Tonks's home; and that feeling of safety didn't come until he cognitively accepted that Andromeda wasn't Bellatrix and therefore not a threat. Only then could he began to relax. He ran on adrenaline, not "level headed coolness" throughtout the entire escape. Second, Harry is affected and shaped by the events of this book just as he is affected and shaped by the events of the first six books. He is not the same person in the Ravenclaw Commons as he is leaving Privet Dr (nor is he the same person confronting Dumbledore's portrait as is in the Ravenclaw Commons). I don't point this out to argue for or against Harry's morality, I point it out only to acknowledge that events and experiences affect us -- and Harry has a heck of a lot of experiences between the chapters where the examples you cite take place. Lee Kaiwen: >Harry's outrage at Amycus' act is supposed to excuse his use of the >Cruciatus. But then what of the duel in the Room of Requirement? With >Malfoy, Crabbe and Doyle furiously battling our heroic trio, with spells >ricocheting off every wall, with Malfoy and Crabbe throwing AKs at his >two best friends, with Harry's mind white-hot with fury over Hermione's >near-death experience, what spells does he choose? Expelliarmus and a >couple of Stupefys. It's Carrow's spittle, in the end, not Crabbe's AK, >that earns a UC in reply. >From a tactical standpoint, Cruciatus or Imperius would be poor choices and Harry is smart enough to know that. He needs to disable his opponent as quickly and effectively as possible -- esp. knowing what that opponent is willing to do. Even if he did want to use Cruciatus (and he might have wanted to for all we know), he doesn't have the time to hold Cruciatus long enough to permanently neutralize his enemy so he must use spells that will. And, I could never see Harry using Avada Kedavra, even knowing he had to face Voldemort eventually. I still felt that way after he used Cruciatus on Carrow -- that was a line I could never see Harry cross. If even wonder if Harry would have reacted differently if Carrow had used a spell against Minerva. Christy, who truly was distressed to see Harry use Cruciatus, esp. when Stupefy or any number of other spells or a even a physical blow would have sufficed; but who acknowledges that he is flawed and forgives him because she thinks she can understand what drove him to do it --------------------------------- Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Aug 6 03:42:35 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 03:42:35 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio -- Code of the Playground In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174606 Magpie: > > Harry's the hero of a seven book epic about the battle against evil, > > where he's the figurehead of good, > > I think this is where you get into trouble; Harry isn't the figurehead > of good; he is the figurehead of HUMAN. Magpie: He's the figurehead of human GOOD within this series. That doesn't mean he's an archetype, it doesn't mean he's perfect, it doesn't mean that anybody's asking him to never make a mistake. It means that it's not weird to think his morals matter, and that if he makes a bad mistake, it will be seen as such and maybe he'll learn from it. He has something to do with what the author might be saying is good. DG: > The kid isn't a saint; he a soldier - and those that know soldiers > know they ain't plaster saints. Magpie: This is exactly what I objected to in my post, which is this idea that any question of his actions means he's being asked to be a plaster saint. As the hero of an epic of this type, Harry isn't just a random soldier--and frankly, even a minor soldier in a war movie has been known to face actual moral dilemmas where their choice might actually cause them to think or grow or develop. The point of my post was that I think it's interesting that it's asking too much of Harry to talk about this even while he's also being noted as the person who's supposed to awake our own potential for heroism. He has the starring role of a 7-book, thousands-of-pages series for kids and YA in which he's constantly praised by other characters for being such a good man and so much better than most, and yet this is his best defense. I wouldn't expect a story that seems to have a lot to say about good and evil to wind up with the message of: "He's not a saint--and you'd do no better. Lay off!" (Even while at the same time the very actions that are supposed to make him not a plaster saint were the right thing to do.). It feels like he's having his cake and eating it too somewhere. Or that compared to his peers--meaning other heroes of similar fantasy epics-- he comes off rather lamely, not bad enough to compete against tougher heroes who suffer for their bad choices, but not good enough to stand beside ones who struggle to do the right thing. Especially when part of the reason it comes up is because within his own story Harry, unlike many humans and heroes, doesn't face any moments where he learns just how not heroic and only human and flawed he is when it comes to bad moral things he might have done. If all these supposed times Harry is imperfect were dealt with in canon as such people wouldn't have to bring them up outside of canon. Since Harry doesn't struggle on this score and it's presented as a done deal in canon where Harry comes off well, rather than bringing the reader into the moral struggle within the book so that we can struggle beside Harry, the reader naturally reacts to that and forms opinions for or against it. DG: Harry doesn't use it as a form of torture; he uses it as a powerful immobilizing spell....Call that what you want, but it isn't torture. Magpie: He uses torture as a powerful immobilizing spell? So that makes it not torture? The word means "I torture," Harry comments on how he meant to torture and Harry's got spells that immobilize just fine at his disposal. Voldemort used his Crucio on Harry as an entertainment spell and to bolster his image with his followers. He also uses it as an effective punishment to make them do what he wants. Bellatrix was trying to torture the Longbottoms for information (torture is a notoriously poor method of doing that). -m From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 03:38:48 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:38:48 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Unforgivables - from a different angle // Power of Love In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B697C8.50902@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174607 Mike blessed us with this gem On 06/08/2007 06:25: > As Captain Jack Sparrow might say, 'We have an accord, > then.' That's all I've been trying to say. It's not the > curse it's the caster. Guess what Mike -- from a moral philosophical view, I agree with you! A moral evaluation of any act must account for at least four things: the act committed, and the awareness, intent and willingness of the actor. That is, the act itself must be objectively bad, the actor must know the act is objectively bad, he must intend evil, and he must perform the act willingly. The problem is that none of this is in the books, and all of your arguments are simply attempts to shoehorn it in. You're trying to connect dots, but you have way too few dots and way too much line. You call the moral component an "artificial construct", yet when I read the texts I see morality everywhere. You say the UCs are "unforgivable" simply because the MoM made them so, and I just don't find that in the canon. When I read the canon, I come away with two things: the UCs are immoral and they are Unforgivable, and it doesn't really matter if the MoM made up the name or not. Whether they're unforgivable because they're immoral, or they're unforgivable because they're illegal because they're immoral, they are still unforgivable AND immoral. In short, in the Potter universe, it IS the curse. Whether it oughta be is a matter for discussion, but that's what Rowling wrote. Sure, it would have been nice if we'd gotten something a bit more nuanced from JKR. It would have been great if we'd seen some wrestlings with the morality of the UCs. It would have been wonderful if the author had attempted to qualify "unforgivable". I don't mind shades of grey, really, even in a children's book. I'm not arguing in favor of a black and white morality. But that's what JKR, whether through design or defect, gave us, and from the looks of things, I'm far from the only one to come away with that impression. Even most of the defenders of Harry's actions argue in terms of extenuating circumstances ("It's war!" "He's human!") without denying the moral tenor. Lee Kaiwen, who's STILL trying to exit gracefully from this discussion From muellem at bc.edu Mon Aug 6 03:49:13 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 03:49:13 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174608 > DG wrote: > Harry doesn't use it as a form of torture; he uses it as a powerful > immobilizing spell. > > > > Call that what you want, but it isn't torture. > colebiancardi: Well, I call it torture. Harry shouted, "Crucio!" The Death Eater was lifted off his feet. He writhed through the air like a drown man, thrashing and howling in pain, and then, with a crunch and a shattering of glass, he smashed into the front of a bookcase and crumpled, insensible, to the floor. "I see what Bellatrix meant," said Harry, the blood thundering through his brain, "you need to really mean it" DH US ed p 593 words like writhed, drowning, thrashing, howling in pain, crumpled, insensible - JKR picked those words and it certainly sounds like torture to me. And look at Harry's physical symptons - the blood thundering thru his brain. He is pumped up - he was not *indifferent* or in control when he cast this spell. Now Luna was able to immobilized Alecto without the torture - she used a stunning spell, which knocked out Alecto without any pain or sadistic features that the Crucio enables. colebiancardi (sure the DE's use these spells - but that doesn't make it right for the Trio or the Order to use them either. Wrong is wrong, imho) From va32h at comcast.net Mon Aug 6 03:39:54 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 03:39:54 -0000 Subject: House elves question In-Reply-To: <46b68cb5.1498600a.1d44.ffffbf83@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174609 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sherry Gomes wrote: > The other Sherry: > And now, after knowing Dumbledore's story, and the lengths to which >he'll go to achieve his end, it is no longer confusing to me that as >headmaster he would own slaves, uh, I mean house elves. I always >found it so hard to understand why DD did not have only free elves >working at Hogwarts, because I'll never be able to get myself to >accept that they actually like being slaves of wizards. After DH, I >find it pretty much in character for DD. That's one story line I >wish had been resolved, the freedom for house elves. va32h: What free elves? There are no free elves except Dobby, and I hardly think that Dobby could manage to do all the cooking and cleaning at Hogwarts all by himself, even if elves do have their own special magic. Acceptable to the readership or not - the house-elves, as JKR created them, do not desire freedom, and are insulted (the Hogwarts elves) or horrified (Winky) at the offer of freedom. Dumbledore was more than happy to give Dobby a salary and benefits when Dobby applied for his job. Had the other elves wanted such things, there is no reason to believe that Dumbledore would not have given them to all the other elves as well. And I have no idea what the existence of house elves at Hogwarts has to do with Dumbledore's "ends" or his plans with or for Harry. Just because the elf issue wasn't resolved as you would have liked to have seen it doesn't mean it wasn't resolved at all. Hermione, champion of elvish welfare, does not expect Harry to free Kreacher, does she? No, she seems to have come to the realization that freeing elves against their will or desire is not the way to make them want freedom for its own sake. Hermione does urge Harry to be kind to Kreacher. She still finds it horrifying that elves are conditioned to punish themselves if they disobey, but the solution to that would appear to be, according to DH, to not give them orders that are so onerous to keep. Hermione has no problem eating food prepared by Kreacher, in a home cleaned by Kreacher. She seems to have resolved the issue in her own mind, at least. I understand that you can't believe house elves actually like being the slaves of wizards. Neither could Hermione. But if the elf insists that he or she does like being a slave - isn't it presumptuous and rather demeaning to say "Well you don't mean that. You say you like it, but since I can't understand why you would like it, you simply can't like it." It would be pointless to free an elf who did not wish to be free - just as pointless as arguing with a goblin over the ownership of a goblin-made object. Goblins don't see the world as wizards do, elves don't see the world as wizards do. Frankly, I was shocked that the centaurs joined the battle of Hogwarts, given this trend. But perhaps the centaurs had been star gazing, and the stars said "if Harry Potter dies, you're all screwed!" and decided they'd better try to save their own hides. va32h From va32h at comcast.net Mon Aug 6 03:58:15 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 03:58:15 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio -- Code of the Playground In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174610 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Grant" wrote: > The kid isn't a saint; he a soldier - and those that know soldiers > know they ain't plaster saints. va32h: Serious Rant Ahead Yes, I DO know real soldiers - I sleep next to one every night. Or try to. He doesn't get much sleep, you see, because he has these really horrible nightmares, in which he remembers the people he saw injured and dead, the people to whom he caused injury and death. Real soliders frequently suffer from a little thing called PTSD - which is the natural result of moral, ethical, people witnessing or performing violence. My husband is not sorry for what he did in Iraq. He'd be dead himself if he hadn't done his job as a soldier. But he isn't proud. He isn't happy, he isn't satisified - in short, he isn't Harry "You have to mean it" Freaking Potter. I have NO PROBLEM with JKR choosing to show Harry USING Crucio. I am disgusted with her choice to have him ENJOY it, and not show one iota or remorse or reckoning, to wave away any question of the implication of her hero being proud of himself for succesfully torturing someone with "oh well he's not a saint." You don't have to be a saint to NOT take pleasure in another person's pain - to NOT be proud of yourself for being able to hurt someone in a new and more powerful way. You only have to have a scrap of common decency and something vaguely resembling a conscience. I am so, so SICK of people tossing around the excuse "it's a war and he's a soldier, and that's what soldiers do." No, they don't. They don't enjoy hurting people. They do their job, and it screws them up for years afterward. So please - if you want to keep patting Harry on the back for using Crucio, fine, but don't drag soldiers into it. They don't deserve the comparison. va32h From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Aug 6 04:01:07 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:01:07 -0000 Subject: House elves question In-Reply-To: <46b68cb5.1498600a.1d44.ffffbf83@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174611 The other Sherry: > I'll never be able to get myself to accept that they > actually like being slaves of wizards. [snip] That's > one story line I wish had been resolved, the freedom > for house elves. oh well, if she'd tied up every possible > story line, we'd probably all still be trying to read > the book, because it would be so long! houyhnhnm: The depiction of house elves is one of the things that has bothered me ever since they were introduced, the way they're made to talk, the way they don't want to be free, don't want to be paid, just want to serve their masters, etc., but as I was re-reading the chapters involving Kreacher at the beginning of DH, a strange thought hit me. They're not meant to represent human slavery in the real world. They want to be owned. They will serve a mean master grudgingly, but a kind one with devotion. They're dogs. Bipedal, English-speaking dogs. That's how we're supposed to see them. S.P.E.W. = S.P.C.A. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 03:47:26 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:47:26 +0800 Subject: Imperiused Mad-Eye Message-ID: <46B699CE.3080808@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174612 In Goblet of Fire, we find DE/Moody teaching the students how to resist the Imperius Curse, and Harry getting it more or less right on his very first go. Then, in the cemetery against Voldemort, Harry successfully resists LV's Imperio. Yet, when the real Mad-Eye is found at the bottom of his trunk, Dumbledore announces that he has been Imperiused all year. So how is it that Mad-Eye, one of the WW's leading experts in the Dark Arts, is unable to do what even a fourth-year Hogwarts student was able to do first time out of the starting blocks? Lee Kaiwen, who sometimes wishes he could Imperius his two-year old (just kidding!) From elfundeb at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 04:29:49 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 00:29:49 -0400 Subject: The Message of DH (WAS: Unforgivables - from a different angle) Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708052129p5cfed895lb5ae0e449344dd7f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174613 Ceridwen wrote: > I do not expect the hero to be so unwaveringly right that he or she > has no moral crisis. I do not expect that the hero is perfect in > either the absolute sense of the word, or in the greater scheme of > things. This is an unbelievable characterization, and no amount of > peripheral mistakes will erase the core issue of the hero not needing > to learn lessons or to change. The entire point of a story is to > effect change. A story is a journey from point A to point B, with > scenery in between. Debbie: Dumbledore said in CoS, "It's our choices that show us who we really are" (quoted from memory). JKR's outlook is Calvinistic, at least where Harry is concerned. Harry makes the choices he does because of who he is; he doesn't make bad choices and learn from his mistakes, at least not in large things. Harry is tempted, but only in a Christ-at-Gethsemane manner. He obsesses for a few days over the Hallows, but he makes the right choice. Likewise, he engages in a little bit of bad-boy behavior, trying out the Unforgivables (or more specifically, the Cruciatus, as I'm not too fussed about using Imperius under the circumstances), but though they knock Harry's halo askew on his head, such small misdemeanors cannot dislodge it. Unfortunately, Harry is a Questor, in a very LotR sense. Questors are often driven by their destiny, or by things they cannot control. In LotR, the journey may have been interesting, but most of the characters were boring. Harry is equally boring. However, if we're looking for a character who does learn lessons and change for the better, JKR has written such characters. Ron, for example. Ron is a major character who fights an endless battle against his own insecurities over six books, sometimes seeming to master them and then backsliding again and again, before finally conquering them. As a character, I find Ron much more interesting, although it is Harry's Quest that drives the action of the book. Ceridwen: > These books did not, in the end, show what we should be trying to > do. The message is conflicting. We should not be like the Bad Guys, > yet the Good Guys can be as much like the Bad as they like. There is > no higher message, no means of rising above. Everyone is as devious > as the next person, therefore, Good and Bad must be relevant to who > is on Our Side and who is Against Us. Debbie: What I take from the books is that the character trait that JKR admires most is not bravery, per se, but loyalty. By this I mean personal loyalty (rather than loyalty to a cause). Loyalty to Lily enabled Snape to do what he did. Likewise, Harry showed loyalty to Dumbledore by following his explicit instructions to pursue the Horcruxes rather than the Hallows. Dumbledore even comments in CoS about the loyalty Harry showed to *him* (emphasis mine). What is not explicitly stated, but is implied, is that the Good Guys earn their loyalty by their deeds in support of a worthy cause, whereas a Bad Guy like Voldemort demand loyalty to himself, for himself, and will do terrible things to enforce it. Thus, the DA (and everyone under the sun) arrives at Hogwarts when Neville calls them solely based on the knowledge that Harry is there, rallying around a leader who has earned their loyalty. It is because of the Cause that the Good Guys can use otherwise forbidden weapons if they use them appropriately. I don't like this message. I want Good Guys to learn that to win, they must behave in a morally superior way. However, this is nothing new. We have been having this argument on the list for at least five years about such episodes as Dudley's tail and the Ton-Tongue Toffees. Why should we expect her to take a different view of using Unforgivables? I should have known that JKR's idea of purity of heart was different in HBP when Dumbledore fired Harry up to go on the Horcrux quest so that he could aveng his parents' deaths. So I can't complain that she's been inconsistent on this point. Ceridwen: > The books, to me, actually > say, "If you are not for Harry, you are against him." Is it > surprising that people don't care for that message? Debbie: I think JKR is sending this message. Voldemort is Evil. No one can possibly doubt this. Harry is working against Voldemort, which is a Good Thing. Thus, her message is simply another expression of the old adage that all that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. And there is a corollary message: one does not have to be perfect to take arms against evil. Harry's purity of heart is really another phrase for his selfless devotion to the Cause -- beginning in PS/SS regardless of personal loss. It is not general moral superiority. At that level, the message works. If we expected JKR to send moral messages about particular behaviours in DH, or to punish the perpetrators of such behaviours, then she has failed us. I'll settle for the message we got. I snipped your other complaints, as I admit to being unconcerned generally about flints, plot holes and clumsy deus ex machinas, as long as JKR delivers on story and character. Debbie who has been away from the internet for a week and has not read every post on this topic [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 04:13:31 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:13:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who originally owned Dobby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <19867.15171.qm@web55002.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174614 Me (jellocat) >I searched for this and couldn't find any info - maybe someone here >has a theory. >Why did Dobby originally care so much about Harry Potter? He was >"owned" by the Malfoys - aren't house elves supposed to show loyalty >only to their masters? >I theorized, originally, that Dobby was owned by the Potters and was >"taken" by the Malfoys after the Potters were killed, hence he >would've had an affinity for Harry. I thought JKR would bring this to >light in the 7th book but she didn't. >So why did Dobby care about Harry at all, then? Isn't that off the >charts for a house elf to be? You need search no further than Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, where we learn that the magic of house elves require them to serve their masters or risk punishment, usually at their own hands; house elves can only be freed if their masters give them clothes (which is why we see them wearing pillowcases or tea towels or whatever -- those items are not proper clothes). We also meet Dobby, an unusual house elf who wants his freedom. He tells Harry that house elves suffered greatly under Voldemort and that he still suffers. (We learn at the end of COS that Dobby belongs to Lucius Malfoy, a devoted follower of Voldemort.) At first, Dobby's devotion to Harry is based on the fact that Harry is The Boy Who Lived -- the boy who somehow rid the world of the threat Voldemort posed. Once Dobby meets Harry, his devotion is based on how Harry treats him (with respect and kindness). Later, Dobby's devotion to Harry is based on the fact that Harry tricks Lucius Malfoy into giving Dobby clothes (Harry's sock hidden Riddle's diary), thus freeing him. By the end of COS there is no doubt that Dobby is loyal to Harry. Dobby, unlike the other house elves we see in the books, wants his freedom. Considering who his master is, who can blame him. In my opinion, he is miserable serving the Malfoys both because they follow Voldemort and because they treat him cruelly. Also in my opinion, if Dobby had served a family of "good" wizards who treated him kindly, he would have been happy without being free. I see him as equating freedom (something which his kind considers bad) with escape from a "dark" world that he doesn't want to be part of (and thus makes a morally based decision). Dobby is ostracized by his kind because of his freedom. Yet, despite being free, Dobby still wants to work and serve, so we see him again in GOF as a free elf working at Hogwarts for pay. (But, he dosn't want as much pay and time off as Dumbledore is willing to give him.) Dobby also is very brave; he defied his master and punished himself for it throughout COS; he sought freedom which singled him out among his peers; and, of course, he died saving Harry in DH. There is nothing in canon to remotely suggest that Dobby once served the Potters. Is Dobby's action "off the charts" for house elves? Yes, but the books do a thorough job of explaining house elves in general and Dobby in particular. JKR didn't need to go into it any further that she did in DH. Christy, who sometimes wonders if we're all reading the same books --------------------------------- Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 04:17:31 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:17:31 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle // Power of Love In-Reply-To: <46B697C8.50902@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174615 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > Guess what Mike -- from a moral philosophical view, I agree with you! A > moral evaluation of any act must account for at least four things: the > act committed, and the awareness, intent and willingness of the actor. > That is, the act itself must be objectively bad, the actor must know the > act is objectively bad, he must intend evil, and he must perform the act > willingly. > > The problem is that none of this is in the books, and all of your > arguments are simply attempts to shoehorn it in. You're trying to > connect dots, but you have way too few dots and way too much line. You > call the moral component an "artificial construct", yet when I read the > texts I see morality everywhere. You say the UCs are "unforgivable" > simply because the MoM made them so, and I just don't find that in the > canon. When I read the canon, I come away with two things: the UCs are > immoral and they are Unforgivable, and it doesn't really matter if the > MoM made up the name or not. Whether they're unforgivable because > they're immoral, or they're unforgivable because they're illegal because > they're immoral, they are still unforgivable AND immoral. In short, in > the Potter universe, it IS the curse. Whether it oughta be is a matter > for discussion, but that's what Rowling wrote. Alla: It seems to me that you are making the similar type of argument what you claim Mike is doing. You wrote that when you read the text, you see morality everywhere and my question is **where exactly** you see it. In short, could you provide canon page, please! One sentence from Sirius is the only place where I can argue immorality of unforgivables, everything else to me screams illegality more and more and not immorality. Mike in my view provided plenty of canon on the illegality of Unforgivables. And I tend to place ** a lot** of emphasis on what Sirius is saying, so by and large I am not really convinced by what Mike is saying yet. But his argument is canon based through and through as far as I am concerned. Ministry called those curses unforgivables, Ministry is the one who allowed Aurors to use it. Are they not immoral anymore in the time of need, because Ministry said so? We also see Dumbledore not seeming to worry much about Snape's soul being ripped apart because of AK. We also see that AK is being used with benign intent, are we not? Is it somehow **forgivable** now because Dumbledore **wanted** Snape to use it? Certainly seems to me that the book is saying so. Mike is also analogised the different results of AK that we saw before in the books and what Snape used on DD AND different Crucios results. Oh how I **disliked** the different results of AK argument before book 7 - seems I was sooooo wrong. Lee Kaiwen: > Sure, it would have been nice if we'd gotten something a bit more > nuanced from JKR. It would have been great if we'd seen some wrestlings > with the morality of the UCs. It would have been wonderful if the author > had attempted to qualify "unforgivable". I don't mind shades of grey, > really, even in a children's book. I'm not arguing in favor of a black > and white morality. But that's what JKR, whether through design or > defect, gave us, and from the looks of things, I'm far from the only one > to come away with that impression. Alla: And I most definitely see those shades of grey that JKR gave us in the qualifications of Unforgivables. Aurors were using them with the blessing of the Ministry AND Snape used AK to help Dumbledore to move on the next adventure ( if you read my arguments before book 7, you would realise that I am typing it with gritting teeth, but all of that seems to be canon to me now) Lee Kaiwen: Even most of the defenders of Harry's > actions argue in terms of extenuating circumstances ("It's war!" "He's > human!") without denying the moral tenor. Alla: Nope, becoming more and more convinced by Mike's argument that such moral component does not exist. But Mike, dear, sorry I do not find your explanation about Sirius' words to be entirely satisfactory yet ;) Become as dark and cruel as those on the Dark side seems to me to be author speaking and making moral judgment, not Sirius' misguided and bitter view :) Could you try again? ;) JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 04:30:47 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:30:47 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174616 > colebiancardi > (sure the DE's use these spells - but that doesn't make it right for > the Trio or the Order to use them either. Wrong is wrong, imho) Alla: So, was it wrong for Snape to use AK? I mean, if one unforgivable spell can be NOT unforgivable sometimes, why the others cannot? Again, let me stress I am perfectly fine with thinking that Harry made a mistake in using Crucio and should not do so. As I said upthread I still do not see convincing counterargument for Sirius' words, but it seems to me with the use of AK for perfectly benign purposes, JKR left the door very open for the argument that intent of the caster is what matters and NOT spell itself. I am really waffling still and the description of the scene that you brought up really does make it sound like torture to me and NOT just a little of pain to immobilise, but I do think that Mike made very very sound argument. Heeee, did not mean to become Mike's advocate for the evening, I am perfectly sure he can speak for himself tomorrow ;) Alla. From sherriola at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 04:44:58 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:44:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House elves question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <46b6a750.1def600a.095b.ffffe8d2@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174617 va32h: And I have no idea what the existence of house elves at Hogwarts has to do with Dumbledore's "ends" or his plans with or for Harry. Sherry: I could not come to grips with a so-called epitome of goodness being comfortable with the enslavement of an entire group of beings. Knowing that DD is manipulative and not quite so good after all--of course in my opinion--makes it easier to understand how he could live with it. va32h: I understand that you can't believe house elves actually like being the slaves of wizards. Neither could Hermione. But if the elf insists that he or she does like being a slave - isn't it presumptuous and rather demeaning to say "Well you don't mean that. You say you like it, but since I can't understand why you would like it, you simply can't like it." Sherry: I suppose we all have things that get to us, based either on our personal experience or knowledge or history of our world or simply the things that really push our buttons. I have no personal experience with slavery, nor do any of my ancestors, as far as I know. But I don't have to have experienced it to have felt angry and grieved when studying slavery in my country, the US, during school history classes. No, I'm not African American, but that didn't stop me from feeling ill over those studies. I remember reading how white slave owners would claim that the slaves *liked* being slaves, that they were happy being slaves. It struck me as a shameful justification then, even when I was too young to know the word justification. To bring this back to HP and house elves, every time I hear a wizard in the books say that house elves *like* being slaves, that they are happy, it makes me cringe. It takes me right back to those history classes. I don't like it, and nothing in the text of the books made me like it any better. That doesn't mean I dislike the books, and I'm not particularly disappointed overall, but I'd have liked to have seen house elves be free. There are just times when my real world collides with my fantasy reading, and it would do so on this topic in any story. I'm not condemning or judging JKR, because I know she's not claiming slavery is good. Obviously, to me, anyway, house elf enslavement is another problem in the wizarding world, but it wasn't the point of this series to resolve it. I'm ok with that, but I don't have to mentally just be ok with house elf enslavement. Sherry From dancinbamba at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 04:06:14 2007 From: dancinbamba at yahoo.com (bambalita) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:06:14 -0000 Subject: Who originally owned Dobby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174618 jellocat:So why did Dobby care about Harry at all, then? Isn't that off the charts for a house elf to be? Bambalita: I agree with Juli as to why Dobby cared for Harry. He was grateful. Dobby WAS a pretty off the charts house elf. I think it was just his personality. The other house elves were embarassed of him wearing clothes and flaunting his freedom. Remember when Winky was freed from the Crouches in GoF, The House-Elf Liberation Front chapter, She said, "Winky is a disgraced elf, but Winky is not getting paid! [referring to Dobby getting paid to work in Hogwarts] Winky is not sunk so low as that! Winky is properly ashamed of being freed!" And when Dobby was talking to Harry, Hermione and Ron about his freedom and getting paid the other house-elves "all looked away as though Dobby had said something rude and embarassing." jellocat: He was "owned" by the Malfoys - aren't house elves supposed to show loyalty only to their masters? Bambalita: I think Dobby was "loyal". When he tried to tell Harry why he was in danger he kept beating himself up over it...so he was being loyal to the Malfoys by not saying who was involved only that Harry was in danger. From Mhochberg at aol.com Mon Aug 6 04:55:07 2007 From: Mhochberg at aol.com (Mhochberg at aol.com) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 00:55:07 EDT Subject: House elves question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174619 Sherrie here: Additionally, Hermione's actions were moot, anyway. Technically, she was not the mistress of the house elves of Hogwarts - that would have been the Headmaster. Therefore, she could not free them - she just insulted them by trying. Sherrie The other Sherry: And now, after knowing Dumbledore's story, and the lengths to which he'll go to achieve his end, it is no longer confusing to me that as headmaster he would own slaves, uh, I mean house elves. I always found it so hard to understand why DD did not have only free elves working at Hogwarts, because I'll never be able to get myself to accept that they actually like being slaves of wizards. After DH, I find it pretty much in character for DD. That's one story line I wish had been resolved, the freedom for house elves. oh well, if she'd tied up every possible story line, we'd probably all still be trying to read the book, because it would be so long! ~~~~~ Mary: I agree with not wanting anyone, whether house elf or Imperioed! wizard, to be a slave, why is it so hard to understand that some beings like to clean and are proud of their work? It doesn't matter whether you are a house elf, muggle, wizard, or Martha Stewart, if you like to make things clean, you like to make things clean. If you like to cook meals or empty trash cans or sit at a computer all day making up stories, that is what you like to do. No being should put down any other being for the work they like to do. Hermione's suggestion of a "sponsored clean of the common room" so students would know how "awful it is to clean all day" is as much a put-down as her attempts to free the elves who don't want to be freed. Neither takes into account what the elves want. I've always wondered about how house elves went from free to slave. There are many stories and legends of creatures who clean or work for humans but leave at the slightest sign of disrespect. I sometimes wonder if the status of house elves is JKR way of dealing with the odd status of adult muggle women. Mary "Free the house elves. Let them choose what they wish to do." ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour From va32h at comcast.net Mon Aug 6 05:07:12 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:07:12 -0000 Subject: House elves question In-Reply-To: <46b6a750.1def600a.095b.ffffe8d2@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174620 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sherry Gomes wrote: > I suppose we all have things that get to us, based either on our >personal experience or knowledge or history of our world or simply >the things that really push our buttons. I have no personal >experience with slavery, nor do any of my ancestors, as far as I >know. But I don't have to have experienced it to have felt angry >and grieved when studying slavery in my country, the US, during >school history classes. No, I'm not African American, but that >didn't stop me from feeling ill over those studies. I remember >reading how white slave owners would claim that the slaves *liked* being slaves, that they were happy being slaves. It struck me as a >shameful justification then, even when I was too young to know the >word justification. > >To bring this back to HP and house elves, every time I hear a >wizard in the books say that house elves *like* being slaves, that >they are happy, it makes me cringe. It takes me right back to those >history classes. I don't like it, and nothing in the text of the >books made me like it any better. va32h: I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it's a question of house elves = African American slaves. For one thing, African American slaves were actual human beings, whereas elves are magical creatures. And yes, I know that slaveowners considered their slaves less than human beings, but we aren't talking about perceptions, but actual biological constructs. The US is my country too, and I lived for many years in Virginia, where alas the wounds of the Civil War are still quite fresh and tender. So it's not that I don't understand how repugnant the history of slavery and the very notion of human ownership is. While I can see parallels between house-elves and American slavery (just as I can see parallels between the Death Eaters and the Ku Klux Klan) I just don't think JKR is trying to equate the two. Someone else onlist suggested that the more likely analogy is that house elves are like sentient, talking dogs. They want to be with people, they want to serve people, they will do so grudingly for a cruel master but happily for a kind one. It's cruel to beat your dog or starve him, or deny him your human companionship, but it isn't cruel to own a dog. And dogs, being pack animals, would most likely be happier owned by a loving family than out wandering on their own. Which would make Dobby analgous to Snoopy perhaps, or Brian, the dog from Family Guy. I do understand (and share) your distaste about slavery. I just don't think that elves, as portrayed in these books, are the same as human beings. va32h From aceworker at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 05:30:03 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 22:30:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle Message-ID: <944827.10675.qm@web30215.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174621 What I don't see anyone mentioning in this debate is the state of the DA when Harry arrives. The curse in the Ravenclaw common room is poetic justice. It gives the female Carrow (whose name I can't spell) a taste of her own medicine. JKR is careful not to mention much about what went on in the school during the 7th year except obliquely and through hints, but it doesn't take much imagination to cringe with horror. It is clear in her mind that she imagined Hogwarts during the 7th year as a bleak vision, a place of screams and terror, an incredibly black and horrid place, were learning was more about survival then anything else, a place filled with torture. Lets remember what Neville tells us about the DA's year. 1. Neville in addition to being tortured numerous times has had a knife taken to his face and strips of flesh cut out. His entrie face is puffy and swollen and he is scared for life. He is not the only one this has been done too. 2. Seamus looks even worse then Neville. 3. Michael Corner was badly , because he tried to save a first year from torture. Let me repeat that. JKR implied that the Carrows tortured ten year olds (in a childrens book). 4. There are more then twenty students in the ROR all of whom have been tortured by the Carrows and/or Slytherins many of them with the cruciatus, including fairly innocent people like Lavender Brown. They're all in that room because they fear for their life. The Carrows would kill them if they knew they were alive. Mostly because they have made the decision to fight with and for Harry (who all the have off is rumors and faith). Terry Boot seems to have been the most recent banished, since he wa.s at that nights dinner (though maybe not all DA members are banished, although we know for sure that Neville, Seamus, Lavender, and Michael are, and at least one Hufflepuff because of the draperies). 5. Luna had been kidnapped in front of the DA and for a time until she got the message to Neville they must have thought her dead. And don't tell me Bellatrix didn't torture Luna a bit while she was at the Malfoys, which was about a month, to do so would be out of character. 6. It must have been in Harry's mind, despite what Ted Tonks had said, that Ginny must have been punished in the same way as the others, for stealing Gryffindors sword, that she must have been subjected to the cruciatus at some point. 7. And lets not talk about what happened to the muggle borns such as the Creeveys, and Dean and Justin and what did and would have happened to Hermione. If nothing else they would have been running for thier life for the last nine months. McGonagall and the other teachers are portrayed as heroes, working the best they can to prevent this. Even Snape...seems to be working to protect them (how the hell did he convince Voldemort to keep on so many of DD allies as teachers?) And the she-carrow has the nerve to spit on McGonagall. What do you think her first curse would have been? Harry is a realisitc hero, how can anyone imagine a hero that would'nt do what he would do in that spot. As JKR said, it would take a saint to hold there hand. I mean if this were Luna Lovegood and the Deathly Hollows I could possible see Luna refraining from the Cruciatus, but it was Harry JKR developed and if she wanted to be consist with his character, he had to do this. Even Harry had to break at one point, and it appears McGonagall just about broke with him. If the idea is that she should teach people to be saints, the answer I'll give to that is that the reason most saints end up being martyrs is that they don't fight back. JKR is not trying to teach her readers to be Martyrs, but she is trying to teach them to be courageous and yes sometimes you have to do evil to fight evil and one of the things that makes evil evil is that it makes good people, do lesser evil to combat it. As I have Draco say to Pansy in one of my fanfics: 'To worry about your rights (or the rights of others) when your life is at stake is a philosophy that will leave you dead.' This was IMHO opinion one of JKR finest bits of realism, which she totally ruined with the epilogue, but that's an entirely different story (and the epilogue belongs in an entirely different story, LOL!) DA Jones --------------------------------- Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dwalker696 at aol.com Mon Aug 6 05:38:56 2007 From: dwalker696 at aol.com (dwalker696) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:38:56 -0000 Subject: Did Lily know it was Snape that told Voldemort? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174622 Something has been bugging me, and I have read and read through this group and other sites, and can't find an answer. Usually I don't get caught up in story details; inconsistencies and minor plot details don't detract from the real meaning and drive of the books for me. I suppose the fact that this issue keeps rather haunting me is just evidence of how attached I have become to JKR's characters over the years. My questions are: Did Lily know that it was her long time and former best friend Severus who told the prophecy to Voldemort? Did she die knowing that basically Severus was the reason they had to go into hiding, the reason their first born son was a potential murder victim of LV's? The idea of the pain that would have caused her, knowing it was Severus. And I don't think being told that Snape felt so bad about it, he turned right around and warned DD would make a mother fearful for her child's life feel any better about it. The only thing I can find about it is from POA (Fudge: "Not many people are aware that the Potters knew You-Know-Who was after them. DD, who was of course working tirelessly against K-N-W, had a number of useful spies. One of them tipped him off, and he alerted James and Lily at once. He advised them to go into hiding.") and then the discussions in OOP that 'someone' overheard the prophecy and tattled, and then in HBP that Snape was the one who did it. I should think DD would have left that detail out when he told the Potters, he had to have known even before Snape came begging to protect her that they had been friends, but who knows. Which leads to: Did Snape know if Lily knew it was he who was the spying, tattling scumbag? Much as I can't forgive him for his time and actions when aligned with LV, I still feel bad for someone who does not get to make amends with someone they love before it is too late to ever do so. I mean, talk about regret, not only is he responsible for LV killing her, but he also has to live with thinking that Lily's last memory of him (the second-to-last most impressing memory perhaps being that he called her a mudblood!) was that he had betrayed her, to the end result being the death of her entire family. It's more fuel to the reasons Snape is so nasty to Harry, I mean, everytime he looked at Harry, was he thinking "this kid that should have been mine with Lily / this kid I oprhaned bc I basically killed my only friend, his mother / this brat son of that SOB James Potter who stole my Lily / this kid who is a walking reminder that my best friend KNEW that I stabbed her in the back, and I never got to tell her I was sorry...."? I am sure the running monologue in Snape's head everytime he had to think about Harry Potter was enough to make his brain explode. Or his hair greasy, maybe that explains it... Donna From juli17 at aol.com Mon Aug 6 06:21:51 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:21:51 -0000 Subject: The Message of DH (WAS: Unforgivables - from a different angle) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0708052129p5cfed895lb5ae0e449344dd7f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174623 to... Debbie: > > What is not explicitly stated, but is implied, is that the Good Guys earn > their loyalty by their deeds in support of a worthy cause, whereas a Bad Guy > like Voldemort demand loyalty to himself, for himself, and will do terrible > things to enforce it. Thus, the DA (and everyone under the sun) arrives at > Hogwarts when Neville calls them solely based on the knowledge that Harry is > there, rallying around a leader who has earned their loyalty. It is because > of the Cause that the Good Guys can use otherwise forbidden weapons if they > use them appropriately. > > I don't like this message. I want Good Guys to learn that to win, they must > behave in a morally superior way. However, this is nothing new. We have > been having this argument on the list for at least five years about such > episodes as Dudley's tail and the Ton-Tongue Toffees. Why should we expect > her to take a different view of using Unforgivables? I should have known > that JKR's idea of purity of heart was different in HBP when Dumbledore > fired Harry up to go on the Horcrux quest so that he could aveng his > parents' deaths. So I can't complain that she's been inconsistent on this > point. Julie: Thank you, Debbie! I've been struggling with what I've perceived as inconsistencies in DH when compared with certain plot points from previous books. Specifically I interpreted the various statements about Unforgivables from Fake!Moody (yes, an unreliable source), Sirius, and Snape (who appeared to be counselling Harry in his own sneering manner against using UVs) as an indication that using them would somehow damage Harry's integrity/soul, and that it was critical for him to be "above" such acts. I thought this was JKR's message, but now I see that it isn't necessarily so, and that Harry using the Crucio isn't inconsistent with many of the things the Good Guys have done in previous books. You are so right that we've had this argument back and forth about the Good Guys using the same methods as the Bad Guys, and whether the morality of the methods changes depending on *who* is using them. It is similar with the Slytherin students--we saw that they were reviled by most of the other students (and some teachers) because they were almost to a man (child) prejudiced against Muggleborns and supportive of Voldemort, i.e. future Death Eaters. We just didn't know if their choice to be Slytherin reflected their generally bad characters, or if outside influences (family ties, indoctrination during childhood, etc) were the greater influence on that choice (which would give them the latitude to learn from their errors in judgment and make the right choice against Voldemort and Pureblood ideology). Not unlike Snape, whose character was deliberately ambiguous until the final book, I think JKR also left the thrust of some of her messages ambiguous until the final book. While the Sorting Hat argued for House Unity, we never saw any movement toward reconciliation of the Houses from any of the students (no one considered inviting a Slytherin into the DA, for instance), nor any effort from the teachers or the Headmaster to heal the enmity between the Houses. These actions (or lack thereof) should have spoken louder to us than the Sorting Hat's wise but unheeded words, but we just weren't paying enough attention. Ditto the many times we saw the Good Guys acting very similarly to the bad guys. We (at least many of us) *wanted* to see the series end with the Good Guys showing moral superiority over the Bad Guys, even though they generally failed to do so throughout the previous books. And we wanted Slytherins to be regular kids who could learn and be molded as easily as children of any other House to be good and noble, rather than intrinsically bad children who had to go against their very natures just to approach being "good" (Snape, Slughorn, Phineas). This even though we never saw a single Slytherin act in a clearly noble or "good" manner. We saw ambiguous hints (and perhaps JKR put them there intentionally), but as with definitely ambiguous Snape, who might be Evil, or DDM, or compelled by the Life Debt, we were never given a clear promise which moral "message" would triumph in the end. Ceridwen: > > The books, to me, actually > > > say, "If you are not for Harry, you are against him." Is it > > > surprising that people don't care for that message? > > > > Debbie: > > I think JKR is sending this message. Voldemort is Evil. No one can > possibly doubt this. Harry is working against Voldemort, which is a Good > Thing. Thus, her message is simply another expression of the old adage that > all that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good people to do > nothing. And there is a corollary message: one does not have to be > perfect to take arms against evil. Harry's purity of heart is really > another phrase for his selfless devotion to the Cause -- beginning in PS/SS > regardless of personal loss. It is not general moral superiority. > > > > At that level, the message works. If we expected JKR to send moral messages > about particular behaviours in DH, or to punish the perpetrators of such > behaviours, then she has failed us. I'll settle for the message we got. Julie: Again, I can only agree. Part of me wishes JKR had gone in the direction *I* wanted, with true moral superiority trumping evil (though it rarely does in real life), but I can also accept that this wasn't what JKR was writing, and enjoy the books for the entertainment they are rather than as a statement on morality. (And if I recall correctly, even JKR said she wasn't sending any moral messages, but was merely writing a story.) Julie From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 06:34:42 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:34:42 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174624 --- "colebiancardi" wrote: > > > DG wrote: > > Harry doesn't use it as a form of torture; he uses > > it as a powerful immobilizing spell. > > > > > > > > Call that what you want, but it isn't torture. > > > > > colebiancardi: > > Well, I call it torture. > > Harry shouted, "Crucio!" > The Death Eater was lifted off his feet. He writhed > through the air like a drown man, thrashing and howling > in pain, and then, with a crunch and a shattering of > glass, he smashed into the front of a bookcase and > crumpled, insensible, to the floor. > > "I see what Bellatrix meant," said Harry, the blood > thundering through his brain, "you need to really mean > it" DH US ed p 593 > > words like writhed, drowning, thrashing, ... it > certainly sounds like torture to me. > bboyminn: Well then, from a practical perspective, let's define torture. [Though I will be the first to admit that when we start to reach for the dictionary to settle an argument, we are pretty much at rock bottom.] Is it merely causing pain, that makes it 'torture'? So then when you took your kids to get their shots (inoculations), you were guilty of torture? So, football players on the field are also guilty of torture because they certainly cause pain. So, police when they break up a riot, subdue a suspect, or use a Taser are guilty of torture? And finally, if you cause 5 seconds worth of pain, and the person it immediately all right, physically undamaged, is it still torture, or is it just torture-ish. Real torture is sustained, and is done for one of two purposes, either raw sadistic pleasure, or as a form of coercion. That is, you do it because the victim has something you want. Was Harry sadistic? NO. Did he sustain the pain? NO. Was he trying to coerce anything from the victim? NO. You simply can not assign the label of 'torture' to every instance of causing pain. If that were true brother and sisters would all be guilty of torture. If that were true, every parent would be guilty of torture. Pain is part of torture, but pain, in and of itself, is not torture. And, 5 seconds of pain, just doesn't quite make it across the 'Torture' threshold in my book. Certainly, Harry wanted to teach this guy a lesson. But I hardly think a 5 second lesson qualifies as torture. > colebiancardi: > > And look at Harry's physical symptons - the blood > thundering thru his brain. He is pumped up - he was > not *indifferent* or in control when he cast this > spell. > > ... bboyminn: I once tried to kill someone in a fit of WHITE HOT ANGER. And for the record, in the moment, 'blood was thundering through my brain'. Sometimes you lose control, sometimes anger overrides good judgement. But that moment of anger does not define a person. With the exception of that one moment, I have lived my life as a kind and gentle soul. If we look at Harry life, rather than that one moment, we see that he too is a brave, kind, compassionate, fierce but gentle soul. I think the bigger picture does a better job of defining Harry than a moment of anger. I also think people need to look at the event in perspective. I hardly think 5 seconds of pain for a vile, evil, murderous, and disrespectful person like Carrow constitute 'torture' by any definition. I hardly think 5 seconds of pain even for a nice person constitutes 'torture'; it's mean, brutal, and nasty, but it doesn't quite cross the line into torture. And for the record, 'Crucio' doesn't mean 'torture', it means 'torment' in Latin. [HP Lexicon] So says I. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 06:44:04 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:44:04 -0000 Subject: Imperiused Mad-Eye In-Reply-To: <46B699CE.3080808@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174625 --- Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > In Goblet of Fire, we find DE/Moody teaching the > students how to resist the Imperius Curse, and Harry > getting it more or less right on his very first go. > ... Yet, when the real Mad-Eye is found at the bottom > of his trunk, ... he has been Imperiused all year. > > So how is it that Mad-Eye, ... is unable to do what > even a fourth-year Hogwarts student was able to do > first time out of the starting blocks? > > Lee Kaiwen, bboyminn: Who says Real!Moody can't resist the curse? Likely in the time he is left alone, he does try to fight it, but he is still trapped in a trunk. Further, every time fake!Moody needs to talk to real!Moody, he probably refreshes the Imperius Curse just to make sure. So, even if Moody has fought it, he then meets a new force of control. Also, yes, a fourth year was able to resist, but Moody tried it on every student in the school, and out of them all, Harry was the only one that we know of who was able to shake it off. It seems to be a rare ability. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From angellima at xtra.co.nz Mon Aug 6 07:33:29 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (angellima at xtra.co.nz) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 19:33:29 +1200 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic Message-ID: <17016214.1186385609072.JavaMail.root@sf1439> No: HPFGUIDX 174626 Carol: I don't think we disagree, actually, although it's possible that you didn't understand my point. (It's hard to disagree with the definition of an established literary term like "third-person limited omniscient narrator" and you seem to acknowledge that the narrator is a creation of the author.) You snipped the part of the post which shows how Harry's perception starts out as inaccurate and becomes accurate at the end. I wasn't talking about the reader at all, just the difference between narrator and author--one of several forms of misdirection that JKR uses, detectable by a sophisticated reader. Carol, who thinks that arguing against the definition of a literary term is like arguing against the definition of a refrigerator: it is what it is Angel: You're right. Arguing against a definition is futile and rather stupid though I doodle on the line of stupidity , defying that definition was not my intention . I was actually arguing against the author's voice being limited because of the limits imposed by the third person narrative. Any of the examples you have listed, will do nicely to demonstrate so. Carol: All I'm saying is simply that Harry's perception of events as presented by the narrator is not and never has been the same as the author's view. By the end of the book, however, he has most of the answers he's been seeking (note his insistence on learning the truth about Dumbledore) as well as answers he wasn't seeking: He thought he wanted revenge on Snape and instead he nderstandins and forgives him. Angel: Oh! Maybe I should retrack and read the entire thread on this, what I understood of "voice" "view" was not what the author was seeing but what the author was saying. If it is indeed what she sees then I would have to wholeheartedly agree, of course! She is afterall the puppeteer and Harry, the puppet. If it is the latter, then my original position stands. An author's voice is unlimited despite the limitations of his/her narrator. From sonjaaiston at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 08:17:26 2007 From: sonjaaiston at yahoo.com (sonjaaiston) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:17:26 -0000 Subject: Descendents of the Peverells, WAS: Question: Cadmus Peverell & Voldermort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174627 > > Victoria: > > Is Gaunt a descendant of Cadmus Peverell? > Katie: > I don't believe that it is said whether Marvolo Gaunt is a DIRECT > descendant. He could be descended from one of the other Peverell > brothers > If that's true, and the Gaunts are not directly descended from > Cadmus, then the ring could easily have gone to the Potters ... > descendents of Ignotius. If Marvolo Gaunt is descended from the Peverell's and Harry is descended from the Peverell's, that would make Voldemort and Harry distant relatives! Or maybe I'm confused! --Sonja From sonjaaiston at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 08:41:14 2007 From: sonjaaiston at yahoo.com (sonjaaiston) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:41:14 -0000 Subject: Doe Patronus Question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174628 Regarding the doe patronus and the first time Harry saw it: On Pgs. 366-367, it says "At last she came to a halt. She turned her beautiful head toward him once more, and he broke into a run, a question burning in him, but as he opened his lips to ask it, she vanished." I keep wondering what question is burning in him. IMO, it seems to be more than just, "Who cast this patronus?" When I first read this passage(before I knew it was Snape's,) I thought it seemed like he knew something about this particular patronus and wanted to ask something important. Is it possible he knew his mom's patronus was a doe? Did he suspect some connection to his dad (doe/stag)? Was there some other question instead? Or am I just reading too much into it? Sonja From marianne at twcny.rr.com Mon Aug 6 08:46:55 2007 From: marianne at twcny.rr.com (marelovinglife) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:46:55 -0000 Subject: Did Snape really care for Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174629 Hi! I have my own theory on this ... that while Snape did NOT care for Harry, he did in fact despise Voldemort for killing Lily. (I imagine he felt as a good servant Voldemort would reward him with Lily) As Harry was destined (by prophecy) to be the one who COULD destroy Voldemort, I wonder if any consideration Snape had for Harry was due to the fact that (through Harry) Voldey would get his "due". In DH, JK shows Snape is (seemingly) so tortured by the thought of what could have been with Lily - that I imagine any time he saw Harry his mind pulsed with what could have been, the child they could have had together ... and the pain was only softened by the fact that Harry had Lily's eyes and in looking at them he could see a part of Lily. That's my 2 cents. Mare From salilouisa at googlemail.com Mon Aug 6 10:48:47 2007 From: salilouisa at googlemail.com (Sali Morris) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 11:48:47 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione & patronus was Re:Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174630 Angel: When I say fail - I mean in the same sense that Hermione fails or 'has a problem' with the Patronus charm. Which come to think of it - is weird, there has never been an implication of "unhappiness" in her life, why then she excels at all other spells and flounders on Expecto Patronum is worrying especially since evil Umbridge cast a corporeal cat that though not as bright and warm as Harry's stag still created a barrier of warmth and light from the Dementors (even with Voldemort close to her heart, so to speak). Because I had earlier assumed the Patronus was innately good magic that cannot be tapped into by impure entities I am rebuffing the explanation Harry gave of Umbridge enthralled with her power (over people) thus able to cast a Patronus, but of course things were a bit topsy turvy in DH so would accept otherwise! Sali: I think that Hermione has a problem with the Patronus charm mainly because it relies on a very strong emotion. Not to say that Hermione doesn't experience strong emotions but she is very much a 'scientist'. Her ability at magic is related to her intellect and she needs proof before accepting something as fact. The Patronus charm requires the strong emotion primarily (and then magical ability) whereas Hermione is used to relying on her innate magical ability, perhaps a more quantifiable resource than the more nebulous think happy thoughts. Umbridge takes such pleasure in the pain that she causes that she is able to produce her Patronus by using that happiness. Warped though the emotion is, it is still very real and strong. I don't see the Patronus charm as necessarily being good. It is generally perceived as good more for it's dementor repelling effect than for any intrinsic quality. The fact that it can be used for other purposes (such as communication) underlines, for me, that it is just another tool. Sali From snifsmak at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 11:29:39 2007 From: snifsmak at yahoo.com (Natalie) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:29:39 -0000 Subject: Hermione crying Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174631 This is my second post only so hello again... I've read DH twice and both times I felt strange when I saw Hermione crying when I didn't think it was natural to cry. I can think of 2 instances now but I suspect there were more. First was at Bill's wedding when Kingsley's patronus announced that the ministry had fallen and the trio had to run. Hermione was described as "half sobbing" as she and Harry tried to find Ron in the crowd. Later she was again weeping while she was on the dragon after breaking out of Gringotts. I felt odd when I saw her cry both times, as I don't think it was natural for anybody to cry during these extreme emergencies, when you are more confused than scared, and especially not Hermione. She was always the one with the escape plan, the one who pulled them out of tight spots. If she sheds a few tears afterwards when she'd calmed down and had to get over the aftermaths of those extreme actions, I can totally understand... Yet I think it's a bit out of character for her to cry as soon as something happens! I don't think Jo is ever sexist and writes with sexual stereotypes, but these instances strike me as odd. Cheers Natalie From trog at wincom.net Mon Aug 6 12:01:33 2007 From: trog at wincom.net (Dennis Grant) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:01:33 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174632 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > colebiancardi: > > Well, I call it torture. > words like writhed, drowning, thrashing, howling in pain, crumpled, > insensible - JKR picked those words and it certainly sounds like > torture to me. No, that's PAIN. Inflicting pain is not, in of itself, torture. Torture is the act of inflicting prolonged pain, either as a form of coercion, or for the sheer enjoyment of inflicting pain. *This* would be torture: > Harry shouted, "Crucio!" > The Death Eater was lifted off his feet. He writhed through the air > like a drown man, thrashing and howling in pain, and then, with a > crunch and a shattering of glass, he smashed into the front of a > bookcase and crumpled, insensible, to the floor. "Oh no", said Harry, "you're not getting off that easily". He pointed his wand at the unconscious Death Eater "Revivo!" Carrow's eyes flickered open. "That's better", said Harry, "I want you to feel this" "Crucio!" Pinned by the beam lancing from Harry's wand, Carrow screamed a high, piercing scream that chocked out his own pleas for mercy. He writhed and twisted so violently that he seemed likely to snap his own spine. Harry held him, screaming and gibbering, for a full five minutes, stopping only when Carrow managed to knock himself unconscious by pounding his head repeatedly on the hard stone floor. "I see what Bellatrix meant," said Harry, the blood thundering through his brain, "you need to really mean it" See the difference? *That* is torture. No matter what the spell itself is called, its effect is to inflict pain. That's not enough to qualify as torture de facto - it depends on how it is used. Harry uses it to immobilize - in which, per canon, it is effective - and he switches it off as soon as his target is down. That is not torture. DG From trog at wincom.net Mon Aug 6 12:03:17 2007 From: trog at wincom.net (Dennis Grant) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:03:17 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio -- Code of the Playground In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174633 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > So please - if you want to keep patting Harry on the back for using > Crucio, fine, but don't drag soldiers into it. They don't deserve the > comparison. Some of us *are* soldiers. DG From leahstill at hotmail.com Mon Aug 6 12:58:44 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:58:44 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174634 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Grant" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > > > colebiancardi: > > > > Well, I call it torture. > > > words like writhed, drowning, thrashing, howling in pain, crumpled, > > insensible - JKR picked those words and it certainly sounds like > > torture to me. Dennis Grant: > > No, that's PAIN. Inflicting pain is not, in of itself, torture. > Torture is the act of inflicting prolonged pain, either as a form of > coercion, or for the sheer enjoyment of inflicting pain. > No matter what the spell itself is called, its effect is to inflict > pain. That's not enough to qualify as torture de facto - it depends on > how it is used. > > Harry uses it to immobilize - in which, per canon, it is effective - > and he switches it off as soon as his target is down. That is not torture. > > DG Leah: Concise Oxford Dictionary: n. 1. the infliction of severe bodily pain esp. as a punishment or a means of persuasion. 2. severe physical or mental suffering Nothing there about the pain having to be prolonged. If I was put on the rack and gave up everything the torturers wanted to hear after the first stretch, I would still have been tortured, just as someone who was racked for an hour would have been tortured. Carrow is drowning, writhing,howling, thrashing in pain. Harry has inflicted severe bodily pain upon him. Harry could have immobilised Carrow with Stupefy!. He chose to use Crucio as a punishment. It may be that Carrow is scum, that Harry is justified, that he doesn't prolong the act. All of those things may extenuate what Harry did. They don't make it not torture. Leah From va32h at comcast.net Mon Aug 6 12:59:52 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:59:52 -0000 Subject: Hermione crying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174635 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Natalie" wrote: > >First was at Bill's wedding when Kingsley's patronus announced that >the ministry had fallen and the trio had to run. Hermione was >described as "half sobbing" as she and Harry tried > to find Ron in the crowd. va32h: Here I would suspect that Hermione is crying because there are Death Eaters apparating all over the place, and since she is extremely fond of Ron, she is very worried that he will be killed before they find him. She is also worried about herself and Harry getting killed, and since Hermione isn't totally heartless, probably worried in general about everyone else at the wedding. She is also probably scared - a major coup has just taken place and what will that mean for all of them? Natalie: >Later she was again weeping while she was on the dragon after > breaking out of Gringotts. va32h: Here I would suspect she is crying because she suffered several hideous burns inside the Lestrange vault. Natalie: >I felt odd when I saw her cry both times, as I don't think it was > natural for anybody to cry during these extreme emergencies, when > you are more confused than scared, and especially not Hermione. > I don't think Jo is ever sexist and writes with sexual stereotypes, > but these instances strike > me as odd. va32h: Well, I can't agree tht it's unnatural to cry under moments of stress and confusion (and great pain). Or as a cathartic release moments after the stress and confusion has ended. I would also say that Hermione cries quite a bit in the series. She cries when Harry and Ron aren't speaking, and then again when they are. She cries when Ron agrees to help her with Buckbeak's appeal way back in PoA. Heck, moments after she meets the trio is PS, she is described as speaking in a very "sniffy" voice. Hermione cries. I don't find it sexist though. Harry, for all his praise of Ginny for never crying, tears up plenty of times himself. And Ron's anguished sobs for Hermione in the Malfoy Manor chapter certainly rival any boo- hooing that Hermione got up to in the book. va32h From CariadMel at aol.com Mon Aug 6 13:54:47 2007 From: CariadMel at aol.com (Annette) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:54:47 -0000 Subject: Hermione crying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174636 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Natalie" wrote: > > > > I've read DH twice and both times I felt strange when I saw Hermione crying when I didn't > think it was natural to cry. > > > > First was at Bill's wedding when Kingsley's patronus announced that the ministry had fallen > and the trio had to run. Hermione was described as "half sobbing" as she and Harry tried > to find Ron in the crowd. Later she was again weeping while she was on the dragon after > breaking out of Gringotts. I felt odd when I saw her cry both times, as I don't think it was > natural for anybody to cry during these extreme emergencies, when you are more > confused than scared, and especially not Hermione. > > > cariad now: In your fisrt example I feel that Hermione was shocked and started to cry. Understandably so, they were celebrating a happy event;she must have been distraught amidst the chaos, separated from Ron, fearful. Maybe, just in those nano-seconds she'd see a vision of what the future held for them all, and it terrified her. After Gringotts, maybe relief, surely, pain from all the burns and witnessing her friends burning too. The gnome's betrayal of the sword must have been the last straw.And it was a close call. I cried/gasped/smiled more reading this book than any other HP, maybe Hermione was truly reflecting what most of us were reading as a story. cariad. > From muellem at bc.edu Mon Aug 6 14:02:27 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:02:27 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174637 > > colebiancardi > > > (sure the DE's use these spells - but that doesn't make it right > for > > the Trio or the Order to use them either. Wrong is wrong, imho) > > > Alla: > > So, was it wrong for Snape to use AK? I mean, if one unforgivable > spell can be NOT unforgivable sometimes, why the others cannot? > colebiancardi: yes, it WAS wrong for Snape to use the AK. I still have not seen any resolution, via canon, that he actually used the AK on DD. Remember all the threads on Snape & the AK prior to DH's? I tried to bring it up the other day, if anyone had found canon in DH's that it was a true AK that Snape used, and not a non-verbal spell masked as an AK. DD doesn't ask Snape to use an AK to kill him at all - the bit about Snape worrying about his soul is about the killing DD; not the use of an Unforgiveable Curse. DD tells Snape that only Snape will know if it will harm his (Snape's) "soul to help an old man avoid pain & humiliation" p 683 US ed There is no mention of AK in this passage. Obviously, the intent behind the killing determines the damage to one's soul. We used to have discussions if all killings damage the soul; it seems that DD's words put that baby to rest :) As another poster brought up earlier, I believe it was Carol, DD might have wanted a more private death, not such a public one. Snape avoids using Imperius on Dung - he instead uses a confunding spell. I believe that Snape does avoid using Unforgiveables, which until canon proves otherwise, I don't believe he used an AK on DD in HBP. colebiancardi (but even if he did, it *was* still wrong) From random832 at fastmail.us Mon Aug 6 14:07:01 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:07:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry and Betrayal in DH - some issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1186409221.4831.1203961401@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174638 "gwen_of_the_oaks" said: > But while I'm not necessarily thrilled with the idea that one should > rely on white lies to get a deal done, the plot-line sits poorly with > me for a different reason: the theme of mistreatment of other magical > creatures. After Bill's speech about cheating the Goblins and how they > view ownership of their creations, what are we to think? I tried to ignore that, because it is (as with a lot of details in the HP world) rather incoherent. Remember, we're told in OOTP that Galleons etc are made by goblins. How's the monetary system supposed to work, then? And if an item is only 'owned' by the individual goblin who made it, that means that there are no 'true' ownership rights in the object _at all_ after that individual goblin dies - his heirs have no better claim on such 'ownership' than those of the wizard who paid for it. Also, it seems that far from being the financial/legal geniuses of fanfiction, Goblins are too incompetent to spell out the terms of a simple lease contract. -- Random832 From kennclark at btinternet.com Mon Aug 6 14:12:19 2007 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:12:19 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: <944827.10675.qm@web30215.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174639 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, career advisor wrote: > If the idea is that she should teach people to be saints, the answer I'll give to that is that the reason most saints end up being martyrs is that they don't fight back. JKR is not trying to teach her readers to be Martyrs, but she is trying to teach them to be courageous and yes sometimes you have to do evil to fight evil and one of the things that makes evil evil is that it makes good people, do lesser evil to combat it. As I have Draco say to Pansy in one of my fanfics: 'To worry about your rights (or the rights of others) when your life is at stake is a philosophy that will leave you dead.' Ken says: Exactly. Would we berate the concentration camp inmates who escaped for killing the SS guards on the way out? This is war and war consists of eliminating the opposition in the most effective way possible before they eliminate you. Personally I would have executed Bellatrix etc while they were still in Azkhaban to ensure that they could not escape and do to me what they had already done to countless others - Neville's parents included. But I would not terms such acts "evil" Things and people are not good or evil and we must remember that one persons evil is anothers courageous. Some people consider Bush as big a terrorist as bin Laden, in fact many consider the USA as the terrorist nation par excellence. Motes and beams. Ken From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 15:05:06 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 08:05:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <807581.94277.qm@web55003.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174640 > > colebiancardi > > > (sure the DE's use these spells - but that doesn't make it right > for > > the Trio or the Order to use them either. Wrong is wrong, imho) > > > Alla: > > So, was it wrong for Snape to use AK? I mean, if one unforgivable > spell can be NOT unforgivable sometimes, why the others cannot? > colebiancardi: >yes, it WAS wrong for Snape to use the AK. I still have not seen any >resolution, via canon, that he actually used the AK on DD. Remember >all the threads on Snape & the AK prior to DH's? I tried to bring it >up the other day, if anyone had found canon in DH's that it was a true >AK that Snape used, and not a non-verbal spell masked as an AK. Christy: Why do we find it so difficult to take things at face value? There is nothing in canon to suggest it wasn't Avada Kedavra that Snape used to kill Dumbledore. Since they are the words he said and Dumbledore died, I'm inclined to believe that's the spell he used. And, I can't think of any time someone verbally said one spell while nonverbally using another. Did I miss something? (If so, someone please cite the exact occurrence.) Yes, JKR uses foreshadowing, yes JKR leaves us clues and in doing so titillates, and yes JKR leaves some things to our own interpretations (and look how much fun we're having because of it), but I can't recall JKR intentionally misleading us, at least not without resolution (e.g., we, along with the characters, where misled when Barty Crouch, Jr. posed as Mad Eye for an entire school year; but, we, like the characters, learned the truth). >Snape avoids using Imperius on Dung - he instead uses a confunding >spell. I believe that Snape does avoid using Unforgiveables, which >until canon proves otherwise, I don't believe he used an AK on DD in HBP. >(but even if he did, it *was* still wrong) Christy: Based on Harry's experiences with Imperius and I think Rosemerda's (I don't have my copy of HBP with me, so I admittedly can't be sure of that), and based on the fact that some wizards claimed they were under Imperious during Voldemort's first rise to power, there seems to be a certain awareness of being under Imperious -- at least after the fact (and in the case of someone who can resist it, like Harry, awareness during the fact). Snape couldn't very well have Dung remembering that he talked to Snape and got the idea of using decoys from him. So, in this case, the Confundus Charm was more appropriate than the Imperius Curse whether or not Snape might have wanted to use and regardless of being an "Unforgiveable." There has been much said about Harry enjoying using the Cruciatus Curse on Carrow. I don't see that -- yes, he meant it and he meant it to punish. But, I don't see that as being the same as enjoying it. (If he enjoyed it, then it would have replaced Expelliarmus as his signature spell. Voldemort obviously enjoys using, Bella obviously enjoys using it, and I can and do make a distinction between how they use it and how Harry uses it.) I think Snape meant it when he used Avada Kedavra to kill Dumbledore (and no one will convince me that he didn't use that spell because JKR tells me he did in HBP), but I don't think he enjoyed killing Dumbledore. Did Harry have to use the Cruciatus on Carrow? No. Did he consider himself justified in using it? Yes. Was it morally wrong? Yes, I believe so; but I also understand what could drive him to use it given everything he has learned, seen, and experienced up to the point he used it and can therefore forgive him and not hold it against him. Now, if he made a habit of using it...that would be different. But, we have no reason to think that he does...it was an isolated incident in the heat of the moment... Christy --------------------------------- Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 6 15:45:30 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:45:30 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio (was: Code of the Playground) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174641 "va32h" wrote: > I have NO PROBLEM with JKR choosing > to show Harry USING Crucio. I am > disgusted with her choice to have > him ENJOY it The part of your post that confuses me is that you are not disgusted with Harry you are disgusted with JKR, you are disgusted with a writer for pointing out a very real danger that can occur if you fight evil too intensely for too long. That Harry could experience what he has and done nothing worse than aim one Crucio at a monster and be grumpy with his friends a few times is remarkable. I'm not proud of it but I really think if I'd endured one tenth of what Harry had I would not be a very nice man, as a matter of fact I think I would be able to give Hannibal Lecter a run for his money. But then, Harry Potter is a better man than me. A previous poster gave a quote from Nietzsche thinking it bolstered her position when actually it bolstered mine. If your soldier husband doesn't know what I or Nietzsche are talking about then he is an even better man than Harry Potter. "He who fights monsters should be careful lest he thereby becomes a monster. And if thou gaze long into the abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee." Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From trog at wincom.net Mon Aug 6 15:50:52 2007 From: trog at wincom.net (Dennis Grant) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:50:52 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174642 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "littleleahstill" wrote: > Leah: > > Concise Oxford Dictionary: n. That's the dictionary definition of the word, not the legal or moral definition of the act; there is a difference. > Nothing there about the pain having to be prolonged. If I was put on > the rack and gave up everything the torturers wanted to hear after > the first stretch, I would still have been tortured, just as someone > who was racked for an hour would have been tortured. But in both cases, you're being racked as a form of coersion. The purpose behind it COUNTS. That's why we have so many legal definitions of acts that are functionally identical - one person killing another. We differentiate between killing by accident, killing in self-defense, killing in the line of lawful duty, killing by neglect, killing with intent in the heat of passion, and killing with premeditated intent and in cold blood. One form is considered perfectly acceptable, while another is considered heinous and evil - and yet both meet the same dictionary definition. Harry doesn't torture Carrow; he incapacitates him by inflicting intense pain on him. The choice of methods is perhaps a little unusual, and perhaps Harry's intent included elements of chastisement or poetic justice. Would some other technique have worked as well? Who can say; it's easy to second-guess decisions made in the heat of battle by people who weren't there, and in this case we are talking about fictional weaponry which may have other considerations of which we are not aware (Crucio seems to have telekinetic properties as well as pain inflicting ones - Harry's Crucio flings Carrow across the room, and Vody's Crucio is used to toy with Harry's "corpse") The use of Crucio vice some other spell is quite literally inarguable, as there is no way to know if an alternative would have worked, and the Crucio he *did* use was demonstratively effective. Carrow was eliminated as a threat, and he still had his life - that's a mercy in my book. As far as the issue of remorse goes, remorse doesn't show up on a battlefield; it shows up far later. And it's not the act itself that does the most damage - it's the fact that one took pleasure in the act at the time. Col Grossman's work on this has been seminal (see http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316330116 for more information) Harry doesn't "come down" from battle until the epilogue; at no time do we see him at the point where he is really dealing with all the terms of the battles he has just fought. We see the *start* of that process in the last chapter, but just the tip of the iceberg, and there are other incidents competing for Harry's attention other than his Crucio-ing Carrow. It is entirely possible Harry spent more than a few nightmare-wracked nights agonizing over that decision; we don't know. JKR doesn't tell us. But his lack of *immediate* remorse doesn't bother me at all - that's the typical human response to combat. He took Carrow out, a threat has been eliminated, and he feels pretty happy about that, and that is 100% NORMAL. Remorse, if any, will come later. DG From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 16:07:21 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:07:21 -0000 Subject: Who originally owned Dobby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174643 - > Bambalita: > I think Dobby was "loyal". When he tried to tell Harry why he was in > danger he kept beating himself up over it...so he was being loyal to > the Malfoys by not saying who was involved only that Harry was in > danger. Finwitch: Yes-- the sort that Kreacher had, too. Apparently a house-elf is not exactly forced to obey - but, because Master's bidding is house-elf's highest law - a disobedient elf will immediately punish himself. (We see that with Kreacher). I think closest analogy to the 'highest law' here is Religion- and, while most are devoted to serve their masters, Dobby's something of an atheist, having no master and being happy about it - still observing house-elf *manners* to a point. Finwitch From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Aug 6 16:10:30 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 12:10:30 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House elves question Message-ID: <15882699.1186416630630.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174644 Mary: >I agree with not wanting anyone, whether house elf or Imperioed! >wizard, to be a slave, why is it so hard to understand that some beings like to >clean and are proud of their work? It doesn't matter whether you are a house >elf, muggle, wizard, or Martha Stewart, if you like to make things clean, you >like to make things clean. Bart: I wasn't planning on commenting on this issue today, but you have brought up two very important issues. I recall when feminism first came into its own in the early 70's, there was a major pendulum swing (which still has not swung back to the center), where if a woman stayed home to organize the inner part of a married couple's life, and care for children, that she was somehow betraying the feminist movement, and was not achieving her full potential; that working without being paid was somehow below a woman's dignity. Now, Occam's Razor suggests that, when we create hypotheses, we choose the ones that are easiest to test as theories first (btw, that is a far more accurate restatement of Occam's Razor than the more common, "The simplest explanation is most likely the best one."). Now, of course, in analyzing literature, the "bad writer" is always the easiest to test hypothesis of any peculiarity in the work. In other words, JKR created house elves out of whole cloth, and didn't really worry about HOW they got the psychology they currently have. Unfortunately, that is also unsatisfying to the reader. But, with no way of digging into the past, the best we can do is work with the present, and extrapolate backwards. Pretty much all beings with any kind of a brain are motivated primarily by pleasure/pain; our psychologies encourage us to do that which causes pleasure, and avoid that which causes pain. Sentient beings are capable of going further; they are willing to relinquish current pleasure, or even accept pain, in return for greater future pleasure. From what we have seen of house elves, they derive a tremendous amount of pleasure from a job well-done, and even more from appreciation for a job well done. They are bonded with a wizard or wizard family, and appreciation from them creates an even stronger pleasure response. Lack of appreciation is uncomfortable, and displeasure on the part of the wizard(s) with whom they are bonded creates actual pain; the self-punishment is the proverbial dog who eats food so bad that he licks his posterior to get rid of the taste. Being an appreciated slave creates a tremendous amount of pleasure in the house elf, to the level of an addiction; being set free means that the pleasure of being appreciated by a bonded master is no longer possible, which is a horrible thing. The only way I could see an elf WANTING to be free is if his master NEVER shows ANY appreciation; if one considers the house elf slavery to be an addictive behavior, an unappreciative master can actually break the addiction. Now, here's where I take a leap. Trying to find a way this could have evolved naturally, I cannot succeed. Therefore, waxing Sherlockian, it makes sense that this did NOT evolve naturally, that house elves are an engineered species rather than a natural one. Which brings up the question, WHICH species were turned into house elves? Was it a non-sentient form of life, who were somehow given sentience, or was it a higher form of life, that was enslaved. I'm really hoping it was the former; that Dobby was evolutionary, not atavistic. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if it wasn't Bart From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 6 16:11:42 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:11:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/Grindlewald duel. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174645 "Donna" wrote: > How did Dumbledore win the duel with > Grindelwald when he had an unbeatable wand??? Harry did not have more raw magical ability than Tom Riddle and yet he managed to kill him because he was braver and smarter than Tom Riddle. The Elder Wand was the most powerful wand in the world but whoever gave it the name "unbeatable" was obviously engaging in a bit of hyperbole as history is full of instances where the master of the wand gets murdered. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Aug 6 16:17:02 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:17:02 -0000 Subject: The Message of DH (WAS: Unforgivables - from a different angle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174646 Ceridwen: > These books did not, in the end, show what we should > be trying to do. The message is conflicting. We should > not be like the Bad Guys, yet the Good Guys can be as > much like the Bad as they like. There is no higher message, > no means of rising above. Everyone is as devious as the > next person, therefore, Good and Bad must be relevant > to who is on Our Side and who is Against Us. The books, > to me, actually say, "If you are not for Harry, you are > against him." Is it surprising that people don't care > for that message? Julie: > We (at least many of us) *wanted* to see the series > end with the Good Guys showing moral superiority over > the Bad Guys, even though they generally failed to do > so throughout the previous books. houyhnhnm: That is what I wanted, too. The story *seemed* to be about good and evil and how to live your life. Lately I have been wondering if the theme Rowling was really persuing was not how to live, but how to die. Although she apparantly conceived the idea of an orphaned boy who finds out he's a wizard, before her mother's death, the work was begun in earnest after the death. Maybe Harry's journey turned into Rowling's, struggling with the idea of death, fear of one's own death and fear of loss of loved ones by death. In other words, HP is not the story of a boy wizard struggling with evil but a grown woman struggling with her own mortality. Maybe it would be more productive to examine the books in terms of how successful she was in developing this theme, rather than in looking for a moral consistancy which isn't there about making choices in this world. I don't have the time or energy to go back through all the books and try to compose such an essay and I'm not sure I would be any happier with the books than I am right now, but doing so might explain some of the inconsistancies that we are all wrestling with. I don't think my attitude towards death is very much like Rowling's. Although I am afraid of death, I doubt if I share either her indignation at its existence or her certainty that it can be overcome. I've always thought that right way to deal with death lies in living properly in this world and making the right moral choices. What lies on the other side (if anything) will takes care of itself when and if we get there. From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Aug 6 16:31:00 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:31:00 -0000 Subject: Hermione & patronus was Re:Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174647 Angel: > Because I had earlier assumed the Patronus was innately > good magic that cannot be tapped into by impure entities > I am rebuffing the explanation Harry gave of Umbridge > enthralled with her power (over people) thus able to > cast a Patronus, but of course things were a bit topsy > turvy in DH so would accept otherwise! houyhnhnm: Umbridge's ability to cast a Patronus threw me, too, when I first read about it. But then I decided it must be the Talking Patronus (a different charm) that is the innately good magic unable to be interferred with by impure entities. Anyone with sufficient magical ability can learn to cast an ordinary mute Patronus. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Aug 6 16:35:38 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:35:38 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174648 Alla: So, was it wrong for Snape to use AK? I mean, if one unforgivable spell can be NOT unforgivable sometimes, why the others cannot? Ceridwen: I know you're asking colebiancardi, but I have an answer from my POV, too. I always thought that Imperius and Avada Kedavra could be used for good purposes (restraining fugitives; euthanasia or execution). If the WW at some point came to the conclusion that these particular spells were 'Unforgivable', then that's their law. There are probably other magical ways to do these things. In fact, I went on flights of fancy and imagined that, perhaps, the AK was used for compassionate executions, then executing people for wrongdoing became illegal and so that curse became 'Unforgivable', too. In the time frame of the stories, they are 'Unforgivable' and merit incarceration in Azkaban. Which, when it hosted Dementors, was another issue altogether. Given what DD said about saving him from pain and humiliation, then morally, I don't think Snape's AK was wrong. Within those parameters, I don't think his soul was ripped. However, given that it is illegal and merits incarceration, then it was wrong in that context. The law, as we know it, would have made some sort of allowances, I think, for DD's wishes (with Snape's memory in a Pensieve for review) and all the reasons of the war, planting a spy, etc. But, I think there would have been a formal hearing, if not a trial, because of it. That would be the only way to satisfy the law, in my opinion. Alla: Again, let me stress I am perfectly fine with thinking that Harry made a mistake in using Crucio and should not do so. As I said upthread I still do not see convincing counterargument for Sirius' words, but it seems to me with the use of AK for perfectly benign purposes, JKR left the door very open for the argument that intent of the caster is what matters and NOT spell itself. Ceridwen: The only Unforgivable for which I could not find a good or benign purpose was the Cruciatus curse. Imperius can restrain fugitives, it can restrain violent, ill people. AK can kill quickly, cleanly, and apparently without pain, for Euthanasia or for execution. But the only reason which has been presented to us in canon for the Cruciatus, is to torture. To want to cause pain. Even flights of fancy couldn't give me any other reason than torture to use this curse. It can't heal, it can't restrain, it can't kill painlessly and humanely. It doesn't give the recipient any guidance, as incarceration does. To me, this curse is worse than Umbridge's blood quill. I haven't seen a counterargument for Sirius's words, either. Nothing, in this or any other thread discussing the use of these curses, has changed my mind. Arguments go from wanting to have a true-to-life hero who has feet of clay, to saying that it is the intent that counts, not the legality or illegality, the moral or immoral, purpose of the curses. I'm not against a hero with feet of clay. I like my heroes imperfect, because I'm imperfect. I'm not against realistic portrayals of personality. The arguments, to me anyway, have just gone against themselves - a realistic hero in an unrealistic world, where the Good can break the law without repercussions while the bad are defined as Bad by the same acts. Sirius was against Crouch's allowance of the Unforgivables in wartime. For two of those curses, I would argue with him. For the Cruciatus, he is absolutely right, in my opinion, because there is no good reason for it that I can find or imagine. Even though I would argue with Sirius, his words are canon. Crouch is looked down on by the Good Guys for having made that exception. Alla: I am really waffling still and the description of the scene that you brought up really does make it sound like torture to me and NOT just a little of pain to immobilise, but I do think that Mike made very very sound argument. Ceridwen: It's on page 593, Scholastic hardcover, chapter 30. Harry was under his cloak. Amycus's threatening the Ravenclaws with torture and possible death didn't move him out from under the cloak. Then, Amycus spat: "Harry pulled the Cloak off himself, raised his wand, and said, "You shouldn't have done that." As Amycus spun around, Harry shouted, *Crucio!*"" (*=italics) The rest is in colebiancardi's post. Harry could have immobilized Amycus from ambush. Apparently, Amycus wasn't even facing Harry, he had to spin around when he heard Harry's voice. At the least, he had his profile to Harry. Harry had the element of surprise but gave it up. He wanted to torture Amycus Carrow. To this point, McGonagall was holding her own with AC in a verbal bout. Amycus raised the bar for action, but not quite that much, IMO. If it had been a little different, if Amycus put McG under Crucio, or worse, if he had killed her or tried to kill her, then sure, I can see Harry losing his temper and retaliating in kind. I can also see him struggling with this later, if not at the moment. But with the element of surprise on Harry's side, it seems to me that, as the Good Guy and symbol for Good in the books, he should have used a body bind, or a stunning spell coupled with a body bind - something less than a curse which can only torture. This is my opinion on that scene. YYMV. Ceridwen. From dreadr at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 15:20:02 2007 From: dreadr at yahoo.com (dreadr) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:20:02 -0000 Subject: Descendents of the Peverells, WAS: Question: Cadmus Peverell & Voldermort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174649 Victoria: > > > Is Gaunt a descendant of Cadmus Peverell? Katie: > > I don't believe that it is said whether Marvolo Gaunt is a DIRECT > > descendant. He could be descended from one of the other Peverell > > brothers > > > If that's true, and the Gaunts are not directly descended from > > Cadmus, then the ring could easily have gone to the Potters ... > > descendents of Ignotius. > Sonja: > If Marvolo Gaunt is descended from the Peverell's and Harry is > descended from the Peverell's, that would make Voldemort and Harry > distant relatives! Or maybe I'm confused! No, you are not confused. Jo stated in one of her interviews (Bloomsbury, I think) that Voldemort and Harry are distantly related. debbie From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 16:46:06 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:46:06 -0000 Subject: Descendents of the Peverells, WAS: Question: Cadmus Peverell & Voldermort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174650 Sonja: - > If Marvolo Gaunt is descended from Peverell that would make Voldemort and Harry > distant relatives! Or maybe I'm confused! Finwitch: Well, yes. But Very distant - more than that of the Founders, considering that Founders are part of known history, if also faded to legend in part; Peverell brothers are MYTH, or even older: a fairy tale. Estimation about 3000 years or so. Finwitch From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Aug 6 17:41:32 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:41:32 -0000 Subject: Doe Patronus Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174651 Sonja: > On Pgs. 366-367, it says "At last she came to a halt. > She turned her beautiful head toward him once more, and > he broke into a run, a question burning in him, but as > he opened his lips to ask it, she vanished." > I keep wondering what question is burning in him. IMO, > it seems to be more than just, "Who cast this patronus?" houyhnhnm: There is an awful lot of deer mythology, including the symbolic association of hunting a hind with the pursuit of wisdom. In Erasmo de Valvasone's "La Caccia", the hind of the fairies led Arthur into a cave, then out on the far side of the mountain, to Morgan's palace. He was shown the heavens and the earth to give him guidance for the future. Harry is a Seeker who is persuing a white hind, so naturally he has to have a burning question. I'm not sure it's meant to be as concrete as "Who cast this patronus?" In Mary Stewart's _The Hollow Hills_, Arthur pursued a white stag across the lake to the Isle of Glass where Merlin had hidden the sword of Macsen Wledig. Harry was led by a white hind to Godric Gryffindor's sword in a frozen pond. From CariadMel at aol.com Mon Aug 6 17:46:13 2007 From: CariadMel at aol.com (Annette) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:46:13 -0000 Subject: Descendents of the Peverells, WAS: Question: Cadmus Peverell & Voldermort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174652 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > Sonja: > - > > If Marvolo Gaunt is descended from Peverell that would make > Voldemort and Harry > > distant relatives! Or maybe I'm confused! > > Finwitch: > > Well, yes. But Very distant - more than that of the Founders, > considering that Founders are part of known history, if also faded to > legend in part; Peverell brothers are MYTH, or even older: a fairy tale. > > Estimation about 3000 years or so. > > Finwitch > ********** Then how come that Ignotus Peverell is buried in a Christian cemetery in the English West Country. He being the third brother, owner of the Invisible Cloak and ancestor of James and Harry Potter. The cloak, handed down through generations, can't be older than Ignotus himself. cariad From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Aug 6 17:52:45 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 13:52:45 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Descendents of the Peverells, WAS: Question: Cadmus Peverell & Voldermort Message-ID: <4985777.1186422765708.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174653 From: sonjaaiston >If Marvolo Gaunt is descended from the Peverell's and Harry is >descended from the Peverell's, that would make Voldemort and Harry >distant relatives! Or maybe I'm confused! Bart: I am somewhat loathe to do this, because I doubt that JKR had this in mind, but... There are about 3-4 generations per century. Let's say, to be conservative, 3. Now, assuming no intermarriage between cousins, and 2 children per marriage, in 2000 years, you get about a billion people. Since there are far fewer than a billion people in the British WW, then a lot of intermarriage between, at most, distant cousins must have occurred. Or, to put it another way, if Harry and Voldemort were NOT related, THAT would be call for surprise. Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 18:32:08 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:32:08 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174654 > colebiancardi: > > yes, it WAS wrong for Snape to use the AK. I still have not seen any > resolution, via canon, that he actually used the AK on DD. Remember > all the threads on Snape & the AK prior to DH's? I tried to bring it > up the other day, if anyone had found canon in DH's that it was a true > AK that Snape used, and not a non-verbal spell masked as an AK. Alla: Ok, we agree that it is wrong then :) But on the second point, I think it is up to you ( hypotheticall you, anybody who brings up that this is not AK) to prove that it was not, no? Canon says it was AK. I believe that it was AK. Unless there is an evidence that **it was not one** of course. That's my take on things anyways. I mean, how can you prove the negative? You argue that it was not AK, contrary to canon saying so IMO, so I say it is up to you to provide the evidence ;) JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 18:42:03 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:42:03 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174655 > Alla: > > So, was it wrong for Snape to use AK? I mean, if one unforgivable > spell can be NOT unforgivable sometimes, why the others cannot? > > Ceridwen: > I know you're asking colebiancardi, but I have an answer from my POV, > too. > > I always thought that Imperius and Avada Kedavra could be used for > good purposes (restraining fugitives; euthanasia or execution). If > the WW at some point came to the conclusion that these particular > spells were 'Unforgivable', then that's their law. There are > probably other magical ways to do these things. In fact, I went on > flights of fancy and imagined that, perhaps, the AK was used for > compassionate executions, then executing people for wrongdoing became > illegal and so that curse became 'Unforgivable', too. In the time > frame of the stories, they are 'Unforgivable' and merit incarceration > in Azkaban. Which, when it hosted Dementors, was another issue > altogether. > > Given what DD said about saving him from pain and humiliation, then > morally, I don't think Snape's AK was wrong. Within those > parameters, I don't think his soul was ripped. However, given that > it is illegal and merits incarceration, then it was wrong in that > context. The law, as we know it, would have made some sort of > allowances, I think, for DD's wishes (with Snape's memory in a > Pensieve for review) and all the reasons of the war, planting a spy, > etc. But, I think there would have been a formal hearing, if not a > trial, because of it. That would be the only way to satisfy the law, > in my opinion. Alla: But see that goes towards my point and I believe Mike's. You think that there are situations when AK and Imperius can be used for good purposes, do you not? I mean, correct me if I am wrong at any time if I am misinterpreting your words. But it seems to me that you believe that there are situations when AK and Imperious use will still be illegal, but not Immoral. WHERE in the books before book 7 you see Ministry making that distinction between those three curses? ALL three of them are called Unforgivables, no? The fact that you cannot find a good use for Crucio curse does not mean that it does not exist, no? I almost never bring fanfic into canon arguments, but I think this is a perfect place. The one good use of Crucio I read was to stimulate paralysed patient or something like that. I mean, the healer does not have intent to torture his patients, right? So ALL that I am saying that in light of clear benign use of one Unforgivable the door is opened for the possible benign use of others depending on intent. Was Harry's intent benign? Totally not and as I said even if his intent was to torture, I would not approve, but I forgive him. But I think it is a totally sound argument that his intent was to cause short term pain and immobilisation. I am snipping your thoughts about Sirius' words, since as I said I do not have a satisfactory counterargument to that. Alla. From graynavarre at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 18:24:27 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 11:24:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Deathly Hallows Reaction - Could do Better, Sorry/ Slytherins portrayal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <245523.49387.qm@web30109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174656 > > > Nora A.: > Maybe he was thinking about the bad companies that > Snape had in > Slytherin. If he had been sorted in other house, > maybe the tale would > have been different. If all the students were > together during, say > one year, and then sorted, maybe they could have > asked the Hat for > something different than what they could have > preferred the year > before. > We can imagine that in some future, this idea of > Dumbledore's will be > taken by the school, and the Sorting ceremony will > be changed from a > thousand years tradition. > I hope I made myself clear, and made my point > accurately enough (as > you can see English is not my mother language) > > I see Slytherin House has a place where prejudices can grow and take hold. In DH, when Lily asked Severus if it matter if a person was wizard born or muggle born, he thought about it and said that it didn't. However, after 4-5 years in Slytherin, he is referring to muggle borns as mudbloods. He didn't have that idea in his head before. After becoming a man and seeing the world not through the eyes of boys and girls in Slytherin, he tells P. Black not to say mudblood. I agree that they sort too soon. Barbara From graynavarre at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 18:53:37 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 11:53:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] House elves question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <461025.10827.qm@web30113.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174657 --- que_44601 wrote: > I wondered about this. In DH, the house elves were > fighting in the > kitchen. But, didn't Hermione knit clothing for the > house elves, > therefore making them free? Did Hogwarts then do > without the house > elves or just go out and get more? Didn't anyone > know that it was > Hermione that was freeing them? Shouldn't she have > gotten into trouble > for making the house elves free? > > If I remember correctly, Dobby was collecting them all. He also said that the other house elves were insulted by her leaving the clothing around the room and wouldn't clean there anymore. Barbara From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 19:17:19 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:17:19 -0000 Subject: Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174658 Carol earlier: > >Snip> > And part of that journey, the only part I'm concerned with here, is the clearing of Harry's perception. By the end of the novel, the narrator, reflecting Harry's pov, is no longer unreliable. > > "Dumbledore's betrayal was almost nothing," DH Am. ed. 692) is *one of the last* instances. Another [near-final instance] is "Dumbledore had overestimated him. He had failed" (693). The last instance I can find is "He saw the mouth move and a flash of green light and everything was gone," which tricks us for a second into believing that Harry is dead. > > > Jack-A-Roe: > Don't all those statements actually make the narrator and Harry incorrect? Carol: Exactly. They're the last vestiges of the unreliable narrator. But you're right that they don't follow from the topic sentence of the paragraph, which should have been, "The narrator remains unreliable until the 'King's Cross' chapter, when Harry finally learns the truth about himself and Dumbledore, as well as the solutions to the mysteries." (True, that solution is not as clear as it might be, but that's Dumbledore for you.) My apologies for the nonsequitur. I can see how it could have been confusing to posters unfamiliar with my twelve million or so posts on this topic. *Of course*, DD didn't betray Harry, but Harry and therefore the narrator, thinks he did. Ditto for Harry's "failure" and "death," which of course are as incorrect as "Snape was going to Crucio him into insanity" or some such line in HBP. I realize now that these examples, which illustrate the *last vestiges* of the unreliable narrator, don't follow from the lead-in, which states that the narrator, though still limited to Harry's pov, is no longer unreliable by the end of the book. I jumped the gun a bit. You snipped my next paragraph, which supports the assertion that I made prematurely in the quoted paragraph: "At any rate, by the end of the book, JKR's narrator has become reliable. Harry's pov as reflected by the narrator and JKR's as author have merged. When Harry says that Severus Snape was probably the bravest man he ever knew, we know that JKR believes that, too. And the name of his second son, Albus Severus, shows that he forgave both headmasters, one for his spiteful bitterness redeemed by courage and love, the other for his manipulation, which Harry no longer regards as a betrayal." Let me try again. The narrator, who is limited (most of the time) to Harry's pov is not the author, who knows from the beginning what is really going on and how it will all end. The third-person limited omniscient narrator (a standard literary device) can't know what will happen in the future or what is happening elsewhere or know the thoughts of any character other than Harry. He is limited to what Harry sees, hears, thinks, feels, knows, or thinks he knows, the last being most important in terms of reliability. As long as what Harry "knows" or perceives is different from what the author knows, the narrator will be unreliable. (Think Lemuel Gulliver vs. Jonathan Swift or Huckleberry Finn vs. Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens.) Granted, JKR is using a third-person narrator, who is just a voice telling the story rather than a character, that narrator will be unreliable as long as the character doesn't know what the author knows. An astute reader who knows that JKR tends to use this device (we've been fooled by everything from Thestrals to Mad-Eye Moody) should be alert to the disconnect, anticipating a revelation regarding Snape or Dumbledore that clashes with Harry's perception. As I said before DH came out, "He would never forgive Snape. Never!" in OoP leaped out at me as a statement by the unreliable narrator begging to be overturned. (The plot structure of HBP suggested the same thing.) At the beginning of this book, as throughout the series, neither Harry nor the narrator knows what JKR as author knows. An astute reader can read between the lines, but even we don't know exactly what's going on because we're limited by what Harry hears and sees. (We're free, however, to interpret that information differently than Harry or the narrator does.) As soon as Harry learns "the truth" (which he has been seeking throughout this book, at least regarding Dumbledore and the Hallows and Horcruxes, the truth regarding Snape being something he did not anticipate), the narrator ceases to be unrliable. The disconnect between Harry and the narrator, on the one hand, and the voice of JK Rowling, on the other hand, ends. At the beginning of the book, Snape is presented (by the narrator and by the characters) as the Death Eater who "casually" killed Dumbledore. Scattered throughout the book are clues that this view may not be accurate, for example the "terrible" detention with Hagrid and the doe Patronus, mixed with red herrings (George's ear) that fit the evil Snape picture. By the end of the book, Harry and therefore the narrator have a clear view of Snape, thanks to "The Prince's Tale." Snape was an "abandoned boy" who became "Dumbledore's man" because he loved Lily. Harry's view of Snape is now JKR's, as confirmed by her interviews. (BTW, anyone who's unhappy with Lily as Snape's initial reason for turning to the good side and who thinks he didn't evolve from there despite DD's obviously changed attitude toward him should read "Snape's Supposed Great Love, or, Why Book 7 Doesn't Make Snape Any Less Interesting" at http://rexluscus.livejournal.com/254445.html#cutid1 ) DH!Dumbledore is the ambiguous figure that Snape has been in the previous books, and ther reader, like Harry, is presented with conflicting information about him. The narrator reflects Harry's confusion while the reader is free to reach conclusions that are not the same as his. By "The Forest Again" (when Harry knows the truth about Snape and we cease to hear unreliable statements from the narrator about *him*), Harry's distrust of Dumbledore has reached its peak and we get the sentence about "Dumbledore's betrayal." Harry, believing what DD told Snape in the Pensieve, opens the Snitch with the words, "I am about to die." He faces Voldie holding that belief, reflected by the narrator, because the reader, too, must believe, or fear, that Harry is going to die. (Of course, we've heard "he was going to die" a little too often, and the book still has three chapters to go, so the reader may be a step ahead of Harry and the narrator here.) "King's Cross," in which Harry is shown *without his glasses* and DD is restored to the benevolent figure of previous books, with twinkling eyes and a healed arn and hand, gives Harry "the truth" that Harry has been seeking (the Seeker?) and that the author (and her spokesman, Dumbledore) has been withholding from him and from the reader via the unreliable narrator. We are still in Harry's head. The narrator is still limited by what Harry can see and hear. He still can't know anyone else's thoughts any more than a real person can. But his perception is no longer distorted by doubts and fears and preconceptions. We can trust the narrator now. Carol, asking other posters to let her know if they find any instances of the unreliable narrator in the last two chapters, in which case she may have to rethink her position regarding the healing of the disconnect between narrator and author at the end of the book From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 19:54:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:54:24 -0000 Subject: Who originally owned Dobby? In-Reply-To: <19867.15171.qm@web55002.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174659 Christy wrote: > You need search no further than Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, where we learn that the magic of house elves require them to serve their masters or risk punishment, usually at their own hands; house elves can only be freed if their masters give them clothes (which is why we see them wearing pillowcases or tea towels or whatever -- those items are not proper clothes). We also meet Dobby, an unusual house elf who wants his freedom. He tells Harry that house elves suffered greatly under Voldemort and that he still suffers. (We learn at the end of COS that Dobby belongs to Lucius Malfoy, a devoted follower of Voldemort.) > > At first, Dobby's devotion to Harry is based on the fact that Harry is The Boy Who Lived -- the boy who somehow rid the world of the threat Voldemort posed. Once Dobby meets Harry, his devotion is based on how Harry treats him (with respect and kindness). Later, Dobby's devotion to Harry is based on the fact that Harry tricks Lucius Malfoy into giving Dobby clothes (Harry's sock hidden Riddle's diary), thus freeing him. By the end of COS there is no doubt that Dobby is loyal to Harry. > > Dobby, unlike the other house elves we see in the books, wants his freedom. Considering who his master is, who can blame him. In my opinion, he is miserable serving the Malfoys both because they follow Voldemort and because they treat him cruelly. > > Dobby also is very brave; he defied his master and punished himself for it throughout COS; he sought freedom which singled him out among his peers; and, of course, he died saving Harry in DH. > > There is nothing in canon to remotely suggest that Dobby once served the Potters. Is Dobby's action "off the charts" for house elves? Yes, but the books do a thorough job of explaining house elves in general and Dobby in particular. JKR didn't need to go into it any further that she did in DH. > > Christy, who sometimes wonders if we're all reading the same books > Carol responds: I think you've hit the nail on the head. In CoS, we hear that Dobby's masters (certainly including Narcissa and possibly even twelve-year-old Draco) are "bad Dark wizards" who constantly and viciously abuse him. Kreachers' masters and mistress (setting aside Sirius) are also Dark wizards and Voldemort supporters, though only the deluded Regulus actually becomes a Death Eater. Their philosophy and politics are not that different from those of the much younger Malfoys. What makes the difference is their treatment of their house-elf. Kreacher is treated kindly by all except Sirius, ironically the Gryffindor and opponent of Voldemort. Again ironically, it's Regulus, the Slytherin (is his position as Seeker symbolic?) who dies avenging a house-elf and ears Kreacher's undying devotion and love. Dobby views Harry as a hero because, like much of the WW, he survived Voldemort's AK. Harry, through no action or intent of his own, symbolizes opposition to Voldemort, and Dobby opposes Voldemort because his abusive masters support him. Kreacher, in contrast, clings to the views of his master and mistress, not understanding that Regulus died to help bring down the Dark Lord whom he had previously willingly served. It's a matter of personal loyalty not political philosophy. His masters (except Sirius, the rebel who treats him with contempt and makes no effort to understand his thinking) can do no wrong, just as Mr. Crouch, even after he gives Winky clothes, can do no wrong in her eyes. (Ludo Bagman is a "very bad man" because Mr. Crouch thinks so. Winky is just as loyal to Imperiused DE Barty Jr. as to his father. Their politics and actions make no difference to her.) Neither Kreacher nor Winky sees Harry as the hero Dobby does (at least until Kreacher's change of heart and even then his true loyalty is to Regulus) because they are loyal to their masters. House-elves, as Hermione finally understands, are not people. Their psychology is different. They can't be indoctrinated to think like wizards (Dobby thinks as he does because of the way he's been mistreated not because he's opposed to Voledmort per se). They must be accepted as what they are and treated with respect and consideration. But for Harry to free Kreacher once Kreacher has agreed to serve him would be a cruel blow from which Kreacher probably could never recover. BTW, I have no idea where the theory that someone other than the Malfoys originally owned Dobby came from. There's no canon for it in any of the books. Dobby says in CoS that he's bound to serve one house and family forever (unless he's freed, which at the time seems extremely unlikely). Carol, wondering whether the other pure-blood DEs have house-elves and whether those house-elves are Kreachers, Winkys, or Dobbys From muellem at bc.edu Mon Aug 6 19:47:57 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:47:57 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174660 > > > colebiancardi: > > > > yes, it WAS wrong for Snape to use the AK. I still have not seen > any > > resolution, via canon, that he actually used the AK on DD. Remember > > all the threads on Snape & the AK prior to DH's? I tried to bring > it > > up the other day, if anyone had found canon in DH's that it was a > true > > AK that Snape used, and not a non-verbal spell masked as an AK. > > > > Alla: > > Ok, we agree that it is wrong then :) > > But on the second point, I think it is up to you ( hypotheticall you, > anybody who brings up that this is not AK) to prove that it was not, > no? > > Canon says it was AK. I believe that it was AK. Unless there is an > evidence that **it was not one** of course. That's my take on things > anyways. > colebiancardi: well, canon states that Snape *said* Avada Kedavra. But canon also states that they've been learning about non-verbal spells all year long. Seems to me that is a great plot point that was never really used in DH's, no? So, if learning about non-verbals was important in HBP and what we knew about UC's and the status of Snape's loyalities before the wrap-up in DH's, it seems to me that one could conclude, knowing that Snape was DDM!Snape, issued a non-verbal spell instead of an Unforgivable Curse. Have we ever seen Snape issue an Unforgivable before in the books? Even in DH's, he resorts to confounding instead of Imperious. Of course, my opinion pretty much goes to hell in a handbasket, as the good guys *use* UC's in DH's. But, it just seems to me that the point of non-verbals was just tossed away in the garbage, along with the idea of never using UC's, when DH's came out. The evidence that Snape may or may not have used a true AK in HBP could go either way. He may have said it, but that doesn't mean he meant it. And we don't see this memory at all in the Pensive. IMHO colebiancardi From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 19:57:31 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:57:31 -0000 Subject: The Message of DH - Moral Superiority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174661 --- "julie" wrote: > > ...heavy edit... > > Julie: > Again, I can only agree. Part of me wishes JKR had > gone in the direction *I* wanted, with true moral > superiority trumping evil (though it rarely does in > real life), but I can also accept that this wasn't > what JKR was writing, and enjoy the books for the > entertainment they are rather than as a statement on > morality. (And if I recall correctly, even JKR said > she wasn't sending any moral messages, but was merely > writing a story.) > > Julie > bboyminn: Well, it will come as no surprise to anyone that I agree with Julie and Debbie. But let us side track for a moment on one specific issue- 'Moral Superiority'. Exactly what was the 'morally superior' action that Harry should have taken? Should Harry have stopped his action and given a long heart felt speech (aka: surmon)? "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead. In peace there's nothing so becomes a man As modest stillness and humility: But when the blast of war blows in our ears, Then imitate the action of the tiger; Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,...etc..." [Henry V, Act 3, Scene 1] Should Harry have hung his head, humbly contrite, as some other character lecture (aka:surmonized) him about the bad things he has done? If this is a 'Morality Tale' then the /morality/ is in the /tale/, not in the sermonizing. The morality is in Harry's actions, as I will explain. In the past in discussions of the various House traits, relative to this statement and to courage in Gryffindor, I have frequently asked, where were the other Gryffindors when Harry/Ron/Hermione were off on their adventures? The answer is, safe and toasty warm, tucked into their beds. The /other/ Gryffindors were being the nice obedient moral kids that mothers can be proud of. They weren't breaking the rules, they weren't causing trouble, they weren't putting themselves at risk. Oh yes indeed, very nice obedient boys and girls...indeed. I'm sure Pastor Dave would be very proud. I'm sure their mothers would be proud. But when the castle was overrun by Death Eaters, do you think parents and Pastor Dave were more proud of the ones who fled, or the ones who stayed to fight? ...the ones toasty warm in their beds or the ones bleeding on the battlefield? If any phrase every so very accurately paraphrased Harry Potter, is could never be more than - "All that is necessary for Evil to flourish, is for good people to do nothing." And all that is necessary to stop evil is for one brave man to take action and become the rallying point against the forces of evil. Harry is a man-of-action. He is not content to allow 'the grownups' to deal with the injustice of the world. When he faces injustice, he confronts it without regard to the consequences to himself. He boldly confronts Umbridge, and suffers what many have called 'torture' as a result. He stands against Voldemort and the Death Eaters while the rest of the wizard world cowers and waits. Harry is the man who WILL NOT stand by and allow Evil to flourish. Harry is the man who will not stand by and allow evil to spit in the face of the good and decent. So, Harry /briefly/ used the Crucio on a man of consummate and horrendous evil. I say, 'Hit him again Harry, hit him a good one for me'. So, Harry used the Imperius at Gringotts. I say, 'Good for you Harry, you got the Horcrux'. You took a grand and bold step the ultimately saved the wizard world from countless death and decades of brutal misery and oppression. There are many politician, regardless of the country you are in, who will claim they must oppress and restrict their own citizens 'for the greater good'. But Harry understands the difference between the greater good and convenience of a privileged few, and the true greater good of all. His actions toward the 'greater good' are not selfish or self- serving, as are the action of so many politicians. Harry's action really are selfless. He is the man of action standing unrelentingly against evils great and small. I see Harry's morality in his actions not in his words. More so, I do not define Harry's morality by a single isolated act. I see him in the grander and nobler scheme of things. And when I see those actions, I say without hesitation or reservation, - 'Hit him again Harry, hit him a good one for me.' You can't take actions out of their context, both great and small context, because it is the broader context that shows the true nature of the actions. "Give 'em hell Harry" Steve/bboyminn From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 20:04:32 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:04:32 -0000 Subject: House elves question In-Reply-To: <15882699.1186416630630.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174662 > Bart: > it makes sense that house elves are an engineered species rather than a natural one. Which brings up the question, WHICH species were turned into house elves? Was it a non-sentient form of life, who were somehow given sentience, or was it a higher form of life, that was enslaved. > > Bart JW: During my second reading of DH, I reflected on the physical and psychological similarities and differences between elves and goblins. My speculation was that they could be cousins. Perhaps elves are the "great ape" equivalent in the goblin family tree. Perhaps elves are a sub-species of goblin, selected and husbanded for lessor intelligence, docility, subservience, loyalty, etc. as dogs were bred from wolves. Perhaps this is the root of goblin resentment of wizards. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Aug 6 20:19:52 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:19:52 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174663 Alla: But see that goes towards my point and I believe Mike's. You think that there are situations when AK and Imperius can be used for good purposes, do you not? I mean, correct me if I am wrong at any time if I am misinterpreting your words. But it seems to me that you believe that there are situations when AK and Imperious use will still be illegal, but not Immoral. WHERE in the books before book 7 you see Ministry making that distinction between those three curses? Ceridwen: I'm not interested in the Ministry making moral distinctions, actually. The Ministry is presented in the books as either weak or corrupt on some level. They still have the duty to enact laws and see to the execution of those laws, but to me, government is not there to make a moral distinction, even if it was a wonderful government. All over-the-top speculation aside, there must have been some reason, at some point in time, for the Ministry to declare those curses illegal. I agree with (I think it was) Mike saying that it's odd the curses are made illegal separately from their effects. Murder, is wrong, so I would expect the AK to fall under a law against murder, for instance. This is not how these laws are presented. They are presented as illegal, and Unforgivable, in and of themselves. Where I expect to see moral guidance on this issue is with the Order and other decent people in the WW. Sirius was against their use, even in circumstances where I might have argued with him; McGonagall seems to imply, in PS/SS, that they are spells that Good people don't use. The effect of seeing the Cruciatus leaves Neville shaken and a pawn for a DE masquerading as Moody. The tone of the books themselves informs me that I should be appalled at the use of these curses. Voldemort uses them. Bellatrix revels in them. Crouch Jr. uses them to psychologically torture his students. These are shocking things, by the tone of the narration, until DH. Another moral issue, which is tied up with the law, is that these are illegal curses with a mandatory sentence to Azkaban for using them. Given that, and the horror which these curses have struck throughout the books, I think it was out of character for Harry (or any Good Guys) to use them and not at least reflect on them later. Alla: ALL three of them are called Unforgivables, no? The fact that you cannot find a good use for Crucio curse does not mean that it does not exist, no? I almost never bring fanfic into canon arguments, but I think this is a perfect place. The one good use of Crucio I read was to stimulate paralysed patient or something like that. I mean, the healer does not have intent to torture his patients, right? Ceridwen: A lot of things we would not do to most people can be used for therapy. Taking naked pictures has been used in the past to help patients break down inhibitions. Yet, the same thing during a war, at a POW camp in real life, Guantanamo, was considered to be illegal, immoral, and just plain bad. While the detainees weren't thrown in the air and slammed into a glass-fronted book case, forcing them to take part in something against their religion and against their will was immoral, and could be considered psychological torture. Torture is not considered valid in war, while battle killing and forcing someone to comply with one's directions in order to complete the mission, are. The fan-fic example sounds like some sort of extreme therapy, a desperate, last-ditch attempt to bring the patient around. Like shock therapy, maybe, which would be unconscionable to use on someone who wasn't in dire straits. Alla: So ALL that I am saying that in light of clear benign use of one Unforgivable the door is opened for the possible benign use of others depending on intent. Was Harry's intent benign? Totally not and as I said even if his intent was to torture, I would not approve, but I forgive him. But I think it is a totally sound argument that his intent was to cause short term pain and immobilisation. Ceridwen: But that isn't my problem with the use of the Unforgivables in DH. It's interesting to talk about, but not an issue for me, as I said. My issue is that these curses have been presented as bad, as something the Good Guys are too moral to use. There was never a qualifier in place, such as, Oh, Dumbledore would never use an AK, unless he thought there was no other way; Dumbledore would never cast the Cruciatus unless he was really pissed off. "You flatter me," said Dumbledore calmly. "Voldemort had powers I will never have." "Only because you're too -- well -- *noble* to use them." ~SS, Scholastic paperback, pg. 11 It was always that he was too honorable to use them, too moral, too much above them to stoop to their use. Sirius (yes, again) fought against Voldemort in VoldWarI, and has no patience with the Aurors of those times being allowed to use them. Since no one contradicts these moral judgements in canon, they are the ones I have to listen to when considering the use of Unforgivables. To have this turned on its head, with the after-canon mention that Harry isn't a saint, doesn't do anything for me. There was no reflection, no fear of legal reprisal, nothing to show that this was extreme measures in wartime. Whether Harry meant to inflict lasting torture to the point of insanity, or to just give Amycus a heads-up, the Unforgivables have been presented as beneath the Good Guys, period, full stop. Ceridwen. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 20:21:48 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:21:48 -0000 Subject: Descendents of the Peverells, WAS: Question: Cadmus Peverell & Voldermort In-Reply-To: <4985777.1186422765708.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174664 > Bart: a lot of intermarriage between, at most, distant cousins must have occurred. > > Or, to put it another way, if Harry and Voldemort were NOT related, THAT would be call for surprise. > > Bart JW: As we saw on the Black family tree, marriage between cousins is commonplace, ans all purebloods have intermarried. Certainly among all purebloods, and also predominately among halfbloods, everybody is related to everybody. If not for muggleborns, the WW would have hit a genetic brick wall centuries ago. Everyone would be like the Gaunts, the result of inbreeding. In the RW, the extremely interesting genetics results can occur when highly inbred animals or plants are bred with subjects completely outside their genetic line. It is no surprise that unusual wizards such as TR and HP are the results of purebred - even inbred - wizard families marrying muggles or muggleborn. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Aug 6 20:24:01 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:24:01 -0000 Subject: The Message of DH (WAS: Unforgivables - from a different angle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174665 > houyhnhnm: > > That is what I wanted, too. The story *seemed* to be > about good and evil and how to live your life. Lately > I have been wondering if the theme Rowling was really > persuing was not how to live, but how to die. > I don't think my attitude towards death is very much > like Rowling's. Although I am afraid of death, I doubt > if I share either her indignation at its existence or > her certainty that it can be overcome. Jen: Do you mean that was your intepretation of the series, that death was either depicted as something to feel indignant about or overcome? About halfway through my re-reading of DH, JKR's choice of "The Liberation Bearers" and the words of William Penn became more meaningful to the story for me. The realization crept in that DH was very much an exploration of the acceptance of death: Voldemort's refusal to accept and defiance of death contrasted with Harry's longing to be with those he loved or never had a chance to know. The big final decision for Harry at King's Cross was choosing to return to the living when a part of him had always longed to move on with the dead, "the dead who walked beside him through the forest were much more real to him now than the living back at the castle..." (DH, Chap. 34, p. 701, US ed.) That moment was another like others before, such as seeking out the Mirror or wishing to join Sirius. I haven't done much analysis of death as a theme, just speaking strictly from my first couple of readings of DH and how it might fit with the other books. JKR has said death is a 'strong central theme' and it's what interested me the most after reading book 1. Other themes didn't meet my expectations but this one most definitely did. Jen From va32h at comcast.net Mon Aug 6 20:25:16 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:25:16 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio (was: Code of the Playground) And Other Stuff, Too In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174666 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > The part of your post that confuses me is that you are not disgusted > with Harry you are disgusted with JKR, you are disgusted with a >writer for pointing out a very real danger that can occur if you >fight evil too intensely for too long. That Harry could experience >what he has and done nothing worse than aim one Crucio at a monster >and be grumpy with his friends a few times is remarkable. va32h: But she doesn't point anything out - she just glosses over it. It's a non-issue. Harry using Crucio is not depicted as the dangerously result of fighting evil too intensely for too long - it's depicted as a gallant and triumphant gesture. >From Dennis Grant: It is entirely possible Harry spent more than a few nightmare-wracked nights agonizing over that decision; we don't know. JKR doesn't tell us. va32h: No, she didn't tell us. She put this act the end of the book, when there was no time for any reckoning. I would say that JKR never intended, or saw the need to address how Harry felt about using Crucio, because it's a non-issue for her. When specifically asked in her web chat "did Harry ever come to regret that choice" she ignored the question and dismissed the entire topic with "Harry is not a saint." On to other topics: >From Alla: So, was it wrong for Snape to use AK? I mean, if one unforgivable spell can be NOT unforgivable sometimes, why the others cannot? va32h: Yes it was wrong for Snape to use the AK. But again - the issue (for me) has never been whether it is right or wrong to have the "good" characters use these curses, but whether the characters should use them, and not care that they've used them. I would argue that Snape's look of revulsion and hatred shows that he cares (and isn't happy) about having to use AK to kill Dumbledore. I can't imagine that Dumbledore *planned* to have Snape blast him off the Astronomy tower, in front of many witnesses, and with a gaggle of DEs running loose in the tower. At least that doesn't seem to fit with the dignified death DD asks Snape to help him achieve. So Snape didn't expect to have to use the AK, but did so because it was the "best" thing to do for a variety of reasons. Of course being as it's Snape, his actions can always be viewed in a wholly different light. Perhaps he really hates and is disgusted with Dumbledore. However, given that JKR uses the same description of Harry feeding Dumbledore the potion in the cave a few pages back, I think we are meant to see the two acts as similar. So between Snape's look of disgust when using the AK, and his later refusal to use Unforgiveables in the rest of the book, and in DH, I would conclude that Snape does not use UC's casually, or with ease or enjoyment. Which brings me to: Christy: >Based on Harry's experiences with Imperius and I think Rosemerda's (I >don't have my copy of HBP with me, so I admittedly can't be sure of >that), and based on the fact that some wizards claimed they were under >Imperious during Voldemort's first rise to power, there seems to be a >certain awareness of being under Imperious -- at least after the fact (and in the case of someone who can resist it, like Harry, awareness >during the fact). Snape couldn't very well have Dung remembering that >he talked to Snape and got the idea of using decoys from him. >So, in this case, the Confundus Charm was more appropriate than the >Imperius Curse whether or not Snape might have wanted to use and >regardless of being an "Unforgiveable." va32h: I don't seen any canon that the Imperiused are aware of being under the spell. The one example we are given of a character claiming to be Imperiused is Lucius Malfoy, and clearly he was a liar, liar pants on fire! However, the Imperiused do have a telltale "look" about them, the blankness in their eyes. Mad Eye would certainly be able to spot that "look" in Mundungus and wouldn't listen to a word he says. Of course that begs the question - how did Malfoy get away with claiming Imperius when he wasn't. I would guess lots and lots of bribes, which seems to be how he gets everything done. And of course - being as it's Snape, everything he does can be interpreted at least two ways. He may have declined to use Imperius for practical or moral considerations, or a combination of both. va32h From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 20:50:10 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:50:10 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: <944827.10675.qm@web30215.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174667 career advisor wrote: > > What I don't see anyone mentioning in this debate is the state of the DA when Harry arrives. The curse in the Ravenclaw common room is poetic justice. It gives the female Carrow (whose name I can't spell) a taste of her own medicine. Carol responds: Minor correction. "The female Carrow" (Alecto) taught Muggle Studies, emphasizing the supposed inferiority of Muggles to Wizards. She is not Crucio'd; she's Stunned by Luna (casting her first-ever Stunning Spell outside the RoR). It's Amycus Carrow, the Dark Arts teacher, whom Harry Crucios--giving him, as you say, a taste of his own medicine. No doubt JKR shares your view that it's poetic justice. Other posters need not agree. As Lee has pointed out, "Crucio!" means "I torture," and Harry knows from experience exactly what it feels like. That he would echo the words of one of the Death Eaters who Crucio'd the Longbottoms into insanity, "You have to mean them," is disturbing to me. Bellatrix Lestrange, who kills her own niece for marrying a werewolf, as a role model or teacher for Harry is disturbing to me and to many readers. You are, of course, free to share what appears to be JKR's own view. I find it a terrible message to send to child readers, myself. career advisor: JKR implied that the Carrows tortured ten year olds (in a childrens book). Carol: Well, eleven- or twelve-year-olds, depending on the month when they were born. But, yes, one first year was put in chains. It seems that most of the resistance was by older students, however, specifically those who had been in the DA. (I am not justifying the Carrows' sadism, nor the teaching of Unforgiveable Curses to susceptible students like Crabbe and Goyle, but I think their punishments were focused on a select group of rebels. And as I don't believe in an eye for an eye, I see it as wrong for Harry to stoop to their level.) > career advisor: > Terry Boot seems to have been the most recent banished, since he wa.s at that nights dinner (though maybe not all DA members are banished, although we know for sure that Neville, Seamus, Lavender, and Michael are, and at least one Hufflepuff because of the draperies). Carol: Ernie Macmillan. Interesting that he's the only Hufflepuff, in contrast to at least five Ravenclaws (Terry Boot, Michael Corner, Padma Patil, Anthony Goldstein, and Luna). (See p. 578 of the Scholastic edition.) And Cho, who is out of school, shows up later. Speaking of Hufflepuffs, I'm sure that Hannah Abbott, whose mother was murdered in HBP, shows up somewhere, possibly in the Battle of Hogwarts. Can someone refresh my memory?) > career advisor: > 5. Luna had been kidnapped in front of the DA and for a time until she got the message to Neville they must have thought her dead. And don't tell me Bellatrix didn't torture Luna a bit while she was at the Malfoys, which was about a month, to do so would be out of character. Carol: And how does Luna resist the Carrows? She *Stuns* Alecto! Harry, in contrast, Crucios Amycus. (I don't think he even realizes, at least consciously, that it was Amycus who Crucio'd him in HBP. He thought at the time that it was Snape, and he hasn't yet seen Snape's memories.) Bellatrix or a Malfoy torturing Luna would not be a reason or justification for her torturing a Carrow, even if an eye for an eye were acceptable, and I don't think it is. (It's an odd philosophy for a Christian author. Not that I would expect Harry and co. to go to the other extreme of turning the other cheek, but what about a happy medium as exemplified by Luna?) And speaking of out of character, Luna torturing anyone would be completely unbelievable. > 6. It must have been in Harry's mind, despite what Ted Tonks had said, that Ginny must have been punished in the same way as the others, for stealing Gryffindors sword, that she must have been subjected to the cruciatus at some point. Carol: I don't think so. Harry fears that she was Crucio'd *until* he hears that Ginny and her friends were punished not by the Carrows but by Snape, whose "terrible" detention was to send them to help Hagrid in the Forbidden Forest. That's Harry's first clue, IIRC, that perhaps Snape isn't what Harry thinks he is. Instead, he thinks that Snape doesn't know how mild the punishment is. (Personally, I think that Snape was giving the three kids a chance to plot resistance with Hagrid, but that's just my reading.) career advisor: > 7. And lets not talk about what happened to the muggle borns such as the Creeveys, and Dean and Justin and what did and would have happened to Hermione. If nothing else they would have been running for thier life for the last nine months. Carol: Which has nothing to do with the Carrows since the Muggle-borns are not allowed to attend Hogwarts. career advisor: > McGonagall and the other teachers are portrayed as heroes, working the best they can to prevent this. Even Snape...seems to be working to protect them (how the hell did he convince Voldemort to keep on so many of DD allies as teachers?) And the she-carrow has the nerve to spit on McGonagall. What do you think her first curse would have been? Carol: It's Amycus who spits on McGonagall. Alecto (the "she-Carrow") has alreacy been stunned by Luna. As for Snape keeping the usual teaching staff, I think that Voldemort is trusting his highly intelligent and capable right-hand man to keep them under his thumb (rather than deliberately allowing them to thwart the Carrows as they thwarted Umbridge). Besides, even before school starts, Voldemort is rather preoccupied with wands and wandmakers. (Sidenote: If Grindelwald is 156, how old must Gregorovitch be?) Carol, who would have corrected the canon mistakes offlist except that they affect the validity of the argument From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 20:58:00 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 04:58:00 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] House elves question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B78B58.9050700@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174668 que_44601 blessed us with this gem On 06/08/2007 09:21: > But, didn't Hermione knit clothing for the house elves, > therefore making them free? Just off the top of my head, I believe the house-elf's owner has to present the clothing in order to free the elf. Thus, e.g., Harry had to contrive a way for Malfoy to unwittingly give the sock to Dobby, thereby freeing him; presenting the sock himself wouldn't have done it. So who owns the Hogwarts elves? And who has the authority to free them? The headmaster? Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 21:22:46 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 05:22:46 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jo's OWN Words/Harry using Crucio/I am about to Rant/Danger Designating the In-Reply-To: <8699267.1186167704402.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <8699267.1186167704402.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <46B79126.4010809@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174669 Bart Lidofsky blessed us with this gem On 04/08/2007 03:01: > Judeo-Christian ideals require that if you are > required to do something that is morally wrong, then you are not to do > it. Hi, Bart. While I enjoyed your analysis, I think you've oversimplified the Christian side a bit. Christianity also teaches obedience to authorities -- "Render unto Caesar" -- so I'm not sure it's so simply as a conflict between Judeo-Christian and Graeco-Roman thought (and which period of Graeco-Roman thought? Socratic, Platonic (and neo-Platonic) and Aristotelian ethics all weighed in on the subject of corrupt authorities). However, you are certain correct in your analysis of the tensions between the two principles. Lee Kaiwen, who's a bit of a neo-platonic, semi-aristotelian, quasi-Thomistic ethical mongrel. From va32h at comcast.net Mon Aug 6 21:21:46 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:21:46 -0000 Subject: The Message of DH - Moral Superiority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174670 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > The /other/ Gryffindors were being the nice obedient > moral kids that mothers can be proud of. They weren't > breaking the rules, they weren't causing trouble, they > weren't putting themselves at risk. Oh yes indeed, > very nice obedient boys and girls...indeed. I'm sure > Pastor Dave would be very proud. I'm sure their mothers > would be proud. But when the castle was overrun by > Death Eaters, do you think parents and Pastor Dave > were more proud of the ones who fled, or the ones > who stayed to fight? ...the ones toasty warm in their > beds or the ones bleeding on the battlefield? va32h: Really? Neville was following the rules and not causing trouble and not putting himself at risk? Seamus got all those wounds from being nice and obedient? All those students hiding out in the Room of Requirement came for the toasty, warm hammocks? There was an effective resistance at Hogwarts before Harry arrived; a resistance that focused on protecting the innocent and keeping hope alive - not engaging in tit for tat violence. Neville got his wounds by verbally standing up for the abused, not engaging in duels with their abusers. And seriously - if we are going to argue that the characters are entitled to "an eye for an eye" style justice - there is no character in the series more deserving of the chance to perform Crucio than Neville Longbottom. But Neville *doesn't* stoop to that level. He gets his revenge on the Death Eaters not by seeking out Bella to torture her, but by defending the castle during the first battle, and after Harry's "death", by rallying the crowd, by refusing to give up, and by following Harry's last directive - kill the snake. Nobody has argued that all the characters should have sat back and let themselves be slaughtered by the Death Eaters. The issue has never been whether or not is okay to fight back when someone is trying to kill you. Come on. It's ludicrous to compare Harry using Crucio on someone who wasn't threatening him or even *facing* him with soldiers bleeding on a battlefied. va32h From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 21:27:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:27:20 -0000 Subject: Hermione & patronus (was Re:Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174671 Sali wrote: > > I think that Hermione has a problem with the Patronus charm mainly because it relies on a very strong emotion. Not to say that Hermione doesn't experience strong emotions but she is very much a scientist'. Her ability at magic is related to her intellect and she needs proof before accepting something as fact. The Patronus charm requires the strong emotion primarily (and then magical ability) whereas Hermione is used to relying on her innate magical ability, perhaps a more quantifiable resource than the more nebulous think happy thoughts. > > Umbridge takes such pleasure in the pain that she causes that she is > able to produce her Patronus by using that happiness. Warped though > the emotion is, it is still very real and strong. > > I don't see the Patronus charm as necessarily being good. It is > generally perceived as good more for it's dementor repelling effect > than for any intrinsic quality. The fact that it can be used for > other purposes (such as communication) underlines, for me, that > it is just another tool. Carol: I think that even a Dark witch or wizard can use good magic just as even a good wizard like Harry can use Dark magic (much as I hate that idea). Snape tries to use Dark magic (Sectumsempra) against a Death Eater. (He does save Lupin's life but hits George by mistake, perhaps luckily for him. Imagine his status in the DEs if he'd succeeded in cutting the DE's hand off.) Even though Umbridge is casting her rather weak Patronus (conjured through theory, like Hermione's?) for evil reasons, it is nevertheless protecting people, including Hermione and the invisible Harry, from the despair created by the Dementors. Even a ruthless witch like Umbridge has a spirit guardian, and it's not surprising that JKR, who hates cats, gave Umbridge that Patronus. (I do still wonder what it says about McGonagall that hers is also a cat.) As for Hermione, I'm not sure that she relies on magical ability so much as an intellectual understanding of what a spell is intended to do and how it works. ("I know the theory," she says before casting Obliviate for the first time.) IIRC, she wasn't very successful with the Boggart-repelling Charm, which involve making your Boggart humorous, either. She blew that portion of Lupin's DADA exam in PoA and got an E rather than an O on her DADA Owl for the same reason, IIRC. Carol, who agrees that intellect, not emotion, is Hermione's strong suit and wondering if she'd have been less resistant to Umbridge's theoretical approach to teaching DADA if she hadn't been friends with Harry From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Aug 6 21:35:18 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:35:18 -0000 Subject: The Message of DH (WAS: Unforgivables - from a different angle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174672 Jen: > Do you mean that was your intepretation of the > series, that death was either depicted as something > to feel indignant about or overcome? houyhnhnm: No to indignation. I don't think that is what we see in the series (except maybe a little in Harry's initial reaction to Sirius's death). But I am imagining that indignation may have formed a large part of Rowling's attitude toward death before writing it. I am basing that mainly on Hermione's personality. Yes to overcoming death. That's what these books are all about, it seems to me. The wrong way and the right way . "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." Jen: > About halfway through my re-reading of DH, JKR's > choice of "The Liberation Bearers" and the words of > William Penn became more meaningful to the story for me. houyhnhnm: I do remember something about William Penn, now that you mention. I had forgotten it and I am not quite that far along yet in my second reading. I remember that it struck me as something very significant, but I didn't understand it. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 6 21:43:02 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:43:02 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174673 I have been trying to follow this thread and am having trouble because of the volume of posts coming in, often at times when, being in the UK, I finish up some way behind the flow so I am going to try to comment on the thread without much cross- referencing to other contributors. We have discussed possible Christian ideas already in view of some of JKR's comments and I want to tie that in because it is possible that this has a bearing on the topic in hand. What I say may also be echoed by members who profess other faiths but, at the outset, let me reiterate that I am putting forward a personal view based on my own belief. The very foundation of Christian faith is that human beings are flawed. We are not capable of seeing the good or doing it all the time on our own and are unable to pull ourselves up by our own bootlaces. This is why Christians believe that Jesus was God in human form who came to help us to seek and succeed more often to do good and achieve salvation. One of the things I appreciate about the Bible is that characters are not sanitised but we see them "warts and all". David, one of the greatest kings of the Jewish nation is seen, in his worst light, to be the seducer of Bathsheba and who arranges the death of Uriah in battle so that he can then marry her. On a lesser note, we see Peter, boldly declaring his loyalty to Jesus on the night before the Crucifixion, denying any knowledge of him three times and going into hiding on the following day. We are all like this; we all have moments which we wish we could remove from our experience. I think I lean towards Dennis Grant's view that Harry is a figurehead for humanity ? not for good as Magpie suggests. I have argued on many occasions that he cannot be Christ or a Christ figure but is an everyman, in whom I think we all see a little of ourselves. As a result we see the best ? and the worst ? of Harry and his friends. This is what makes him so believable as a character and one reason why I like him so much. He isn't the squeaky-clean type who never puts a foot wrong. He is flawed like everybody else. He makes mistakes because he is rash; because he is tired; because he ignores advice and goes his own sweet way. On this question of him using the Crucio curse, he was certainly gripped by extreme rage on more than one occasion when he attempted to use it. I presume that readers are familiar with the phrase "Seeing red"? I was renowned for living on a short fuse when I was younger ? even after I became a Christian. I think the fires have died down a little now :-) Seriously though, I have known a few occasions when I have become so angry that I have sensed almost a red mist behind my vision, when I have wanted to seriously hurt someone. Fortunately, I usually retain enough control to count to ten and calm down a little. but it is in similar moments that Harry has behaved in this way. This does not make matters right but I am sure that many of us, hand on heart, can agree that such moments happen. If I could imagine myself into Harry's shoes, I think that my reaction towards Bellatrix after Sirius' death and under the stress of the approaching battle at Hogwarts would have operated on the same level. The point is that, although we are all flawed, we have the choice of usually trying to seek good and trying to be selfless and altruistic ? like Harry, Neville, Luna etc. or we can allow the bad side of our nature to take over completely as it did with Tom Riddle and Gellert Grindelwald, who, as a result, totally lack remorse, pity or love. One of the things which surprised me most about DH were the revelations about Dumbledore, the apparent epitome of goodness and the questionable things which happened when he was younger with Grindelwald and his family. And so here we see that he was also human and flawed and tempted. I think JKR also points this up in HBP when we see Harry beating himself up about the use of Sectumsempra: "I'm not defending what I did!" said Harry quickly. "I wish I hadn't done it and not just because I've got about a dozen detentions. You know I wouldn't've used a spell like that, not even on Malfoy " (HBP "Sectumsempra" p.495 UK edition) So, what's the lesson? We all have an inner fight with ourselves. For some it is stronger than others. I am not condoning Harry's behaviour or that of the other characters on the "good" side. A final thought. I was reminded of the occasion when a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery was brought to Jesus by the Jews. They wanted to test him because the law stated that stoning was the punishment for a crime like this. Jesus waited a while and then said "Let him who is without sin throw the first stone". They all crept away leaving the woman on her own. Their consciences had pricked them. We are quick to point the finger at other folk when we might well take the same route if we were in their position, however moral that may be. And I think the intelligent reader will see that in the story and take note. Harry is not a Christ figure. He's not a plaster saint. He's "Harry. Just Harry." From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 6 21:52:40 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:52:40 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio (was: Code of the Playground) And Other Stuff, Too In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174674 va32h Wrote: > Harry using Crucio is not depicted > as the dangerously result of fighting > evil too intensely for too long - it's > depicted as a gallant and triumphant gesture. The Crucio as depicted in that scene is a gallant and triumphant gesture, but it is also a warning sign, a sign to be very careful because the abyss awaits. Harry took it just far enough and I am very confident he will not take it any further; I am much less confident in my own abilities to avoid the abyss if I had seen the things and felt the things Harry has. Dennis Grant Wrote: > It is entirely possible Harry spent more > than a few nightmare-wracked nights > agonizing over that decision I certainly hope not! My father had an expression I quite like "nasty nice". If Harry were that sweet anybody who got in range of him would be in grave danger of contracting diabetes. Harry is a very good kid but he's not Marry Poppins. Carol Wrote: > That he would echo the words of one of > the Death Eaters who Crucio'd the > Longbottoms into insanity, "You have > to mean them," is disturbing to me. If I'm honest with myself I'd have to admit there is a small part of me that agrees it is disturbing, but it's small, very small. Most of me was absolutely delighted and has been waiting for Harry to cast a Crucio and enjoy it since book 4. Ok, that may not cast my personality into the most flattering light but there you go. > And speaking of out of character, Luna > torturing anyone would be completely > unbelievable. That I agree with, but Luna is extraordinary. Under certain extreme conditions it is not out of character for Harry to torture someone, nor unfortunately is it for almost all members of the human race. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Aug 6 21:07:03 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:07:03 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] 7 reasons why (was Re: Snape finding Lily's Letter References: Message-ID: <01e001c7d86d$bd1519a0$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> No: HPFGUIDX 174675 > CathyD: > As I have said before, there is no way it could come to be in that > house as Sirius left the house when he was 16, to return when he was > 35-36 once it was made HQ of the OotP. > > Potioncat: > I've tried to get back to the beginning of this thread, but the > server is too busy. So I'll just jump in. And another disclaimer, > I've only read the book once. > > I actually agree with you. Snape's finding the letter makes no sense > at all for these reasons: > > 1. If he got into the house before Moody set the curses, why did no > one notice the house had been ransacked? > > 2. If he came after Moody died, how did he get past the curses. (Oh > never mind. Fred and George cooked up worse things in the name of > jokes.) And anyway, the curses should have faded when Moody died. > > 3. What was Snape looking for? How did he know a letter from Lily > would be there? It would make sense if he was looking for something > else and came across it, but if that's the case, what was he looking > for? When I first read the earlier chapter, I thought someone had > come looking for the locket. But we find out later that LV doesn't > yet know it's missing. > > 4. It makes no sense for the letter to be forgotten in Sirius's > childhood bedroom. In fact, I don't think it makes sense for the > bedroom to still look as it did. I would think that Mrs. Black would > have blasted all reminders of Sirius out of the house. (If Sirius was > using that bedroom as an adult he really was emotionally stunted. > Right down there with Severus.) > > 5. If anyone ever asks JKR, I'm sure she'll say he had his old stuff > sent over. She'll either say he had it sent after he returned to > 12GP, or she'll say the MoM sent it when he went to Azkaban. But > first she'll have to recall that he ever had a different place. I'm > sure she's forgotten. > > 6. As for the photo: It's been awhile since I had a one-year-old > around the house. Does anyone really think a baby could sit a broom > by his first birthday? (Does anyone remember the discussion about > Dudley and Harry's developmental stages in SS/PS) > > 7. And again, how did Snape know there would be a letter/photo in the > house? > > So my earlier post was my fairly reasonable explanation, sticking as > close to canon as I could. Shelley: I agree with all the reasons why Snape finding Lilly's letter is highly problematic, and is the biggest hole in this story because it just doesn't fit with the rest of the facts. I will comment on one thing though- the antics of a one year old. My highly troublesome son was walking at age 9 months. So, by age one, he was doing things like climbing up on items to get to what he wanted, and putting himself at great risk. He could stack items to make a tower to climb. He routinely flipped himself out of the crib. He tried to climb a windowsill. He would worm out of his carseat while I was driving down the highway. The child loved to give me a heart attack with the things he would do! To ride a broom that hovered a few inches above the floor, all the child would need to learn to do is balance on it, and I could tell you without blinking an eye that my son would have mastered that within a week of getting that broom. He had a Jolly-Jumper, and learned how to "swing" on it at about 6 months of age, about 3 months before he learned to walk. Now, my other son wouldn't have, because he didn't walk until 15 months, but for a very early walker, they have an amazing sense of where there body is and how to move it. Based on this, it's my guess that Harry had to have learned to walk by 9 months of age, and was a very troublesome tot by then. Thus, the story of the broom is very believable for me, because I could see my son doing it. That, and chasing the cat too. My son was very mischievous. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Aug 6 21:33:36 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:33:36 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] 7 reasons why - The Glass is Half Empty. References: <540134.44209.qm@web55004.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01e701c7d871$72df0130$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> No: HPFGUIDX 174676 > Steve wrote: >>People keep saying that there is no explanation for > >that letter being there, yet when explanations are > >suggested, they are written off as fan-fiction and > >fantasy. Well, you either want an explanation or >>your don't; apparently, many don't. Steve, I guess I will have to explain my take on this. (Sorry for answering late- the are too many posts to sift through!) We, as readers, shouldn't have to be looking for ways to plug the holes in Rowling's story for the FINAL BOOK. Ok, in other books, it was fine, and even FUN, because it lead to all sorts of theories of the story to come to have a hole not filled in. But here were are, at the end, and people expect there to be no major plot holes. It's not that I don't want the fans to come up with some creative explanation, because I know they always will, but I don't want the fans to have to help her write this final book after the fact. To have to do so only points to bad writing- and as I look back, I think this book shows some of her inexperienced writing that she had in Book One, possibly because she had parts of it written before and was too damn sentimental of that material written years ago to rewrite it. when she really should have in light of the rest of the ideas that had taken shape in the middle of the series. Snape's desire for Lilly isn't a small plot point- in fact, it's supposed to be the driving answer to the Snape question that has been bugging us for the previous 6 books. Such a major plot answer should be fully smooth and believable, but it's not. Such an abrupt turn around in Snape should be fully understood by the readers WITHOUT the fans having to explain to one another how it happened. Rowling at the end almost throws it all away with her "happily ever after"- saying to the readers that she's satisfied, but if she left glaring holes, then most readers would have gladly waited another month or so for the book to have all those rough edges smoothed out before we got it in our hands to critique. It's not just this hole that bugs me, it's a whole host of points that could have been better done. The epilogue leaves far too much to be desired. Her simple one liner of Harry of thinking Snape was brave for me is one of those points that I really wished that she would have taken more time on, and really fleshed out Harry's feelings, so that we got to see the vision that was in her head of Harry's new view of Snape. We've spend 6 1/2 books thinking Snape was a slimy git- that abrupt turn around to "brave hero" isn't something that one should go light on when writing it, because it's such a HUGE about-face! The letter is just one transition point to help us see this new Snape. Shelley From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 22:06:15 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry using Crucio (was: Code of the Playground) And Other Stuff, Too In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <130693.30464.qm@web55001.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174677 Wow, that's quite a subject line... I (Christy) wrote: >Based on Harry's experiences with Imperius and I think Rosemerda's (I >don't have my copy of HBP with me, so I admittedly can't be sure of >that), and based on the fact that some wizards claimed they were under >Imperious during Voldemort's first rise to power, there seems to be a >certain awareness of being under Imperious -- at least after the fact (and in the case of someone who can resist it, like Harry, awareness >during the fact). Snape couldn't very well have Dung remembering that >he talked to Snape and got the idea of using decoys from him. >So, in this case, the Confundus Charm was more appropriate than the >Imperius Curse whether or not Snape might have wanted to use and >regardless of being an "Unforgiveable. To which va32h responded: >I don't seen any canon that the Imperiused are aware of being under the >spell. >However, the Imperiused do have a telltale "look" about them, the >blankness in their eyes. Mad Eye would certainly be able to spot >that "look" in Mundungus and wouldn't listen to a word he says. I have to disagree with you -- I mean you are contradicting something I wrote. :-) I think does canon supports my assertion that at least some people under Imperio have an awareness either during or after the fact. A friend has my copies of GOF, OOTP, and HBP so I'm doing this from memory and fully accept the possibility that I could be very wrong. That said... Is there an example of someone who has an awareness of being subjected to the Imperious Curse while it is being cast? Yes, Harry. If my recollection is correct, when Harry is placed under Imperio in GOF by the fake Moody in class and then again by Voldemort in the graveyard, he feels a sense of peace that makes him want to do what the person placing the curse wants him to do. However, a little voice inside his head is telling him 'you don't really want to do that' and it is that voice he listens to. He obviously has an awareness that the curse is trying to affect him. So, at the very least, someone who has the capability to resist the curse has some degree of awareness of it being placed on him or her. Do we have any reason not to believe that others under the curse feel the same sensations Harry does (i.e., a sense of actually wanting to surrender to the will of another)? None that I remember... Is there an example of someone who can't resist the curse becoming aware of having been under it once the curse was lifted? Without my copy of HBP, I don't know the answer to this question. On the Astronomy Tower at the end of HBP we learn that Draco has used the Imperius Curse on Rosmerta, making her his accomplice in his efforts to kill Dumbledore. I thought there was mention of regret on Rosmerta's part after Dumbledore's death, but I could be wrong about that. (Regret implies awareness -- however, I will concede that unless the book is exact, awareness in Rosmerta's case might have come from others telling her what happened and not from actual awareness of her own actions.) In my original post I also cited Lucius Malfoy as an example of someone being aware of being under the curse, which you also took exception to. Yes, Malfoy is a liar and knows how to use his galleons to keep himself out of trouble -- and yes he lied about being under Imperio. Nevertheless, the fact that he successfully claimed to have been under the Imperious Curse during Voldemort's first rise to power implies to me that awareness of being under the curse is a valid concept, whether while under it or once it is lifted. There's a difference between saying "I was under the Imperious Curse and did those awful things against my will" and saying "I didn't do those awful things." (Now, you definitely could ding me for assuming that Malfoy claimed to be under the Imperious Curse; canon tells us only that he "came back saying he'd never meant any of it." COS, p. 29 US paperback) Also, weren't the students in Harry's class aware that the fake Moody was successfully making them do things they wouldn't otherwise do? As for as recognizing someone under the curse, I don't recall a tale tell look about them or blankness in their eye. I just checked the passages in DH where Harry and Minerva used Imperio (p. 529 - 535 & p. 594- 595 US) and such signs are not mentioned (and if there were tell tale signs, witnesses in Gringotts would have noticed). I don't have my copy of HBP, and I don't remember descriptions of Rosmerta, but I do remember that Dumbledore and Harry met her both as they left for the cave and when they returned. If there are tell tale signs I think Dumbledore would have noticed them. Now while under the Confundus Charm during his meeting with Snape, Mundungus's "face look[ed] curiously blank." (p. 688 US) I assume that the blank look lasted only as long as it took Snape to plant the idea of using decoys -- because once planted, he believes the idea and accepts it as his own. Christy, who apologizes to Rosmerta for spelling her name wrong in my first post --------------------------------- Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 22:22:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:22:59 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174678 Dennis Grant wrote: > That's the dictionary definition of the word, not the legal or moral definition of the act; there is a difference. > Leah: > > Nothing there about the pain having to be prolonged. If I was put on the rack and gave up everything the torturers wanted to hear after the first stretch, I would still have been tortured, just as someone who was racked for an hour would have been tortured. > Dennis: > But in both cases, you're being racked as a form of coersion. The purpose behind it COUNTS. Carol: The purpose behind it makes it torture or not? I don't think so. If I were torturing a child to make him or her behave would I be any better than Osama bin Laden and his henchmen employing the same means of torture for revenge or information? Torture is torture. And we cannot discount the etymology of "Crucio," which JKR applied when she named that curse and invented the incantation: crucio -are [to torture , torment], according to the University of Notre Dame's Latin Dictionary and Grammar Aid. http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=crucio&ending= The Cruciatus Curse is the torture curse, not the pain curse. (A lot of curses cause pain.) The etymology ties it to both "crucify" and "excruciating." Harry says in OoP that Voldemort doesn't need any means of torture besides the Cruciatus Curse. That is its purpose, its sole purpose, and we see Voldemort, the epitome of evil in the series, using it time and again, to torture Harry or to punish his own followers. (The teenage Grindelwald uses it on the even younger Aberforth, removing the blinders from Albus's eyes regarding GG's dark side.) And it is torture from the very first second: "But before he could finish this jinx, *excruciating* pain hit Harry; he keeled over in the grass. Someone was screaming. He would surely die of this *agony*" (HBP Am. ed. 603). This is the Cruciatus Curse, almost certainly cast by Amycus Carrow though Harry doesn't know it, from which Snape rescues Harry in "The Flight of the Prince." The Crucios cast by Voldemort in the graveyard in GoF would work equally well to show that Harry knows *exactly* what he's putting Amycus through in DH. Dennis: > Harry doesn't torture Carrow; he incapacitates him by inflicting intense pain on him. > Carol: He incapacitates him by inflicting *excruciating* pain on him. There's a difference. A stinging hex inflicts intense but momentary pain. Crucio *by definition* inflicts torture. Dennis: > The choice of methods is perhaps a little unusual, and perhaps Harry's intent included elements of chastisement or poetic justice. Would some other technique have worked as well? Who can say; Carol: We have a perfect example of a curse that would work equally well. Too bad the past-all-endurance Snape cast it nonverbally: "[Snape] slashed at the air; Harry felt a white-hot, whiplike something hit him across the face and was slammed backward into the ground. Spots of light burst in front of his eyes and *for a moment* all the breath seemed to have gone from his body" (604). Perfect, right? A moment of pain. Harry is chastised, disarmed, and incapacitated. But he isn't tortured. It isn't "excruciating"; he doesn't think he's going to die. And even its aftereffect of having the wind knocked out of him lasts only a moment. If Harry doesn't know that curse (and, alas, he wasn't paying much attention to Smnape's lessons throughout HBP), a simple stinging hex would have sufficed both to cause Amycus momentary pain to "chastise" and disarm him, followed by a Stunning Spell or Petrificus Totalus to disable him. One last request before I drop this frustrating tennis-ball thread in which no one seems to be convincing anyone else: Can we please examine the curse within the context of the books using canon support for our respective positions? I thought that was what this list was all about. Carol, hoping that she has said her last word on this topic and really wanting to discuss the symbolism of Harry as "Seeker" instead From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 22:57:11 2007 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:57:11 -0000 Subject: Who originally owned Dobby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174679 Kreacher is treated kindly by all except Sirius, ironically > the Gryffindor and opponent of Voldemort. Again ironically, it's > Regulus, the Slytherin (is his position as Seeker symbolic?) who dies > avenging a house-elf and ears Kreacher's undying devotion and love. >snip> > His masters (except Sirius, the rebel who treats him with > contempt and makes no effort to understand his thinking) can do no > wrong, Jack-A-Roe: I just wanted to add something about Sirius. Sirius hated his family (moving out at 16). I think he didn't like Kreacher because Kreacher served this family that he hated. We can see that his mother wasn't the best (dramatic understatement) and he knew that his brother became a death eater. I don't think he hated Kreacher, but what Kreacher represented and that was his family. I don't remember Sirius beating Kreacher or ordering him to punish himself. After he gets out of prison and arrives at the house he sees that it is in shambles. Kreacher has neglected to take care of the house. He also doesn't pitch in and help. In fact he tries to take things they are throwing away while mumbling insults all the time. I can see why Sirius wouldn't have taken to Kreacher any more the second time than the first. Hermione tried to be nice to Kreacher and only received insults back. Could Sirius have tried to be a little nicer, yes. Would it have made much of a difference, at that point I don't think so. Jack-A-Roe From leahstill at hotmail.com Mon Aug 6 22:59:16 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:59:16 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174680 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Grant" wrote: > That's the dictionary definition of the word, not the legal or moral > definition of the act; there is a difference. Leah: I don't want to get into a prolonged discussion on the semantics of the definition of torture, because I don't think that's what is important here, but I don't want to ignore your long reply. I do note that the legal definitions used by the United Nations and the International Criminal Court both refer to the infliction of severe mental or physical pain - again there is nothing about it having to be prolonged. (They would not see Harry as a torturer however, because those definitions require the pain to be inflicted by someone in a position of authority over the victim). Moral definitions, as we can see from these postings, will differ between individuals. I used the dictionary because its definitions will give what it believes are the accepted definitions of a particular word. > But in both cases, you're being racked as a form of coersion. The > purpose behind it COUNTS. (snipped) >> Harry doesn't torture Carrow; he incapacitates him by inflicting > intense pain on him. If I saw someone applying a lit match to a kitten, I wouldn't check out their purpose, I'd yell at them to stop torturing the kitten. But I'm happy to agree that Harry at least inflicts intense pain on Carrow. His purpose is not to save his own life or McGonagall's life, it does not at any rate have a defensive purpose. > The choice of methods is perhaps a little unusual, and perhaps Harry's > intent included elements of chastisement or poetic justice. Would some > other technique have worked as well? Who can say; it's easy to > second-guess decisions made in the heat of battle by people who > weren't there, and in this case we are talking about fictional > weaponry which may have other considerations of which we are not aware (snipped) > The use of Crucio vice some other spell is quite literally inarguable, > as there is no way to know if an alternative would have worked, and > the Crucio he *did* use was demonstratively effective. Carrow was > eliminated as a threat, and he still had his life - that's a mercy in > my book. Leah: Would any other technique have worked as well? Possibly, possibly not. But Harry had never used Crucio before. He had no way of knowing that he would be able to use Crucio successfully, whereas he knew other spells which he had used and which had worked. The fact that the Crucio was in retrospect effective doesn't seem to be a logical argument for using it untested in 'the heat of battle'. In the heat of battle, I would like to incapacitate an opponent with a small gun I knew worked, rather than a huge one I had never fired before. In any event, Harry was not 'in the heat of battle' when he Crucio'd Carrow. He was retaliating because Carrow had spat on McGonagall, the Crucio was as you say above, probably part reprisal, part Harry's own justice, part he just wanted to hurt Carrow. Since Carrow lives, he is not eliminated as a threat; perhaps stunning might have eliminated him for longer. (snipped) > It is entirely possible Harry spent more than a few nightmare- wracked > nights agonizing over that decision; we don't know. JKR doesn't tell us. > Leah: I don't question you on the remorse felt by soldiers, the whys and wherefores and when it occurs. We are not however reading a manual on warfare. We are reading a novel which has set out what seemed to be a certain way of behaving, which seemed to say that some things were acceptable and some weren't. These also seemed to reflect things which the readership knew about the storyteller- for example that she supported the work of Amnesty. If these actions remain unacceptable, and the hero carries one out, I would like to see some remorse or self-justification from him during the story. I would not actually want Harry to be wracked by nightmares for his treatment of Carrow, I would just have liked some reflection. If these action have however suddenly been deemed acceptable, I would like some acknowledgement in the text other than the hero simply carrying out the action. Ceridwen puts this very well: curses. Voldemort uses them. Bellatrix revels in them. Crouch Jr. > uses them to psychologically torture his students. These are > shocking things, by the tone of the narration, until DH. > > Another moral issue, which is tied up with the law, is that these are > illegal curses with a mandatory sentence to Azkaban for using them. > Given that, and the horror which these curses have struck throughout > the books, I think it was out of character for Harry (or any Good > Guys) to use them and not at least reflect on them later. (snipped) > To have this turned on its head, with the after-canon mention that > Harry isn't a saint, doesn't do anything for me. There was no > reflection, no fear of legal reprisal, nothing to show that this was > extreme measures in wartime. Whether Harry meant to inflict lasting > torture to the point of insanity, or to just give Amycus a heads- up, > the Unforgivables have been presented as beneath the Good Guys, ?? period, full stop. Leah, thinking she has nothing more to add to Ceridwen's points From jferer at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 23:02:17 2007 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:02:17 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio (was: Code of the Playground) And Other Stuff, Too In-Reply-To: <130693.30464.qm@web55001.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174681 Christy: "Yes, Harry. If my recollection is correct, when Harry is placed under Imperio in GOF by the fake Moody in class and then again by Voldemort in the graveyard, he feels a sense of peace that makes him want to do what the person placing the curse wants him to do. However, a little voice inside his head is telling him 'you don't really want to do that' and it is that voice he listens to. He obviously has an awareness that the curse is trying to affect him. So, at the very least, someone who has the capability to resist the curse has some degree of awareness of it being placed on him or her. Do we have any reason not to believe that others under the curse feel the same sensations Harry does (i.e., a sense of actually wanting to surrender to the will of another)? None that I remember..." We know the situations are different. Harry was able to resist Imperius; if he had succumbed, he may not have been able to remember what happened to him. We can't assume other people fully under the Imperius curse would have remembered the experience. The question isn't answered one way or the other based on Harry's experience here. I believe it isn't hard to imagine that the Imperius curse could affect its subjects different ways: "you will not remember what I have commanded you to do" might be all it takes, or an Imperio and a Confundus cast one after the other. Jim Ferer From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 23:12:14 2007 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:12:14 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174682 > colebiancardi: > > well, canon states that Snape *said* Avada Kedavra. But canon also > states that they've been learning about non-verbal spells all year long. > > Seems to me that is a great plot point that was never really used in > DH's, no? So, if learning about non-verbals was important in HBP and > what we knew about UC's and the status of Snape's loyalities before > the wrap-up in DH's, it seems to me that one could conclude, knowing > that Snape was DDM!Snape, issued a non-verbal spell instead of an > Unforgivable Curse. Have we ever seen Snape issue an Unforgivable > before in the books? Even in DH's, he resorts to confounding instead > of Imperious. > > Of course, my opinion pretty much goes to hell in a handbasket, as the > good guys *use* UC's in DH's. > > But, it just seems to me that the point of non-verbals was just tossed > away in the garbage, along with the idea of never using UC's, when > DH's came out. > > The evidence that Snape may or may not have used a true AK in HBP > could go either way. He may have said it, but that doesn't mean he > meant it. And we don't see this memory at all in the Pensive. > > IMHO > > colebiancardi > Jack-A-Roe: It's canon that he says Avada Kedavra. It's cannon that a green light shot out and hit Dumbledore in the chest. There isn't anymore for us to prove on that point. Your only argument is that they learned silent spells. Do we know it is possible to say one spell and think another? Not that I can remember anywhere in canon. As Alla said, it is up to you to prove your point using canon. You could also say that there was another DE under an invisibility cloak who cast the spell and not Snape. But we have no proof of that either. The spell is said the green light hits Dumbledore and he dies. Jack-A-Roe From erikog at one.net Mon Aug 6 23:17:16 2007 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:17:16 -0000 Subject: The Message of DH (WAS: Unforgivables - from a different angle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174683 > > houyhnhnm: > > > > That is what I wanted, too. The story *seemed* to be > > about good and evil and how to live your life. Lately > > I have been wondering if the theme Rowling was really > > persuing was not how to live, but how to die. Oh, I don't think the two ideas are so far apart at all. In my reading of the series, JKR has been trying to depict a coming-of-age story, a struggle for true maturation, and at that summit of maturity is to a.) be able to see, and forgive, the flaws and losses of our mentors and b.) the ability to embrace death as part of life. Despite the heavy motif of death, therefore, I think the books are very much a testament to the course of life, urging the reader to live gallantly, kindly, tolerantly, humorously, lovingly, freely. And, I want to add, imperfectly: one of the reasons Harry throws the infamous Crucio is not because he is a perfect moral hero, but because, even here, close to his peak moment as a hero, he is not a perfect character and he will, on occasion, do "bad" things, for which he should be held responsible. (The minute you believe yourself or another to be morally perfect--as we see both with Voldemort and Dumbledore--you set yourself up for the errors of arrogance and the evils of intolerance.) Krista From jferer at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 23:18:55 2007 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:18:55 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio (was: Code of the Playground) And Other Stuff, Too In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174684 Va32h: "No, she didn't tell us. She put this act the end of the book, when there was no time for any reckoning. I would say that JKR never intended, or saw the need to address how Harry felt about using Crucio, because it's a non-issue for her. When specifically asked in her web chat "did Harry ever come to regret that choice" she ignored the question and dismissed the entire topic with "Harry is not a saint."" JKR is right. Harry isn't a saint. Harry's a warrior who survived a war, and wars are ugly, painful things where the things their participants have seen done by others and done themselves have to be put not only in perspective but in the past. Survival is at stake. The fact the greatest evil in the wizard world is now destroyed is an unambiguous good thing, and that is the answer to the lives that were taken and the lives sacrificed. Could Harry have done something else than use Crucio? Maybe, but he can't agonize about this endlessly. He'd make himself crazy. The "wartime" Harry is put away, and the Harry we have left is no danger to anyone. What I'm saying is that Harry has to take his experiences fighting Voldemort [i]in toto[/I] and find a place to put them. He seems to have done that. I say he needs no forgiveness for anything he did. Jim Ferer From muellem at bc.edu Mon Aug 6 23:31:38 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:31:38 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174685 - > Jack-A-Roe: > It's canon that he says Avada Kedavra. It's cannon that a green light > shot out and hit Dumbledore in the chest. > colebiancardi: and in past discussions on this particular point, it is also canon that there are other spells that shoot out green light as well. > Jack-A-Roe > There isn't anymore for us to prove on that point. Really? Because you state so? This particular issue, which was a *hotbed* of discussions before DH's, is no longer an issue? What changed in DH's that changed this point of discussion? Because quite frankly, we never see Snape using an Unforgivable Curse in any of the books, not even in DH's where the Trio and the rest of the Order just bandy them about. Snape is awful careful not to tread in the UC's it seems to me. > Jack-A-Roe: > Your only argument is that they learned silent spells. Do we know it > is possible to say one spell and think another? Not that I can > remember anywhere in canon. colebiancardi: and it is a pretty darn good argument, IMHO. Where did non-verbals lead to in DH's? No where. Yet, HBP did make a big deal about them. Do I know if it is possible to say one spell and think another? No. But I doubt it is out of the realm of magic - after all, Snape states "...those who progress to using magic without shouting incantations gain an element of surprise in their spell-casting. Not all wizards can do this, of course; it is a question of concentration and mind power which some" -- his gaze lingered maliciously upon Harry once more -- "lack" HBP US ed p 179 Now, the scene in the tower - Snape has to kill DD - if he ever needed an element of surprise, eg fool the DE's, this is his opportunity. By faking an AK with a non-verbal spell underneath it all. Snape certainly has the concentration and mind power to do it. But again, it is speculation on my part. However, I didn't know we couldn't speculate anymore now that DH is out. My bad....wait, never mind. I can still speculate and still whip out canon that is questionable, imo. Snape's AK, as far as I am concerned, is still questionable because it never had a resolution in DH's. > Jack-A-Roe > As Alla said, it is up to you to prove your point using canon. You > could also say that there was another DE under an invisibility cloak > who cast the spell and not Snape. But we have no proof of that either. colebiancardi: since invisiblity cloaks are rare, highly doubtful. But you can go ahead with that theory if you wish. All I know is that many members before the release of DH were debating this possiblity. I didn't know we couldn't still talk about previous books. > Jack-A-Roe > The spell is said the green light hits Dumbledore and he dies. > colebiancardi: again, other spells have green lights. And yes, he dies - but he has been dying all year long. Snape's potion helped prolong his life and he was near the year that Snape told him he had. From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 23:44:23 2007 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:44:23 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables - from a different angle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174686 Carol: And as I don't believe in an eye > for an eye, I see it as wrong for Harry to stoop to their level.) Jack-A-Roe: Some people do see an eye for an eye. (Sometimes I see it that way myself). I still think part of it is the day Harry's had and is having. Breaking into Gringotts, losing the sword, escaping on a dragon, dementors in Hogsmeade, the truth about Dumbledore as told by his brother, finding out whats been happening to his friends, trying to talk them out of staging a battle, trying to figure out where the horcurx is, knowing that Voldemort is on the way.... I think the plan to blame it on the innocent Ravenclaws and the spitting were just the final straw. If Harry had cast Sectumsempra would it have been better because it wasn't an unforgivable? Amycus would have bled to death and Harry would have killed someone. I have no problem with the curse Harry chose. Maybe later, a day or two and he would have time to reflect on it. Since we don't see it, we can't say that he did or he didn't. Carol: I'm sure that Hannah Abbott, whose mother was > murdered in HBP, shows up somewhere, possibly in the Battle of > Hogwarts. Can someone refresh my memory?) Jack-A-Roe: Hannah is there at the battle. Harry casts a shield charm on her and Seamus as the battle moves into the great hall (pg 734, US edition) > Carol: > And how does Luna resist the Carrows? She *Stuns* Alecto! Jack-A-Roe: Well considering that Luna has never tried to Crucio someone, but has learned to stun people it makes sense that she would go with the strongest curse she knew how to perform. From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 00:27:10 2007 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:27:10 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174687 > > Jack-A-Roe: > > It's canon that he says Avada Kedavra. It's cannon that a green light > > shot out and hit Dumbledore in the chest. > > > > colebiancardi: > > and in past discussions on this particular point, it is also canon > that there are other spells that shoot out green light as well. Jack-A-Roe: But there has never been an instance where someone said Avada Kadavra and a green light came out that wasn't the killing curse. > > Jack-A-Roe > > There isn't anymore for us to prove on that point. > > Really? Because you state so? This particular issue, which was a > *hotbed* of discussions before DH's, is no longer an issue? What > changed in DH's that changed this point of discussion? Because quite > frankly, we never see Snape using an Unforgivable Curse in any of the > books, not even in DH's where the Trio and the rest of the Order just > bandy them about. Snape is awful careful not to tread in the UC's it > seems to me. > Jack-A-Roe: We don't see Snape cast many curses in DH at all. He doesn't cast them in the broom escape because he isn't actually trying to stop them he's just acting like it. He doesn't do it against McGonnegal because he has no intention of trying to harm her. He also has two other teachers run up at that time. His goal is to escape not to harm anyone. > > > > Jack-A-Roe: > > Your only argument is that they learned silent spells. Do we know it > > is possible to say one spell and think another? Not that I can > > remember anywhere in canon. > > > colebiancardi: > > and it is a pretty darn good argument, IMHO. Where did non-verbals > lead to in DH's? No where. Yet, HBP did make a big deal about them. > Do I know if it is possible to say one spell and think another? No. > But I doubt it is out of the realm of magic - after all, Snape states > "...those who progress to using magic without shouting incantations > gain an element of surprise in their spell-casting. Not all wizards > can do this, of course; it is a question of concentration and mind > power which some" -- his gaze lingered maliciously upon Harry once > more -- "lack" HBP US ed p 179 > Jack-A-Roe: Is it possible that silent spells was just a red herring to make everyone think that Harry wasn't going to be ready to duel Voldemort? That maybe the classes were shown to keep the animosity between Snape and Harry in front of everyone's mind? colebiancardi: > Now, the scene in the tower - Snape has to kill DD - if he ever needed > an element of surprise, eg fool the DE's, this is his opportunity. By > faking an AK with a non-verbal spell underneath it all. Snape > certainly has the concentration and mind power to do it. > > But again, it is speculation on my part. However, I didn't know we > couldn't speculate anymore now that DH is out. My bad....wait, never > mind. I can still speculate and still whip out canon that is > questionable, imo. Snape's AK, as far as I am concerned, is still > questionable because it never had a resolution in DH's. Jack-A-Roe: Go ahead and refer to any of the books you like if it can make your point. That's the whole idea. I can't see where there is a need for any resolution about the AK. Snape didn't deny it. If he hadn't cast it, I have no doubt it would have been in the memories he gave Harry. The memories were there to give Harry his story. The ones selected were all important but they all showed Snape in a positive way. If he went to that much trouble it only makes sense that he would let Harry know that he didn't actually AK Dumbledore. > From va32h at comcast.net Tue Aug 7 00:43:35 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:43:35 -0000 Subject: Quidditch as a metaphor for the series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174688 Inspired by Carol's suggestion of "really wanting to discuss the symbolism of Harry as 'Seeker'" Before DH came out, I had discussed with a few people the idea that Quidditch was a metaphor for the series, and now that we have Deathly Hallows to reference, I'm even more convinced. Harry and Voldemort are both captains and Seekers for their respective teams. The Snitch can be a variety of things - victory, Death, even the loyalties of Severus Snape (who is literally a Snitch). Only the Seekers can end the game - but the Seeker doesn't necessarily win the game (Harry's team kept scoring, and was winning the game even after Harry had "left the field" in DH). A good Seeker (like Harry) is able to stay focused despite the distractions caused by all the other players. He has to look over the entire field and spot the one small, easily overlooked thing that is the key to the whole game. A good Seeker must also be a team player, because sometimes it isn't enough to win one game - as we learn in PoA, tournaments are won by a yearlong racking up of points. Harry won the cup for Gryffindor that year by waiting until the right moment to go for the Snitch - the time when his team was up by a certain number of points. A selfish Seeker (like Voldemort) lunges for the snitch at the first opportunity, without regard to how his actions affect the game or the tournament. I don't necessarily think that every position on the team is represented by a particular character - however Ron is definitely Harry's Keeper. His lack of confidence occasionally allows the opposing team to score some points, but in the end, he always pulls through with the big saves (obvious reference being leaving the tent, coming back to pull Harry out of the pond). Hermione is a Chaser - heck, she's probably the entire offensive side for Harry's team. Although I'm sure there are other characters that can take on the role of Chaser at various points in the series. The role of Beaters has changed hands many times of course, has Harry's various protectors have died one after the other. I think Neville stepped up as a Beater in DH, though. I would say that Voldemort's team consists primarily of his horcruxes. That's what he's relying on to keep him in the game. Although Bella was the Keeper of one of his horcruxes - and she was the "last line of defense" so to speak, as Voldemort came totally unglued at her demise. I'm pretty sure that this isn't what Carol was talking about in regards to Harry being a Seeker, but I happened to love reading about the various Quidditch games (one of the few, I know) so it was a fun topic for me. va32h (who would have loved to hear Lee Jordan commentate the Battle of Hogwarts) From atllists at comcast.net Tue Aug 7 01:08:09 2007 From: atllists at comcast.net (ATLLists) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 20:08:09 -0500 Subject: Descendents of the Peverells, WAS: Question: Cadmus Peverell & Voldermort In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001201c7d88f$6b9b6ee0$c0426318@LambertOffice> No: HPFGUIDX 174689 Finwitch: Well, yes. But Very distant - more than that of the Founders, considering that Founders are part of known history, if also faded to legend in part; Peverell brothers are MYTH, or even older: a fairy tale. Taylor: Harry and Hermione see Ignotus Peverell's headstone, so he must not be myth. From Jenanydot at aol.com Tue Aug 7 00:10:12 2007 From: Jenanydot at aol.com (jenanydot) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:10:12 -0000 Subject: Molly and Arthur's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174690 > Lisa: > > Katie, check out the timeline on the Harry Potter Lexicon; they have > calculated all these dates. There's also another thread about this > somewhere here -- I think it's been determined that the Weasley parents would've been in their 70s ... making them contemporaries of Tom > Riddle, actually! The Lexicon also lists Molly's first year at Hogwarts as being circa 1961. Arthur's maternal grandfather was born in 1884. Now, while it IS possible that both his grandfather and his mother had children at very young ages...we don't really know how many children either of them had, and (this is entirely speculation on my part), I've always viewed Arthur as the youngest in his family. So, UNLESS both his mother and grandfather did all their procreating while very young, this puts Arthur being born sometime in the latter half of the 1940's. This is all mainly just my personal speculation, so I can't use it as very strong evidence to back up this argument. However, we know that Molly and Arthur eloped during Voldemort's original rise to power. The Lexicon lists their elopement as being in 1969. While it is technically possible that they eloped as middle-aged people...it doesn't seem probable at all. Elopements are generally reserved for the younger generation. All in all, there's no real way of knowing for certain until Rowling tells us, herself. However, I personally don't believe that the evidence for them being older than in their mid-forties is very substantial, especially since we have plenty of evidence that Rowling is horrible at making her own timelines add up when it comes to little details like this. IMHO, it's a stretch to try to make Molly and Arthur any older than 50. ~Mandy From muellem at bc.edu Tue Aug 7 00:59:37 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:59:37 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174691 > Jack-A-Roe: > But there has never been an instance where someone said Avada Kadavra > and a green light came out that wasn't the killing curse. colebiancardi: but that is the whole point of the speculation on my part. Since there are other spells that have green lights that come out and it is a trademark of an AK, you could theorize that a non-verbal spell was sent instead and that the AK was never truly sent. That it was masked. However, that is just speculation on my part, as well as other listies > Jack-A-Roe: > We don't see Snape cast many curses in DH at all. colebiancardi: I was referring to all the books, not just DH. > Jack-A-Roe: > Is it possible that silent spells was just a red herring to make > everyone think that Harry wasn't going to be ready to duel Voldemort? > That maybe the classes were shown to keep the animosity between Snape > and Harry in front of everyone's mind? > colebiancardi: this could be a possiblity - a red herring that JKR wrote. I think it was another lost plot point that she couldn't resolve, imho. > Jack-A-Roe: > Go ahead and refer to any of the books you like if it can make your > point. That's the whole idea. colebiancardi: well, thank you. That is what I am doing and I don't try to shut down anyone else's theories or speculations. Once JKR comes out and states that yes, Snape did perform an actual AK on DD, then the speculation is over. Just as I loathed LOLLIPOPS, it is now canon. The AK was never addressed in DH's nor were the non-verbals. >Jack-A-Roe > I can't see where there is a need for any resolution about the AK. > Snape didn't deny it. If he hadn't cast it, I have no doubt it would > have been in the memories he gave Harry. The memories were there to > give Harry his story. The ones selected were all important but they > all showed Snape in a positive way. If he went to that much trouble > it only makes sense that he would let Harry know that he didn't > actually AK Dumbledore. > colebiancardi: we didn't see it in the Pensive memories because Harry left them before it got to that point in the history. Snape didn't deny it, but heck, no one asked him, now did they? You think he is going to tell Voldemort that "woops, I didn't AK DD, but did a non-verbal instead" - that would blow his cover pretty quickly. And based on the rest of the Order, students, wizarding world - Snape was a Death Eater. He held his cover pretty good. Also, not all of the memories showed Snape in a positive way. The way he treated Petunia, the way he defended his cronies who used Dark Arts, the Worst Memory Scene, DD's "you disgust me" memory, Snape's continuing gripe against Harry with DD. Really, they aren't that positive. They are interesting, because they show us his back story and maybe the reasons why he did the things he did, but all of them are positive? I also don't think Snape hand selected these memories - they were pouring out of him "Something more than blood was leaking from Snape. Silvery blue, neither gas nor liquid, it gushed from his mouth and his ears and his eyes" DH US ed p 657 Take that in contrast with Snape actually hand-selecting memories: "but Snape mearly raised the wand to his temple and placed its tip into the greasy roots of his hair. When he withdrew it, some silvery substance came away, stretching from temple to wand like a thick gossamer strand, which broke as he pulled the way away from it and fell gracefully into the Pensieve, where it swirled silvery white, neither gas nor liquid" OotP US ed hardcover, p 533 "Snape was standing with his back to Harry, removing, as usual, certain of his thoughts and placing them carefully in Dumbledore's Pensieve" OotP US ed hardcove p 638 so, I think there is more to just the memories Harry saw in the Prince's Tale - we just didn't get them all. If Snape was dying, he probably just downloaded everything - they were gushing out of every hole in his face (except the nose....) it seems. As far as resolution, well, it is a detail that bothers me. Some details, like how old people are, don't bug me. But this AK and that we never see Snape nor hear that he ever used them, does bother me. It seems OOC for Snape - to me. colebiancardi From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 01:48:36 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:48:36 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B7CF74.9000208@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174692 Dennis Grant blessed us with this gem On 06/08/2007 23:50: > But in both cases, you're being racked as a form of coersion. The > purpose behind it COUNTS. First, Harry himself made his purpose crystal clear. "Whaddya know. You really DO have to mean it!" Mean what? "I torture." His purpose was torture. That's what he said. And by his own admission, that's what he meant. Second, his makes his reason crystal clear. "You shouldn't have done that." Done what? Why, spit on McGonagall, of course. > That's why we have so many legal definitions of acts that are > functionally identical - one person killing another. We're talking torture, here, Dennis. Not killing. Since you assert it, please tell us how many "legal definitions" of torture there are. Torture in self-defense? Natch. Torture in the line of duty? Doesn't exist. Torture by neglect? Nada. The UN (and yes, I'm going to bring the RW into this again; but you've already done that) has defined torture -- along with terrorism, CBW, hostage-taking, and a small handful of other acts -- as always and under any circumstances, unjustifiable. > Harry doesn't torture Carrow; he incapacitates him by inflicting > intense pain on him. Ah. The end justifies the means. What happened to Stupefy? > other technique have worked as well? Who can say; We can, of course. Can you point to a single instance in canon in which Stupefy has NOT been effective in stopping an opponent? If there were something different this time around, then it's JKR's responsibility to tell us. > it's easy to second-guess decisions made in the heat of battle There WAS no "heat of battle". There was just Carrow, spitting on McGonagall, and Harry tucked safely away under his Cloak, until he stepped out and ambushed Carrow. > by people who weren't there, Umm, sorry, but we WERE there. It didn't happen off-page. > and in this case we are talking about fictional weaponry which > may have other considerations of which we are not aware And again, in that case, it is the author's responsibility to make us aware, not leave us speculating that maybe, perhaps, possibly there MIGHT have been something we didn't know about. > as there is no way to know if an alternative would have worked, Stupefy, Dennis. Stupefy. It ALWAYS works. Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Aug 7 02:04:52 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 02:04:52 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174693 Geoff: > We are all like this; we all have moments which we wish we could > remove from our experience. I think I lean towards Dennis Grant's > view that Harry is a figurehead for humanity ? not for good as Magpie > suggests. I have argued on many occasions that he cannot be Christ > or a Christ figure but is an everyman, in whom I think we all see a > little of ourselves. As a result we see the best ? and the worst ? of > Harry and his friends. This is what makes him so believable as a > character and one reason why I like him so much. He isn't the > squeaky-clean type who never puts a foot wrong. He is flawed like > everybody else. He makes mistakes because he is rash; because he > is tired; because he ignores advice and goes his own sweet way. Magpie: Actually, I think Dennis Grant's reply to me made it seem like I was suggesting something I wasn't. I only said "good" meaning the relative good of the good vs. evil in the books. Harry is the figurehead of the good side, and even in saying that he is a figurehead for humanity, that means the same thing. He's the person we're looking at as our hero. This does not mean I'm asking him to be perfect at all--he can make mistakes, even bad ones. But as I said, the trouble isn't that he makes mistakes but if they're presented as such, and since Harry doesn't struggle, but rather is presented as a human with *exceptionally* good instincts for good who never has any moments where I see him really looking at his own behavior and being humbled, it doesn't seem like he's a very good figurehead for humanity or the good side either. I don't think he's that great of an everyman--not because he makes mistakes, but because of the way he seems to deal with mistakes, or how his mistakes are dealt with. He begins to sound more like a private fantasy to me, in the end, I mean the type of character who's satisfying because he gets to indulge in all sorts of fantasies of being better than everyone you hate or getting back at people...but then he's also the guy kicking the butt of evil because of the context. In terms of the Crucio, it seems many people have said that what disturbs them in the scene isn't that Harry uses the curse--it's not even the first time he's tried it. It's that it's suddenly presented as a cheap feel-good moment. Harry doesn't regret it or take it seriously. That, to me, adds to the idea that there's just something kind of shallow about the fantasy here. Harry is almost always presented as being in the morally correct position, even when some of us think he's going to get a wake-up call. And yet even sometimes, like in the Sectumsempra scene you quoted, it feels flat, like Harry's said the words that show he's a good guy yet the actual issues that one might expect needed to be dealt with aren't. That's more about the story than Harry, but still, in the end it doesn't feel like Harry needs to worry much at all even about that. Again, this isn't blaming Harry. Is Harry's mistake with Sectumsempra even really dealt with as a terrible choice that actually effects him? I don't think so at all. Geoff: They wanted to test > him because the law stated that stoning was the punishment for a crime > like this. Jesus waited a while and then said "Let him who is without sin > throw the first stone". They all crept away leaving the woman on her own. > Their consciences had pricked them. We are quick to point the finger at > other folk when we might well take the same route if we were in their > position, however moral that may be. And I think the intelligent reader > will see that in the story and take note. Magpie: We're not actually pointing the finger at anybody, though. This is a fictional character and we're analyzing the story for what it says and what we're being shown as a hero. I think that's completely different than judging a regular person or condeming them. As I think others have said, as wise as the advice might be to say we should look at moments where Harry does the wrong thing in, say, the Crucio scene and remember that we might have made that mistake too, Harry actually isn't presented as having made a mistake *at all,* and that's the issue. If Harry made a mistake and JKR was exploring the effect of the mistake on him and the world, I don't think there would be a problem. People wonder why it isn't. There are times when I've read things about this scene that actually seem to be just pulling everything down to Harry's level so that Harry's still on top--or else any idea that Harry was ever supposed to be better than average was not canon. This is a surprising way to be speaking about the hero of a series like this after it's over, imo. (And even when Harry is presented as having a mistake, it often isn't that serious--not even as serious as I expect it to be reading. Like, he feels less bad about it than he feels badly about getting kicked off Quidditch in the scheme of things. Maybe for plot reasons, but still. Geoff:> > Harry is not a Christ figure. He's not a plaster saint. He's "Harry. Just Harry." Magpie: He does seem to my admittedly not that educated about the subject eyes, to be one of the Elect. Even in his own world he isn't "just Harry" to anybody, and he's long since stopped seeing himself as one of the masses-not that he ever was that. Even at the Dursleys he was special. He's quite often praised in the books as being exceptional. -m From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Aug 7 02:09:00 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 22:09:00 -0400 Subject: The Message of DH - Moral Superiority Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174694 Steve/bboymin: "In the past in discussions of the various House traits, relative to this statement and to courage in Gryffindor, I have frequently asked, where were the other Gryffindors when Harry/Ron/Hermione were off on their adventures? The answer is, safe and toasty warm, tucked into their beds. The /other/ Gryffindors were being the nice obedient moral kids that mothers can be proud of. They weren't breaking the rules, they weren't causing trouble, they weren't putting themselves at risk. Oh yes indeed, very nice obedient boys and girls...indeed. I'm sure Pastor Dave would be very proud. I'm sure their mothers would be proud. But when the castle was overrun by Death Eaters, do you think parents and Pastor Dave were more proud of the ones who fled, or the ones who stayed to fight? ...the ones toasty warm in their beds or the ones bleeding on the battlefield?" Did you read Neville's description of life at Hogwarts while Harry, Ron & Hermione were out on their Horcrux hunt? I wouldn't call that 'safely tucked into their beds.' Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Aug 7 02:01:30 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 22:01:30 -0400 Subject: House elves question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174695 I would guess that no one person had the authority to set the Hogwart's house-elves free. PERHAPS the headmaster of the day, but it sounds more like something that the Board of Governors would have a say in. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Tue Aug 7 02:26:04 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 02:26:04 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: <46B7CF74.9000208@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174696 Dennis: > > > it's easy to second-guess decisions made in the heat of battle Lee: > There WAS no "heat of battle". There was just Carrow, spitting on > McGonagall, and Harry tucked safely away under his Cloak, until he > stepped out and ambushed Carrow. > Julie: I've now decided that I DO understand what JKR was trying to get across--that even someone as good as Harry can act badly (and he does act BADLY here, as even JKR said this moment showed that he wasn't "perfect") if there is enough pressure on him. The problem for me is the *execution* of this message. Harry isn't angered to the point of being out of control, as he was after Bellatrix killed Sirius, and again after Snape killed Dumbledore. He is in fact calm and controlled when he tells Carrow "You shouldn't have done that." So what would have worked better for me? If Carrow had killed McGonagall (and I'm sorry to say, I wouldn't have missed her all that much!). Or had done something else that drove Harry to mindless anger. Because that was what always drove Harry to attempt a Crucio before, that red haze of all-encompassing anger. For Harry to so calmly and coldly perform a Crucio in this scene felt very out of character. (Unless JKR was implying that Harry had realized that cold calculation while using the spell is what is required for him to "mean it," which is more than a bit scary. And in this case, some follow up with Harry recognizing this new and unsavory part of himself, and vowing if only internally not to give into it again would have helped make the point.) IMO, Julie From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Aug 7 02:31:06 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:31:06 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jo's OWN Words/Harry using Crucio/I am about to Rant/Danger Designating the In-Reply-To: <46B79126.4010809@yahoo.com> References: <8699267.1186167704402.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <46B79126.4010809@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46B7D96A.5060300@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174697 Lee Kaiwen wrote: > While I enjoyed your analysis, I think you've oversimplified the > Christian side a bit. Christianity also teaches obedience to authorities > -- "Render unto Caesar" -- so I'm not sure it's so simply as a conflict > between Judeo-Christian and Graeco-Roman thought (and which period of > Graeco-Roman thought? Socratic, Platonic (and neo-Platonic) and > Aristotelian ethics all weighed in on the subject of corrupt authorities). Bart: Well, yeah. We don't really have the capability of going to a few thousand words on this list. But "Render Unto Caesar" also has a coda of "Render unto God". The civil government can control the day to day business of keeping society in order, but it can't dictate morality. Harry sticks to what he knows is right and wrong, regardless of what the Ministry says. bart From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 7 02:36:42 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 02:36:42 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Call for DH Chapter Discussion Leaders! :) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174698 Greetings from Hexquarters! Pardon the interruption, but we are here to announce the approach of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows chapter discussions!! Like the OotP and HBP chapter discussions, one chapter will be scheduled every other week, consisting of a summary and questions designed to kick-start the discussion. At this time, we are seeking leaders for the chapter discussions. You can go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Structured_Discussi ons/ (and scroll to HP_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_Chapter_Discussion_Instructions) to see if this would be your cup of tea. To indicate your interest, please email HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com (minus that extra space) and indicate your preference for a particular chapter or a particular time frame. Because knowing who we can turn to in cases of last-minute need is very helpful, we are also taking names of volunteers who are willing to be on standby. You can find the schedule for the DH chapter discussions (including whether a chapter is still unassigned) in database form, at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database under "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions." Tip: you can view the entire schedule by clicking "Printable Report." If you are interested in reading over the past chapter discussions for OotP or DH, you can find those schedules here: http://tinyurl.com/2z6w39 (or http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Structured_Discussi ons/ and scroll to OotP_Chapter_Discussions) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database and scroll to "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" We plan to begin with Chapter 1: The Dark Lord Ascending on (or near!) August 20, 2007, with subsequent installments coming every two weeks after that. We're looking forward to hearing from HPfGUers who are interested in leading DH chapter discussions! :) Shorty Elf, for the HPfGU List Admin Team Reminder: Please do not post questions arising from this ADMIN onlist. Email the List Elves offlist at HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com (minus that extra space) instead. Thank you. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 7 02:53:38 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 02:53:38 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Call for DH Chapter Discussion Leaders! :) -- CORRECTION In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174699 Shorty Elf just wrote: > If you are interested in reading over the past chapter discussions > for OotP or DH, you can find those schedules here: > > http://tinyurl.com/2z6w39 > (or > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Structured_Discussi ons/ and scroll to OotP_Chapter_Discussions) > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database and scroll > to "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" Shorty Elf is very, very sorry. Shorty has sent a tinyurl link which is no good! Shorty is positive she checked her tinyurl link many times before she sent it along, but still, it is no good. Shorty will grovel on the ground now and beg the kind witches and wizards to please try this link instead: http://tinyurl.com/ysmxxj Shorty Elf has also sent in a link which is too long, when she sent this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Structured_Discussi ons/ and scroll to OotP_Chapter_Discussions) Shorty Elf is most devastated at her crappy ability to post links. She begs her masters to try this one instead: http://tinyurl.com/26d476 (But the one for the HBP discussion database worked!!!) Shorty Elf, hitting the iron before calling it a night From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Tue Aug 7 03:10:38 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:10:38 -0000 Subject: Sirius says In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174700 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "littleleahstill" wrote: > "Well, times like that (ie the first rise of Voldemort) bring out the > best in some people and the worst in others. Crouch's principles > might've been good in the beginning...he started ordering very harsh > measures against Voldemort's supporters. ...Crouch fought violence with > violence, and authorised the use of the Unforgiveable Curses against > suspects. I would say he became as ruthless and cruel as many on the > Dark Side" Sirius in 'Padfoot Returns', GOF (UK) 457. Shaunette: Sorry to butt in on the Unforgivables debate, but this quote made me think of something else Sirius said in that hideout which has bothered me. Same scene as above: Ron and Hermione begin to argue about house elves again, and Sirius cuts in, siding with Hermione. He says Hermione's disgust in Crouch is wise because "if you want the measure of a man, look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals" (paraphrasing heavily). Now, assuming I've quoted the right person (I've been known to have a completely wonky memory for this sort of thing), does anyone else see the problem with this? Dumbledore and Hermione both go on to criticize Sirius for his treatment of Kreacher in OotP. And we are shown, in DH, that Kreacher is really quite nice if you treat him nicely. So...am I supposed to conclude that Sirius is a bit of a hypocrite? Somehow, I think he really meant what he said. It certainly stuck with me as one of the great lines in the series! any ideas at all on this discrepancy? -Shaunette From random832 at fastmail.us Tue Aug 7 03:43:44 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:43:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Descendents of the Peverells, WAS: Question: Cadmus Peverell & Voldermort In-Reply-To: <001201c7d88f$6b9b6ee0$c0426318@LambertOffice> References: <001201c7d88f$6b9b6ee0$c0426318@LambertOffice> Message-ID: <46B7EA70.1010604@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 174701 ATLLists wrote: > Finwitch: > > Well, yes. But Very distant - more than that of the Founders, > considering that Founders are part of known history, if also faded to > legend in part; Peverell brothers are MYTH, or even older: a fairy tale. > > Taylor: > > Harry and Hermione see Ignotus Peverell's headstone, so he must not be > myth. I think "myth" in this sense can mean not necessarily that the person never existed, but that he's not seriously believed to have existed, or that the story (itself divorced of any names) is not seriously believed to have happened in any meaningful way. -- Random832 From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 04:05:53 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 04:05:53 -0000 Subject: Sirius says In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174702 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaunette Reid" wrote: > Shaunette: > > Sorry to butt in on the Unforgivables debate, but this quote made me think of something > else Sirius said in that hideout which has bothered me. > Same scene as above: Ron and Hermione begin to argue about house elves again, and > Sirius cuts in, siding with Hermione. He says Hermione's disgust in Crouch is wise because > "if you want the measure of a man, look at how he treats his inferiors, not his > equals" (paraphrasing heavily). > Now, assuming I've quoted the right person (I've been known to have a completely wonky > memory for this sort of thing), does anyone else see the problem with this? Dumbledore > and Hermione both go on to criticize Sirius for his treatment of Kreacher in OotP. And we > are shown, in DH, that Kreacher is really quite nice if you treat him nicely. So...am I > supposed to conclude that Sirius is a bit of a hypocrite? > Somehow, I think he really meant what he said. It certainly stuck with me as one of the > great lines in the series! > any ideas at all on this discrepancy? > > -Shaunette I think Sirius meant it, but was never able to separate Kreacher from the dark-loving family he served. When Sirius knew Kreacher, he was loyal to his mother, who hated everything Sirius stood for. He was loyal to his Death Eater brother. He hated Sirius and treated him as a traitor. I feel if Sirius were to get his own elf, he would treat him well - perhaps not like Hermione, who wouldn't bear to have a slave, or even Dumbledore, who appears to have become slightly more enlightened, but well for the WW. Crouch treated an elf who was in all ways loyal and good badly. Sirius treated Kreacher badly, but Kreacher wasn't a faceless nonentity servant. He was almost an enemy in his own right - yes, an underling technically, but one who he had a longstanding relationship with, and who did not obey him or treat him well. I'm not saying Sirius couldn't've tried to be more understanding and patient - we know how immature he was in many ways. But I don't think his treatment of Kreacher reflects on how he would treat his inferiors so much as how Sirius treats those who are against him. We note that he treats Buckbeak with great respect, and he would be considered even a lower lifeform than an elf. Compare to Draco. ~Prep0strus (Adam From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 06:16:51 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:16:51 -0000 Subject: 7 reasons why - The Glass is Half Empty. In-Reply-To: <01e701c7d871$72df0130$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174703 --- "k12listmomma" wrote: > > > Steve wrote: > >> People keep saying that there is no explanation for > >> that letter being there, yet when explanations are > >> suggested, they are written off as fan-fiction and > >> fantasy. Well, you either want an explanation or > >> your don't; apparently, many don't. > k12listmomma: > > Steve, I guess I will have to explain my take on this. > ... We, as readers, shouldn't have to be looking for > ways to plug the holes in Rowling's story for the > FINAL BOOK. ... bboyminn: Sorry you feel that way, but this is only a plot hole because you choose not to believe it. That FACT IS, the letter was there. Now you can chose to believe it couldn't be there, even though it was, or you can choose to believe it /was/ there and accept explanations as to why. This isn't a problem with the story, this is a problem with what /you/ choose to believe or not believe. In my book (a pun), choosing to believe what is written on the page always seem to make more sense. The letter is an extremely minor part of the overall story. JKR simply can't waste precious pages explaining every little minor point. The Letter was there, now on with the story. And I am out of here. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 06:43:46 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:43:46 -0000 Subject: The Message of DH - Moral Superiority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174704 --- "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > Steve/bboymin: > "In the past in discussions of the various House > traits, relative to this statement and to courage in > Gryffindor, I have frequently asked, where were the > other Gryffindors when Harry/Ron/Hermione were off on > their adventures? The answer is, safe and toasty warm, > tucked into their beds. > > The /other/ Gryffindors were being the nice obedient > moral kids that mothers can be proud of. They weren't > breaking the rules, they weren't causing trouble, they > weren't putting themselves at risk. ... But when the > castle was overrun by Death Eaters, do you think > parents and Pastor Dave were more proud of the ones > who fled, or the ones who stayed to fight? ...the > ones toasty warm in their beds or the ones bleeding > on the battlefield?" > Bruce: > > Did you read Neville's description of life at Hogwarts > while Harry, Ron & Hermione were out on their Horcrux > hunt? I wouldn't call that 'safely tucked into their > beds.' > > Bruce Alan Wilson bboyminn: I was talking about the Trio and the 'other' Gryffindors across the entire span of the series. And the exception in book 7 only proves my point. The day is saved by the Rule Breakers, not by those who quietly obey. Keep in mind, everything I said was to illustrate the principle of - "All that is needed for Evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing." And to further make the point that Harry's morality is in his actions, all of his actions, not a single isolated event. Extending that even further, morality is in his action, NOT in moralizing and sermonizing and preaching to the choir. I think the moral courage Harry displays would have been greatly diluted if the books had stopped every 20 pages while the narrator breaks the flow to give a long moralizing sermon on right and wrong. It is the very fact that such sermons do NOT exits that makes Harry Potter such an effective morality tale. We learn by the example of a flawed but basically good courageous boy who will not tolerate the forces of evil winning, and is determined to beat them regardless of the personal cost. Once again, I point out the Revelation is a far better teacher than Explanation. A deep and real understanding of a character, and by extension of yourself, is a far far better teacher than long droning boring lectures on moral perfection. I stand by what I said. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 06:54:09 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:54:09 -0000 Subject: Descendents of the Peverells, In-Reply-To: <001201c7d88f$6b9b6ee0$c0426318@LambertOffice> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174705 --- "ATLLists" wrote: > > Finwitch: > > Well, yes. But Very distant - more than that of the > Founders, considering that Founders are part of known > history, if also faded to legend in part; Peverell > brothers are MYTH, or even older: a fairy tale. > > Taylor: > > Harry and Hermione see Ignotus Peverell's headstone, > so he must not be myth. > bboyminn: I don't think the reference to MYTH is to deny the reality of the Peverell Brothers. I think Finwitch is simply saying the because a myth surrounds them, they must be really really really old. Further implying, if I interpret correctly, that the Peverells are even older than Hogwarts founders. That is, the Founders exist in known history, the Peverells are only documented in legend, myth, and fairtale. Some have speculated the family goes back 1,000 years, some say 2,000 years, other say 3,000 years. I say even if it is only 500 years, that is enough to satisfy the story, and dilute the link between Harry and Voldemort by more than 25 generations. Twenty five generations, assuming two new kids in each generation, totals 67,000,000 descendants. That pretty diluted. Steve/bboyminn From nitalynx at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 07:45:17 2007 From: nitalynx at yahoo.com (nitalynx) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:45:17 -0000 Subject: The Message of DH - Moral Superiority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174706 bboyminn wrote: > And to further make the point that Harry's morality is > in his actions, all of his actions, not a single > isolated event. Nita: But don't "all of his actions" consist entirely of single events? Or if not, how do we decide which events to ignore? What if I think that his self-sacrifice was atypical (say, he was still shocked and numb after the LOLLIPOPS revelation), and so we shouldn't take in into account? > Extending that even further, morality > is in his action, NOT in moralizing and sermonizing > and preaching to the choir. I think the author should know which actions are moral and which aren't in her universe, and in a Good vs Evil story, there should be some hint of that in the text, and NOT in the form of lectures. After all, she can do whatever she wants with the laws and nature (magic), the principle of cause and effect depends entirely on her will. She's in no way limited to sermonizing. > I think the moral courage Harry displays would have > been greatly diluted if the books had stopped every > 20 pages while the narrator breaks the flow to give > a long moralizing sermon on right and wrong. It > is the very fact that such sermons do NOT exits that > makes Harry Potter such an effective morality tale. Luckily, no one here suggests that the book needed more long moralizing sermons. Unfortunately, some of us believe that the moral courage Harry&Co display is greatly diluted by the author's inconsistent attitude to certain actions. > We learn by the example of a flawed but basically good > courageous boy who will not tolerate the forces of > evil winning, and is determined to beat them regardless > of the personal cost. Do we? I wouldn't want my little brother to learn too much from Harry, actually. And if I did want him to grow up that way, a few cheap action movies can provide the same example more effectively, without contradicting themselves. > Once again, I point out the Revelation is a far better > teacher than Explanation. A deep and real understanding > of a character, and by extension of yourself, is a far > far better teacher than long droning boring lectures on > moral perfection. Very well said. I couldn't agree more. Too bad Harry himself never achieved a deep and real understanding of anyone, and in the end, he didn't seem deep or real enough for me to take any pleasure in understanding him. Nita, who prefers consequences to lectures, but would settle even for lectures if they preserved some moral consistency From estelwyn at yahoo.co.nz Tue Aug 7 06:37:07 2007 From: estelwyn at yahoo.co.nz (estelwyn) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:37:07 -0000 Subject: Hermione crying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174707 > Natalie: > Later she was again weeping while she > was on the dragon after > breaking out of Gringotts. > cariad: > After Gringotts, maybe relief, surely, pain from all the burns and > witnessing her friends burning too. The gnome's betrayal of the > sword must have been the last straw. And it was a close call. Stel now: Also, she might have been crying out of fear when they were on the dragon too. Remember we're told many times that Hermione doesn't like flying. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 08:31:15 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:31:15 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B82DD3.7020902@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174708 colebiancardi blessed us with this gem On 07/08/2007 07:31: > Now, the scene in the tower - Snape has to kill DD - if he ever needed > an element of surprise, eg fool the DE's, this is his opportunity. By > faking an AK with a non-verbal spell underneath it all. Snape > certainly has the concentration and mind power to do it. OK, now this is the part I don't understand. WHY would Snape need to fake an AK? DD is dead - is it important that Snape use an AK to do it? Further, since this theoretical non-verbal spell bears all the earmarks of an AK -- green flash, instant death -- would the DE witnesses not simply assume Snape had cast a non-verbal AK? Now THAT would impress them. Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From jamess at climaxgroup.com Tue Aug 7 10:22:40 2007 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:22:40 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Descendents of the Peverells, WAS: Questi on: Cadmus Peverell & Voldermort Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B530D06A074@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 174709 > Finwitch: > > Well, yes. But Very distant - more than that of the Founders, > considering that Founders are part of known history, if also faded to > legend in part; Peverell brothers are MYTH, or even older: a fairy tale. > > Taylor: > > Harry and Hermione see Ignotus Peverell's headstone, so he must not be > myth. I think "myth" in this sense can mean not necessarily that the person never existed, but that he's not seriously believed to have existed, or that the story (itself divorced of any names) is not seriously believed to have happened in any meaningful way. James: It's worth point out here that we have 3 wizarding surnames associated with Tom riddle. Gaunt, Peverell and Slitherin. We know that both Harry and Tom are decedents of the Peverell family. But that does not preclude Tom being the only living descendant of Slitherin. I can easily see the slitherin line being very narrow with just one or two members in each generation, finally dying out when there is just a daughter who marries into the suitably pure blood Gaunt line. There doesn't seem to be any cannon on this, but certainly read the Peverell brothers as being fairly recent (after the Hogwarts founders) but presumably a fair few centuries back. Id be interested to see what JKR has to say about this. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Tue Aug 7 10:21:56 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:21:56 -0000 Subject: Harry, Voldemort & the Horcrux at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174710 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Brothergib wrote: > > > > I think I'm right in stating that DD felt that LV wanted to use > Harry's death to make his final Horcrux. The suggestion from JKR's > latest interview is that the Horcrux must be created as soon as the > person is killed that facilitates the soul splitting. Therefore, what > object did he intend to convert into a Horcrux that night at Godric's > hollow - and is it still there? The only thing I can think of is his wand. > > Carol responds: > > As far as I can see, especially after JKR's chat transcript (which > states that he used the murder of an Albanian peasant for the > Ravenclaw diadem and Bertha Jorkins for Nagini), Dumbledore is > mistaken on this particular point. Voldemort does not reserve > Horcrux-making for important murders, or the other way around. The > most recent murder will do. It's the Horcrux itself that counts. Maybe > he even murdered Myrtle to make the diary Horcrux. Brothergib: I think you could argue the case either way. Yes he did use a peasant and a tramp to make a couple of Horcruxes. However, he also specifically hunted down his father to make one of his Horcruxes, and also used Hepzibah for another. I think the creation of the Nagini horcrux was a sign that LV was panicking. He had convinced himself that a 7 piece soul was most magically powerful, but had attempted to kill Harry while it was still only in six pieces. As soon as he was able to use a wand after that night, he created his final Horcrux from the one thing he had to hand. And one other point - I still don't see how Myrtle could be used to create a Horcrux, since it was the basilisk that killed her. Yes, I understand that Riddle was controlling it, but that seems rather weak to me! As for DD being mistaken, I was convinced after HBP, that DD had made a mistake somewhere along the line - maybe that Nagini wasn't actually a Horcrux. However, DH proved that DD was absolutely spot on! Therefore, I now find it difficult to believe that he was mistaken about Godric's Hollow. It is possible that he may have been, but I think the evidence argues against it! Carol again; > > His motive in going to Godric's Hollow, however, was not to make a > Horcrux. Both Dumbledore and Harry suspect that he wanted to use the > Sword of Gryffindor, but he had not obtained it as of Godric's Hollow. > (My theory is that his next murder, after killing Harry, would have > been Dumbledore, killed to make the Sword his last Horcrux.) > > But his sole objective in going to Godric's Hollow, as we see in > "Bathilda's Secret," is to kill Harry Potter and thwart the Prophecy. > > "He pointed the wand very carefully into the boy's face. He wanted to > see it happen, the destruction of this one, inexplicable danger" (DH > Am. ed. 345). Brothergib again; Again, I'm not sure that proves that he wasn't intending to make a Horcrux after the event. But I agree that the lure of Gryffindor's sword must have been great. > Carol, who thinks that if Voldie had brought an object to be made into > a Horcrux, the soul bit would have entered it rather than Harry's as > yet unsealed scar > Brothergib - who thinks that the bit of soul that broke off had never been intended as a Horcrux and therefore no spell had been cast upon it. As a result there is no reason why it would enter any object that may have been brought as a 'soul container'! From greatraven at hotmail.com Tue Aug 7 10:28:56 2007 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:28:56 -0000 Subject: Doe Patronus Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174711 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: >>> > houyhnhnm: > > There is an awful lot of deer mythology, including the > symbolic association of hunting a hind with the pursuit > of wisdom. > > In Erasmo de Valvasone's "La Caccia", the hind of the > fairies led Arthur into a cave, then out on the far > side of the mountain, to Morgan's palace. He was shown > the heavens and the earth to give him guidance for the future. > > Harry is a Seeker who is persuing a white hind, so > naturally he has to have a burning question. I'm not > sure it's meant to be as concrete as "Who cast this patronus?" > > In Mary Stewart's _The Hollow Hills_, Arthur pursued a > white stag across the lake to the Isle of Glass where > Merlin had hidden the sword of Macsen Wledig. Harry > was led by a white hind to Godric Gryffindor's sword > in a frozen pond. > Sue here: Yes, the white deer comes into Arthurian romance quite a lot (admittedly it's usually a stag, but still...). The knight/king/whoever is hunting when he sees a white deer and chases it and is led into adventure of one kind or another, an enchanted barge or whatever... I thought the same thing. And JKR does make use of quite a lot of mediaeval symbolism and Arthurian stuff. Even the sword from the Sorting Hat is a nod to the sword from the stone, I think, not to mention the sword from the lake - er, pool. :-) From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Aug 7 11:03:31 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:03:31 -0000 Subject: 7 reasons why - The Glass is Half Empty. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174712 > bboyminn: > > This isn't a problem with the story, this is a problem > with what /you/ choose to believe or not believe. > Potioncat: But, this is a discussion group. If we're all going to say, JKR wrote a book and I read it....there's no discussion. Anything should be up for grabs at this site---from, "If Sirius was an animal, what animal do you think he would be?" to "This part of the story doesn't work for me, and here's why..." Some issues can be resolved--more or less---"I think Sirius would be a dog and here's the canon for it...." Others are pretty much opinion. Sometimes it's good to toss an opinion out and see what others think. "I do/don't think it was a plot hole because..." I personally think the details around the letter are a bit rough. So this part of the story doesn't work so well, (IMHO). I've stepped back and done two things. Like you, (I think) I've come up with a plot-worthy explanation of why/how the letter was there. I've also taken a look at what I think the author was doing, and I think I understand the hints....but overall, to my mind, this section wasn't as well written as other sections. And that's what I choose to believe. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about it, and I don't mind that others have a different opinion. I may or may not continue posting on this topic, depending on what other posts have to say. From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Tue Aug 7 11:20:21 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:20:21 -0000 Subject: Many responses (Molly's age, Hagrid, JKR stuff, unforgivables, etc) - also, Moody's Eye In-Reply-To: <46AEAFA1.7020901@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174713 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Random832 wrote: > ---MOODY'S EYE--- > Two things - the fact that it can see through Harry's "perfect" > invisibility cloak, and the fact that it was so significant Umbridge > went back and stole it after Moody fell to his death, to hang on her > door. It would seem this is no run-of-the-mill magical eye. perhaps it is the All-Seeing Eye ;) -Shaunette (who apologizes for the one-liner, but couldn't resist) From ejblack at rogers.com Tue Aug 7 11:36:04 2007 From: ejblack at rogers.com (Jeanette) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:36:04 -0000 Subject: Fitch and screaming students Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174714 Pondering the whole camon, I find myself considering Fitch, Fitch's age and student torture. In one of the early books (sorry, can't quote, don't have it with me) Fitch is taking Harry et al to the Forest for detention. He is muttering about in the good old days students would be hung up in iron for detention. Then he says "How I miss the screams". So, how old is Fitch? Were students physically up to Dumbledor's time? (I am assuming he stopped it.) Umbridge has no problem in physical punishment, is it because she is a sadist or because it is part of the WW? Jeanette From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Aug 7 13:29:19 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:29:19 -0000 Subject: Fitch and screaming students In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174715 "Jeanette" wrote: > > Pondering the whole camon, I find myself considering Fitch, Fitch's > age and student torture. In one of the early books (sorry, can't quote, > don't have it with me) Fitch is taking Harry et al to the Forest for > detention. He is muttering about in the good old days students would be > hung up in iron for detention. Then he says "How I miss the screams". Potioncat: I have to admit, I burst out laughing at that scene from the movie everytime I see it! It's not quite like that in the book. But, Filch does say he's keeps chains oiled for the purpose of hanging students from the walls and implies that's what used to happen. Arthur has scars from a punishment at Hogwarts, so we know that cruel punishments have been dished out. Depending on which set of clues you use for Arthur's age, and which set of clues you use for DD becoming Headmaster---it seems DD has been headmaster while some of these punishments were used. We see cruel punishments under Carrow, but that's supposed to be different. I don't know what to make of it. Jeanette: > > So, how old is Fitch? Were students physically up to Dumbledor's > time? (I am assuming he stopped it.) Umbridge has no problem in > physical punishment, is it because she is a sadist or because it is > part of the WW? Potioncat: McGonagall says something to the effect that Filch has been complaining about Peeves for 25 years. Lupin also mentioned Filch being there when he was a boy. And that's the best I can come up with. From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 14:06:40 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:06:40 -0000 Subject: Sirius says In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174716 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: > I'm not saying Sirius couldn't've tried to be more understanding and > patient - we know how immature he was in many ways. But I don't > think his treatment of Kreacher reflects on how he would treat his > inferiors so much as how Sirius treats those who are against him. > > We note that he treats Buckbeak with great respect, and he would be > considered even a lower lifeform than an elf. Compare to Draco. Finwitch: And said Sirius was kind to elves in general. Kreacher was special in many ways to Sirius. One living, constant reminder of his unpleasant past (one he lived with in Azkaban, I'd say, apart from the death of James). Personification of the House of Black Sirius seriously disliked, and where he was stuck in. Maybe, if Sirius had been freed and thus able to move about, he would have had the time and ability to reconsider Kreacher. As things were, Sirius was too busy fighting for his sanity. Anyway... would it have been nicer/wiser/more mature of Sirius to tell Kreacher to stop when the elf's muttering got to his nerves, rather than give out empty threats? Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 14:41:01 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:41:01 -0000 Subject: Descendents of the Peverells, WAS: Questi on: Cadmus Peverell & Voldermort In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B530D06A074@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174717 > > I think "myth" in this sense can mean not necessarily that the person > never existed, but that he's not seriously believed to have existed, or > that the story (itself divorced of any names) is not seriously believed > to have happened in any meaningful way. > Finwitch: Right - only Xenophilus Lovegood seems to... And: the true tale of Slytherin parting ways with the other three Founders had, by 1000 years or so, faded into a legend. (Acc. to Binns) The tale of the Peverell's appears to be (with Harry finding and mastering all Deathly Hallows, seeing the tombstone) one that's faded beyond legend, into a myth - or a fairy tale. Thus, I think Slytherin was descendant of one Peverell brother, Harry of another. Both passed the items on to descendants... Gaunt showing the Peverell ring to impress the age of his pureblood family... So old they only come up in a fairy tale? Before wizards hid themselves. Think of it... when was 'once upon a time'? And, considering wizards live longer, it's really long time for them to forget. Oh, let's say a daughter or granddaughter of Cadmus Peverell married Salazar Slytherin and evenly, a daughter or granddaughter of Ignatio Peverell Potter ancestor... (Could have been even a Muggle, busy making ceramics....) Like Hermione said in CoS - SS lived 1000 years ago, so long ago that you MIGHT well be related. Distantly. Finwitch From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 15:32:59 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:32:59 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174718 > Julie: > So what would have worked better for me? If Carrow had > killed McGonagall (and I'm sorry to say, I wouldn't have > missed her all that much!). Or had done something else that > drove Harry to mindless anger. Because that was what always > drove Harry to attempt a Crucio before, that red haze of > all-encompassing anger. For Harry to so calmly and coldly > perform a Crucio in this scene felt very out of character. > (Unless JKR was implying that Harry had realized that cold > calculation while using the spell is what is required for > him to "mean it," which is more than a bit scary. And in > this case, some follow up with Harry recognizing this new > and unsavory part of himself, and vowing if only internally > not to give into it again would have helped make the point.) > > IMO, > Julie > lizzyben: Before DH, I predicted that Harry would use an Unforgiveable Curse, but I totally got the circumstances & message all wrong. I thought that Harry would use the Curse in some sort of extreme dire straights when he is consumed with emotion, and that it would be a dramatic "the ring is mine!" type of moment. It would be Harry's low point, his dip into evil, before rising above to use love & good instead. That would've sent a message about the dangers of unrestrained hatred, rage & revenge. But here, Harry uses Unforgiveables in an almost casual manner, without emotion or even second thoughts. Even Hermione doesn't object to them. And Harry doesn't use them because of some desperate circumstance, but simply because he feels like it, or because it's easier. And the author never, in any way, expresses disapproval or shock at these Curses, and actually seems to approve of their use by the Heros. Instead of sending a message against using immoral or harmful tactics, the book seems to send a message that any means are acceptable as long as we're the ones doing it. As long as those immoral means are used against the "bad guys", anything goes. After reading about Harry's use of Unforgiveable curses, one poster wrote that their child asked "I thought they were supposed to be the good guys?" According to the text, the correct answer to that question is "It's OK when the good guys do it, it's just bad when the bad guys do it." I can only see this as a morally bankrupt message. The morality of the Wizarding World is sort of facinating in its total dysfunction, but I think it's ultimately useless to try to make much sense of it. Because this series is basically a revenge narrative. Most children's novels have a theme of reconciliation & personal growth, so most people assumed that the Harry Potter novels would have a similar message. But now, at the close, it's pretty clear that that was not the theme. This is a story about revenge, and all the characters exact revenge w/the author's full approval. And we, the readers, are supposed to identify fully w/the Gryfindors and get satisfaction out of reading about it. Wizards get revenge against the Durselys for their unfair treatment by blowing up an aunt, giving Dudley ton-tongue toffee, giving Dudley a tail. Harry gets revenge against Voldemort for killing his parents, & revenge against the Carrows for insulting McGonegal. Harry's revenge is characterized as an appropriate sign of maturity. Hermione gets revenge against Rita Skeeter by transfiguring & imprisoning her. Molly gets full caps-lock revenge against Bellatrix, and readers are supposed to cheer. Finally, the author gets revenge against various characters by giving them appropriate ironic punishments. The traitor is strangled by his own reward. The mean teacher is killed by the symbol of his own house & his body is left at the scene of his worst moment. The facist control freak is carried away by a herd of rampaging chaotic centaurs. And the book gets revenge against the Slytherins, symbol of everything we don't like, by exiling them & purging them from the school. The message: revenge is sweet. There are so many examples of revenge in the novels that I do believe it is the central theme. At first, I thought that the author was intending to show the dangers of seeking revenge, but the real message is quite the opposite. The Harry Potter novels are pro- revenge. Like the Count of Monte Cristo, readers are simply expected to cheer as the evil-doers are suitably punished by the protaganists. It's a pretty ugly message for a children's book, but there it is. lizzyben From va32h at comcast.net Tue Aug 7 15:38:50 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:38:50 -0000 Subject: Holding JKR Accountable (was Re: 7 reasons why - The Glass is Half Empty.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174719 > > bboyminn: > > > > > This isn't a problem with the story, this is a problem > > with what /you/ choose to believe or not believe. va32h: I choose to believe that JKR became lazier and sloppier with each book after PoA, culminating in a 7th book that is full of plot holes, continuity errors, and characters acting entirely out of character. She has become so accustomed to her fandom cheerfully and devotedly explaining away all her flaws, that she didn't even make an effort to make anything in DH make sense. And we just keep on doing it. Carol said: >Ravenclaw diadem and Bertha Jorkins for Nagini), Dumbledore is > mistaken on this particular point. Voldemort does not reserve > Horcrux-making for important murders, or the other way around. The > most recent murder will do. It's the Horcrux itself that counts. >Maybe he even murdered Myrtle to make the diary Horcrux. va32h: Dumbledore is not mistaken - JKR is mistaken. Once again, she is too lazy to bother remembering or re-reading anything she's previously written so she just made up this business about Albanian peasants and Bertha Jorkins right there on the spot. Just like she made up three or four variations on the secret keeper concept or two different careers for Ron. And fandom is bending over backwards to correct that mistake too. Clearly, JKR meant that Ron works at Weasley's Wizard Wheezes by day and moonlights as an Auror. Or he works as an Auror during the week and at WWW on the weekends. Of course these are very small, even petty issues. But each little mistake in itself is not the problem. That readers are so determined not to believe she could ever be mistaken is the problem, IMO. Why is any convoluted scenario so much more plausible than "JKR forgot how she answered that question the last time it was asked?" I think it's because we are reluctant to admit that we care far more about this universe than its creator does. I'm sure she cared once, but somewhere along the line she stopped. Too much hype, too much pressure, too much time spent with the material, I don't know the reason. But Deathly Hallows reeks of "getting this over with". va32h From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 15:41:53 2007 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:41:53 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174720 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: [on the AK in HBP being real or not] > Really? Because you state so? This particular issue, which was a > *hotbed* of discussions before DH's, is no longer an issue? I'd say it's no longer an issue because there was no actual textual payoff. Those of us who have been around for ages remember the MAGIC DISHWASHER, which went through several incarnations, but the basic argument of at least one form of the theory was that Dumbledore had explicitly set up the events in the Shrieking Shack, with Snape as his agent, to ensure Wormtail's life-debt. Well, the DISHWASHER was right about Dumbledore having spies, but we never got any information about the details of this event transpiring in the way that it argued. Ergo, with canon closed, there's nothing more to say. The "Snape didn't *really* use an AK!" argument strikes me the same way. IF we had gotten any overt indication that something was up here, then it would still be open; I don't consider Snape's avoidance of the curses elsewhere to be overt. (If anything, "No Unforgiveables for you" could point the other way). Now, with canon closed, I don't think there's any reason to keep constructing arguments that have to work so hard against canon. -Nora takes a break from assembling other kinds of canon From mhersheybar at hotmail.com Tue Aug 7 15:41:03 2007 From: mhersheybar at hotmail.com (melhersheybar) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:41:03 -0000 Subject: Where was Snape? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174721 I admit I have not read every post in the last two weeks, but I have not seen a discussion of this in the ones I have read. My question is, where was Snape between the time he "did a bunk" prior to the start of the first battle for Hogwarts and the time he showed up in the Shrieking Shack? We don't have an answer from the book, and his absence has bothered me. It does not appear that he realized at the time he fled that VD has started keeping Nagini close by because he does not immediately go to find Harry and give him the last bit of information that Harry contains a piece of VD's soul. So he runs off, doesn't go to VD, doesn't fight on the side of the Death Eaters, and yet, Lucius is able to easily find him when VD asks him to. Only then does he realize that, "whoops, I better go find Harry" before it is too late. Does he realize at that point that VD is about to kill him? I don't know, but it seems so. Absent any other explanation, I have to conclude the Jo purposefully blurred the plot here so that the whole "passing of the memories" and Prince's Tale could take place in a way that made it possible for Harry to accept and believe the information. I know that a lot of people have commented about how lucky it was that Harry was in the right place in the Shrieking Shack at the right time, and how close he came to missing this crucial piece of info altogether. But what is alternative? What if Snape had been able to simply find Harry wandering the grounds and tried to give him the information? There is no way Harry would have believed him, he probably would have tried to kill him, and the information would have been lost forever. Mel From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 14:25:45 2007 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (dragonkeeper) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 07:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fitch and screaming students In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <379261.13918.qm@web53311.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174722 Filch's sadistic comment about students and the old days was in Sorcerers Stone. I have to wonder about Filch's age too but just how long ago were the old punishments were phased out for the the newer methods of punishment dragonkeeper From dgoldens3 at aol.com Tue Aug 7 14:58:44 2007 From: dgoldens3 at aol.com (Dawner) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:58:44 -0400 Subject: Hermione crying Message-ID: <8C9A71A95DF1FAB-7EC-35DB@mblk-d45.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174723 I am sure Hermione was crying because of the flying, but knowing what a close call they had when they were in the vault and the death eaters not far behind. I think this is probably a time when Ron and Hermione really realized how close they were becoming. Dawn From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 7 16:04:55 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:04:55 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174724 "lizzyben04" wrote: > After reading about Harry's use of > Unforgiveable curses, one poster > wrote that their child asked "I > thought they were supposed to be > the good guys?" So what would I say to this poor innocent child? I would say "Good God you're slow on the uptake kid! Welcome to the real world". I wish Snape were here, he could explain things like that to children much better than I could, he had a knack for it. > It's a pretty ugly message for a children's book JKR hasn't written a children's book in years. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 16:51:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:51:29 -0000 Subject: Harry, Voldemort & the Horcrux at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174725 > Brothergib: > I think you could argue the case either way. Yes he did use a peasant > and a tramp to make a couple of Horcruxes. However, he also > specifically hunted down his father to make one of his Horcruxes, and > also used Hepzibah for another. Carol responds: Actually, he didn't. He was hunting for the Gaunts to find out more about his history of the Heir of Slytherin. Morfin Gaunt let slip that Tom looked "mighty like that Muggle" and Tom, who did not set out to murder anyone, learns about his mother running off with the locket to marry the man who lived on the hill. He also learns about the Peverell ring. So he Stuns Morfin, steals the ring, and sets out to commit a previously unplanned murder, for revenge. But the ring is not yet a Horcrux; we see it on his finger when he talks to Slughorn, presumably immediately after he returns to school for his sixth year. He wants to know whether a wizard can make more than one Horcrux (he's already made the diary) and is already thinking in terms of six Horcruxes and a seven-piece soul. But he neither creates the Horcrux on the spot nor performs the murder specifically to create the Horcrux. It seems, though, that even though he's murdered three more people (his grandparents thrown in because they're there, in the way, or just to punish and destroy the whole Riddle family and wipe out his "filthy" Muggle heritage), he's apparently reserving that soul piece (don't ask me how he can distinguish one from another) to use for the ring Horcrux. And he kills Hepzibah as much to get the cup and the locket as to have a soul bit for the Horcrux. Clearly, DD was wrong about Tom's reserving important murders for the Horcruxes (Bertha Jorkins? An Albanian peasant?). Also, he seems to be wrong about his intending to make a Horcrux with Harry's murder. The passage that I quoted clearly shows that he's there to destroy the threat of the Prophecy Boy. There's no indication that he has any object with him or any intention of making a Horcrux. Maybe his next move would have been to steal the Sword of Gryffindor and use Harry's murder to make a Horcrux with it, but DD's murder would have done just as well. (If he'd had an object with him, JKR would have mentioned it. And while any old murder will do for Tom, any old Horcrux won't.) Brothergib: I think the creation of the Nagini horcrux was a sign that LV was panicking. He had convinced himself that a 7 piece soul was most magically powerful, but had attempted to kill Harry while it was still only in six pieces. As soon as he was able to use a wand after that night, he created his final Horcrux from the one thing he had to hand. And one other point - I still don't see how Myrtle could be used to create a Horcrux, since it was the basilisk that killed her. Yes, I understand that Riddle was controlling it, but that seems rather weak to me! Carol: Panicking? Can you cite any supporting evidence for this view? He has five Horcruxes already, and we see from his smug attitude in DH that he thinks they're all perfectly safe. And his dear Nagini has helped to restore him and keep him alive. In his view, she would deserve the honor, not to mention that she makes a fearsome Horcrux, as shown in the Bathilda chapter (and comes in handy in OoP as well). He rewards her by feeding her his victims. I don't think he's panicking so much as resigning himself to the impossibility of ever getting his hands on the Sword of Gryffindor. As to how using the Basilisk to kill Myrtle would constitute a murder, don't you think that saying "Kill!" to Nagini and ordering her to kill Snape counts as a murder? Evidently, he did exactly the same thing with the Basilisk and Myrtle (and Memory!Tom tried to do it with Harry in CoS.) He also says to Harry, "Killing Muggle-borns doesn't matter to me anymore.") The Basilisk and Nagini are as much his weapons as his wand is. Or, to paraphrase the anti-gun-control people. "Wands don't kill people. People kill people." Neither the Basilisk nor Nagini would have killed had Tom/Voldemort not ordered them to do so. Murder is murder, whether the weapon is a wand, a gun, a snake, or a car. For that matter, Regulus was murdered, too--by poison followed by Inferi--and Voldemort didn't even know that it was happening. But he had set it up to happen if anyone tried to steal his precious Horcrux. I think that if DD had died from the cursed ring, that, too, would have counted as murder--perhaps one more reason why DD wanted Snape to kill him. > > As for DD being mistaken, I was convinced after HBP, that DD had made a mistake somewhere along the line - maybe that Nagini wasn't actually a Horcrux. However, DH proved that DD was absolutely spot on! Therefore, I now find it difficult to believe that he was mistaken about Godric's Hollow. It is possible that he may have been, but I think the evidence argues against it! Carol: What evidence? I don't see it. Can you find it in the scene in DH where LV is actually planning and committing the murder? Surely, that's were it would be if it existed. Unless you mean that Harry became an accidental Horcrux, in which case, he's not mistaken (though I was!), but DD doesn't mention that in the HBP scene we're discussing. I'm saying DD was mistaken about Tom wanting to use important murders to create his Horcruxes, and if JKR's chat comments count as canon, he *was* mistaken on that one (minor) point. Neither an Albanian peasant nor Bertha Jorkins counts as an important murder, and Myrtle is only important as his first-ever victim. As for objects important enough to be made into Horcruxes, what was left? Only the Sword of Gryffindor, which he certainly didn't have. (I was sure that Nagini was a Horcrux, BTW, and boy, was she!) > > Brothergib again; > Again, I'm not sure that proves that he wasn't intending to make a > Horcrux after the event. But I agree that the lure of Gryffindor's > sword must have been great. Carol: Okay, good. A compromise view we can agree on. He went to GH to kill the Prophecy Boy, his primary motive and the only one revealed in the text, with the possible hope or intention of obtaining the Sword of Gryffindor now that he was invincible ("the one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord" having been destroyed). It would have been easy enough, in his view, to kill DD, take over Hogwarts, steal the Sword, and make it a Horcrux to complete his collection. But with the only one who could defeat him out of the way, he would have felt a little less need to create an additional Horcrux. Only, of course, it didn't quite work out as planned. Carol, sure that there was no other object and that *if* he intended to use the Prophecy Boy's murder to make a Horcrux, he would have considered the Sword the only suitable container for that particular soul bit From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Aug 7 17:31:47 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:31:47 -0000 Subject: Holding JKR Accountable (was Re: 7 reasons why - The Glass is Half Empty.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174726 > > bboyminn: > > This isn't a problem with the story, this is a problem > > with what /you/ choose to believe or not believe. Ceridwen: Actually, it's a problem with the story. When I read, I'm the one who *needs* the heavy anvil hints. I like to read for pleasure, and it does take a lot of weight to pull me out of the book. Like stumbling on a pebble while hurrying to meet old friends, I just shrug some things off. I regret them, and I may think of them later, but if they didn't stop my progress by much, it takes a lot of discussion to make me dissatisfied. If something does hit me between the eyes and halt me from my progress, it's probably bigger than a breadbox. Which is why I don't come up with plausible theories a lot - the hints people had about Snape loving Lily were just too subtle for me to catch as a reader for enjoyment. I do catch some subtle things, but not this sort of thing. I see undercurrents, I see interpersonal things that now, apparently, JKR didn't intend. I'd make a poor detective! Take that letter in DH. How it got there bothers some people. It's bigger than a breadbox for them. I didn't think of it at all (it was Sirius's room, it was a letter to Sirius, hey, must be a letter to Sirius in Sirius's old room) until someone brought it up here on the list. There really is a problem with it. But, I came up with my own explanation (stuff sent to next of kin by Ministry) and shrugged it off... On that level. On another level, it's laying in a box in my mind that is rapidly topping off with more loose clues. va32h: I choose to believe that JKR became lazier and sloppier with each book after PoA, culminating in a 7th book that is full of plot holes, continuity errors, and characters acting entirely out of character. She has become so accustomed to her fandom cheerfully and devotedly explaining away all her flaws, that she didn't even make an effort to make anything in DH make sense. And we just keep on doing it. Ceridwen: Before DH came out, most of the plot holes had the potential to be clues to something in Book 7. We couldn't just dismiss something out of hand, in case it came back as an "AH-HA!" moment at the denouement. These holes, along with bona fide clues, hints, and red herrings, were used to construct possible scenarios for DH. How would Polyjuice come in? Will someone (Snape?) be Polyjuiced to help Harry defeat Voldemort? Is Remus Lupin weak enough to be unwillingly corrupted? Is McGonagall evil, and if not, why wasn't she in the first Order? and so on. JKR said she liked to read these theories and speculations. And, they led to some decent (and some really awful!) fan-fic. ;) va32h: > Of course these are very small, even petty issues. But each little mistake in itself is not the problem. That readers are so determined not to believe she could ever be mistaken is the problem, IMO. Ceridwen: Before DH, most discussions about interviews said that JKR would never lie to us. She might mislead, but never lie. She certainly couldn't give the overall plot away in an interview, now, could she? Interviews were, and still are, secondary canon. So I think it is, that we don't want the interviews to be wrong, because then all the interviews between the other books might be wrong too, and we've taken a stand to defend Rowling from the various slings and arrows that other people, who saw plot holes back then, were slinging. I agree these are little things, but little things add up. Like pulling five dollars out of the bank here and there, then discovering that you're short ten bucks on the rent. Each mistake, like each clue, adds to the picture forming in the puzzle, and adds weight to that box up in my mind. va32h: Why is any convoluted scenario so much more plausible than "JKR forgot how she answered that question the last time it was asked?" Ceridwen: That's the most likely, and least lovely, solution. va32h: I think it's because we are reluctant to admit that we care far more about this universe than its creator does. I'm sure she cared once, but somewhere along the line she stopped. Too much hype, too much pressure, too much time spent with the material, I don't know the reason. But Deathly Hallows reeks of "getting this over with". Ceridwen: Maybe it was knowing the entire story for nearly twenty years. The last chapter was written first. Harry's entire story was scrolled out in her head, she says, from day dot. It was fun, for a while, to explore this world while she could. Make up new spells, explore interactions between characters, and between the Muggle and Wizarding worlds. But, the end is hard. Best to rush it, not say long good-byes. Also, with the exploring of the characters and the world, she created expectations which were not intended. Unforgivables being Unforgivable, reconciliation between Harry and Snape, Draco's redemption, Marietta's pustules leading somewhere other than the local WW make-up counter, and so on. Those expectations, or speculations, or theories, had to be done away with in short order. Maybe seven books were a bit much. Maybe the later books being door- stopper huge was a mistake. Maybe we wouldn't have seen certain trends if so much hadn't been added. I keep waiting for JKR to say, "Yeah, it was a joke, the real DH is still on my word processor, it'll be out by Christmas." Ceridwen. From javalorum at yahoo.ca Tue Aug 7 17:49:17 2007 From: javalorum at yahoo.ca (javalorum) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:49:17 -0000 Subject: dumb question: What does "Cackling Stump" mean? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174727 I couldn't figure out the exact meaning of "Babbitty Rabbitty and her Cackling Stump". I thought Babbitty Rabbitty is a rabbit, so her cackling stump would mean she can stump (as in hit the ground with a foot) really loud. See, I have a rabbit who does this a lot so that's the first thing came to mind. But my friend seem to think the stump is a mere tree stump, and cackling stump is a tree stub that makes noises. Then I seem to remember a fair tale about a tree stump (or is it a tree branch) that whistles after people told it their secret. So is this "Cackling Stump" really a reference to that story? You help is greatly appreciated! Java From elisedai at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 17:27:58 2007 From: elisedai at yahoo.com (elisedai) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:27:58 -0000 Subject: Funny lines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174728 Did nobody notice that fuddy-duddy old Percy, upon joining the fight in The Battle of Hogwarts, cracked an unexpected one that sent his brothers into fits of wonder? To wit: "Hello, Minister!" bellowed Percy, sending a neat jinx straight at Thicknesse, who dropped his wand and clawed at the front of his robes, apparently in awful discomfort. "_Did_I_mention_I'm_resigning_?". There were many other funny lines in DH alone, but for suprise, no shock value.... this one takes the cake. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 18:02:11 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:02:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: JKR's Big Mistake Message-ID: <620847.66589.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174729 Ok, here's my take on all this "JKR failed us and the series is really crappy" talk that's going on, and I swear to god, this is my final word on this topic. In my opinion, JKR's big mistake wasn't her plotholes, her inconsistancies, her red herrings or her unresolved moral issues. Her big mistake was writing books that were so darned good that she sucked us into her world so entirely, and we took over. We have picked over these books until nothing is left but shreds of paper and little chunks of binding glue. We have dedicated years of our lives to analyzing these books, waiting desperately for the next one, and reading and rereading until our books are literally crumbling (my own copy of GoF is no longer readable because all the pages are loosed from it's binding). We have created in our own minds and between each other, plots that will never be written, questions that need to be answered, and clues that "MUST MEAN SOMETHING". We have taken HP into a whole other place, a place JKR could never have forseen and could never have been prepared for. Her big mistake was that her books are so beloved, her fandom so dedicated, that NO book could hold up to that kind of critique and analysis. Even JRR Tolkien made mistakes - and as much as I love HP and JKR, she ain't no Tolkien - if you get my point. I know there are missing pieces and unanswered (or multi-answered) questions, I know the Hallows were distracting, the wand lore confusing...I am not claiming the story is perfect. But...is it her fault for writing an imperfect story, or our fault for expecting a perfect one? I tend to lean toward the latter. Because, after all, if HP was such a terrible series, and so lacking in goodness, would any of us even be here? I think not. I, for one, love the series and DH, imperfections and all. I love Harry, Hermione, Ron, Neville, Snape, Dumbledore and the rest. They have been my friends and companions for ten years, and I have loved watching them grow and change, and I also loved watching them win. I make no apologies for loving the books just the way they are, and for having already read DH 4 times. Katie, falling into companiable silence on this issue. : ) --------------------------------- Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Aug 7 18:46:43 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 18:46:43 -0000 Subject: Funny lines In-Reply-To: <01e701c7ce6e$0f0bbb60$2e01a8c0@MainComputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174730 Potioncat: It isn't "a" line, but a whole section of them. Chapter Two, the section that is the Daily Prophet's interview with Rita Skeeter...sounds like JKR is poking fun at herself, and her fans: ...accusations of inaccuracy ...advance publicity suggested there will be shocks in store ...you'll have to wait for chapters 9--12. ...Is everything as it seems? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 19:09:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:09:39 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174731 lizzyben: > > Before DH, I predicted that Harry would use an Unforgiveable Curse, but I totally got the circumstances & message all wrong. I thought > that Harry would use the Curse in some sort of extreme dire > straights when he is consumed with emotion, and that it would be a > dramatic "the ring is mine!" type of moment. It would be Harry's low > point, his dip into evil, before rising above to use love & good > instead. That would've sent a message about the dangers of > unrestrained hatred, rage & revenge. Carol responds: I agree that, from both a literary and a moral standpoint, that would have been better. But it didn't happen, and perhaps we should move on from this one disappointing moment to an examination of the book as a whole. We could, for example, examine the (purported) wisdom of Dumbledore--his remarks on choices and death and mercy, for example, and see where they lead. I see various motifs ("themes," as most readers would call them) that we can examine, among them, love, death and the afterlife, Harry as Seeker (what, besides Horcruxes, is he seeking?), truth, redemption, forgiveness, self-sacrifice, hope vs. despair, overcoming doubts and self-doubt in particular. I could go on, but I really hope that others will look for and examine these sorts of elements. And if we're disappointed in Harry, how about Ron? What does Luna represent? And so on. BTW, I think that JKR is a Christian novelist trapped in a world that is so antagonistic to Christianity that she feels she has to hide the Christian elements in a secularized setting. Interesting that the Muggles go to church and sing carols on Christmas Eve, whereas the Wizards still have Christmas trees and presents and Father Christmas, but it's a wholly secularized Christmas celebration (perhaps reflecting the England she lives in. In the U.S., it's even worse; we now have "holiday cards" and "holiday trees," as if even to wish someone a Merry Christmas were an abomination. Sorry--pet peeve surfacing.) Lizzyben: > The morality of the Wizarding World is sort of facinating in its total dysfunction, but I think it's ultimately useless to try to make much sense of it. Carol: I'm not so sure. I think we've gone from dysfunction and corruption to anarchy and worse. Obviously, JKR did not approve of either Crouch or Fudge (or Scrimgeour, who at least dies bravely defying the DEs offpage), but Voldemort and the DEs are much worse. Even Umbridge has become more evil (influence of the locket Horcrux?), which did not seem possible after OoP. It's true that we don't get a clear picture of the WW after the Battle of Hogwarts, but Voldemort and the DEs are gone, order is restored, it's safe to put your kids on the Hogwarts Express, and the hostility between Gryffindor and Slytherin seems to be reduced to House rivalry. It *is* important that Harry named his second son after two headmasters of Hogwarts, a Gryffindor and a formerly hated Slytherin, Severus Snape. Personally, I like having the epilogue leave a lot to the imagination. Do you think that the Magic Is Might statue depicting a witch and wizard enthroned upon naked Muggles is still standing? I don't. Nor do I think that the golden fountain destroyed in OoP is still there. We know without being told that Hermione is high up in the Ministry, fighting for her idea of justice. "I want to do some good in the world," she tells Scrimgeour. And she's still horrified by the enchantments that bind house-elves to punish themselves for disobeying their masters, while at the same time, finally grasping house-elf psychology. (Sidenote to whoever said that JKR invented house-elves out of whole cloth: No, she didn't. Like many aspects of the books, from witches riding on brooms to pulling a sword/rabbit out of a stone/hat, house-elves (and goblins) are adapted from folklore about brownies and hobgoblins. I'm quite sure that she expects her child readers to be familiar with the story of "The Elves and the Shoemaker," at least, and to recognize that those elves, too, are freed through a gift of clothes. JKR's unique twist on the story is to make "freedom" for house-elves a form of disgrace equivalent to being fired. (And anyone who's been "freed" of a hated job by losing it understands just how painful that sort of "freedom" can be. JKR knows what it's like to be unemployed.) To return to your point, I disagree that it's useless to try to make sense out of it. I think that's exactly what we should be doing rather than focusing on that accursed Crucio or where Sirius's letter came from--which I realize that you're not discussing, but other posters seem to be hung up on it. (Clearly, JKR wasn't thinking about the improbability of the letter being there. She needed it as a plot device. And, no. It's not the continuity editor's job to catch that sort of plothole, which involves memorizing the history of a minor character. She's more interested in DD and the Invisibility Cloak and Bathilda and, ultimately, the Snape connection. I think we should just realize that JKR is a human being who has produced several thousand pages of printed text over seventeen years, or whatever, and accept the inevitability of errors and inconsistencies, large and small.) Lizzyben: Because this series is basically a revenge narrative. Most children's novels have a theme of reconciliation & personal growth, so most people assumed that the Harry Potter novels would have a similar message. But now, at the close, it's pretty clear that that was not the theme. This is a story about revenge, and all the characters exact revenge w/the author's full approval. And we, the readers, are supposed to identify fully w/the Gryfindors and get satisfaction out of reading about it. > > Wizards get revenge against the Durselys for their unfair treatment by blowing up an aunt, giving Dudley ton-tongue toffee, giving Dudley a tail. Carol: And Dudley ends up grateful to Harry for saving his life and willing to trust a witch and a wizard to protect him from Dementors, Death Eaters, and Voldemort. The wizards who mistreated Dudley end up either dead or missing an ear (the Twins) or dragged off by their own beloved Acromantulae to Voldemort to witness Harry's "death" (Hagrid). As for "blowing up an aunt," that was accidental and, IMO, she deserved it. It wasn't permanent, after all, and we don't see Harry mistreating Muggles after that. His impulse to hex Dudley is completely undone by DD's surprise move of shaking his hand. Redeemed!Dudley! Who could have expected it? Lizzyben: Harry gets revenge against Voldemort for killing his parents, & revenge against the Carrows for insulting McGonegal. Carol: Revenge against the Carrows, I'll grant. But this is Harry who still has the soul bit and has not yet experienced his epiphanies. But revenge against Voldemort? Remember, he once interpreted the Prophecy to mean that he would either have to murder Voldemort or be murdered by him. And thanks to Snape's dying message, his last extremely important act, Harry chooses to be murdered. He goes to meet Voldemort with his wand and his Invisibility Cloak hidden inside his robes so that he won't be tempted to use them to escape. "I am about to die," he tells the Snitch, which "open[s] at the close." And after his return, he still does not try to kill Voldemort. He gives him the truths that he (Harry) has learned, offers LV a chance for remorse, a chance to avoid the personal hell that he himself has created, and then casts, not an Unforgiveable Curse to kill him--not even a stinging hex to hurt him or a Stunning Spell to disable--but the simple Disarming Spell, used earlier as an act of mercy against the Imperiused Stan Shunpike, and taught to him by none other than Severus Snape in CoS. Lizzyben: > Harry's revenge is characterized as an appropriate sign of maturity. Carol: It has been Harry's destiny throughout the entire series to vanquish Voldemort. But he doesn't return murder for murder. His "revenge" is an act of self-sacrifice that protects the onlookers and causes Voldemort's spells to lose their effectiveness, followed by a second confrontation (accompanied, admittedly, with a sermon that reveals all of Voldemort's wickedness and folly) which he wins by casting Expelliarmus. Revenge? I don't see it. (And remember the revenge he wanted against Snape? The confrontation is not at all what Harry--or the reader--anticipated. Instead of taunts and a duel in which Harry somehow gets the message that Snape is not a murderer and is helping Harry, he gets insights into Snape that lead to understanding, forgiveness, and a public vindication of the WW's most misunderstood man, to whom Harry attributes JKR's highest values, love and courage. As for Snape, he is not only posthumously vindicated and honored by a former enemy, he is redeemed in the eyes of the writer, her protagonist, and most readers. We know that there's an afterlife. We know that the good guys recieve their reward, that remorse expiates and atones for sins (the Christian view). If ever a literary character suffers remorse and works throughout his life to atone for his sins, it's Snape. There can be no question of his redemption. And he does not die as an act of revenge. Voldemort thinks he's murdered his own loyal man. That he is murdered by the symbol of his own House is certainly ironic, but it's the least of the ironies in that scene. Lizzyben: > Hermione gets revenge against Rita Skeeter by transfiguring & > imprisoning her. Carol: In an earlier book. If we see Hermione pursuing revenge in DH, I don't recall it. Lizzyben: Molly gets full caps-lock revenge against Bellatrix, and readers are supposed to cheer. Carol: It's war, and what mother wouldn't react the same way if her daughter was in danger? Admittedly, *Lily* didn't jump out at Voldemort with "Not my son, you b****rd!" but she was wandless, or, she, too, would almost certainly have fought. Unfortunately for the WW, there'd have been no chosen one if she had died that way instead of through self-sacrifice. Also, *someone* had to kill Bellatrix, who had just killed her own niece for marrying a werewolf. Did you really expect Bellatrix to live? Better Molly than Neville, IMO. (But I'm glad he killed Nagini!) > > Finally, the author gets revenge against various characters by > giving them appropriate ironic punishments. The traitor is strangled > by his own reward. Carol: Which is Voldemort's doing. "May your loyalty never waver," he says as he gives the "gift" of the silver hand. And when it wavers, Wormtail dies. Ignominiously, as he deserves, in contrast to Snape, who is fully redeemed and vindicated. lizzyben: The mean teacher is killed by the symbol of his > own house & his body is left at the scene of his worst moment. Carol: "Mean teacher" doesn't even enter into DH. We have Snape as undercover DE, Snape as the lifelong Platonic lover of Lily and secret protector of Harry, which continues even after he realizes that Harry isn't being protected for Lily and that Harry must sacrifice himself to destroy the soulbit. And terrible as his death is, he dies performing a last (rather spectacular) magical act that will enable Harry to defeat Voldemort and at the same time to see Snape as Snape truly is. That his body is not placed alongside those who died in the battle does not mean that it isn't retrieved from the Shrieking Shack later and given a funeral befitting a headmaster and a hero. Harry will tell someone, probably McGonagall, that it's there. And maybe she can make up for calling him a coward and throwing daggers at him by giving him a tomb like DD's. It's outside the story, but not outside the realm of probability. Whatever McG does, Harry now knows that Snape is a hero. Leaving his body to rot in the Shrieking Shack is simply not compatible with giving his name to your second son. Lizzyben: The > facist control freak is carried away by a herd of rampaging chaotic centaurs. Carol: And the paranoid Auror was confined to his own trunk for ten months, the fraudulent Mermory Charm specialist ended up in St. Mungo's with his memory wiped out by his own curse, the werewolf who forgot to drink his potion and endangered his students is relieved of his job, and DD's right-hand man is forced to kill him and endure the hatred of the Order while posing as a DE. That's the DADA curse, remember? And its last victim is Amycus Carrow, who turned the class into a course in the Dark Arts and is made to suffer his own fate. Hoist on his own petard like all his predecessors? Is the DADA curse the reason for Harry's casting that Crucio? (BTW, Umbridge's ultimate fate is Azkaban and surely she deserved to go there if anyone did.) Lizzyben: And the book gets revenge against the Slytherins, symbol of everything we don't like, by exiling them & purging them from the school. The message: revenge is sweet. Carol: Snape and Regulus are heroes who finally receive recognition. Phineas Nigellus and Slughorn play their roles in vindicating Slytherin. Only Crabbe goes completely over to the Dark side, and only Crabbe dies as the result of a spell he cast himself. In PoA, Harry wants revenge against Sirius Black until he learns the truth about him, then he prevents Lupin and Black from taking revenge. >From SS/PS onward, Harry hates "the mean teacher," even after he learns that that teacher has saved his life. From the last part of OoP and throughout HBP, Harry unfairly blames Snape for Sirius Black's death, forgetting that he and his friends owe their lives to Snape, and vows never to forgive him. In HBP. that hatred intensifies when he learns that Snape was the eavesdropper, and when Snape kills Dumbledore, his hatred becomes a passion for revenge. Twice, once in HBP and once in DH, he expresses a desire to meet Snape, apparently under the delusion that Snape could not parry his curses as easily as he did in "The Flight of the Prince." Snape's death scene reverses that as he fulfills Snape's last request and goes from shocked numbness at the means and motive for his death to an understanding of a man he thought he hated. Revenge? I see redemption and forgiveness. Carol, who thinks that Harry's last acts in the book (the Crucio aside) are the antithesis of revenge From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 19:25:04 2007 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:25:04 -0000 Subject: The Message of DH - Moral Superiority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174732 Steve (bboyminn): "And to further make the point that Harry's morality is in his actions, all of his actions, not a single isolated event. Extending that even further, morality is in his action, NOT in moralizing and sermonizing and preaching to the choir." Amen, brother. Enough of the talking class. And the series shows in its entirety that the good guys aren't plaster saints, either. Good guys get something done. Steve: "We learn by the example of a flawed but basically good courageous boy who will not tolerate the forces of evil winning, and is determined to beat them regardless of the personal cost." Flawed? I suppose. How about, instead, "human?" Steve: "Once again, I point out the Revelation is a far better teacher than Explanation. A deep and real understanding of a character, and by extension of yourself, is a far far better teacher than long droning boring lectures on moral perfection." Right on! The world is not tidy, and trying to find the flawless path leads to inaction. Men and women of action, like Harry, have the courage to take the chance of making a mistake. Steve, you have a way of hitting the nail on the head. Jim Ferer From va32h at comcast.net Tue Aug 7 19:30:11 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:30:11 -0000 Subject: The Message of DH - Moral Superiority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174733 Steve (bboyminn) > "We learn by the example of a flawed but basically good > courageous boy who will not tolerate the forces of evil winning, and > is determined to beat them regardless of the personal cost." va32h: That sounds like a really good description of Neville Longbottom, actually. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 19:51:38 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:51:38 -0700 Subject: Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman Message-ID: <700201d40708071251u10f8f5a4q368825def2e10e02@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174734 > Kemper earlier: > >She may not be turning Western thought on its head, but she does > >challenge. If Western thought is based in Judeo-Christian beliefs, > >then what of the euthanasia presented in HBP? > > Bart: > Because your assumption is wrong, or, more properly, your assumption is not entirely right. For, while Western thought is based on Judeo-Christian philosophies (as opposed to beliefs, and even these are sometimes contradictory), it is ALSO based on Greco-Roman philosophies. When everything is going well, there is no conflict, but when things start going wrong, it's like the Chinese Confucianism vs. Taoism. > > A simple example: Greco-Roman ideals require following the law and obeying authority. Judeo-Christian ideals require that if you are required to do something that is morally wrong, then you are not to do it. They combine to form the idea of civil disobedience: You don't do what is morally wrong, but you accept the criminal penalty for it. > > And, sometimes, the authority is out-and-out immoral or illegitimate; the French Underground during WWII is a wonderful example of rejecting Greco-Roman philosophy in favor of the Judeo-Christian philosophy. And, sometimes, it works the other way. John Dickinson, one of the Pennsylvania delegates to the American Continental Congress, was a vociferous opponent to declaring independence from England, feeling that the American's dispute was with Parliament, and not England as a whole. However, once he was voted down, he remained loyal to his native country, personally joining the Pennsylvania Militia, and later the Delaware Militia. > > This is especially important because the Harry Potter stories are very much about a group of young people trying to do the right thing in spite of an authoritarian structure which was at best incompetent and at worst corrupted. The symbol of the Greco-Roman ideal was in Percy, who could not see the incompetence and corruption in the Ministry until it was too late. Sitting squarely in the middle, but not at all in a passive manner, was Arthur, who worked hard to maintain loyalty to both the forces of law and the forces of morality. Kemper now: You did a great job of informing me how 'wrong' or at least 'not right' I was without actually addressing and clearly explaining how JKR challenges or doesn't challenge Judeo-Christian ideas except to say that Greco-Roman ideas are also involved are also involved with Western thought (I agree) and listing the excellent example of Percy and the less than excellent example of Arthur who was actively working against the 'forces of law' from inside the law. jmao Kemper From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 20:55:12 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 20:55:12 -0000 Subject: Text vs Sub-Text Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174735 There are a couple of extremely heated debates going on right now; one regarding Harry's use of Crucio and the other with regard to Lily's Letter. Though there are many other equally heated debates going on. First keep in mind that I never deny anyone their opinion. I've always said that once we all hold the same opinion, the conversation is over. I mean, what is there to talk about if we all agree? But I am somewhat disappointed in the vehemently negative criticisms of some people. Especially on issue that have a somewhat moralistic tone to them. Harry using the Crucio being a perfect example. Here is what I think. I think some people are looking for things in the TEXT that rightly belong and are found in the SUB-TEXT. I don't want these stories to end with - '..and the moral of the story is... always obey your parents, go to Sunday School, and eat you spinach.' I don't want good book to literally give me the answers, I want them to force me to ask the hard questions, and to use the books as a illustration that might help me resolve the answers in my own mind. As, I've said before, Revelation is a greater teacher than Explanation. The answers that spring up from the well of my own intellect, are far more powerful than the droning answers that come from teachers and preachers. The very fact that we are arguing these points tells me that JKR has done her job. Was Harry evil, or at least bad, for using the Cruciatus Curse? I say in that circumstance he was wrong, but his actions were understandable and forgivable. But JKR doesn't spell it out for me or for others. That is why others think it was a horrendous thing for Harry to have done. These opinions, these positions, don't come from the author, they come from us. Perhaps that is why the discussions are so polarized, perhaps that is why each side is so vehemently in their opinions. I really don't want, and don't find it beneficial to have these moral dilemmas neatly resolved and spelled out for me. How do I learn and grow from that? I learn and grow more by not having it spelled out, by not having it explained, but by having to reach deep inside myself and find the answers there. It's not up to JKR to resolve every moral dilemma, it's up to me. Just a few, slightly off topic, thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 21:21:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:21:03 -0000 Subject: Quidditch as a metaphor for the series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174736 va32h wrote: > > Inspired by Carol's suggestion of "really wanting to discuss the symbolism of Harry as 'Seeker'" > > Before DH came out, I had discussed with a few people the idea that Quidditch was a metaphor for the series, and now that we have Deathly Hallows to reference, I'm even more convinced. > > Harry and Voldemort are both captains and Seekers for their respective teams. The Snitch can be a variety of things - victory, Death, even the loyalties of Severus Snape (who is literally a Snitch). Carol responds: Thnaks for taking up the challenge, and I hope that others will pitch in. BTW, I used to think that Quidditch was a useless waste of page space (and one of the great virtues of our much-maligned DH is that it doesn't contain any Quidditch matches though it does contain Quidditch references), but I agree that Quidditch, or at least the position of Seeker, is metaphorically or symbolically significant. Both Harry and Voldemort, I agree are Seekers, more specifically, on a Quest. (Note that one of the fortunately rejected titles was "HP and the Peverell Quest.") It seems to me that Voldemort's "Snitch" is obvious; he's after the Elder Wand, which represents Power on both a figurative and a literal level. But Voldemort has forgotten that Quidditch is a team sport. He's left himself with only his Horcruxes, six Keepers that are the guardians of his fractured soul, all bits of himself, really, while the DEs are playing their own game of Magic Is Might and Hunt the Muggleborns. I suppose that they're all Beaters, but they're not helping him to accomplish his goal (or he theirs). Snape, I suppose, is the Chaser, but he's secretly playing for the other side. And Voldemort tortures and even kills members of his own team. No wonder the Malfoys have rather lost their enthusiasm. How is Lucius supposed to play without a wand? (I'm just playing with ideas here, hoping to get new perspectives.) Harry, in contrast, remains a team player, and for most of the game is captain as well as Seeker. His team, especially Ron, becomes dejected when he doesn't pull an Oliver Wood and show them a detailed game plan. (Or maybe Dumbledore is the captain who left them without a plan.) No one is playing Keeper, blocking Voldemort from his goal of obtaining the Elder Wand. (Harry has chosen Horcruxes over Hallows.) They take turns playing Beater, each destroying a Horcrux. (Neville joins the team to destroy Nagini.) They are also all Chasers, searching for and retrieving the Horcruxes as a team. But Harry alone is the Seeker, the one who sits in the middle of the front row. (He identifies briefly with Regulus as a fellow Seeker, whose Slytherin teammates are not sneering at Harry but waving at him from the photograph. It's a brief moment of identification not shared by Hermione and Ron, but I think it's there for a reason, to help Harry identify self-consciously with Regulus before he even knows the truth about Regulus.) And there it is. "The truth." Harry states repeatedly in DH that that's what he's seeking. The truth about Regulus and about the white doe Patronus. The answers to Dumbledore's riddles, especially the Snitch, but more important, the truth about Dumbledore himself. Did he really turn a blind eye to the virtual imprisonment of his Squib sister (Rita Skeeter's version of events)? Did he really abandon his early beliefs in the superiority of wizards over Muggleborns? Most important, much the same question Snape seems to ask, "Am I just his tool or did he care about me?" Harry's greatest, it seems to me, is when he goes to face Voldemort believing that Dumbledore has betrayed him. Only after he has willingly sacrificed himself, or tried to, can he enter "Kingls Cross" and find what he's been seeking. (Of course, he's already found the unsought truth about Severus Snape.) va32h: > I'm pretty sure that this isn't what Carol was talking about in regards to Harry being a Seeker, but I happened to love reading about the various Quidditch games (one of the few, I know) so it was a fun topic for me. Carol: True. I had something rather different in mind, as you can tell, but I appreciate your response, anyway, and hope others will go back upthread to follow up on it. (We need a fun topic, and maybe a different slant from mine, which I want to develop from the perspective of JKR as a Christian writer but don't yet have quotes to build on. I need to bookmark all the places where Harry says that he wants "the truth" in the text. I know of at least two, along with another where he thinks he has the truth ("At last the truth!") but it's only the truth as Snape knows it and not what Dumbledore knows.) We might look at the other Seekers, too--Krum, who shows up in a cameo to link Grindelwald with Xenophilius Lovegood (Now there's a pair for you. Would Grindelwald have worn omelet yellow to a wedding? ;-) ). Does his earlier act of winning the game on his own terms foreshadow Harry, or does it have more to do with Dumbledore? And why has JKR taken the trouble to show us a photo of young Regulus, the Voldie fan turned hero, as a Seeker? Carol, seeking a meaningful discussion of the parts of the book we've barely glanced at From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 7 21:38:55 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:38:55 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174737 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "julie" wrote: > > Dennis: > > > > > it's easy to second-guess decisions made in the heat of battle > > Lee: > > There WAS no "heat of battle". There was just Carrow, spitting on > > McGonagall, and Harry tucked safely away under his Cloak, until he > > stepped out and ambushed Carrow. > > > > Julie: > I've now decided that I DO understand what JKR was trying > to get across--that even someone as good as Harry can act > badly (and he does act BADLY here, as even JKR said this > moment showed that he wasn't "perfect") if there is enough > pressure on him. The problem for me is the *execution* of > this message. Harry isn't angered to the point of being > out of control, as he was after Bellatrix killed Sirius, > and again after Snape killed Dumbledore. He is in fact > calm and controlled when he tells Carrow "You shouldn't > have done that." > > So what would have worked better for me? If Carrow had > killed McGonagall (and I'm sorry to say, I wouldn't have > missed her all that much!). Or had done something else that > drove Harry to mindless anger. Because that was what always > drove Harry to attempt a Crucio before, that red haze of > all-encompassing anger. For Harry to so calmly and coldly > perform a Crucio in this scene felt very out of character. > (Unless JKR was implying that Harry had realized that cold > calculation while using the spell is what is required for > him to "mean it," which is more than a bit scary. And in > this case, some follow up with Harry recognizing this new > and unsavory part of himself, and vowing if only internally > not to give into it again would have helped make the point.) Geoff: I do not think Harry was cold and calculating here because I believe that his anger had rapidly built up during the exchange between Carrow and McGonagall and this incident was not just the sole source. Harry must have been reminded of his first sight of Carrow as one of the group of four Death Eaters who entered the Tower at the end of HBP and mocked Dumbledore. Then, very much more recently, he had heard how Carrow and his sister had been mistreating the students at Hogwarts - in "The Lost Diadem" chapter - particularly those who stood up to them. And now, Amycus threatens Professor McGonagall. And spits on her. I do not believe that, at this point, canon suggests that Harry was cold and calculating. First, we do not know in what tone Harry said "You shouldn't have done that." I suspect that he said it savagely or shouted it. Then notice the sentence in which Harry refers to Bellatrix and the immediately following section: '"I see what Bellatrix meant," said Harry, //the blood thundering through his brain//..." ..."Potter!" whispered Professor McGonagall, clutching her heart. "Potter - you're here! What -? How -?" she struggled to pull herself together. "Potter, that was foolish!" "He spat at you," said Harry. "Potter, I - that was very - very gallant of you - but don't you realise -?" "Yeah, I do," Harry assured her. //Somehow her panic steadied him//.' (DH "The Sacking of Severus Snape" p.477 UK edition - my emphasis) This to me suggests that Harry is anything but cold and calculating. He is steamed up. his friends have been ill-treated. His teacher - an older woman in his eyes - has been treated as dirt. OK, his reaction is over the top but this is a war situation. Everyone is wound up like a tight spring. Harry has been living on his nerves for months, dodging Death Eaters, looking for Horcruxes, seeing things through Voldemort's eyes... This was perhaps the last straw. As I said in a recent post, even as a Christian, I have done things in the heat of the moment which I have regretted, when my rational self has told me I was over the top, out of order. Sometimes, situations will arise out of the blue and we react reflexively to them without stopping to think the consequences through. Harry regretted the Sectumsempra episode in HBP. Perhaps he regrets this but we don't see him having time to express this regret to anyone because of events. I do not think that there is a single person who, being honest with themselves, will not admit, either openly or to themselves, that they have been in situations like this where they have gone against their own conscience and hated themselves for it afterwards. But the world isn't always allowed to know that. Some skeletons remain very firmly closeted in our cupboards. From trog at wincom.net Tue Aug 7 21:38:14 2007 From: trog at wincom.net (Dennis Grant) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:38:14 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174738 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Dennis: > > But in both cases, you're being racked as a form of coersion. The > purpose behind it COUNTS. > > Carol: > The purpose behind it makes it torture or not? I don't think so. If > I were torturing a child to make him or her behave would I be any > better than Osama bin Laden and his henchmen employing the same > means of torture for revenge or information? Torture is torture. In this example, yes. Both your child example and your Osama example are forms of coercion. To inflict pain in order to coerce or extract information *IS* a form of torture. > And we cannot discount the etymology of "Crucio," which JKR applied > when she named that curse and invented the incantation: Sure we can. She could have called it the "fluffy snugglebunny curse" and that doesn't change what it does - inflict pain. Her etymology may reflect intent, but not function. > Carol: > He incapacitates him by inflicting *excruciating* pain on him. It's still incapacitating - which is the intent of the caster. And once his target IS fully incapacitated, he stops. The degree doesn't matter, save that there exists some reduced level of pain at which the curse fails as a incapacitator. A curse that caused mild discomfort wouldn't do the trick. > Carol: > We have a perfect example of a curse that would work equally well. No, we don't - and this gets back to second-guessing battlefield decisions. One could trot out a whole laundry list of *potential* alternates to the one actually used, both canon and speculative. Some *might* have worked, others *might* not have. There are too many variables and too much left unsaid to be able to determine with any sort of finality if such-and-such would ave worked or not. Crucio DID work, and Carrow (eventually) walked away with his life (if not his freedom) And while you may not be comfortable with the effects Crucio has, Harry did not prolong its use beyond what was required, and it was non-lethal. That fails the definition of torture, and in fact would qualify the use of Crucio as a legitimate weapon of war in any modern international court. To be perfectly honest, when you see the kind of power magic holds in JKR's world, there are far, far more horrible things that magic *could* be doing, and when compared to the effects of poor mundane Muggle weapons, the worst the Wizarding World does would be a mercy amongst Muggles - I'll point out, yet again, that there is a real world version of Crucio extant as a weapon, and it is used as a nonlethal mob control weapon *specifically* to be merciful. So I'm sorry, I just can't work up the outrage here. > One last request before I drop this frustrating tennis-ball thread > in which no one seems to be convincing anyone else: Can we please > examine the curse within the context of the books using canon > support for our respective positions? I thought that was what this > list was all about. As far as I can see, that is exactly what we are doing. What you appear to be having difficulty with is that just because JKR calls a dog a fish, it don't make it so. DG From darksworld at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 21:48:47 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:48:47 -0000 Subject: The Message of DH - Moral Superiority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174739 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nitalynx" wrote: > > bboyminn wrote: > > > > And to further make the point that Harry's morality is > > in his actions, all of his actions, not a single > > isolated event. > > Nita: > > But don't "all of his actions" consist entirely of single events? Or > if not, how do we decide which events to ignore? What if I think that > his self-sacrifice was atypical (say, he was still shocked and numb > after the LOLLIPOPS revelation), and so we shouldn't take in into > account? > Charles: If you think that Harry's self-sacrifice was atypical, then you haven't been paying attention. He's shown a willingness to sacrifice himself since book 1. His concern for his near death experience was that the stone not fall into Voldemort's hands. Book 2, he's dying from his wounds, but his concern is to tell Ginny how to get to safety. Book 3, he charges into battle with dementors to save Sirius. Book 5, he's willing to give up the WW to keep everyone safe from him when he thinks he's being posessed by Voldemort. Book 6, he wants to save DD from drinking the potion. Then he breaks it off with Ginny because he doesn't want harm to come to her. > > We learn by the example of a flawed but basically good > > courageous boy who will not tolerate the forces of > > evil winning, and is determined to beat them regardless > > of the personal cost. > > > Do we? I wouldn't want my little brother to learn too much from Harry, > actually. And if I did want him to grow up that way, a few cheap > action movies can provide the same example more effectively, without > contradicting themselves. > Charles: Hmmm. Yeah, he questions authority, searches for the truth, and fights against evil. Not someone to emulate at all. Charles, who likes Harry and would be damn proud to have a kid like him. From javalorum at yahoo.ca Tue Aug 7 19:17:00 2007 From: javalorum at yahoo.ca (javalorum) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:17:00 -0000 Subject: Funny lines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174740 > Shirley: > More Ron funny-ness, the night before the wedding: "A brutal > triple murder by the bridegroom's mother might put a bit of a damper > on the wedding." Classic. Near the end, when everyone was looking at them on the 9 3/4 platform, one of the kids asked why people were staring, Ron said "don't let it worry you, It's me, I'm exteremly famous." That's really funny, and it shows how much more mature Ron's handling the ever-growing fame of HP. :D Java From javalorum at yahoo.ca Tue Aug 7 21:08:46 2007 From: javalorum at yahoo.ca (javalorum) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:08:46 -0000 Subject: Reflection on DH ( and its deaths, from a fan of Sirius, Remus and Tonks) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174741 pattiemgsybb: > Couldn't we at least have seen the kick-it Auror Tonks take out ONE > Death-Eater? Why not let Lupin send Fenrir to the great beyond? > Nope. They just die out of sight, out of hearing, out of any > reality of the battle. It's as though JKR couldn't take the > trouble to write a real ending for them. > > I do love many aspects of each novel, and in fact there were many > scenes in DH that I found quite moving or exciting -- but I hated > the treatment of Sirius in OotP and I hate the treatment of Remus > and Tonks in DH. I agree. I don't mind good characters dying. I just hated the way they were twisted to make room for the plot to fit in. It looks as if the author planned the orphan first, then set out to look for the parents. Since she decided on the Lupins, they had to get married very quickly. At the end of HBP, I had thought Lupin and Tonks merely agreed to go out. It's kind of hard to imagine they ended up getting married within a month after DD died. Then just as quickly, they had a kid, all because Tonks had to go through the entire pregnancy, then recover well enough to fight the last battle. From where HBP left off to the end of the battle, there's only about 12 month. Minus 9 month pregnancy, 1 month or so to recover, that leaves only 2 months to get married and make a baby. I would have liked it a lot better if this doesn't feel as if everything was worked out in reverse order. Java From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 7 22:15:03 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:15:03 -0000 Subject: Pius Thicknesse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174742 Of all the hundreds of fantastic names JKR invented over 7 long and wonderful books I don't believe any can beat the name of Pius Thicknesse. Pure Genius! Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Aug 7 22:28:50 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:28:50 -0000 Subject: Umbridge Under the Influence: Dolores and the Locket Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174743 What effect did the locket horcrux have on Dolores Umbridge? She was the most horrible character invented in the series, so it's hard for me to see any difference between the High Inquisitor of Hogwarts in OotP, and the High Inquisitor of Muggles in DH. She's still a rotten... person. We know the locket exacted a toll on the trio when each of them wore it. Tempers flared, spirits were depressed, and Ron's concerns seemed to have been magnified - shown in detail in the sequence where he 'kills' the horcrux. What was its effect on Umbridge? Did its influence weaken her Patronus? Did it make her even eviller than she was? Did it in any way influence her to retrieve Mad-Eye Moody's eye when he was killed? At which point in the book, or the last three books, did she get this Horcrux? How long has it been affecting her? Ceridwen. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 7 22:34:54 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:34:54 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Umbridge Under the Influence: Dolores and the Locket In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B8F38E.5020705@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174744 I thought the whole "wearing horcux interferes with your patronus" business is a giant plot hole. I mean, Harry was able to produce perfect Patronuses for four and a half books, while all this time he was carrying a horcrux inside his head. So how come the external locket was so much more influential? Irene Ceridwen wrote: > What effect did the locket horcrux have on Dolores Umbridge? She was > the most horrible character invented in the series, so it's hard for me > to see any difference between the High Inquisitor of Hogwarts in OotP, > and the High Inquisitor of Muggles in DH. She's still a rotten... > person. > > We know the locket exacted a toll on the trio when each of them wore > it. Tempers flared, spirits were depressed, and Ron's concerns seemed > to have been magnified - shown in detail in the sequence where > he 'kills' the horcrux. > > What was its effect on Umbridge? Did its influence weaken her > Patronus? Did it make her even eviller than she was? Did it in any > way influence her to retrieve Mad-Eye Moody's eye when he was killed? > > At which point in the book, or the last three books, did she get this > Horcrux? How long has it been affecting her? > > Ceridwen. > From dreadr at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 22:31:19 2007 From: dreadr at yahoo.com (dreadr) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:31:19 -0000 Subject: JKR's Big Mistake In-Reply-To: <620847.66589.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174745 Katie: > I, for one, love the series and DH, imperfections and all. I love > Harry, Hermione, Ron, Neville, Snape, Dumbledore and the rest. They > have been my friends and companions for ten years, and I have loved > watching them grow and change, and I also loved watching them win. I > make no apologies for loving the books just the way they are, and for > having already read DH 4 times. VERY well stated. These books have been and will continue to be part of my life. I have enjoyed all of it, including the agonizing drawn- out waiting (although, I do recall making the comment of "how dare she think she is entitled to have a life before this is finished." I have watched the kids grow up and love them all (except perhaps Draco, Pansy, occasionally Percy and a few others). I have laughed, cried, said a number of swear words and rejoiced. I am now rereading the series again for the I lost count time. I am on my second hardcover copies of the books. Will I replace them again? You betcha. I love them imperfections, plot holes, deaths and everything else! Are they perfect? No. Neither am I! Debbie From cathio2002 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 22:42:37 2007 From: cathio2002 at yahoo.com (Cat) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Reflection on DH ( and its deaths, from a fan of Sirius, Remus and Tonks) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <696442.1594.qm@web33310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174746 > pattiemgsybb: > > > Couldn't we at least have seen the kick-it Auror > Tonks take out ONE > > Death-Eater? Why not let Lupin send Fenrir to the > great beyond? > > Nope. They just die out of sight, out of hearing, > out of any > > reality of the battle. It's as though JKR > couldn't take the > > trouble to write a real ending for them. I don't understand the point in killing Remus and Tonks, and leaving a child parentless. Just to show that war is hell and kills the good. And not to even show their deaths when they were important characters. That seemed dumb. Cat From kamilaa at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 22:55:20 2007 From: kamilaa at gmail.com (Kamil) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 17:55:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Funny lines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174747 For some reason this exchange makes me snicker: "You don't say anything," said Scrimgeour. "Perhaps you already know what the Snitch contains?" "No," said Harry, still wondering how he could appear to touch the Snitch without really doing so. If only he knew Legilimency, really knew it, and could read Hermione's mind; he could practically hear her brain whirring beside him. "Take it," said Scrimgeour quietly. Harry met the minister's yellow eyes and knew he had no option but to obey. He held out his hand, and Scrimgeour leaned forward again and placed the Snitch, slowly and deliberately, into Harry's palm. Nothing happened. As Harry's fingers closed around the Snitch, its tired wings fluttered and were still. Scrimgeour, Ron, and Hermione continued to gaze avidly at the now partially concealed ball, as if still hoping it might transform in some way. "That was dramatic," said Harry coolly. Kamil From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Tue Aug 7 22:56:37 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:56:37 -0000 Subject: LONG collection of DH related thoughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174748 "faery_wisdom" wrote: > Remeber my last is clarified for me when we realize that Petunia > wrote to Dumbledor to attempt entering Hogwarts, and more than once > from the sound of it. We know DD left her a letter when he dropped > Harry off so it stands to figure he explained in that letter (his > last) the importance of Harry calling her house home. Kvapost: I'm sure he also explained in his "last" that he might accidentally reveal the "past" ones of hers (her pleas to admit her to Hogwarts) to her family/community, which would be her worst nightmare I'm sure. That's why, in DD's words, she took Harry in "unwillingly, grudgingly, bitterly". Kvapost From cathio2002 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 22:47:26 2007 From: cathio2002 at yahoo.com (Cat) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Umbridge Under the Influence: Dolores and the Locket In-Reply-To: <46B8F38E.5020705@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: <276654.79671.qm@web33303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174749 > Ceridwen wrote: > What effect did the locket horcrux have on Dolores Umbridge? She was > the most horrible character invented in the series, so it's hard for > me to see any difference between the High Inquisitor of Hogwarts in > OotP, and the High Inquisitor of Muggles in DH. She's still a > rotten... person. I, too, wondered about the effect of the locket on Umbridge, but I didn't see any. This may be another thing that JKR overlooked. Cat From taylorlynzie at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 22:56:48 2007 From: taylorlynzie at gmail.com (taylorlynzie) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:56:48 -0000 Subject: Crucio v. Imperius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174750 In all this discussion on the unforgivable curseS I seem to really only hear about one unforgivable curse: Cruciatus. I'm not trying to deny the severity of this curse by any means but no one has seemed to mention anything about Harry and the "good guys" using the Imperius curse. While in Gringott's they use the Imperius curse several times. Now, I agree that the Imperius curse is in itself a less -painful- curse then the Cruciatus, however, it is STILL, never the less an unforgivable curse and isn't that what this whole discussion is about? The validity of the good side using an unforgivable curse. Funny how most failed to notice that one while they were wide-mouthed and flabbergasted at such an improbable occurrence such as the use of the Cruciatus curse by a member of the good side. I think it is a case of something that Charles wrote about, he said: "Anyone complaining about the use of "Unforgivable" by the good side needs to think about the other laws of the wizarding world that the good side broke. Hmmm....Hermione existed.[ being muggleborn ] Ted Tonks existed. Remus Lupin existed. Harry Potter stayed free. My point is that legality and morality are two different things. The unforgivables are called that because of legality, not morality." I don't think that the use of the Unforgivables against ENEMIES is frowned upon, ESPECIALLY in a time of war. It's not as if Harry was just walking around cursing random students. I personally do not think that Harry was wrong in his use of the curse. It may not have been the most practical time but I do not find it to be completely out of place. They were in the midst, or right at the beginning of the last battle! -tay From taylorlynzie at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 23:05:15 2007 From: taylorlynzie at gmail.com (taylorlynzie) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:05:15 -0000 Subject: In response to: dumb question: What does "Cackling Stump" mean? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174751 Java, I believe that the "Cackling Stump" really just is a tree stump, perhaps an enchanted one. I'm not sure if it was in reference to any other story but it does not seem too far from the realm of Potter-Possibility to just be a magical stump. From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Tue Aug 7 23:07:28 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:07:28 -0000 Subject: Doe Patronus (was: LONG collection of DH related thoughts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174752 va32h wrote: > I don't see any reason why two people *can't* have the same patronus. Kvapost: Forgive me if I'm wrong but I swallowed the DH book so fast that I cannot recall reading about Lily having a doe patronus. Of course, when a doe patronus showed up to provide HRH with the sword, I thought it was hers, but when later on it has been revealed to be Snape's I immediately thought, "Of course, that makes sense, Snape regarding Lily as belonging to James whose animagus shape is a stag". So, unless DH states clearly that Lily did indeed have a doe patronus, I'm inclined to interpret Snape's one as a masochistic torture of himself by jealousy, self-punishment of some sort. Kvapost From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 23:13:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:13:27 -0000 Subject: Death, where is thy victory? (Was: The Message of DH) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174753 Julie wrote: > > > We (at least many of us) *wanted* to see the series end with the Good Guys showing moral superiority over the Bad Guys, even though they generally failed to do so throughout the previous books. > houyhnhnm replied: > > That is what I wanted, too. The story *seemed* to be about good and evil and how to live your life. Lately I have been wondering if the theme Rowling was really persuing was not how to live, but how to die. Carol responds: As I said offlist, now we're getting somewhere! And while I *do* think that the story shows the triumph of a mostly good but flawed young man over an unquestionably evil wizard, who didn't see that coming? Maybe good vs. evil isn't the chief conflict that we're dealing with. What besides power was Voldemort preoccupied with? What was he chiefly afraid of? What were the Horcruxes, those supremely unnatural creations, beyond the "usual evil," supposed to protect him from? Death? And what do the epigraphs from Aeschylus and William Penn deal with? Death. > houyhnhnm: > Although she apparantly conceived the idea of an orphaned boy who finds out he's a wizard, before her mother's death, the work was begun in earnest after the death. Maybe Harry's journey turned into Rowling's, struggling with the idea of death, fear of one's own death and fear of loss of loved ones by death. In other words, HP is not the story of a boy wizard struggling with evil but a grown woman struggling with her own mortality. > Carol: Or, in terms of the books, especially DH, characters facing their own mortality. It's different for Harry, in particular, to be out actively hunting down LV's Horcruxes, knowing that each one brings the final struggle closer, than it was at Hogwarts, knowing that he was safe as long as Dumbledore was alive. He can't rely on Dumbledore now, as either an advisor or a shield. He has to face his own mortality (as Regulus, that other Seeker, also did). Harry doesn't yet know that he has to sacrifice himself; it's still murder or be murdered until "The Prince's Tale." And then he has to get over the idea that he's a pig to be slaughtered, betrayed by the man he thought was his mentor, and go willingly to his death. (Was no one but me moved to tears when he opened the Snitch with the words, "I am about to die"?) Harry has always seen Dumbledore as the wise old mentor. Now he knows that Dumbledore, too, lost loved ones and would like nothing better than to have them back. I think he feels almost as guilty for Ariana's death as Snape does for Lily's. DD understands exactly what Harry sees in the Mirror of Erised because he sees much the same thing, a dead loved one or loved ones. (Even the relationship with his brother, whose role was so excitedly anticipated by posters on this list but who is now being ignored or overlooked, was ruined.) houyhnhnm: > I don't think my attitude towards death is very much like Rowling's. Although I am afraid of death, I doubt if I share either her indignation at its existence or her certainty that it can be overcome. I've always thought that right way to deal with death lies in living properly in this world and making the right moral choices. What lies on the other side (if anything) will takes care of itself when and if we get there. > Carol: But I don't think that's what the books show about death, so we need to look at it as her characters experience it or will experience. Whatever the case in RL, and we can't know where our dead loved ones have gone and whether we'll ever see them again, we can only hope or believe or resign ourselves to the impossibility of knowing, but in all of the HP books, the soul has been presented as real and the afterlife has been hinted at by the horrific worse-than-death fate of the soul sucked. NHN's "he will have gone one," the Veil in the DoM, DD's view of death as "the next great adventure" contrasted with Voldemort's horror of death and his willingness to split his soul through murder and commit other unnatural acts ("bone of the father" in a resurrection potion) because he feared a natural and inevitable phenomenon. The Deathly Hallows, whose lure DD could not resist, would have made Harry Master of Death, but being a better man than Dumbledore, he rejects them, tossing the broken resurrection stone to the ground. (It might have been better to destroy it, but I'll let that drop.) Harry visits his parents' grave for the first time and misreads the biblical quotation, "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" as something the Death Eaters might think. Hermione (did her parents attend church with her when she was a child?) corrects him. "It means . . . living beyond death. Living after death." Harry's reaction is something like despair: "But they were not living, thought Harry. They were gone. The empty words [unreliable narrator again] could not disguise the fact that his parents' mouldering remains lay beneath snow and stone, indifferent, unknowing. And tears came before he could stop them, boiling hot then instantly freezing on his face. . . . He let them fall . . . looking down at the thick snow hiding from his eyes the place where the last of Lily and James lay, bones now, surely, or dust, not knowing or caring that their living son stood so near . . . and close to wishing that his he was sleeping under the snow with them" (DH Am. ed. 328). Ironically, Harry is standing in a churchyard as he thinks these words, the joy and beauty of a Christmas service celebrating the birth of Christ only yards away from him. (Forgive me if you're not Christian and are unmoved by this idea; I'm trying to recreate what I think is JKR's perspective as a Christian writer.) Earlier, Hermione has told them about Horcruxes being the opposite of a human being, with the soul bit depending on the existence of its container to avoid annihilation whereas in a human being the body may die, but the soul is eternal. Harry is only aware at this moment of the death of the body, of his own loss, whose enormousness he now seems to recognize for the first time. He is not far from the young Snape, anguishing over Lily's death and wishing he were dead, too, or from Aberforth, still, after much longer than Snape's brief lifetime, mourning Ariana: "DON'T!' bellowed Snape. 'Gone . . . . dead. . . . I wish . . . I wish *I* were dead" (678). 'Gone,' croaked Aberforth. 'Gone forever'" (567). But Albus Dumbledore, wiser if not better than his younger brother, had already told Harry, "The dead that we love never really leave us." And Harry, entering King's Cross Station in his mind but nevertheless seeing what is real and true (DD's last words as Harry comes back to himself), sees that there is an afterlife, with redemption for Dumbledore, nothing to fear for himself, and an eternal of helpless suffering for Voldemort, whose eternal form so closely resembles the fetal form we witnessed in GoF. The shades of his parents and Black and Lupin reinforce the view that death is nothing to fear. "Do not pity the dead. Pity the living, especially those who live without love." We don't see what happens to those who "go on." JKR herself can't know and Dumbledore, consequently, can't tell. But in JKR's vision, as in any Christian writer's, death is not the end of everything. The soul lives on. Only the unrepentant need fear eternity. Carol, happily envisioning mutual forgiveness among Snape, Lily, and the Maruaders minus Peter From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Aug 7 23:13:17 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:13:17 -0000 Subject: Doe Patronus (was: LONG collection of DH related thoughts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174754 Kvapost: > Forgive me if I'm wrong but I swallowed the DH book so fast that I > cannot recall reading about Lily having a doe patronus. Of course, when > a doe patronus showed up to provide HRH with the sword, I thought it > was hers, but when later on it has been revealed to be Snape's I > immediately thought, "Of course, that makes sense, Snape regarding Lily > as belonging to James whose animagus shape is a stag". > So, unless DH states clearly that Lily did indeed have a doe patronus, > I'm inclined to interpret Snape's one as a masochistic torture of > himself by jealousy, self-punishment of some sort. Ceridwen: Heh. I can sort-of see that last thought: "If his is a stag, then hers must be... *Expecto Patronum!*... Yup, a doe." *Snape simmers in masochistic resentment and red-faced embarrassment* I don't recall anyone mentioning that Lily's Patronus was a stag, until the end when Harry explained everything to Tom. It made sense to DD that the doe represented Lily, but he didn't say, "Awww, how sweet, you have her Patronus!" Ceridwen. From taylorlynzie at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 23:14:32 2007 From: taylorlynzie at gmail.com (taylorlynzie) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:14:32 -0000 Subject: 7 reasons why (was Re: Snape finding Lily's Letter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174755 Potion cat wrote: "6. As for the photo: It's been awhile since I had a one-year-old around the house. Does anyone really think a baby could sit a broom by his first birthday? (Does anyone remember the discussion about Dudley and Harry's developmental stages in SS/PS)" Most babies are learning to walk around the time they are one. If babies can walk, they can surely hold themselves upright, even on a broom. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 23:32:46 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:32:46 -0000 Subject: Slow Hermione? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174756 In the "Kings Cross" Chapter (36), Dumbledore makes a statement I find confusing. Well, the statement itself is pretty clear, I'm just confused at to what it means. Harry and Dumbledore are talking about the Hallows - Harry askes "Why did you have to make it so diffult?" and Dumbledore response - "I am afraid I counted on Miss Granger to slow you up, Harry." Dumbledore continues to explain that he did not want Harry to discover the nature and existence of the Hallows until just the right time, so Harry's 'hot head' would not overrule his 'good heart'. I don't understand how Hermione was suppose to slow them down. Was it because she would and did insist on focusing on the Horcruxes? Still, it was certainly Hermione's determination that lead them to an understanding of the Hallows. Was it because Harry would simply relegate the task to Hermione's superior investigative power, and ignore the problem himself? I really don't understand how and why Dumbledore would count on Hermione slowing the process down. If anything, I would have expected Hermione to speed the process up. Again, this is Dumbledore's statement so any answer would have to be from Dumbledore's perspective. Confused. Steve/bboyminn From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Aug 7 23:38:19 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:38:19 -0000 Subject: Text vs Sub-Text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174757 Steve: > Here is what I think. I think some people are looking > for things in the TEXT that rightly belong and are > found in the SUB-TEXT. I don't want these stories to > end with - > > '..and the moral of the story is... always obey your > parents, go to Sunday School, and eat you spinach.' > > I don't want good book to literally give me the > answers, I want them to force me to ask the hard > questions, and to use the books as a illustration > that might help me resolve the answers in my own > mind. As, I've said before, Revelation is a greater > teacher than Explanation. The answers that spring up > from the well of my own intellect, are far more > powerful than the droning answers that come from > teachers and preachers. > > The very fact that we are arguing these points tells > me that JKR has done her job. Was Harry evil, or at > least bad, for using the Cruciatus Curse? I say in > that circumstance he was wrong, but his actions were > understandable and forgivable. But JKR doesn't spell > it out for me or for others. That is why others think > it was a horrendous thing for Harry to have done. > > These opinions, these positions, don't come from the > author, they come from us. Perhaps that is why the > discussions are so polarized, perhaps that is why > each side is so vehemently in their opinions. > > I really don't want, and don't find it beneficial to > have these moral dilemmas neatly resolved and spelled > out for me. How do I learn and grow from that? I learn > and grow more by not having it spelled out, by not > having it explained, but by having to reach deep inside > myself and find the answers there. > > It's not up to JKR to resolve every moral dilemma, it's > up to me. Magpie: This still sounds like what you keep trying to make the conversation about rather than what it actually is. But saying over and over that people want a Sunday school primer and a plaster saint and can't handle things being in the subtext doesn't make it so. Everybody here is already talking about the same subtext--not text. The text is only where the subtext comes from. Pointing out how Harry is actually described as reacting to something is not missing the subtext that he's really reacting in a different way. We even seem to be all agreeing on what the subtext is--that Harry is a great guy who won't let evil win, and things anyone might think (incorrectly?) he does wrong don't matter much in light of that. The disagreement only seems to me to be whether you think this is a satisfying exploration of morals or not. I don't see how there aren't any answers in the text here--it seems to me that many people have said, when discussing what they didn't get from the story, *not* that they want easy answers but that they would have preferred an exploration of moral ambiguities. If none of the ambiguities are ever recognized in the text at all, not by the characters, or in the way the consequences of their actions are shown, or even in the way the author talks about it, is it really being presented as a difficult issue that readers can't handle? Because to me the opposite seems to be true--if I were Harry or Hermione morals would be a lot easier, and usually about other people being wrong and how I was going to deal with them once I'd judged them. Everybody doesn't have to agree with me, but when I got to the end of the series I did feel like I'd just read something that leaned less toward an exploration of difficult moral questions and more towards a more shallow, narcissistic fantasy where heroes kick evil's butt by being totally not virulent racists and hating bullies. You seem to feel the criticism sounds like it's coming from Sunday school teachers. I admit some of the defenses sound to me like Petunia and Vernon Dursley reacting to a note from Dudley's school: He's a good boy! He's wonderfully flawed! And by flawed I mean human! The last thing I'd want is a nancy-boy--I mean, plaster saint--for a hero. His mistakes only make him more perfect! That's forcing yourself to ask the hard questions? (And was it even the book that forced you to think about it, or other readers?) So to repeat, the trouble isn't, at least for me--and I don't think for other people based on what they've said--that they find the moral quandries presented in canon too difficult and are upset that they didn't get a bunny rabbit coming out at the end of each chapter to tell us the moral. On the contrary, we would have preferred the morals to be a little harder and not so easy as Harry being a great hero and a courageous boy who won't let evil win and that's all you need to know. We do see some answers in the text, and when the answers are presented readers naturally agree or disagree with them. The answers turned out to be a bit easier than we expected, not harder. At least that's the impression I get--I don't mean to speak for anybody except myself. -m From random832 at fastmail.us Tue Aug 7 23:56:30 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:56:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slow Hermione? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B906AE.8060409@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 174758 Steve wrote: > I don't understand how Hermione was suppose to > slow them down. Was it because she would and did > insist on focusing on the Horcruxes? Still, it > was certainly Hermione's determination that lead > them to an understanding of the Hallows. Was it > because Harry would simply relegate the task to > Hermione's superior investigative power, and > ignore the problem himself? Her insistence on focusing on the Horcruxes was _exactly_ it - and it was extremely predictable too. She could be counted on to believe to be false anything that came from a "fairy tale" and anything that came from Xenophilius Lovegood, and Dumbledore knew this because he's seen the way she dismisses everything that Luna says. -- Random832 From red-siren at hotmail.com Tue Aug 7 23:17:51 2007 From: red-siren at hotmail.com (Sue) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:17:51 -0000 Subject: Umbridge Under the Influence: Dolores and the Locket In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174759 Ceridwen wrote: > > What effect did the locket horcrux have on Dolores Umbridge? Sue: I believe it accentuated her already known attitude towards anyone/thing that is not pureblood wizard. As I read DH, I could feel the pleasure she took in terrorizing muggleborns. She could have been Voldemort's honey bunch. Sue From Ajohnson5 at oh.rr.com Tue Aug 7 23:42:06 2007 From: Ajohnson5 at oh.rr.com (April Johnson) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 19:42:06 -0400 Subject: British phrases Message-ID: <09ef01c7d94c$9089f290$6601a8c0@april> No: HPFGUIDX 174760 Okay, there are a lot more british phrases and words in DH, and I was wondering what 'done a bunk' actually meant. I can think of a few things that it could mean, like he 'fled the scene', but i'm not sure what it really means. Could any of you british readers or more knowledgable readers tell me what it means? April ****************************************** LCChat.Com - Come Join Us in the FUN! http://lcchat.com/forums/index.php ------------------------------------------------------ LCFreecycle - Do you Recycle?? Try FREECYCLE! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LCFreecycle/ ***************************************** [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From erikog at one.net Wed Aug 8 00:02:15 2007 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:02:15 -0000 Subject: Slow Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174761 Steve writes: > Harry askes "Why did you have to make it so diffult?" > > and Dumbledore response - > > "I am afraid I counted on Miss Granger to slow you up, > Harry." > > Dumbledore continues to explain that he did not want > Harry to discover the nature and existence of the > Hallows until just the right time, so Harry's > 'hot head' would not overrule his 'good heart'. > > I don't understand how Hermione was suppose to > slow them down. IMO, this section is confusing because Harry asks a direct question and the ever-elusive Dumbledore starts to answer it, then deftly changes the topic. So, to break it down: Harry asks why the quest was so dificult-- why he couldn't know from the start everything. AD admits it was difficult. ("I am afraid..." is how you either edge into bad news, or confess something in general.) He then goes on to say *how* it was difficult, rather than truly answering Harry's question of *why* it was difficult. AD says, in re: how the quest was difficult, that it was made a logic puzzle for which Harry would require Hermione. As for Harry's actual question, *why* the quest was so difficult, I think AD suggests this in-between- the-lines, although he does not answer the question openly. (Typical Dumbledore!) He wanted Harry not to rush to answers or conclusions--he wanted Harry "slowed" down. Presumably, if he's to be slowed down by the logial/conscientious Hermione, AD therefore fears the opposite of these qualities within Harry, his emotions and temper, will get the better of him if they aren't guided by some kind of deliberative process. The entire process of the quest was therefore meant to challenge Harry's mind and heart to mature to a point where Harry would be able to take the steps necessary to finish off Voldemort successfully. Krista From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Wed Aug 8 00:17:40 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:17:40 -0000 Subject: FILK: Regulus Black Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174762 Regulus Black (DH, Chap. 10) To the tune of On the Right Track from Pippin Dedicated to Eric Oppen Here's a You-Tube rendition with some superb choreography (this performance also includes some spoken dialogue not used in this filk): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybImMOblUXM THE SCENE: 12 Grimmauld Place. KREACHER tells HARRY a syncopated story of R.A.B.'s heroic death. KREACHER: One day Reggie, lookin' dingy, Came all by himself: "You-Know-Who said, `Don't be stingy, I'm in need of your elf.'" Voldy took me into a cave out Of the way To drink a brew he gave out Given in the worst way Though my anguish made the Dark Lord smile I soon left, with a crack I returned from Voldy's isle All thanks to Regulus Black HARRY/KREACHER: Regulus Black/ uh hu hu hu Regulus Black/ Hated DEs, Harry Regulus Black/ Hated DEs, Harry Regulus Black/ Hated DEs KREACHER: Reg said, "Look for . HARRY: .locket KREACHER: Take me HARRY: .to the cave!" KREACHER: Drank all the potion HARRY: Locket he KREACHER: to me gave. BOTH: He resolved to die a hero's death He quite soon was attacked By some folk who had zero breath So ended Regulus Black HARRY/KREACHER: Regulus Black/ uh hu hu hu Regulus Black/ Hated DEs, Harry Regulus Black/ Hated DEs, Harry Regulus Black/ Hated DEs KREACHER: As I from that isle went, Reg said, "Stay mum!" I kept silent, never told Reggie's mum. But I have tried each elfish magic spell A success I lack Have I failed to execute my Reggie's request..? HARRY: His final behest KREACHER: I am so distressed BOTH: The locket I/you got from Reg KREACHER (spoken, breaking down): Oh, I'll never crush it ...never ...never...never ...never! HARRY (comforting the elf): Easy, Kreacher! We'll avenge Reg Black! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From va32h at comcast.net Wed Aug 8 00:31:05 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:31:05 -0000 Subject: Death, where is thy victory? With Bonus Material! (seekers, Umbridge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174763 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: (snippage) >{Was no one but me moved to tears when he opened the Snitch with the words, "I am about to die"?) va32h: No, I was too. Despite my criticisms of the book and JKR, I love Harry, have always loved Harry, and I ached for him in this entire chapter. It was especially heartbreaking (and yet reassuring) because Harry did not want to die. He knew he had to, and was willing to - but he didn't want to. His thoughts on the way to the forest bear this out; his memories of his friends, and despair at the thought of leaving them. The very fact that he needs to summon forth his dead loved ones to give him the courage to keep going and not run away shows that he isn't doing this happily, just willingly. His very last thoughts were of Ginny - which represents a future he desperately wants. Before DH came out, there was a great deal of speculation that Harry would die - ought to die - because he would be with his parents and Sirius and Dumbledore, and thus would be happy. I argued vigorously against this idea. Harry would not be happy, IMO to be trapped in perpetual adolescence, with parents he may love dearly, but in truth he hardly knows. Dying would, in many ways, be much easier than living with the loss of his loved ones, and Harry never takes the easy route. And overall, I found it a deeply morbid and disturbing notion that *wanting* to die at the age of 17 would be portrayed in such a postive light. Harry doesn't *want* to die, but he does it because he has to, and I am very satisified with this depiction. And even more satisified to see that given the chance to go back or go on - Harry chooses to go back to the land of the living, to the future (or at least the potential of a future) which is where he truly does belong. Carol: (more snipping) >The Deathly Hallows, whose lure DD could not resist, would > have made Harry Master of Death, but being a better man than > Dumbledore, he rejects them, tossing the broken resurrection stone to the ground. (It might have been better to destroy it, but I'll let > that drop.) va32h: Well you used the right word - letting it drop. Letting go of the stone is a more symbolic gesture than destroying it. Harry literally "lets go" of the stone, metaphorically lets go of the longing to get back what is gone forever. When he's in King's Cross, whatever King's Cross is, it isn't Lily and James he calls forth, it's Dumbledore. And he wants Dumbledore to give him answers, not reminisce about old times. Harry's desperate longing for his parents didn't disappear with the Mirror of Erised. One thing that struck me back in HBP was Harry's musing on what his life would be like if Neville had been the Chosen One instead. And Harry's thought is that his own mother would be kissing him goodbye instead of Molly Weasley. But this is a very unrealistic dream - as Lily would surely have been among the persecuted in Voldemort's regime. Harry, in his longing to get his parents back, seems to have forgotten that it was the loss of his parents that enabled these 15-16 years of peace. Harry makes the same mistake in Deathly Hallows, imagining coming home to Godric's Hollow on school vacations, if only his parents had lived. And by Deathly Hallows, Harry knows what life for Muggleborns is like when Voldemort is in charge. But he still has that childlike longing for his parents. And although he does call them forth in his hour of greatest need (as he will surely always remember them) in the end he does let them go, as he lets go of the stone. I would guess that post-DH Harry does not dwell on what his life might have been like anymore, but concentrates on what it is in that moment. Now - in my desperate bid to keep within the 5 post limit, I will tack on some other subjects. Carol said: We might look at the other Seekers, too--Krum, who shows up in a cameo to link Grindelwald with Xenophilius Lovegood (Now there's a pair for you. Would Grindelwald have worn omelet yellow to a wedding? ;-) ). Does his earlier act of winning the game on his own terms foreshadow Harry, or does it have more to do with Dumbledore? And why has JKR taken the trouble to show us a photo of young Regulus, the Voldie fan turned hero, as a Seeker? va32h: I think it goes back to the Seeker being the one who ends the game. Regulus thought he was ending Voldemort's game by stealing what he believed was the only horcrux. Even Draco - who isn't a very talented Seeker, yet gets on the team through his family's intervention (which also describes his career as a DE) is a key figure in ending the game with Voldemort. Krum's gameplay in the QWC shows us that it isn't necessarily the Seeker who wins the game. At first glance, it seems that the player who can earn 150 points in one go is the most important player out there - but as we saw in the QWC, if the rest of the team is strong enough.... Harry didn't destroy a single horcrux in DH - I would say the horcruxes = goals, and of course the Seeker doesn't score goals. Krum decided to end the game on his own terms, because he knew that the other team's Chasers were just too good - his team would never catch up. Voldemort is Krum without the self-awareness (and of course *with( teh evil. Voldemort will never be able to catch up to Harry's team (although he doesn't realize it yet) and insists on playing on his own terms (continuing to use AK, even though it *never* works on Harry) On a slightly related note, I do wish that Harry had talked a bit more about the highly shocking fact that he had, to all appearances been dead, and was now alive. Voldemort didn't seem sufficiently surprised at Harry's return. Now onto a whole different subject Ceridwen wrote: >We know the locket exacted a toll on the trio when each of them wore > it. Tempers flared, spirits were depressed, and Ron's concerns seemed to have been magnified - shown in detail in the sequence where > he 'kills' the horcrux. > > What was its effect on Umbridge? Did its influence weaken her > Patronus? Did it make her even eviller than she was? Did it in any > way influence her to retrieve Mad-Eye Moody's eye when he was killed? > > At which point in the book, or the last three books, did she get this Horcrux? How long has it been affecting her? va32h: My interpretation is that the horcrux is a negative influence on people who are essentially good. With Umbridge, the horcrux would have felt right at home - the soul bit would feel as comfortable next to Dolores' heart as it felt in Voldemort's own body. I don't think it affects her at all - Umbridge is already deeply in tune with it. I don't know if Umbridge could *get* any more evil than she was in OoTP, quite honestly! So I'm not inclined to cut her any slack because she was wearing the horcrux. Nothing she is shown to do in DH seems any more evil than the stuff she did (or tried to do) in OoTP. I would guess that she took it sometime during the course of events in HBP. If the DE have been steadily infiltrating the Ministry, she'd be able to see which way the wind was blowing, and know that it wouldn't hurt to bolster her pureblood credentials. I don't think Umbridge was a DE though - if she'd ever been in Voldemort's presence with that locket, she'd be dead. So I don't think *she* took Moody's eye. His body must have been found by the DEs that night, humiliated and stripped of any useful parts. Perhaps those parts were brought back to the Ministry by any of the Imperiused or infiltrating DEs. Umbridge would probably have known Moody - he did used to work for the Ministry after all, and he's a hard man to forget. She might have found it an amusing revenge (Moody being Dumbledore's friend and Dumbledore being her enemy) or she may just have seen the usefulness in having a magical spy-eye. va32h From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 00:45:16 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:45:16 -0000 Subject: Harry the Plaster Saint (was:Re: The Message of DH - Moral Superiority) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174764 > >>Steve (bboyminn): "And to further make the point that Harry's > > morality is in his actions, all of his actions, not a single > > isolated event. Extending that even further, morality is in his > > action, NOT in moralizing and sermonizing and preaching to the > > choir." > >>Jim Ferer > Amen, brother. Enough of the talking class. And the series shows in > its entirety that the good guys aren't plaster saints, either. Good > guys get something done. Betsy Hp: The odd thing, IMO, is that I *totally* see the good guys in this series as plaster saints. Especially Harry. Even his so-called "bad behavior" is like sexy-bad. It's the smear of dirt on his cheek, the just so wind-blown hair to let us know he's a real boy, not a little sissy kid. It's not like he's done anything he has to sit around and ponder and think, boy I *really* screwed that one up. (Of course, thinking isn't really one of Harry's skills. ) And honestly, this entire book was watching Harry *not* get anything done. Seriously, he just barely tripped over the right rake and landed in a pile of win. It's not like he had to be clever (thank goodness, because again, a very stupid boy we're dealing with here) or anything. It was luck that got him the Elder Wand, so it's by luck that he won. (Oh, and Voldemort's incredibly over the top stupidity. Hm, seems to be a rash of it in this last book.) Betsy Hp From cottell at dublin.ie Wed Aug 8 00:51:32 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:51:32 -0000 Subject: British phrases In-Reply-To: <09ef01c7d94c$9089f290$6601a8c0@april> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174765 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "April Johnson" wrote: > > Okay, there are a lot more british phrases and words in DH, and I > was wondering what 'done a bunk' actually meant. I can think of a > few things that it could mean, like he 'fled the scene' Yes, that's what it means, but it carries an implication of "escaping before one is found out". So "Mundungus did a bunk before they realised he'd pinched the silver" works. It's fairly jocular - Mundungus would do a bunk - you couldn't really use it to describe Voldemort and Bellatrix Disapparating from the Ministry at the end of OotP. Mus, who hopes this helps. From juli17 at aol.com Wed Aug 8 00:55:06 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 20:55:06 EDT Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174766 Lizzyben: Molly gets full caps-lock revenge against Bellatrix, and readers are supposed to cheer. Julie: I've had problems with some of the actions by the Good Guys in previous books, and with Harry so easily casting the Crucio curse in DH. But I have absolutely no issue with Molly's action here, and in fact I *did* cheer her ("You GO, Girl!!!"). Bellatrix was NOT standing around unarmed or inactive, she was right in the thick of battle. She had already killed, including her own niece (as I recall), and was in the act of attacking with intent to kill again. Molly knows this, and at the same time she's trying to protect her children, she has JUST lost one of them. So, that she would go a bit berzerk as she goes after Bellatrix is perfectly understandable IMO. And that she would kill Bellatrix IN THE MIDST OF A DEADLY BATTLE is certainly also understandable, and necessary to preserve what lives are left. (She may have derived a sense of "revenge" by her act, but it was a wholly justified act, and what grieving mother--and friend to Tonks and Lupin--wouldn't feel that way?) Julie, who really doesn't get this one, as what was Molly supposed to do, other than *silently* kill the attacking and very vicious murderer Bellatrix, who really had to be killed to be stopped. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tenne at redshift.bc.ca Wed Aug 8 00:36:56 2007 From: tenne at redshift.bc.ca (Tenne) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:36:56 -0600 Subject: remember my last References: Message-ID: <008701c7d954$394f0a30$797ba8c0@terrilaptop> No: HPFGUIDX 174767 In DH, the Dursley's have to evacuate their home because the magic that protects Harry lifts on his birth day and that exposes them as well. Could it be that the reason Petunia took Harry in was to protect her family as well as him. Perhaps DD explained to her in the letter he left with baby Harry, that if she didn't give Harry a home, her family was in danger from the death eaters. So by giving Harry protection, she could protect her own family. That would be a bitter place to be for her, her family is endangered because of Harry and he is their only protection. So when Uncle Vernon was going to throw Harry out because of the dementor attack, DD reminded Petunia about his last letter. So she knew that if Harry left, her family was in danger and she had to keep him. Terri From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 01:08:38 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:08:38 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B91796.4030804@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174768 Geoff Bannister blessed us with this gem On 08/08/2007 05:38: > As I said in a recent post, even as a Christian, I have done things in > the heat of the moment which I have regretted ... > situations like this where they have gone against their own conscience > and hated themselves for it afterwards. But, Geoff, this is a big part of our problem with the scene. There IS no regret expressed, either here or later. Harry never does seem to "hate himself" afterward for what he has done. This is Rambo!Harry, blowing away a baddie, then checking his watch to see if the ballgame's started yet. JKR has written so many "heat of battle" scenes we know she can do them (she does one just a few pages on in the Room of Requirement with Malfoy and his goons that would have provided a perfect excuse for a UC). If she really wanted to make that point, she could so easily have done so here, rather than the scene we got which leaves us speculating about Harry's tone of voice, and inventing rationalizations which are in such obvious contradiction with the canon we got. Harry states his purpose, he states his reason, and there is nothing aside from speculation which indicates he was out of control with anger, or anything other than cold and calculating in his choice of spells. Even if we assume for a moment that any of the above rationalizations WAS the intent of the author, the problem is she left it so muddy that a significant portion of her readership doesn't see it (this never-ending discussion is proof of that). That's a different authorial failing, but it's still a failing. Sorry, but no amount of rationalization, or insistence that the Cruciatus ain't what it clearly is and always has been, can save this passage. And no, saying "we've all done bad things" DOESN'T excuse Harry. At best it's a plea for mercy, not justice. Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan, who does find this passage offending his Christian sensibilities From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 01:17:43 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:17:43 -0000 Subject: DH as Christian Allegory In-Reply-To: <433989.67031.qm@web86211.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174769 > Irene: > > One of my theories is that Rowling has planned the ending quite in advance. And she could not have planned the middle arch of the story in full details. So during the years of writing the story took her somewhere, and the characters has developed in unforseen ways. And then she had to take some artificial measures to bring them back to the planned route. > > My husband has a different theory, which I find more amusing. Rowling has confessed to reading some discussion boards, right? So can you imagine her reaction after HBP: "I gave you super-spy-suave-Snape in the beginning of the book, I gave you wicked-wizard-Snape in the end, and still you won't believe he is ESE, which I need for my book 7 surprise?!!! Right, I'm keeping him off page for the most of book 7! No more confrontations with Harry!" :-) > lizzyben: It's sort of amusing to me to see JKR's fruitless battles with Snape. Despite everything, despite her dislike, Snape started to take over the series. In HBP, he became the most vital, compelling character while the actual heroes became more superficial & boring. As we now know, the ending was always supposed to involve Harry beating Voldemort while the world cheers, so Snape's prominence became a definite problem. This nasty unlikeable man has more fans than her heros! What's wrong with people? Right, Snape is staying off-page in DH. In a story about how the good heroic Gryfs beat the unworthy, Snape has been a loud, persistent voice that contradicted the official narrative. Snape's role in the series has always been as the "bearer of uncomfortable truths", and given the intended arc of the series, I can see why he had to be silenced. I sort of like to imagine Snape off-stage, sputtering. "That's not how it happened at all! Sirius Black tried to kill me! Oh, so Potter's using Unforgiveables now?" > Irene: > > Her own answers to the "Which house you'd be sorted into?" only reinforce this impression. It's usually "I'd like to be in Gryffindor, but I can only hope I'd be deemed worthy". She always uses the "worthy" word in this connection. > > Irene > lizzyben: That quote tells me everything I need to know. Gryffindors are intended to be the moral "elect". All other Houses are "tolerable", with Slytherins as the "unworthy". So, JKR would agree w/Dumbledore that the highest compliment one could pay a Slytherin is to say that he was "sorted too soon...." Sigh. lizzyben From kjones at telus.net Wed Aug 8 01:18:01 2007 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 18:18:01 -0700 Subject: Bonus Material (Was Death where is thy sting) Message-ID: <46B919C9.3070809@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174770 va32h writes: On a slightly related note, I do wish that Harry had talked a bit more about the highly shocking fact that he had, to all appearances been dead, and was now alive. Voldemort didn't seem sufficiently surprised at Harry's return. KJ writes: If I was Voldemorte, all things considered, I wouldn't be the least surprised that Harry wasn't killed. I would have been more interested in why I was knocked out again by using the curse on ever-living Harry. Betsy writes: And honestly, this entire book was watching Harry *not* get anything done. Seriously, he just barely tripped over the right rake and landed in a pile of win. It's not like he had to be clever (thank goodness, because again, a very stupid boy we're dealing with here) or anything. It was luck that got him the Elder Wand, so it's by luck that he won. (Oh, and Voldemort's incredibly over the top stupidity. Hm, seems to be a rash of it in this last book.) KJ writes: That bothered me as well. The entire last book was based completely on luck and Voldemorte's stupidity rather than the learning of skills and life experiences which would have allowed the characters to grow instead of ending up as two- dimensional comic book heroes. Justcarol67 writes: Clearly, DD was wrong about Tom's reserving important murders for the Horcruxes (Bertha Jorkins? An Albanian peasant?). Also, he seems to be wrong about his intending to make a Horcrux with Harry's murder. KJ writes: I thought that I learn the loud bang of a ball being dropped here as well. In OotP and HBP, I thought that we were really going somewhere and that the story- line was still on track. DH wandered into too much territory that was not backed up by anything in the previous books. Terri writes: So when Uncle Vernon was going to throw Harry out because of the dementor attack, DD reminded Petunia about his last letter. So she knew that if Harry left, her family was in danger and she had to keep him. KJ writes: To my way of thinking, Dumbledor's almost threatening mention of the "last" letter can not be adequately explained by the story of Petunia writing to be allowed to attend Hogwarts. This was another "you will understand if you read the seventh book" response that has left me scratching my head. My feeling is that when you finish a book, a reader should not have an empty feeling, nor a "what the heck was that????? reaction. KJ From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Aug 8 01:38:53 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:38:53 -0400 Subject: HP for Children? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B91EAD.5070406@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174771 eggplant107 wrote: > JKR hasn't written a children's book in years. I'm doing my second, careful, rereading of DH right now, and did a double-take when I read the argument preceding Ron's alteration of the Trio into a Duo, and he uses the term "effing". I wonder if, being British, JKR even knows what "effing" is "short" for. Bart From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Aug 8 01:42:26 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:42:26 -0000 Subject: Death, where is thy victory? (Was: The Message of DH) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174772 houyhnhnm: > > I don't think my attitude towards death is very > > much like Rowling's. Although I am afraid of death, > > I doubt if I share either her indignation at its > > existence or her certainty that it can be overcome. > > I've always thought that right way to deal with death > > lies in living properly in this world and making the > > right moral choices. What lies on the other side > > (if anything) will takes care of itself when and > > if we get there. Carol: > But I don't think that's what the books show about > death, so we need to look at it as her characters > experience it or will experience. houyhnhnm: It's hard for me to do (that's what I was trying to say) because I don't think I look at death the same way that Rowling does. I don't share her certainty of an afterlife, for one thing. I do think, though, that there may be a consistency in the way she deals with death that is lacking (for many readers, including me) in the way she deals with right and wrong. There are two ways of looking at the theme of death, I think. Fear of one's own end and fear of losing others or dealing with the loss of others. If we go back to PS/SS, in the first chapter we meet the boy who lived and has just been orphaned, so death is introduced in the first chapter of the first book. Not that Harry would have had any concept of death at the age of 15 months, but he would have experienced abandonment as he waited for his mother to come to him and she never came. Ten years later, Dumbledore has to rescue him from the Mirror of Erised, before which he would spend the rest of his life gazing at the dead parents who can't speak to him or touch him. Two characters are introduced who have found a way to cheat death. One is an evil Dark Lord and the other is a friend of Dumbledore's. Voldemort's method of cheating death is clearly condemned. "The blood of a unicorn will keep you alive even if you are an inch from death," say Firenze, "but at a terrible price. You have slain something pure and defenseless to save yourself, and you will have but a half life, a cursed life, from the moment the blood touches your lips." Keeping yourself alive by drinking unicorn blood is evil because you have slain something pure and defenseless, but what if you don't hurt anything else. Is Nicholas Flamel wrong to use the Philosopher's Stone to prolong his life? Besides his famous pronouncement about the next great adventure which I don't need to quote because everybody knows it, Dumbledore also has this to say about prolonging life: "You know, the Stone was not really such a wonderful thing. As much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings would choose above all--the trouble is humans do have knack of choosing precisely those things that are worst for them. At the end of book one, the two death related themes--how do you deal with loss and how do you deal with the fear of your own end--have been introduced. Harry has tried one solution to the first--day-deaming his life away in front of an image--and found it does not work. Harry has been presented with two solutions to the second. The first, drinking unicorn blood, is horrible. It's very clear to Harry that "If you're going to be cursed forever, death's better, isn't it." The second, drinking an elixir of life, may seem to be not so bad, but there is the suggestion, at least, that that is not really a good thing either. I agree that Harry is a Seeker and what he is seeking is the answer to these two questions about death: How to deal with loss of loved ones and how to deal with the knowledge of one's own mortality. The first answer may be more important to him at age eleven. (I'm not sure how well an eleven-year-old can comprehend his own death.) But the second question is already there in the background because someone *has* tried to kill him. I think it is necessary to start with the beginning and look at the other books in sequence to see how the theme is developed before tackling the complex messages about death in Deathly Hallows, but this is as much as I'm able to think about for tonight. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 01:51:32 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:51:32 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174773 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: > > > > > Lizzyben: > Molly gets full caps-lock revenge against Bellatrix, and readers are > supposed to cheer. > > > Julie: > I've had problems with some of the actions by the Good Guys in previous > books, > and with Harry so easily casting the Crucio curse in DH. But I have > absolutely no > issue with Molly's action here, and in fact I *did* cheer her ("You GO, > Girl!!!"). And that she would kill Bellatrix IN THE MIDST OF A DEADLY BATTLE is > certainly also understandable, and necessary to preserve what lives are > left. (She > may have derived a sense of "revenge" by her act, but it was a wholly > justified act, > and what grieving mother--and friend to Tonks and Lupin--wouldn't feel that > way?) > lizzyben: There's nothing *wrong* with that moment, per se (though I rolled my eyes at it), it's that it's part of a larger pattern & a larger message. Revenge is not only tolerated, but admired. And the revenge is even better if you can get in an action-movie quip while you do it. Harry also has a well-timed quip after unleashing Cruciatus curse - "I see what Bellatrix meant, you do have to mean it." I half-expected Harry to say "make my day." Just as in an action movie, these are cheer lines, one-liners that make the revenge even more satisfying for the audience. If we look at things from the Rambo-esque revenge viewpoint, the story starts to make a whole lot more sense. Harry's use of the Cruciatus curse was totally justified, because he was taking revenge on Carrow for using that same curse against students. That's why Harry is never expected to question or regret his actions. The same message is given in the various ironic deaths that the villains suffer. And, in a larger sense, the same message is given in the punishments that the good guys dish out to the bad guys throughout the series. We really were supposed to cheer when DD took away the House cup, laugh when Draco got stomped, gloat at the Dursleys' magical punishments, smirk at traitor Marietta's scars. It's all about the revenge, and the fact that Harry & co., as the unquestioned moral arbiters of the Wizarding World, have the right to exact that revenge. "Revenge plots" are one of the staple plots of literature, and IMO the Harry Potter novels fit this model much closer than a "coming of age" plot. lizzyben From MIRIAMSIMON at xtra.co.nz Wed Aug 8 01:54:11 2007 From: MIRIAMSIMON at xtra.co.nz (MIRIAMSIMON at xtra.co.nz) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 13:54:11 +1200 Subject: re British phrases Message-ID: <8149202.1186538051861.JavaMail.root@sf1435> No: HPFGUIDX 174774 While I do not live in Britain, I do live in one of the commonwealth countries (New Zealand, to be precise) You are perfectly correct, "to do a bunk" does mean to flee or leave the scene, usually in quite a hurry, and hoping to be not caught at whatever one was or was not doing. Hope this helps, getting confirmation. Any other phrases that are puzzling you? Miriam Simon (in Christchurch, New Zealand) From urghiggi at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 02:01:43 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:01:43 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: <46B91796.4030804@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174775 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > Lee said: > Sorry, but no amount of rationalization, or insistence that the > Cruciatus ain't what it clearly is and always has been, can save this > passage. And no, saying "we've all done bad things" DOESN'T excuse > Harry. At best it's a plea for mercy, not justice. > > Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan, who does find this passage offending his Christian > sensibilities > Julie H adds: What blows my mind about it in a way that the use of 'imperius' does not (maybe it should) is the unexamined use of Cruciatus by the hero of the books -- not his use of it per se in the situation (which might well be understandable) but the fact that there was never any self-examination about it. Also, that McGonagall appeared to be tacitly approving its use in this situation, which was not the heat of battle. It would be a lot easier to buy JKR's "harry is merely flawed' explanation if Harry himself EVER even briefly acknowledged his own anger/arrogance issues. Alas, he's not that self- reflective. (I'm not looking for saints or sermons. I'm only looking for a sentence or 2 where the putative hero, whose sacrifices we're clearly supposed to honor, expresses even the slightest concern about his use of the tools of evil in the service of good, and the risk of turning into the thing one hates....) Am I the only one who finds the author's supposedly justified employment of this curse -- whose SOLE purpose is to inflict torture -- more than a little ironic in light of her long and generous connection with Amnesty International? still shaking my head and sharing Lee's concerns .... and SO wishing I'd loved DH a lot more than I did.... Julie H, Chicago From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Aug 8 02:16:34 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:16:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman In-Reply-To: <700201d40708071251u10f8f5a4q368825def2e10e02@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40708071251u10f8f5a4q368825def2e10e02@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46B92782.10506@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174776 Kemper wrote: > You did a great job of informing me how 'wrong' or at least 'not > right' I was without actually addressing and clearly explaining how > JKR challenges or doesn't challenge Judeo-Christian ideas except to > say that Greco-Roman ideas are also involved are also involved with > Western thought (I agree) and listing the excellent example of Percy > and the less than excellent example of Arthur who was actively working > against the 'forces of law' from inside the law. Bart: Sorry about that. I got on a roll and forgot to get back to the beginning. The point I was ORIGINALLY going to make is that, while euthanasia violates what we think of as Judeo-Christian philosophy, it is completely in keeping with Greco-Roman philosophy. Especially when done on the orders of your superior, who happens to be the target. That is so totally Greco-Roman... Bart From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 02:18:15 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:18:15 -0000 Subject: HP for Children? In-Reply-To: <46B91EAD.5070406@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174777 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > eggplant107 wrote: > > JKR hasn't written a children's book in years. > > I'm doing my second, careful, rereading of DH right now, and did a > double-take when I read the argument preceding Ron's alteration of the > Trio into a Duo, and he uses the term "effing". I wonder if, being > British, JKR even knows what "effing" is "short" for. > > Bart > **** Katie: Um, not to be rude or anything, but yes, British people know what "effing" means. Why would you think they didn't? Katie, agreeing wholeheartedly that JKR hasn't written children's books in forever...maybe since SS/PS... From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 8 02:35:11 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:35:11 -0000 Subject: remember my last In-Reply-To: <008701c7d954$394f0a30$797ba8c0@terrilaptop> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174778 Terri: > In DH, the Dursley's have to evacuate their home because the magic > that protects Harry lifts on his birth day and that exposes them as > well. Could it be that the reason Petunia took Harry in was to > protect her family as well as him. Perhaps DD explained to her in > the letter he left with baby Harry, that if she didn't give Harry a > home, her family was in danger from the death eaters. So by giving > Harry protection, she could protect her own family. That would be a > bitter place to be for her, her family is endangered because of > Harry and he is their only protection. > > So when Uncle Vernon was going to throw Harry out because of the > dementor attack, DD reminded Petunia about his last letter. So she > knew that if Harry left, her family was in danger and she had to > keep him. SSSusan: That has always been my belief and contention as well, Terri -- that DD had offered protection to the Dursleys as well as to Harry, that that was part of the 'deal' the Dursleys sealed when they agreed to take Harry in. Thing is... unless I missed something, we didn't get any confirmation (or refutation, either) of this in canon. So unless JKR elects to address this one some time in an interview or chat, I don't know that we'll ever find out. Not quite related but sort of... I have wondered since reading DH if perhaps Petunia still *did* harbor some kind or fond feelings towards her sister after all. I mean, we know how horrible she was to Harry, how much she resented him in their life, but I wonder now if maybe a part of her really did think she *ought* to take Lily's child in, not just that she felt compelled to do so by DD? Maybe it was Lily's reference to that horrible vase? It may have been horrible, but it did show that Tuney & Lily were still in contact & sending one another presents, right? Siriusly Snapey Susan From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Aug 8 02:53:26 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:53:26 -0000 Subject: Seekers (was Re: Death, where is thy victory? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174779 Carol said: > We might look at the other Seekers, too houyhnhnm: Seekers? I love the Seekers. (There's a new world somewhere they call the promised land.) Oh wait, not those seekers. How about the English dissenting group known as the Seekers. Roger Williams is supposed to have been associated with them and Wikipedia describes them as forerunners of the Quakers. They were anti-predestinarian (and since another name for them is Legatine-Arians, probably also anti-trinitarian). I haven't found anything about their beliefs on the afterlife. I don't know how their beliefs differed from those of modern day Friends, but I found this at Meeting the Spirit - An Introduction to Quaker Beliefs and Practices http://emes.quaker.eu.org/documents/files/meeting-the-spirit.html "Friends do not dogmatise about what happens after death. There are Friends who are convinced that there is an after-life, and those who are convinced that there is not. "There is always an element of mystery about love which people cannot fully penetrate, but Friends are convinced that it has a timeless quality. Love cannot be destroyed by death and cannot be limited by time and space." This ties in closely with the quotation from William Penn at the beginning of DH. Adding to that the fact that Rowling also quoted Aeschylus makes me think that she was not going for a strictly orthodox Christian understanding of death and the afterlife, but only including Christian elements because that is what her background is. In other words, I don't think she is a doorbell ringer who pretended to be writing a secular story for six books just so she could sneak in her proselytizing pitch on us unawares. From elfundeb at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 02:59:36 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 22:59:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Quidditch as a metaphor for the series In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708071959q514e505i44a5c1cd90f30cc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174780 Carol: We might look at the other Seekers, too--Krum, who shows up in a cameo to link Grindelwald with Xenophilius Lovegood (Now there's a pair for you. Would Grindelwald have worn omelet yellow to a wedding? ;-) ). Does his earlier act of winning the game on his own terms foreshadow Harry, or does it have more to do with Dumbledore? Debbie: Actually, Krum won the snitch on his own terms, but by doing so guaranteed that his team would lose. IMO, the Quidditch World Cup game is a microcosm of the Harry-Voldy war. Krum (although he is, in fact, not a DE and is a decent guy) and the Bulgarians represent Voldemort's side and the Irish side is Harry's team. Krum, like Voldemort, loses his faith in his team. (In DH ch. 27, after the cup is stolen from Gringotts, Voldemort concludes that he was foolish to trust his DEs.) Relying solely on himself, and refusing to delve into aspects of magic that do not interest him, he wins the Elder Wand but loses the war. Harry, OTOH, chooses to trust in the mission he was given by Dumbledore and does not fall for the false snitch. Like Harry, the Irish Seeker, Lynch, knows the odds are against him but never gives up the struggle. And unlike Voldemort, who steals the Elder Wand in an attempt for the win, Harry goes after the horcruxes. Note that Harry does not destroy a single Horcrux that remains to be found at the beginning of DH. His chasers -- Ron, Hermione, Neville -- take care of three of them, and Crabbe (a bludger if I ever saw one) demolishes another. Of course, Voldemort destorys the Harrycrux, bringing about his own team's failure just as Krum's capture of the QWC snitch ensured his team's loss. The QWC also contains a nice bit of foreshadowing for the graveyard, but you can read about that here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/48192 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88055 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157754 Carol: And why has JKR taken the trouble to show us a photo of young Regulus, the Voldie fan turned hero, as a Seeker? Debbie: Regulus was seeking exactly the same thing as Harry -- to destroy Horcruxes. Both employ Kreacher in their quest for the locket. I think the Quidditch photo was a clue to who Regulus really was. Carol: Harry, in contrast, remains a team player, and for most of the game is captain as well as Seeker. His team, especially Ron, becomes dejected when he doesn't pull an Oliver Wood and show them a detailed game plan. (Or maybe Dumbledore is the captain who left them without a plan.) No one is playing Keeper, blocking Voldemort from his goal of obtaining the Elder Wand. (Harry has chosen Horcruxes over Hallows.) They take turns playing Beater, each destroying a Horcrux. (Neville joins the team to destroy Nagini.) They are also all Chasers, searching for and retrieving the Horcruxes as a team. Debbie: Dumbledore is the Oliver Wood parallel. Puppetmaster!Dumbledore did have a detailed game plan, and chose to reveal just enough of that plan to Harry. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Aug 8 03:42:50 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 03:42:50 -0000 Subject: The Joke's on Me Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174781 Did anyone outsmart themselves in DH? The time you knew at once what was going on and what was about to happen . But to your surprise, it didn't? Not a disappointing moment, but a groaner moment that made you laugh at yourself. Maybe even a place where you half suspected JKR had just pulled one over on you. Then here's the place to confess it. My moment was in chapter 20. Harry sees a spider in a web. I knew at once, it was Animagus Snape! It all came together: Spinners End, spinning tales, knitting wounds, the spy(der). To top it off, Harry's magic didn't work on the spider---just like Ron's spell didn't work on Animagus Pettigrew (Scabbers in SS/PS) Any moment now Snape would transfigure back to his bat-like self and announce the DDM!truth to Harry. We had just seen his Doe Patronus. (Hadn't we?) He was getting closer . Any moment It was just a spider. (Which made me doubt the doe.) Potioncat, laughing at herself From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Aug 8 03:27:28 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:27:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HP for Children? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B93820.30607@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174782 Bart: >>Trio into a Duo, and he uses the term "effing". I wonder if, being >>British, JKR even knows what "effing" is "short" for. Katie: > Um, not to be rude or anything, but yes, British people know > what "effing" means. Why would you think they didn't? Because most Americans don't know what "bloody" means? Bart From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 8 04:10:01 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:10:01 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174783 "lizzyben04" wrote: > Revenge is not only tolerated, but admired. While it is certainly impressive that the concept of revenge is an emotion unknown to you, we lesser mortals tend to get angry when we get tortured or watch our children get murdered before our eyes. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 04:21:55 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:21:55 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174784 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > lizzyben: > > > > Before DH, I predicted that Harry would use an Unforgiveable Curse, > but I totally got the circumstances & message all wrong. I thought > > that Harry would use the Curse in some sort of extreme dire > > straights when he is consumed with emotion, and that it would be a > > dramatic "the ring is mine!" type of moment. It would be Harry's low > > point, his dip into evil, before rising above to use love & good > > instead. That would've sent a message about the dangers of > > unrestrained hatred, rage & revenge. > > Carol responds: > I agree that, from both a literary and a moral standpoint, that would > have been better. But it didn't happen, and perhaps we should move on > from this one disappointing moment to an examination of the book as a > whole. lizzyben: Well, I've been off the Internet for awhile, so it's still new & interesting to me, though I realize most people are probably sick of the topic. For me, the crux of the issue is that I really can't appreciate the message that the author is trying to give if I feel that it's contained in a novel that contains shallow, sloppy, morally confusing characterizations. So, whatever deeper message DH contains, it didn't really resonate with me. Carol: We could, for example, examine the (purported) wisdom of > Dumbledore--his remarks on choices and death and mercy, for example, > and see where they lead. I see various motifs ("themes," as most > readers would call them) that we can examine, among them, love, death > and the afterlife, Harry as Seeker (what, besides Horcruxes, is he > seeking?), truth, redemption, forgiveness, self-sacrifice, hope vs. > despair, overcoming doubts and self-doubt in particular. I could go > on, but I really hope that others will look for and examine these > sorts of elements. And if we're disappointed in Harry, how about Ron? > What does Luna represent? And so on. BTW, I think that JKR is a > Christian novelist trapped in a world that is so antagonistic to > Christianity that she feels she has to hide the Christian elements in > a secularized setting. lizzyben: I've really struggled to figure out *what*, exactly, was the theme of this series. What was JKR trying to say? Why did she write 7 books about this? Based on the epilogue, it seems like it was intended to have a simple message of good brave Gryfindors beat the bad guys. Is that worth a series? These novels do not seem Christian to me, in the sense of embracing tolerance, forgiveness, non-judgment etc. There's a distinctly Old Testament flavor to the books. It seems like the larger theme does have something to do with death, but again it doesn't really resonate with me. It seems like Harry's voluntary embrace of death was meant to be a courageous act of self-sacrifice, dying for our sins, redeeming the Wizarding World. But the problem is, dying is not a struggle for Harry - it's what he's been trained to do. DD has been brainwashing Harry into becoming a martyr for his cause since Harry first arrived at Hogwarts. So when Harry obediently trots off to his death, called by the siren's song of dead loved ones, it felt less like a triumphant act of bravery, and more like a submission to DD's manipulations. That part sickened me; it didn't inspire me. > Lizzyben: > > The morality of the Wizarding World is sort of facinating in its > total dysfunction, but I think it's ultimately useless to try to make > much sense of it. > > Carol: > I'm not so sure. I think we've gone from dysfunction and corruption to > anarchy and worse. Obviously, JKR did not approve of either Crouch or > Fudge (or Scrimgeour, who at least dies bravely defying the DEs > offpage), but Voldemort and the DEs are much worse. Even Umbridge has > become more evil (influence of the locket Horcrux?), which did not > seem possible after OoP. It's true that we don't get a clear picture > of the WW after the Battle of Hogwarts, but Voldemort and the DEs are > gone, order is restored, it's safe to put your kids on the Hogwarts > Express, and the hostility between Gryffindor and Slytherin seems to > be reduced to House rivalry. It *is* important that Harry named his > second son after two headmasters of Hogwarts, a Gryffindor and a > formerly hated Slytherin, Severus Snape. Personally, I like having the > epilogue leave a lot to the imagination. lizzyben: Well, it'd be redundant for me to repeat my objections to the epilogue, but the main problem is that little to nothing appears to have changed in the WW. Despite all the talk about house elves & goblin rights, it doesn't seem like oppressed groups have gained rights, the house rivalries are just as strong, and the heroes have settled into comfortable middle-class complaceny. There hasn't been radical change, or social reform, so it's just a matter of time till Dark Lord III rises. Carol: > To return to your point, I disagree that it's useless to try to make > sense out of it. I think that's exactly what we should be doing rather > than focusing on that accursed Crucio or where Sirius's letter came > from--which I realize that you're not discussing, but other posters > seem to be hung up on it. (Clearly, JKR wasn't thinking about the > improbability of the letter being there. She needed it as a plot > device. And, no. It's not the continuity editor's job to catch that > sort of plothole, which involves memorizing the history of a minor > character. She's more interested in DD and the Invisibility Cloak and > Bathilda and, ultimately, the Snape connection. I think we should just > realize that JKR is a human being who has produced several thousand > pages of printed text over seventeen years, or whatever, and accept > the inevitability of errors and inconsistencies, large and small.) lizzyben: I don't really care about how the letter got there or other details & I'm willing to cheerfully accept illogical plots as long as the theme & characters remain consistent. My biggest problem w/DH isn't plot holes, but the way characters (like Snape) were dismissed or twisted in order to serve the plot. And in the way that the theme itself is totally muddled by moral confusion & contradictions. The morality of the WW clearly doesn't make sense, as even the baseline rules are violated by the heroes w/o repercussions. > Carol: > Revenge against the Carrows, I'll grant. But this is Harry who still > has the soul bit and has not yet experienced his epiphanies. lizzyben: That's an easy out. There's no indication in the text that the Horcrux is responsible for Harry's actions, or that he was in anything less than totally aware of what he was doing. > lizzyben: > The mean teacher is killed by the symbol of his > > own house & his body is left at the scene of his worst moment. > > Carol: > "Mean teacher" doesn't even enter into DH. We have Snape as undercover > DE, Snape as the lifelong Platonic lover of Lily and secret protector > of Harry, which continues even after he realizes that Harry isn't > being protected for Lily and that Harry must sacrifice himself to > destroy the soulbit. And terrible as his death is, he dies performing > a last (rather spectacular) magical act that will enable Harry to > defeat Voldemort and at the same time to see Snape as Snape truly is. > That his body is not placed alongside those who died in the battle > does not mean that it isn't retrieved from the Shrieking Shack later > and given a funeral befitting a headmaster and a hero. > Leaving his body to rot in the Shrieking Shack is simply not > compatible with giving his name to your second son. lizzyben: Ah, well, I disagree that Snape got a hero's death. He got a villain's death, just as Regulus did. And honestly, this is probably my real, fundamental problem with the novel. Snape was not redeemed - he did not go to the afterlife, and he did not find forgiveness or peace. He was all the things you say, but it didn't matter. Snape's ultimate path was one of penance & pain, not redemption & renewal, and this is something I find difficult to get over. Indeed, I'm not sure JKR believes in redemption at all - the concept is antithetical to the strict Calvinist sorting that exists in the WW. You're either part of the Divine Elect or you're not, and if you are one of the unworthy, it doesn't matter what you do to try to atone. You will always be "less". > Carol: > And the paranoid Auror was confined to his own trunk for ten months, > the fraudulent Mermory Charm specialist ended up in St. Mungo's with > his memory wiped out by his own curse, the werewolf who forgot to > drink his potion and endangered his students is relieved of his job, > and DD's right-hand man is forced to kill him and endure the hatred of > the Order while posing as a DE. That's the DADA curse, remember? And > its last victim is Amycus Carrow, who turned the class into a course > in the Dark Arts and is made to suffer his own fate. Hoist on his own > petard like all his predecessors? Is the DADA curse the reason for > Harry's casting that Crucio? (BTW, Umbridge's ultimate fate is Azkaban > and surely she deserved to go there if anyone did.) lizzyben: Yes, hoisted on his own petard. That's the common theme in the various ironic ways that villians are punished. It's not just a function of the DADA curse, but a function of the way justice is dished out in the wizarding world. Carrow is crucioed because he crucioed students, Umbridge is hauled away by anarchy & chaos because of her desperate need for control, etc. This is JKR's sense of justice (or revenge, depending on your POV). Good guys die, often, but their deaths are portrayed as tragic, not ironic. > Lizzyben: > And the book gets revenge against the Slytherins, symbol of everything > we don't like, by exiling them & purging them from the school. The > message: revenge is sweet. > > Carol: > Snape and Regulus are heroes who finally receive recognition. Phineas > Nigellus and Slughorn play their roles in vindicating Slytherin. Only > Crabbe goes completely over to the Dark side, and only Crabbe dies as > the result of a spell he cast himself. lizzyben: And every Slytherin student goes to Voldemort, no Slytherin student joins the DA, Pansy points out Harry, etc. Yes, there are exceptions, but the overall message about the Slyths is very clear. The Slyths are meant to represent all the evils of our world, all the things we hate, and we are therefore supposed to be happy when they are defeated by the noble Gryfindors. That's a revenge plot. Clipping here from "20 Master Plots" - "The revenge plot pattern is has not changed in over 3,000 years. Revenge is predominantly an action plot, but it can be a character plot too. It appeals to a deep emotional level and is vigilante justice. Simply stated, the protagonist suffers a real or imagined injustice and retaliates. Most often, the hero must take justice in his own hands, since the system is inept, incompetent, full of loop-holes, extremely limited in some manner. This appeals to the audience's frustration with bureaucracies. The main rule is that the punishment must equal the crime. This holds absolutely true if the hero is the one seeking revenge. (Eye for an eye ) ... More modern revenge tales let the hero "bask in self-righteousness," feeling "justified and liberated by the act of vengeance." This makes a strong appeal to the audience to feel cleansed ? catharsis." Truly, this description matches the atmosphere & message of the Harry Potter novels much better than other plot structures. In the various revenges against Umbridge, Slytherins, Durselys, etc., the heroes get to "bask in self-rightousness" as the evildoers are suitably punished. Carol: Snape's death scene reverses > that as he fulfills Snape's last request and goes from shocked > numbness at the means and motive for his death to an understanding of > a man he thought he hated. > > Revenge? I see redemption and forgiveness. > > Carol, who thinks that Harry's last acts in the book (the Crucio > aside) are the antithesis of revenge > lizzyben: I agree that *Harry* forgives Snape, but my problem is that the novel does not. We never get to see the scene of reconciliation, never get to see Harry's reaction to Snape's memories. We never see Harry faced w/the shock of revising his initial opinion of Snape. Harry's forgiveness happens totally off-scene, in the 19 years between the ending & the epilogue. Snape's ending was almost a throw-away after all the buildup of the past 6 novels. What we *see* is Harry exacting revenge against his enemies, as the other heroes do the same. And it's consistent w/the theme created in all of the prior novels - beginning w/the House Cup dis way back in Book One. Revenge is sweet. It's not the only theme, but it's an important one, and an ugly one. lizzyben From sudeeel at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 04:36:44 2007 From: sudeeel at yahoo.com (sudeeel) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:36:44 -0000 Subject: QUESTIONABLE MATHS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174785 > Betsy Hp wrote: [W]hile interviews can be interesting, if JKR says something that either isn't in or is contradicted by the books, it doesn't count . > Carol wrote: JKR . . . is utterly hopeless at math. (Sidenote: If Grindelwald is 156, how old must Gregorovitch be?) sudeeel responds: Don't even ask! In the Scholastic interview on 16 October 2000, JKR said, "Dumbledore is a hundred and fifty, and Professor McGonagall is a sprightly seventy." http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm But at Bill & Fleur's wedding, Auntie Muriel says, (DH Am. ed., p. 153) "'Give me your chair, I'm a hundred and seven.'" So she's definitely 107. And a few paragraphs later she says, "'Before he became so respected and respectable and all that tosh, there were some mighty funny rumors about Albus!'" To me, that implies that she was alive and gossiping when Ariana died. On the next page she says to "Barry"/Harry (DH Am. ed., p. 154) "It all happened years and years before you were even thought of, dear, and the truth is that those of us who were alive then never knew what really happened." So, indeed, she *was* alive and probably not much younger than Albus, though possibly older, perhaps even considerably older, which means DD isn't anywhere near 150. Nor is Grindelwald. And we are, again the victims of Q.U.E.S.T.I.O.N.A.B.L.E. M.A.T.H.S. (Quotes unfortunately evince squishy totals; ignore our nervous author's battle; lamentably, expect miscalculated ages, times, hours. Sigh!) --sudeeel From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 04:46:51 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:46:51 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B94ABB.3090106@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174786 juli17 at aol.com blessed us with this gem On 08/08/2007 08:55: > But I have absolutely no issue with Molly's action here, and in > fact I *did* cheer her ("You GO, Girl!!!"). I won't speak for anyone else on this, but, for me, I had no issue with the morality of Molly's action. My objection to the passage is what someone else here (I've forgotten who -- was is va32h?) observed. That the whole scene just felt tailor-made for the movie; it was the style of the passage that grated. Another example would be Harry's "Whaddya know -- you really DO need to mean it?" It just FEELS like a movie punchline. Again, this is mostly a personal taste issue, but I just had the feeling the book was consciously aiming for that "You go girl!" reaction. Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From juli17 at aol.com Wed Aug 8 05:47:27 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 05:47:27 -0000 Subject: The Joke's on Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174787 I actually kept a log as I read DH, making notes of certain clues and revelations, all to see how much of what I and others predicted would come to pass. I don't think I have a career waiting for me in baseball, given my batting average: ***Here are the thoughts that came to me as I read DH on Sat am, July 21... So, the Malfoys are in pretty miserable circumstances within Voldemort's circle. I'm thinking that means they're ripe to turn on him... Poor Charity Burbage! Of course even if Snape is DDM there isn't anything he could do for her once she'd been captured... Hmm, another mention of the "spider or two" that always seemed to be in the corner of the cupboard beneath the stairs. Does this coincide with Dumbledore's comment that he watched Harry "more closely than you'll ever know"?... I figured there was more to Dumbledore's family than just Aberforth! I even speculated there might be a sister...gotta take my bows where I can ;-) I really thought it would be Petunia who would show some residual concern about Harry. But it's Dudders... Interesting that Snape only slices off George's ear. As Mrs. Weasley said, "It could have been much worse." Is his aim really that bad, or did he hit the intended target... Poor Moody. No body, though...that's not good. Will he reappear later as an Inferi?... So the soul bit cannot exist without the Horcrux that encases it. There's an important question answered. Each soul bit is essentially destroyed with its horcrux... And you can put a torn soul back together, but it's very painful because it involves real remorse for your actions. Remorse? Such as Dumbledore claims Snape felt when Voldemort targeted the Potters? If there is a spell that tells whether a soul is intact or torn--or has been repatched back together--could this be the ironclad reason Dumbledore trusts Snape... What's with the chickens? I supposed it's been mentioned before that the Weasleys have chickens, but so many times in one chapter? Odd... Why's Lupin so despondent, when he's just married Tonks? Hmm, another mystery... So a Patronus does speak, and at least in one case, in the voice of the wizard who casted it. Makes it kind of hard to conceal the sender's identity then... First completely laugh out loud line "What is Xenophilius wearing? He looks like an omelet." LOL!... What's a "cop hold"?... How did Harry know Voldemort's wand in their first confrontation was "borrowed"? Maybe just an error on JKR's part... So what was up with Dumbledore's sister? I can't blame Harry for being a bit miffed about Dumbledore telling him so little of his past and their common connection to Godric's Hollow (no surprise)... Wow, Scrimgeour didn't last long, did he...Too bad (not really)... Harry still has the trace on him, even though he's 17...like Voldemort and the DEs somehow knowing there were seven Harrys...this seems to indicate a traitor in the Order... It also seems that someone removed the last part of Lily's letter, hiding the contents of her final observation "It seems incredible that Dumbledore..." Ah, RAB is Regulus and it was Kreacher who went to the cave with him to retrieve the real locket. Didn't suspect Voldemort originally used Kreacher to test the cave potion, but it's no surprise either. Who would have thought I'd ever feel sympathy for Kreacher... Speaking of house-elves, where is Dobby? Hmm... Okay, so maybe Scrimgeour *was* good for something... Finally, someone tells Lupin to stick it with his self-pity! You go, Harry! Really love Moody's dust-corpse at Grimmauld Place that keeps asking "Severus Snape?" Seems like it would get tiresome endlessly repeating "I didn't kill you (Albus)"... Whoa! Severus Snape confirmed as Hogwarts Headmaster...I didn't see that one coming! 'Course, if he's a good guy, it's the best position from which to potentially protect the children of Hogwarts... Guess we all kind of missed with the filling in of those teaching posts... unless there's someone out there who guessed Amycus would be the new DADA professor. Speaking of which, no McGonagall so far in the book, not even at Bill and Fleur's wedding? Not even mentioned until page 226? Seems strange... Hee, Ron and I just love Kreacher now! Is that bad? ;-) Is it really wise for Harry to take the identity of a completely unknown wizard? He could be anyone, like maybe a DE... End of chapter 12, so I'm a third of the way through DH, and so far. It's as good as I'd hoped...better, even! Julie, thoroughly enjoying every minute so far continuing my reading on Sat eve... Moody's Eye! That toad, Umbridge. Glad Harry took it, even if it gave them away later... That young thief who stole whatever it was from Gregorovich, was anyone's first thought Lockhart? Though I'd think Harry would recognize him, even if he was years younger... So Dirk figures someone confunded Dawlish and that's how he was able to escape while being taken to Azkaban? Another Snape move perhaps... I like that Ginny tried to steal the sword, even though it was a fake. So where is the real one? And gee, such a nasty punishment from the ogre, Snape...Like Snape thinks Ginny, Neville and Luna will be afraid of the Forbidden Forest, with Hagrid yet...Really, shouldn't Harry (or at least Hermione) start wondering about Snape's rather toothless concept of evildoing? I'm really disappointed that Ron left. I'm trying to sympathize with him being worried about his family... Okay, this is the only part of the book so far that's dragged just a bit. Time to quit hiding in the forest already... Interesting that Harry is wondering what happened to the cottage at Godric's Hollow. I thought it was canon that it blew up... So James and Lily were born in 1960. I always thought it was 1959... Okay, so the young blond man in the photo must be Grindelwald... (confirmed a few pages later)... So that's what happened at Godric's Hollow, all too fast for Lily to apparate with Harry maybe. And if anyone else was there, Voldemort didn't know about it... Forest of Dean...turns out JKR lived on the southern edge of the forest at Tutshill from 1974-83. (Wikipedia) A doe Patronus. The mate to a stag. Lily Potter. Snape's Patronus? If it was always his Patronus surely Sirius or Lupin would have said something. Maybe it changed... So did Snape put the sword in the pool? Or Dumbledore at some earlier time? I wonder if Snape and Dumbledore's portrait have been recently chatting... Good to know Ron was specifically affected by the locket Horcrux, and interesting to see JKR address the Harry/Hermione issue directly. If it was always planned it seems to validate the fans who viewed the possibility as genuinely as Ron did. So is that really why Dumbledore had the Invisibility Cloak? To inspect it? Seems like an odd time to do so, while the Potters are in danger from Voldemort...and why not just inspect it at their house... I was really missing hearing what was going on with others besides the Trio! And really missing the twins. "...he can move faster than Severus Snape confronted with shampoo." Priceless, Fred! Poor Ted Tonks though... Dumbledore's eye in the mirror...some connection to his portrait maybe? Or to the Order...Dobby! Well, that wasn't what I expected from Wormtail's Life Debt to Harry, or from the silver hand Voldemort gave him. But the ignominous end was well- deserved. And Dobby died a hero's death. I immediately suspect that the wand in Dumbledore's tomb is not the Elder Wand. Perhaps Dumbledore hid it somewhere, or gave it to Snape for safekeeping... And *who* told Griphook to put the false sword in the Lestrange vault? Well, here I am about two-thirds of the way through the book, and so far some things have been as I suspected--the Trio searching for the Horcruxes, Voldemort and the DEs on their tails--but other things have not. I expected to see more of Hogwarts, something about the uniting of the houses, and perhaps hear some words of wisdom from Dumbledore's portrait. And then there is Fawkes. Where might he be... Julie, moving toward the conclusion Continuing my reading on Sun am... So now we know it was a goblin on Harry's back in the picture on the cover of the British children's edition of DH. And the identity of the dragon on the Deluxe edition... So Aberforth is the eye in the mirror, and he sent Dobby. The doe isn't his Patronus though... Ah. That's what Dumbledore saw when he was drinking the potion. It was his own past, not anyone elses'... Neville! Feeling a bit disappointed that still no Slytherins have joined the DA... Okay, I was a bit disturbed that Harry could do the Imperius curse, though it was only a weak one. Now he's doing a Crucio...Well, the good wizards are just throwing those Unforgivables around, aren't they? McGonagall too... The Gray Lady and the Bloody Baron! Hogwarts own Romeo & Juliet. Sorta... Nooo! I really didn't think one of the twins would die. It's so cruel. We loved you, Fred. I guess that's an appropriate way for Hagrid to go. Trying to save his spider friends, who were never friends at all...poor, deluded Hagrid... I'm stunned. This is the first moment I've felt bereft of emotion. And JKR certainly isn't killing the characters off in ways I'd expected. Voldemort kills Snape still believing in his full loyalty (NO, it isn't true!). I hoped Snape would live, but I certainly never thought he would die so...obscurely. Voldemort didn't even suspect Snape's disloyalty, he'd just outserved his purpose. I take it the blue stuff is Nagini's venom or whatever. And just those couple of words "Take it...take it..." and then "Look...at...me..." What did Snape want Harry to see? (Yes, I reread the scene three times) No! Not Remus AND Tonks! How many deaths are we supposed to bear... aargh! And how many must Harry bear... Oh, the blue stuff is Snape's thoughts. Guess I missed that, huh? Aha! So Snape *was* "that awful boy"! Revelations. No additional info on the Prank, so it stands as is. And Snape did use the term "mudblood" regularly at school. Ouch--Dumbledore certainly didn't welcome Snape with open arms, trusting him out of some foolish hope. And Snape's story isn't a pretty one. But he did love Lily. It really was all about her. So in the end, Snape did come to Dumbledore for his own selfish reasons-- to save Lily Potter. Yet he remained Dumbledore's Man, and by the end only will watch those he cannot save die, and demands Portrait!Phineas not use the term "mudblood." The choice defines the person, even more so as time passes... Dumbledore really expects Harry to die? I'm still hoping he knows something about "dying" but returning from beyond the veil. Otherwise he seems so very cold about it... I still think it's unrealistic that no one mentioned Snape's patronus given what it symbolizes. Perhaps the Order members aren't as brilliant as we fans in making immediate connection between a doe and Lily Potter... Colin Creevey! Stop already, JKR! It's nice to know Dumbledore is just a man. Not a God, not a puppet- master, but just a man, with both good and bad impulses which fought for supremacy throughout his life. That he succumbed to the lure of Marvolo's ring, even for just a brief minute... And Harry did exactly what we all expected. Sacrificed himself willingly for others, and it saved him in the end. I LOVE IT!!! Molly Weasley takes out Bellatrix!! You GO, girl! Okay, once upon a time I thought I was joking when I said Harry would name one of his kids Albus James--though that turned out to be separate names for two kids--and two twins Sirius and Severus--then it turns out he does use Severus for a middle name. But not Sirius...hmmm, food for thought...(Maybe they are James Sirius and Albus Severus...but then what about Lupin...) Hugo though. What's that all about? ;-) Wow. That was quite the emotional roller coaster during those last few chapters. I can't really express all my feelings and conclusions now, since I'm still forming them. It was good, but I do feel a little despondent. Because it's over, and because I'm a bit mad at JKR. She didn't HAVE to kill Lupin and Tonks. Fred was bad enough. I hate that there is no one at all left from the Marauder days, not even Snape, who can be a link between Harry and his parents. Lupin SHOULD have lived. Julie, with mixed-up thoughts and emotions**** From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 05:57:03 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 22:57:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40708072257h1ebfd896rc61e1762a081278e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174788 > > Lizzyben earlier: > > Molly gets full caps-lock revenge against Bellatrix, and readers are > > supposed to cheer. > lizzyben later: > > There's nothing *wrong* with that moment, per se (though I rolled my > eyes at it), it's that it's part of a larger pattern & a larger > message. Revenge is not only tolerated, but admired. Kemper now: Since when is a mother protecting her child revenge? Had Molly went after Bellatrix killed or maimed Ginny, then vengeance is Molly's. But that didn't happen. Molly acted in fear that her girl could have been killed. Kemper From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 06:00:18 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 06:00:18 -0000 Subject: QUESTIONABLE MATHS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174789 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sudeeel" wrote: > > In the Scholastic interview on 16 October 2000, JKR said, "Dumbledore > is a hundred and fifty, and Professor McGonagall is a sprightly seventy." > > But at Bill & Fleur's wedding, Auntie Muriel says, (DH Am. ed., p. > 153) "'Give me your chair, I'm a hundred and seven.'" > > And a few paragraphs later she says, "'Before he became so respected and respectable and all that tosh, there were some mighty funny rumors about Albus!'" > > To me, that implies that she was alive and gossiping when Ariana died. > > On the next page she says to "Barry"/Harry (DH Am. ed., p. 154) "It > all happened years and years before you were even thought of, dear, > and the truth is that those of us who were alive then never knew whatreally happened." > > So, indeed, she *was* alive and probably not much younger than Albus, though possibly older, perhaps even considerably older, which means DD isn't anywhere near 150. Nor is Grindelwald. Tonks here: I noticed that too. I read it and then listened on CD thinking that maybe I had been wrong. I came to the conclusion that Aunt Muriel is lying about her age.. she was probably a young child at the time... and gosh Rowling.. are you THAT bad at math??!! Tonks From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 06:09:33 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 06:09:33 -0000 Subject: HP for Children? In-Reply-To: <46B93820.30607@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174790 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Bart: > >>Trio into a Duo, and he uses the term "effing". I wonder if, being > >>British, JKR even knows what "effing" is "short" for. > > Katie: > > Um, not to be rude or anything, but yes, British people know > > what "effing" means. Why would you think they didn't? > Tonks: I missed that ('effing') in the books. Was it there? I am listening to the tapes and heard it there and thought that the reader had changed what was written. I don't think that they should have put that in a children's book. Having Ron say "Bloody hell" or something would be OK, because most Americans don't really think that it sounds all that bad. I understand that it is considered much worse in the UK to use that term. But I can just hear the parents asking their children "where did you hear that!" Not good. As to is HP for children. I wonder how the media that must not be names is going to make book 7 into a children's film. And I wonder about the impact of so many deaths on the children. Especially Hedwig and Dobby. The kids might not be as upset about the adults in the books as we are, but still one wonders if such a vivid depection of war is good for very young children. Tonks_op From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 06:25:47 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 23:25:47 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HP for Children? In-Reply-To: <46B93820.30607@sprynet.com> References: <46B93820.30607@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <700201d40708072325q5e4c11a2jbd2e07268edd1351@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174791 > Bart: > >>Trio into a Duo, and he uses the term "effing". I wonder if, being > >>British, JKR even knows what "effing" is "short" for. > > Katie: > > Um, not to be rude or anything, but yes, British people know > > what "effing" means. Why would you think they didn't? > > Bart: Because most Americans don't know what "bloody" means? Kemper now: But damn near every English speaker in and out of puberty knows what the 'eff' (I slay me) means. It's used instead of using the whole effing word (tearing up), a word used in all English speaking countries. Hey Canada, do you use 'bloody' in your everyday usage? I'm guessing 'no', but then I'm American. I think readers can pick up what 'bloody' means. "That bloody dillweed!" Here used as an adjective describing annoyance. "I'll bloody kick that bum." An an adverb that seems to mean 'really': And of course 'Bloody hell', which seems to mean ' wtf '. Kemper From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 06:23:17 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 06:23:17 -0000 Subject: I was right - Christian Symbols (was The Joke's on Me) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174792 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > Did anyone outsmart themselves in DH? The time you knew at once what was going on and what was about to happen?. But to your surprise, it didn't? Not a disappointing moment, but a groaner moment that made you laugh at yourself. Maybe even a place where you half suspected JKR had just pulled one over on you. > Tonks: I was expecting someone to put George's ear back on. Like the night they came for Jesus and one of his men cut off someone's ear and he put it back on. I was waiting for that for some time. But I was right in the end... remember all of those robes I had to mend or toss because people keep setting them on fire with all the flames? I am back, with new robes.. and I WAS RIGHT!! I am not normally one to say "I told you so"... but after all the flack I took here for saying that there was Christian symbolism all though these books.. well there is. And I predicted the outcome.. that someone would die and come back.. or at the very least Harry would have a near death experience. Also was right about Snape in my T-bay ship.. "HMS Desire" Where are all of those people who said they were going to eat their hats, set fire to the books or bow at my feet...???? I may be dead... but I was RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-) Tonks_op From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 07:22:26 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:22:26 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B96F32.1050809@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174793 lizzyben04 blessed us with this gem On 08/08/2007 12:21: lizzyben: > I agree that *Harry* forgives Snape, but my problem is that the novel > does not. We never get to see the scene of reconciliation, never get > to see Harry's reaction to Snape's memories. We never see Harry faced > w/the shock of revising his initial opinion of Snape. Harry's > forgiveness happens totally off-scene, in the 19 years between the > ending & the epilogue. Thank you! For most of books 3 - 6, right up until Snape AKs Dumbledore, I was desparately hoping Snape turned out to be a Good Guy specifically so that Harry could learn a lesson about his arrogance and self-righteousness, and emerge a little wiser. Well, be careful what you wish for. I got what I was hoping for, but in the end it was accomplished in such a way as to rob it of all meaning. We never got to see Harry introspect, we never got to see him grow. All we got was a little throw-away in the epilogue to show that forgiveness HAD happened -- off-page. But I wasn't hoping for forgiveness, I was hoping for growth and wisdom, and I don't see that either one ever happened. Disappointing. > What we *see* is Harry exacting revenge against his enemies, Hmm. I wasn't convinced by your arguments at first, but the more I reflect, I think, the more I see in them. I'm still not convinced that revenge was *the* Message of the series -- mostly because I think the core problem with the series is that there WAS no Message. Or too many Messages, which is to say the same thing. Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Aug 8 07:39:41 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 03:39:41 -0400 Subject: QUESTIONABLE MATHS Message-ID: <001f01c7d98f$4854b490$6dc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 174794 sudeeel said: "So, indeed, she *was* alive and probably not much younger than Albus, though possibly older, perhaps even considerably older, which means DD isn't anywhere near 150. Nor is Grindelwald." In a Leaky Cauldron interview from July 16, 2005 Rowling said this about Grindelwald: "JKR: Come on then, remind me. Is he dead? ES: Yeah, is he dead? JKR: Yeah, he is. ES: Is he important? JKR: [regretful] Ohhh... JKR: I'm going to tell you as much as I told someone earlier who asked me. You know Owen who won the [UK television] competition to interview me? He asked about Grindelwald [pronounced "Grindelvald" HMM.]. He said, "Is it coincidence that he died in 1945," and I said no. It amuses me to make allusions to things that were happening in the Muggle world, so my feeling would be that while there's a global Muggle war going on, there's also a global wizarding war going on." The HP-Lexicon shows Grindelwald's birth as 1842 - two years younger than Dumbledore. So Grindelwald was 103 the first time he died (in 1945) and 156 when he died at LV's hand in DH. CathyD From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Aug 8 07:31:12 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 03:31:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Holding JKR Accountable (was Re: 7 reasons why - The Glass is Half Empty.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C9A7A53ADF152A-940-12C05@MBLK-M19.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174795 > > bboyminn: > > > > > This isn't a problem with the story, this is a problem > > with what /you/ choose to believe or not believe. va32h: I choose to believe that JKR became lazier and sloppier with each book after PoA, culminating in a 7th book that is full of plot holes, continuity errors, and characters acting entirely out of character. She has become so accustomed to her fandom cheerfully and devotedly explaining away all her flaws, that she didn't even make an effort to make anything in DH make sense. And we just keep on doing it. Carol said: >Ravenclaw diadem and Bertha Jorkins for Nagini), Dumbledore is > mistaken on this particular point. Voldemort does not reserve > Horcrux-making for important murders, or the other way around. The > most recent murder will do. It's the Horcrux itself that counts. >Maybe he even murdered Myrtle to make the diary Horcrux. va32h: Dumbledore is not mistaken - JKR is mistaken. Once again, she is too lazy to bother remembering or re-reading anything she's previously written so she just made up this business about Albanian peasants and Bertha Jorkins right there on the spot. Just like she made up three or four variations on the secret keeper concept or two different careers for Ron. And fandom is bending over backwards to correct that mistake too. Clearly, JKR meant that Ron works at Weasley's Wizard Wheezes by day and moonlights as an Auror. Or he works as an Auror during the week and at WWW on the weekends. Of course these are very small, even petty issues. But each little mistake in itself is not the problem. That readers are so determined not to believe she could ever be mistaken is the problem, IMO. Why is any convoluted scenario so much more plausible than "JKR forgot how she answered that question the last time it was asked?" I think it's because we are reluctant to admit that we care far more about this universe than its creator does. I'm sure she cared once, but somewhere along the line she stopped. Too much hype, too much pressure, too much time spent with the material, I don't know the reason. But Deathly Hallows reeks of "getting this over with". Sandy: I wanted to snip this down? but just couldn't find any of it that I wanted to dispense with.? Having been royally? flamed on more than one occasion? I have learned to keep my opinion of JKR to myself,? but I have been disenchanted with her for a very long time,? and since the release of DH I downright dislike her. I totally agree with everything va32h? has said.? I have seen a radical difference from OOP? forward in her writing style. It has been my firm belief that, had she been able to get away with it, she would not have written another HP book after GoF.? I believe that by that time she had totally lost interest in the saga, and it shows. But, she had contracted to do a seven part series, so she had to go on. For me, it isn't hard to understand *why* she lost interest. When she first published SS/PS she was a single mother living on assistance. She needed to publish. By the time OOP came along she had already made millions, was married to a doctor 6 years her junior and had a new baby. She didn't need HP anymore. But, like it or not, she was committed to it. So she turned out three books that couldn't hold a candle to the first four, and all along the way she teased and taunted us and then didn't follow through. But, by that time, most of her fandom thought she could walk on water, and woe be to anyone who had an honest criticism of her. As far as DH goes for me; I like it on the whole, but I have issues with a lot of the content. She took everything I thought I knew about this world and the people in it and turned it inside-out and upside-down, and all I could do was scratch my head and go "HUH"?!? And now, even after a second reading, I still don't understand a lot of it. It's making me feel stupid, and I don't like that. And her post-publication interviews have just made me furious. I have no doubt that she is making things up on the fly, and then can't remember from one interview to the next what she said in the last one. This is the one thing that I will disagree with va32h about. I don't think these mistakes are small and petty; I think they are huge and I am insulted by them. Before she ever opened her mouth she owed it to us to have her facts ready and straight, not to make things up as she went along only to change them a couple of days later. And I feel she handled the book the same way she handled the interviews. She is, after all, JKR, an entity unto herself, and we, her adoring fans, will forgive and cover for her mistakes. Before anyone fires up the flame thrower let me say this. I admire JKR's knowledge and love most of her writing style. And I love the story she started out with. I just wish her circumstances had not so radically changed to the point that she lost interest in, and sight of, what she started out to do. Sandy ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mz_annethrope at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 07:52:40 2007 From: mz_annethrope at yahoo.com (mz_annethrope) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 07:52:40 -0000 Subject: Quidditch as a metaphor; (seeker; DD using Snape) [long] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174796 > Carol responds: > Both Harry and Voldemort, I agree are Seekers, more specifically, on a > Quest. (Note that one of the fortunately rejected titles was "HP and > the Peverell Quest.") It seems to me that Voldemort's "Snitch" is > obvious; he's after the Elder Wand, which represents Power on both a > figurative and a literal level. But Voldemort has forgotten that > Quidditch is a team sport. > Harry, in contrast, remains a team player, and for most of the game is > captain as well as Seeker. His team, especially Ron, becomes dejected > when he doesn't pull an Oliver Wood and show them a detailed game > plan. (Or maybe Dumbledore is the captain who left them without a > plan.) No one is playing Keeper, blocking Voldemort from his goal of > obtaining the Elder Wand. (Harry has chosen Horcruxes over Hallows.) > They take turns playing Beater, each destroying a Horcrux. (Neville > joins the team to destroy Nagini.) They are also all Chasers, > searching for and retrieving the Horcruxes as a team. But Harry alone > is the Seeker, the one who sits in the middle of the front row. mz_annethrope: My household had also noticed that the seven Horcruxes were killed by seven people. (Forgive me if there's a thread about it. I've been out of town, away from the internet, and was late to read book 7, I haven't gotten through all the threads.) The analogy to team playing seems apt, especially since a Quidditch team has seven players. I noticed that the bad players, the ones who were not acting as a team (or who treated the Quest in an unworthy fashion) succeeded in the task, but harmed themselves in the process. Voldemort stupidly destroyed his own soul without first seeking the Truth about what he was destroying. Take that as a metaphor for the way he operates. Crabbe unwittingly destroyed the Horcrux and so destroyed himself. Not much of a beater, he. And Dumbledore gave into temptation and foolishly tried to use the ring for himself. He too reaped a nasty reward. The Quest for Hallows is a fool's quest and not a team sport. The seeker Xenophilius has the worst of Ravenclaw faults: he acquires knowledge but lacks wisdom. Young Dumbledore fools himself when he thinks he can seek Hallows with Grindelwald, for only one person can possess the Hallows. (Reminds me of Gandalf telling Saruman that only one person can possess the ring.)This Quest provides the temptation for Harry, which he manages to overcome. I'll hazard a guess that in understanding Truth he also acquires Wisdom. Carol: > And there it is. "The truth." Harry states repeatedly in DH that > that's what he's seeking. The truth about Regulus and about the white > doe Patronus. The answers to Dumbledore's riddles, especially the > Snitch, but more important, the truth about Dumbledore himself. Did he > really turn a blind eye to the virtual imprisonment of his Squib > sister (Rita Skeeter's version of events)? Did he really abandon his > early beliefs in the superiority of wizards over Muggleborns? Most > important, much the same question Snape seems to ask, "Am I just his > tool or did he care about me?" > > Harry's greatest, it seems to me, is when he goes to face Voldemort > believing that Dumbledore has betrayed him. Only after he has > willingly sacrificed himself, or tried to, can he enter "Kingls Cross" > and find what he's been seeking. (Of course, he's already found the > unsought truth about Severus Snape.) mz_annethrope: Dumbledore's using Snape has been bothering me. I didn't find his use of Harry nearly as disturbing, since it seemed to be the only way he could save the boy's life. But Snape gets to put his soul in danger for the sake of Dumbledore and this seems inexcusable. So back to hazard for my response came while I was thinking about source for The Tale of the Three Brothers. I suspected that it was in the same genre as Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale and later I saw that JKR attributed Chaucer as her probable source. Meaning, I suppose, that it wasn't conscious. So, for those of you who weren't English majors and the like, here's a brief summary: Three young fools are spending all their time indulging in the worst of vices: drinking, gambling, whoring, eating to excess, profaning the sacraments. They see a funeral procession and ask who died. A boy tells them that Death slew one of their friends while he was drunk and that they'd better repent or they'd end up like him. The three fools laugh at the boy and decide to seek Death so as to slay him. They meet an old man on the road who tells them they can find Death under yonder tree. But under the tree they find eight bushels of gold coins. They rejoice at their find, then the youngest goes out to get them drink. On the way he covets the gold for himself, which allows Satan to take his soul. He buys poison, puts it in two bottles and brings them back to his companions. But his companions have decided to take the gold for themselves. They kill the youngest, drink from the bottles and die horrible deaths. I think, but don't know for sure, that this story has antecedents in ancient Near Eastern stories about people trying to cheat death. (The best known in the West is Jesus' parable about the fool who reaps a bumper crop, decides to build up bigger barns so he can take it easy; then God tells the fool he will have his soul that night. Well, "fool" is a euphemism for what Jesus really said. In other stories a man flees from to city to city only to find Death waiting for him at the new destination.) Chaucer's story is a brilliant reversal of the old tales (seek Death rather than flee him) and JKR's tale, I think is a brilliant adaptation to the Wizarding World. But my interest here is not in the Tale but in its teller. The Pardoner tells this tale to get people to repent, but he says about himself that his own sins are too great for him to be saved. He commits the one sin, which to the medieval mind is unforgivable: Despair. And so we have Snape. After Lily's death he wallows in despair. He wants to die. And he seems to live a miserable, desparate life. But Dumbledore asks him what good his death will be to anyone. And then he sets him on a impossible task: protect Lily's son. I think Snape's story nicely dovetails with Harry's. Dumbledore tells Snape to kill him and let Harry know he must be killed. Both Snape and Harry could have said no. But Harry's life is saved and Snape at least has the chance to save his soul from despair. I've strayed, but this got me on a roll. mz_annethrope (playing hazard) From guzuguzu at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 10:30:57 2007 From: guzuguzu at yahoo.com (guzuguzu) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:30:57 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174797 Regarding the Bellatrix - Molly duel: lizzyben wrote: > There's nothing *wrong* with that moment, per se (though I rolled my > eyes at it), it's that it's part of a larger pattern & a larger > message. (snip excellent post regarding moral issues) guzu: I agree with the eye-rolling. I found this scene to be completely ridiculous, actually. I'm leaving aside any moral issues, as I find them so muddy in DH anyway. We have a notoriously violent serial killer, who has taken down aurors and other veteran warriors, versus a housewife, who we have no reason to believe has any experience or particular skill as a warrior. Yet, *hundreds* of people stand and watch the fight and do NOTHING? Yes, I know a few girls try to help and Molly shoos them off... No stunning spells from the crowd? No Expelliarmus even? Not even from Ginny, who we were told repeatedly in HBP was very magically strong? It made no logical sense for Molly to win that fight, nor for everyone else to stand around enjoying the show. I agree that it did fit in with the larger message of DH, which was that apparently what you really need to defeat evil is dumb luck. My opinion, of course. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 10:55:19 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:55:19 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wands (Was: Inconsistencies) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B9A117.3090506@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174798 jlnbtr blessed us with this gem On 04/08/2007 07:22: Katie: > If disarming someone was enough to gain control of their wand... Juli: > I think wand ownership only changes in a real duel. No, Juli, I think Katie's on the right track. How many times in seven books have we seen Expelliarmus used for real, and there was never any hint of a change of ownership. In CoS, Harry disarms both Malfoy and Lockhart, yet never claims their wands. In PA Sirius disarms Ron and Hermione, then hands their wands back. A couple of pages later Lupin disarms Harry and Hermione (who must be getting tired of it by now), followed shortly thereafter by the Trio all simultaneously flattening Snape with yet another Expelliarmus (who gets Snape's wand?). Then Harry disarms Pettigrew of Lupin's wand (does Harry get Lupin's wand?). In a flashback in OotP, we see James disarming Snape. During the climatic battle Neville simultaneously disarms a DE and Harry, who both retrieve their own wands. And, of course, let's not forget the Biggie - Harry used successfully used Expelliarmus against Voldemort and won. Clearly, this whole change of ownership stuff didn't exist yet, since I think we can all agree Harry winning Voldy's wand at that point in the story would've been Big. No, I'm afraid we're looking at another inconsistency, JKR tossing in another ill-conceived plot device that simply cannot be reconciled with previous canon. Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From angellima at xtra.co.nz Wed Aug 8 10:39:49 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 22:39:49 +1200 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables Message-ID: <000c01c7d9a8$728e4cd0$0301010a@AngelLima> No: HPFGUIDX 174799 Julie H: Also, that McGonagall appeared to be tacitly approving its use in this situation, which was not the heat of battle. Angel: No no no! I thought it more like this Julie. Minerva: how gallant of you Harry... (dang it I can't have you show me up! This is Unforgivables for goodness sakes! Who can I AK? Suppose will settle for bewitching brains ... not that you Alecto have much to befuddle, Alecto! Imperio ... Take that Harry ... bet you've never made someone lie down and tie themselves up before have you!!! Oh no protagonist you!) There! Sorted ... From angellima at xtra.co.nz Wed Aug 8 11:04:50 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 23:04:50 +1200 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables Message-ID: <001201c7d9ab$f0eeb800$0301010a@AngelLima> No: HPFGUIDX 174800 Carol: > I see various motifs ("themes," as most readers would call them) > that we can examine, among them, love, death and the afterlife, > Harry as Seeker (what, besides Horcruxes, is he seeking?), truth, > redemption, forgiveness, self-sacrifice, hope vs. despair, > overcoming doubts and self-doubt in particular. Angel Harrahs was seeking the baddies of course so we could have a cleancut clearly defined line between brave ye Gryffs and evil yo Slyths. Love... you mean that potion Sluggy whipped up? Sign me up for some of that!!! lizzyben: Based on the epilogue, it seems like it was intended to have a simple message of good brave Gryfindors beat the bad guys. Is that worth a series? These novels do not seem Christian to me, in the sense of embracing tolerance, forgiveness, non-judgment etc. Angel: Whaddya know, we were reading the same book! Lizzy: It seems like Harry's voluntary embrace of death was meant to be a courageous act of self-sacrifice, dying for our sins, redeeming the Wizarding World. But the problem is, dying is not a struggle for Harry - it's what he's been trained to do. Angel: When Hermione exclaimed in the Seven Potters chapter that Harry had really bad eyesight, she wasn't kidding was she? My problem with his sacrifice is not even submitting to Dumbledore...I think I may have found something Christian in that, it's his myopia that irks me to no end now! Harry only had one goal - to thwart the pathetic villain that was Voldemort. Beyond that...well err he liked Ginny! Carol: Obviously, JKR did not approve of either Crouch or Fudge (or Scrimgeour, who at least dies bravely defying the DEs offpage)... Angel: You know I'm beginning to wonder about what was so vile about Scrimmy! He wanted to use Harry to boost the morale of the people and Dumbledore wanted to use Harry to.. oh yeah thwart Voldemort. It's only okay to use Harry when you're a good guy! The question of Stan Shunpike's innocence also warbled. As innocent as those still plugged into the Matrix are of the agents infiltrating them (cough) Stan's reaction at seeing Harry defies one who is stupefied or imperiod does it not? To go from blank stare to shout of recognition and pinpointing really did sound like the real Stan. lizzyben: Despite all the talk about house elves & goblin rights, it doesn't seem like oppressed groups have gained rights, the house rivalries are just as strong, and the heroes have settled into comfortable middle-class complaceny. Angel: How wrong you are Lizzy! Did you not read Kreacher's chapter? He was LIBERATED I tell you! Did you honestly not see him bow and cook and scuttle and nurse over the trio? That's what liberation is! Free to serve!!! Carol: (Clearly, JKR wasn't thinking about the improbability of the letter being there. She needed it as a plot device. Angel: Dear Carol, the purpose of the letter was to vivify the fact that Severus was after all snivellus!!! How else could we get it into our heads he didn't care about Harry than to rip him, his dad, his broom off from his mom AFTER he accidentally lobs his earlobe off? The image Snape sticky-tapes to his chest so he could die with her where once a heart dwelled! That's lourrve Rowling style baby! Angel who apologises profusely for indulging in way too much chocolate before partaking in this conversation but having way too much fun to retract her asinine comments :) From trog at wincom.net Wed Aug 8 12:48:50 2007 From: trog at wincom.net (Dennis Grant) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:48:50 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: <46B7CF74.9000208@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174801 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > First, Harry himself made his purpose crystal clear. "Whaddya know. > You really DO have to mean it!" Mean what? "I torture." His purpose > was torture. No, his purpose was to *inflict pain with intent to incapacitate* Which is what, per canon, he DID. > We're talking torture, here, Dennis. Not killing. Since you assert it, > please tell us how many "legal definitions" of torture there are. > Torture in self-defense? Natch. Torture in the line of duty? Doesn't > exist. Torture by neglect? Nada. >From the United States Criminal Code: "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control." Note the phrases "colour of law" and "within custody or physical control" The UN definition is similar. I don't have time to quote it (the source I have isn't copy and paste-able) but it also discusses the concepts of "public official" and "custody" I'm willing to waive the requirement for a public official or the seeming sanction of law - a person can torture another in the private sector as well. But the concept of the victim being in custody is a core part of the definition. > > Harry doesn't torture Carrow; he incapacitates him by inflicting > > intense pain on him. > > Ah. The end justifies the means. What happened to Stupefy? Who knows? Carrow is a powerful Death Eater and is known to Harry as such. There is nothing in the canon that suggests Stupify is unblockable - indeed, we have several examples of the "unblockable" Avera Kedavera being blocked or deflected. > There WAS no "heat of battle". There was just Carrow, spitting on > McGonagall, and Harry tucked safely away under his Cloak, until he > stepped out and ambushed Carrow. Harry is in the presence of Carrow, a known enemy. Harry knows he is going to fight Carrow, somehow. Battle has been joined. A tank is coming down the road. You are safely under cover where the tank can't see you, but you are also holding the anti-tank rocket. A rocket that has a very short range, and must be fired from a specific aspect to be effective. Are you going to jump out in front of the tank and challenge it to a duel? No, you are going to slink around, keeping out of sight, until an opportunity presents itself (or until you can move yourself into firing position. Battle has started the second you recognize the target and your duty, independent of the tank realizing it. > Stupefy, Dennis. Stupefy. It ALWAYS works. Where in canon is this stated? Look, have you ever been in a fight? A real fight, not a couple of kids pounding on each other in a schoolyard? Getting hit *hurts* - surprisingly so, when you see the big haymakers that are routinely traded in the movies. You get tagged with a solid punch, and the world just stops. But over time, you can learn to take punches. It still huts like hell, but the shock value lessens. You can learn to fight through it. >From personal experience, I know I can take hits up to a certain power level, and I know I can inflict hits of sufficient power to seriously dissuade most people who haven't been hit properly before from continuing with whatever course of action led me to hit them. But you put me up against Mike Tyson, and not only is there NO WAY I can take one of his hits (I just don't have the musculature; he'd likely kill me) but even my best hit is not likely to touch him (he DOES have the musculature) If I have to take down Mike Tyson, I'm not going to punch him - even though my punches might have been 100% effective to this point. I'm going to use the most powerful weapon I can access - because I won't get a second chance. In canon, Lupin chews Harry out for fighting with insufficiently powerful spells. Well, it seems Harry learned his lesson because he used the most powerful, non-lethal spell he had at his disposal against Carrow. And it worked. And then, once he had Carrow in his custody, he turned it off, thus avoiding crossing the line from necessary force into torture. Agsin, I have absolutely zero problems with this. Harry. Never. Tortures. DG From tmarends at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 13:05:18 2007 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (Tim) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:05:18 -0000 Subject: Wands (Was: Inconsistencies) In-Reply-To: <46B9A117.3090506@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174802 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > jlnbtr blessed us with this gem On 04/08/2007 07:22: > > Katie: > > If disarming someone was enough to gain control of their wand... > > Juli: > > I think wand ownership only changes in a real duel. > > No, Juli, I think Katie's on the right track. How many times in seven > books have we seen Expelliarmus used for real, and there was never any > hint of a change of ownership. > > In CoS, Harry disarms both Malfoy and Lockhart, yet never claims their > wands. > > In PA Sirius disarms Ron and Hermione, then hands their wands back. A > couple of pages later Lupin disarms Harry and Hermione (who must be > getting tired of it by now), followed shortly thereafter by the Trio all > simultaneously flattening Snape with yet another Expelliarmus (who gets > Snape's wand?). Then Harry disarms Pettigrew of Lupin's wand (does Harry > get Lupin's wand?). > > In a flashback in OotP, we see James disarming Snape. During the > climatic battle Neville simultaneously disarms a DE and Harry, who both > retrieve their own wands. > > And, of course, let's not forget the Biggie - Harry used successfully > used Expelliarmus against Voldemort and won. Clearly, this whole change > of ownership stuff didn't exist yet, since I think we can all agree > Harry winning Voldy's wand at that point in the story would've been Big. > > No, I'm afraid we're looking at another inconsistency, JKR tossing in > another ill-conceived plot device that simply cannot be reconciled with > previous canon. > > Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan > I think you're trying to read too much into this. NONE of the people you've mentioned would have known Wand Lore to know that the wand's allegiance had changed... thus handing back the wand to the original owner, the wand would still function properly, but would recognize the winner as it's superior. Voldy's wand recognized Harry's as it's superior after that battle... hence Voldy's search for THE wand that could beat Harry's -- the Elder Wand. The Elder Wand would have defeated Harry's, but Harry wasn't using his, as it was broken. He was using Malfoy's, which he won from him. Malfoy's wand, having disarmed DD, was recognized by the Elder Wand as it's superior, thus the rebounding AK that finally did Voldy in. If someone has the time, they can go through all the canon and find who's wand was superior to whose at any given moment. I'm sure JKR thought all this out before putting it into DH. Tim From angellima at xtra.co.nz Wed Aug 8 11:34:53 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 23:34:53 +1200 Subject: Deaths Message-ID: <001a01c7d9b0$238070c0$0301010a@AngelLima> No: HPFGUIDX 174803 Do forgive me if this topic has been thoroughly thrashed as the others here but am in just way too good a mood to pass up a dirge to the DH dead. Dobby's death was profound for Harry. I had expected Snape's death to have instigated that change in Harry but no, Snape was delegated a silent entry of sans grandeur or import, but of course he had to grasp at Lily before dying so that later when we review his memories we can gasp and see him for what he really was - a sicko twisted shadow of a man that tormented children and profferred a toddler and his dad as a sacrificial offering to Voldemort. Lupin. I knew all the Marauders had to die, that whole generation a cesspool Harry must learn to forget and only reminisce upon with the fondest of memories that James and Lily's fans left him. What worried me though was that at the end of HBP Remus had acquired a love and soon to be wife. I did not think for a minute a children's author would have the gumption to kill off a prospective husband let alone, husband, wife and father in law whoa! I truly suspect considering the various transformations this hairy Marauder had endured that Rowling was steering him away from the Sirius/Remus issue of a few years back with the introduction of Tonks into his story - Tonks who was going to die anyway. It worked out well, she introduced the partnering of patronuses and the changes one's patronus undertakes, their Teddy could be a Harry without saintly Lily's sacrifice, etc. While it did work though it did not gel at least not for me...but then I am high on chocolate and I think I have merlot in the pantry lol. Fred. Well the Weasley's couldn't possibly escape unscathed, bye bye Fred, it's okay George is around to look like you, act like you...but you have to go because you had funnier lines okay? Hedwig. Well since Harry would commit suicide if the real Hagrid dies you might as well go especially since we have no room for you in Hermione's mobile library Colin Creevey! His death really guts me!!! I just have no words except what a brave Gryffindor, oh wait brave is Gryffindor. Well even though you were in Gryffindor, Colin...requiescat in pace! Angel From pamelapips at yahoo.co.uk Wed Aug 8 12:58:13 2007 From: pamelapips at yahoo.co.uk (pamelapips) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:58:13 -0000 Subject: Closure for Harry & Snape In-Reply-To: <417666.32403.qm@web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174804 Yes, in a way it's slightly unsatisfactory that Harry does not speak to Snape's portrait afterwards although, of course, it was Dumbledore he really felt a stronger emotional attachment to at that moment. It appears that Snape worked so hard to protect Harry without really understanding fully why ! Mind you, Harry paid tribute to Snape by naming his second son after him and saying that Snape was "one of the bravest men he ever knew". That line made me cry ! pamelapips From nitalynx at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 13:30:06 2007 From: nitalynx at yahoo.com (nitalynx) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:30:06 -0000 Subject: The Message of DH - Moral Superiority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174805 Charles wrote: > If you think that Harry's self-sacrifice was atypical, then you > haven't been paying attention. He's shown a willingness to sacrifice > himself since book 1. Nita replies: If he has, then it seems to me like there's been no real personal growth for the hero of our growing up story. That's rather sad. However, let's take a look at each of your examples... > His concern for his near death experience was > that the stone not fall into Voldemort's hands. Well, naturally. Keeping the stone away from Voldemort was the objective of his self-imposed mission. If Voldie had got it due to Harry's intervention, it would have been a failure of epic proportions. > Book 2, he's dying > from his wounds, but his concern is to tell Ginny how to get to > safety. Er, he's dying. What else is there to do? And again, if both of them got killed, it would have been a double failure for his rescue mission. > Book 3, he charges into battle with dementors to save Sirius. Right. Charges, not walks to them and waits for a Kiss. Fighting a dangerous battle and willingly letting yourself be killed are two very different things, IMO. > Book 5, he's willing to give up the WW to keep everyone safe from him > when he thinks he's being posessed by Voldemort. Now this is similar to what he did in DH, I agree. So we do have one precedent. Just like the one precedent of trying to use Crucio that we also got in book 5. Interesting :) > Book 6, he wants to > save DD from drinking the potion. He wants to, but he doesn't. Questioning authority isn't all that fun when the authority is someone you like, I suppose. In book 6, DD tells Harry not to endanger himself in the cave, so Harry doesn't. In the next book DD tells him to go get himself killed, so Harry does. > Then he breaks it off with Ginny > because he doesn't want harm to come to her. Eh, sorry, but giving up snogging for a while and giving up your life don't quite match in scale, I think. All in all, I think Harry was wrong when he compared his own sacrifice to his mother's. He did it because it was the only way to win the fight. It was a well-planned (by DD) tactical move. She did it because... well, she couldn't bear to stand back and watch her child get killed, I suppose. And now, when we know that James didn't even have a wand (which I think was stupid, even if Voldie agrees), I don't see how what he did was less of a sacrifice. > Hmmm. Yeah, he questions authority, searches for the truth, and fights > against evil. Not someone to emulate at all. But without someone like Voldie, who practically has a huge neon "EVIL" sign hovering over his head, these qualities just produce a very curious anarchist, IMO. There's nothing wrong with them, but nothing inherently moral either. Here's a question for you: does the average kamikaze bomber think he's fighting for or against evil? :) Nita From va32h at comcast.net Wed Aug 8 13:31:26 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:31:26 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174806 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "guzuguzu" wrote: > > Regarding the Bellatrix - Molly duel: > I found this scene to be completely > ridiculous, actually. I'm leaving aside any moral issues, as I find > them so muddy in DH anyway. We have a notoriously violent serial > killer, who has taken down aurors and other veteran warriors, >versus a housewife, who we have no reason to believe has any >experience or particular skill as a warrior. Yet, *hundreds* of >people stand and watch the fight and do NOTHING? Yes, I know a few >girls try to help and Molly shoos them off... No stunning spells >from the crowd? No Expelliarmus even? Not even from Ginny, who we >were told repeatedly in HBP was very magically strong? It made no >logical sense for Molly to win that fight, nor for everyone else to >stand around enjoying the show. I agree that it did fit in with the >larger message of DH, which was that apparently what you really need >to defeat evil is dumb luck. va32h: Putting aside the highly offensive suggestion that "housewives" are inherently incapable of any particular skill... The Molly-Bellatrix duel seems to me to be clearly symbolic: Mother Molly takes down Barren Bella. Molly is the mother figure, not only to her own brood, but to Harry and by extension the reader (and I know some readers hate Molly, but I'm looking at her role in the book, not whether you'd like to have her as a mum). Bellatrix, by contrast, is the woman so out of touch with what mother love truly is that she offered up her theoretical sons to Voldemort's service. When Molly says "you will never hurt our children again" she's not referring to the Weasleys - she's referring to all children. The hateful regime of Voldemort, as represented in that moment by Bellatrix, will never hurt the future of the wizarding world again. Mother love is a huge motif in the series. It's no coincidence that Voldemort, who never knew and therefore cannot comprehend mother love, has a childless woman as his "best lieutenant". And it's Mother Love that destroys Voldemort - in Godric's Hollow, and in the forest, when Narcissa lies to Voldemort in order to find and save her son. The other characters all stood around watching the duel because Molly needs to be the victor of this showdown in order to fulfill that motif. va32h **please note that I am not suggesting that women who are not mothers don't understand motherly love. It's Bellatrix's character I'm referring to, not childfree women in general. From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 14:13:02 2007 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:13:02 -0000 Subject: Character construction (Was: Re: DH as Christian Allegory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174807 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > lizzyben: > > It's sort of amusing to me to see JKR's fruitless battles with > Snape. Despite everything, despite her dislike, Snape started to > take over the series. In HBP, he became the most vital, compelling > character while the actual heroes became more superficial & boring. > As we now know, the ending was always supposed to involve Harry > beating Voldemort while the world cheers, so Snape's prominence > became a definite problem. This nasty unlikeable man has more fans > than her heros! What's wrong with people? Right, Snape is staying > off-page in DH. I somehow doubt that Rowling was thinking so specifically about annoying fandom here, although it's clear that she pays some attention to what people think. What's always been interesting to me as a reader of this series is to see how people react to characters, and Snape is easily the most interesting object here, because he's not developed in the way that the Trio as the undoubted main character(s) of the books are. Whenever I go back and read what Rowling actually wrote, after being submerged in discussion groups, I'm always surprised at how *little* of Snape there actually is in the books. Page-time, he doesn't get that much. Harry is built as a character through a lot of page time, access to his thoughts, etc. Snape was built as a character by hints and a whole lot of refusal to give out information. At the end, we get the information that we were missing, and it's remarkably focused on a single cause. The problem and glory of this is that it then encourages each reader to build their own mental Snape. This is glorious because it's successful in engaging the reader, leading to elaboration and speculation. It's problematic because each person builds his own idea on a remarkably small amount of material, which starts to make discussion difficult--I probably don't share your mental image of Snape, you don't share mine, but what we can point to in the text to gain common ground is not that much. Partially because it's not that much, I think a lot of people expected there to be more going on in the end than there was. There's no way that Rowling, in the series "Harry Potter and the...", could have possibly come up with something to match the extremely complicated character fandom had created out of mutually exclusive possibilities. Someone once posted a "Snape flowchart". It was a thing of beauty. Of course, 99% of it is now superfluous... I will happily admit that for myself, the nexus of issues surrounding Snape has been the most interesting to discuss, over the years. But I don't think there's as much to him as Harry, by any means. -Nora gets cracking through the archives From muellem at bc.edu Wed Aug 8 14:14:54 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:14:54 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174808 DG wrote: > And then, once he had Carrow in his custody, he turned it off, thus > avoiding crossing the line from necessary force into torture. > > Agsin, I have absolutely zero problems with this. Harry. Never. Tortures. > colebiancardi: The Cruciatus Curse: per GoF - You don't need thumbscrews or knives to torture someone if you can perform the Cruciatus Curse. p 215 US ed hardcover As a DE stated this, I think this is pretty much canon. If anyone would know about torture, it is a DE Your arguments aren't convincing me or others who believe that Harry performed a legit UC called the Cruciatus Curse, whose only purpose is to torture someone - perhaps it is to convince yourself, I don't know. Whether it is for a second or prolonged, it is does what it is supposed to do - torture someone. Harry.Does.Torture and he meant it, according to canon. colebiancardi From darksworld at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 14:24:10 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:24:10 -0000 Subject: The Message of DH - Moral Superiority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174809 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nitalynx" wrote: > > Charles wrote: > > > If you think that Harry's self-sacrifice was atypical, then you > > haven't been paying attention. He's shown a willingness to sacrifice > > himself since book 1. > > Nita replies: > > If he has, then it seems to me like there's been no real personal > growth for the hero of our growing up story. That's rather sad. > However, let's take a look at each of your examples... > > > > His concern for his near death experience was > > that the stone not fall into Voldemort's hands. > > > Well, naturally. Keeping the stone away from Voldemort was the > objective of his self-imposed mission. If Voldie had got it due to > Harry's intervention, it would have been a failure of epic proportions. > Charles: Actually, I think that it is a lot less of a growing up story rather than a story in which Harry grows up. A fine line, to be sure, but I believe it is there. It seemed for multiple books that it was a coming of age story. What it has become after DH may well be something else entirely. As far as Harry's self-imposed mission, I think Voldemort would have found another way around the protection the mirror provided if Harry had not been there. This *is* the most powerful dark wizard ever we are talking about here. > > > Book 2, he's dying > > from his wounds, but his concern is to tell Ginny how to get to > > safety. > > > Er, he's dying. What else is there to do? And again, if both of them > got killed, it would have been a double failure for his rescue mission. > Charles: Yes, what else is there to do. They could have tried to get another teacher to go down into the chamber, yet they went themselves. His concern is not for his dying, but for the living. > > > Book 3, he charges into battle with dementors to save Sirius. > > > Right. Charges, not walks to them and waits for a Kiss. Fighting a > dangerous battle and willingly letting yourself be killed are two very > different things, IMO. > Charles: He's willing to face his greatest fear for someone else. Courageous and not real "selfish" in my opinion. > > > Book 5, he's willing to give up the WW to keep everyone safe from him > > when he thinks he's being posessed by Voldemort. > > > Now this is similar to what he did in DH, I agree. So we do have one > precedent. Just like the one precedent of trying to use Crucio that we > also got in book 5. Interesting :) > > > > Book 6, he wants to > > save DD from drinking the potion. > > > He wants to, but he doesn't. Questioning authority isn't all that fun > when the authority is someone you like, I suppose. In book 6, DD tells > Harry not to endanger himself in the cave, so Harry doesn't. In the > next book DD tells him to go get himself killed, so Harry does. > > > > Then he breaks it off with Ginny > > because he doesn't want harm to come to her. > > > Eh, sorry, but giving up snogging for a while and giving up your life > don't quite match in scale, I think. > Charles: Perhaps not in scale, but certainly in kind. It is a sacrifice he chooses to make for her sake, not his. > All in all, I think Harry was wrong when he compared his own sacrifice > to his mother's. He did it because it was the only way to win the > fight. It was a well-planned (by DD) tactical move. She did it > because... well, she couldn't bear to stand back and watch her child > get killed, I suppose. And now, when we know that James didn't even > have a wand (which I think was stupid, even if Voldie agrees), I don't > see how what he did was less of a sacrifice. > Charles: I agree with you on a few points here. Yes, James also made a sacrifice. Lily's sacrifice is the one spoken of the most because she is the one who has living relatives for the protection of the blood sacrifice to continue. I also agree that Harry's sacrifice was not like Lily's in that it did not provide the protection to the people of Hogwarts that Lily's sacrifice gave him. I think that the real defeat of Voldemort was in the wand and Harry's sacrifice was just to rid him of the Voldie bit. It does not make it any less of a sacrifice, nor does it make it out of character for Harry to have done it. > > > Hmmm. Yeah, he questions authority, searches for the truth, and fights > > against evil. Not someone to emulate at all. > > > But without someone like Voldie, who practically has a huge neon > "EVIL" sign hovering over his head, these qualities just produce a > very curious anarchist, IMO. There's nothing wrong with them, but > nothing inherently moral either. Here's a question for you: does the > average kamikaze bomber think he's fighting for or against evil? :) > Charles: Interesting that you should phrase it that way, as I am a very curious anarchist myself. I'm going to leave the RW hot potato alone here, and just ennumerate some more of Harry that I find admirable. He's reasonably loyal to his friends (everyone has their breaking point), he's kind to the vast majority of people he interacts with, and he even tries to protect those who have been immeasurably cruel to him. I guarantee you, If someone had treated me the way the Dursleys treated Harry, my last act before leaving them would *NOT* be to get them safely in hiding from the terror that could befall them, it would be to make damn sure that they got everything that was coming to them. Charles, who can't think of a catchy signature right now. From muellem at bc.edu Wed Aug 8 14:25:12 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:25:12 -0000 Subject: Character construction (Was: Re: DH as Christian Allegory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174810 Nora wrote: > I will happily admit that for myself, the nexus of issues surrounding > Snape has been the most interesting to discuss, over the years. But I > don't think there's as much to him as Harry, by any means. colebiancardi: You are correct that Snape doesn't have a lot of printed time in the whole series. However, what we do get is, imho, more interesting and riveting than any of the other characters, including Harry. Which is why we are all happily discussing Snape's character even after we know his loyalities :) A great character, which JKR even admitted that Snape was a gift of a character(too bad she didn't still think this in DH's, maybe she was tired of him after HBP), doesn't need thousands of pages devoted to him/her if written properly. JKR wrote Snape properly in the books (well, at least in the first 6 1/2 ones!!) The Sacking of Severus Snape was a great chapter to read and I was throughly let down afterwards with The Tale of the Prince. oh well. but my point is sometimes it is quality, not quantity, that makes a character wonderful to read about and I do think we know more about Snape than Harry, quite frankly. I don't know why Harry turned to UC's. I don't know what happened to the Love, which seemed to turn into Remorse in the end. colebiancardi From CariadMel at aol.com Wed Aug 8 14:42:17 2007 From: CariadMel at aol.com (CariadMel at aol.com) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:42:17 EDT Subject: Character construction Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174811 lizzyben writes: > As we now know, the ending was always supposed to involve Harry > beating Voldemort while the world cheers, so Snape's prominence > became a definite problem. This nasty unlikeable man has more fans > than her heros! What's wrong with people? Right, Snape is staying > off-page in DH. now Nora: I somehow doubt that Rowling was thinking so specifically about annoying fandom here, although it's clear that she pays some attention to what people think. cariad now:... I think lizzyben has hit a nail on the head with this one. I have not been an avid HP follower until the last two years. I read the first 2 books and felt SS was portrayed as a really *bad* guy; almost comic book villain. He terrorised Neville, worse than Harry I felt, he seemed positively loathsome...yet, there was always the undercurrent of a man in torment. Mature minds work like that and as "grown-ups" we see beyond the narrative to the nuances. Trouble is for JKR, her readership matured too and began their own character analyses, SS became the most complex, interesting man in the books (IMHO). It's fun to love the bad guy, even more so when *big hints*are dropped that he isn't so evil after all. I have wanted SS to be revealed since POA as Harry's secret protector, so I read the canon with those attitudes in mind. I agree with Nora, JKR didn't like it when SS became bigger than Harry in fandom ( oh yes he did!) in many interviews she was repulsed by the idea that he was loved by many and we were asking for his redemption. Although she wasn't influenced by our opinions and the story was already set in her head, it must have shook her to realise that many fans had guessed the nature of the Secret Snape story. just my 2 knuts ;) cariad [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From j.o.williams at comcast.net Wed Aug 8 14:16:21 2007 From: j.o.williams at comcast.net (J.O. Williams) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 08:16:21 -0600 Subject: HP for Children? In-Reply-To: <46B91EAD.5070406@sprynet.com> References: <46B91EAD.5070406@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <46B9D035.1010404@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174812 > eggplant107 wrote: > >> JKR hasn't written a children's book in years. >Bart: > I'm doing my second, careful, rereading of DH right now, and did a > double-take when I read the argument preceding Ron's alteration of > the Trio into a Duo, and he uses the term "effing". I wonder if, > being British, JKR even knows what "effing" is "short" for. > j.o.: For fun, go to the on-line dictionary onelook dot com, enter "tonk" and go to the British Slang section to look up the words meaning. HP hasn't been a kids book for years! From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 8 15:55:02 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:55:02 -0000 Subject: HP for Children? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174813 "Tonks" wrote: > I can just hear the parents asking their children "where did you hear that!" And the child will respond I first head that word at nursery school when I was 4. Kids are not stupid, any child able to read 4100 pages of the Potter saga will know words a lot stronger than 'effing' > I wonder how the media that must not be > names is going to make book 7 into a children's film. It wasn't a children's book so why turn it into a children's film? I'm thinking a R. > one wonders if such a vivid depection > of war is good for very young children. I do not believe a depiction of war that made it appear more pleasant than it really is would be good for children. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Aug 8 16:03:41 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:03:41 -0000 Subject: The Joke's on Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174814 Potioncat: > Did anyone outsmart themselves in DH? The time you knew > at once what was going on and what was about to happen . > But to your surprise, it didn't? Not a disappointing moment, > but a groaner moment that made you laugh at yourself. Maybe > even a place where you half suspected JKR had just pulled > one over on you. houyhnhnm: When Lupin showed up at 12 GP wanting to join the trio, one chapter after the letter describing Wormy seeming so down at James and Lily's, four chapters after the description of Lupin when he appeared with Tonks at the Burrow looking so unhappy, I thought AHA! Wrong. I still can't understand how he knew Regulus only lasted a few days after after turning against Voldemort, especially now that we know Regulus's body wouldn't even have been found; it was in the lake with the other Inferi. Ah, well, Lupin took his secrets to the grave. The other occasion when I felt like Rowling had pulled a fast one was the walk through the graveyard at Godric's Hollow. Harry and Hermione, minus Ron who had done a bunk, entered and left (his arm around her shoulder, hers around his waist) through a *kissing* gate. Now, my attitude toward ships has always been "whatever", so I didn't bite on this one, but I did feel like Rowling was winding up the H/H shippers who still held out hope. I thought it was kind of mean, actually. I would have to say that with the exception of the revelation of Snape's loyalty, the the entire seventh book was a joke on me. From kennclark at btinternet.com Wed Aug 8 16:02:53 2007 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (kenneth9840) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:02:53 -0000 Subject: Wands (Was: Inconsistencies) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174815 In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: "No, I'm afraid we're looking at another inconsistency, JKR tossing in another ill-conceived plot device that simply cannot be reconciled with previous canon." and Tim wrote: "I think you're trying to read too much into this. NONE of the people you've mentioned would have known Wand Lore to know that the wand's allegiance had changed... thus handing back the wand to the original owner, the wand would still function properly, but would recognize the winner as it's superior. Voldy's wand recognized Harry's as it's superior after that battle... hence Voldy's search for THE wand that could beat Harry's -- the Elder Wand. The Elder Wand would have defeated Harry's, but Harry wasn't using his, as it was broken. He was using Malfoy's, which he won from him. Malfoy's wand, having disarmed DD, was recognized by the Elder Wand as it's superior, thus the rebounding AK that finally did Voldy in. If someone has the time, they can go through all the canon and find who's wand was superior to whose at any given moment. I'm sure JKR thought all this out before putting it into DH." Ken says: But surely this is possible only to the Elder wand. There is no inconsistency. All wands don't change "ownership" when "captured" ONLY the Elder wand. Ken From faithvsion at aol.com Wed Aug 8 15:48:16 2007 From: faithvsion at aol.com (faithvsion at aol.com) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:48:16 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HP for Children? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174816 Bart: > I'm doing my second, careful, rereading of DH right now, and did a > double-take when I read the argument preceding Ron's alteration of > the Trio into a Duo, and he uses the term "effing". Nancy: Actually the term "effing" is first used in OOTP (pg 32 scholatic hardcover) "Enough--effing-owls..." muttered Uncle Vernon distractedly, stomping over to the window and slamming it shut again. Nancy From va32h at comcast.net Wed Aug 8 16:22:31 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:22:31 -0000 Subject: Wands (Was: Inconsistencies) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174817 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kenneth9840" wrote: > But surely this is possible only to the Elder wand. There is no > inconsistency. All wands don't change "ownership" when "captured" > ONLY the Elder wand. NO! Draco's wand changed it's allegiance from Harry to Draco - that is a huge plot point - it's why Harry became the master of the Elder Wand. And while it isn't specifically mentioned - Ron does fine with Wormtails' wand, so it would appear to have switched masters too. What is mentioned is that Hermione has trouble with Bella's wand, which Harry attributes to Hermione *not* having won it from her. I would also wager that this is why the blackthorn wand never worked for Harry. Ron's the one who won it, he just gave it to Harry. Wands, as described in DH, are living, learning things. A wand that can choose it's master, learn from it, recognize it's master's enemy (as Harry's wand does) - surely wands that can do all that can tell the difference between a practice session of Expelliarmus and being defeated in combat. Winning the allegiance of another's wand seems to involve multiple, necessary steps. Taking the wand by force, the previous owner acknowledging defeat, and then handling and using the vanquished wand yourself va32h From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 16:41:15 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:41:15 -0000 Subject: The Joke's on Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174818 "potioncat" wrote: > > > Did anyone outsmart themselves in DH? The time you knew at once what was going on and what was about to happen . But to your surprise, it didn't? Not a disappointing moment, but a groaner moment that made you laugh at yourself. Maybe even a place where you half suspected JKR had just pulled one over on you. Then here's the place to confess it. Doddie here: I actually thought that when the acromantulas made it to the castle and Hagrid yelled, "No, don't hurt 'em"..that he was actually telling the spiders not to hurt the students.. rather than Hagrid yelling at folks not to hurt the spiders. LOL as if JKR hadn't pounded us over our heads with Hagrid's love of dangerous creatures in ALL the books. I still blush and giggle at my mistake each time I read about the acromantulas carrying Hagrid off.. Doddie From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 8 16:47:31 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:47:31 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables. In-Reply-To: <46B91796.4030804@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174819 Lee Kaiwen wrote: > this is a big part of our problem > with the scene. There IS no regret > expressed, either here or later. > Harry never does seem to "hate himself" > afterward for what he has done. I consider myself a nice guy, I'm certainly no monster, but I have to tell you if I had used the Crucio as Harry did I would not feel the smallest particle guilt, not for one second, not for one nanosecond. Indeed if JKR had put Harry through an indulgent orgy of hand wringing at that point it would be imposable for a reader (at least for this reader) to feel anything other than contempt for the weakness of our "Hero". And the "Molly's revenge" thread seems even stranger to me, as if we need to think long and hard to figure out if it is moral for a mother to kill a notorious serial murder who is actively trying to kill one of her children. Some actually think this is debatable and needs thinking about! And after Molly whacked the creep is she supposed to go through the hand wringing routine too? Remember the title of the book was not "Harry Potter and the Quest for Pablum". Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From karen at dacafe.com Wed Aug 8 16:49:53 2007 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:49:53 -0000 Subject: Another Timeline Problem Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174820 In the Prince's tale we see the progression of memories as Snape ages - 2 were prior to Hogwart's - Train to Hogwart's - Sorting The problem arises in that we know from one of the early books that James saves Severus in their 6th year. In OOTP, we see from Snape's worst memory that calling Lily a Mudblood happen in their 5th year. In DH, Lily stopped talking to Severus after he called her a Mudblood. How did the Snape get the memory of talking to Lily after the tunnel rescue if Lily didn't talk to Severus after 5th year? Why was the tunnel memory put out of sequence from past stories? Thanks to anyone who can explain this - KMC From elora_fay at rogers.com Wed Aug 8 15:40:21 2007 From: elora_fay at rogers.com (Jennifer) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:40:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] question for any Brits re. slang in DH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <582876.94558.qm@web88209.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174821 Hey everyone, I am still fairly new and have been mostly lurking but thought I could pose this question to any UK list members: There is a term that was used a few times in DH which I recognise (from Buffy's Rupert Giles) as being an insult, but I don't really understand it's meaning; "Berk". Can someone explain exactly what this means? Your help is greatly appreciated. jen ~Jennifer Tea is wealth itself, because there is nothing that cannot be lost, no problem that will not disappear, no burden that will not float away, between the first sip and the last. - Henry David Thoreau From cottell at dublin.ie Wed Aug 8 17:25:34 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:25:34 -0000 Subject: question for any Brits re. slang in DH In-Reply-To: <582876.94558.qm@web88209.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174822 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jennifer wrote: > "Berk". > > Can someone explain exactly what this means? Your help > is greatly appreciated. http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561501496/berk.html Despite its etymology, it's a fairly innocuous word. It's more generally used of men than women. Mus, who suspects she might be one. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 17:26:35 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:26:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] I was right - Christian Symbols (was The Joke's on Me) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0708081026n4833968j645e7414a9edb13f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174823 Tonks: But I was right in the end... remember all of those robes I had to mend or toss because people keep setting them on fire with all the flames? I am back, with new robes.. and I WAS RIGHT!! Lynda: I was right about the Christian symbolism too. I was wrong about Harry being a horcrux, but there's something else I was right about. I spent the last couple of years between HBP and DH thinking that so many people are so busy speculating about everything that "had to happen" (my own words there) to make DH a workable, good book that many would be very disappointed when the book did not follow the story track that had been built up in their minds. And from many of the posts since DH came out, I was right. Of course I had speculations and expectations, but since I wasn't the one writing the story, and since I can't delve into JKR's mind and dig out her pre-written story, the differences between what I envisioned and what she wrote don't upset me. I'm simply glad she shared. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Aug 8 17:42:03 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:42:03 -0000 Subject: Another Timeline Problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174824 KMC: > In the Prince's tale we see the progression of > memories as Snape ages > - 2 were prior to Hogwart's > - Train to Hogwart's > - Sorting > The problem arises in that we know from one of > the early books that James saves Severus in their > 6th year. In OOTP, we see from Snape's worst memory > that calling Lily a Mudblood happen in their 5th year. houyhnhnm: The only logical conclusion is that Sirius was wrong, that the Prank took place in their fifth year. Or it was just one more detail that Rowling couldn't be bothered with. The memories are not in exact chronological order, though. The very last one is of Snape finding Lily's letter at 12 GP and that couldn't have taken place after he went to the Forest of Dean with the Sword. Harry had already found the torn photograph months before. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 8 17:49:24 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:49:24 -0000 Subject: Wands (Was: Inconsistencies) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174825 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tim" wrote: > > > If someone has the time, they can go through all the canon and find > who's wand was superior to whose at any given moment. I'm sure JKR > thought all this out before putting it into DH. > Ken: And I am equally sure that she did not. A few weeks ago I finished Christopher Tolkien's history of the LotR. Even though it was of only secondary importance at best to his story the elder Tolkien fretted obsessively over the phase of the moon. At one point he mentions the need to consult some experts on how much later the moon would rise each night at a certain phase in its cycle and time of year. Rowling on the other hand wrote an entire book about a werewolf in which the phase of the moon is absolutely critical and she gave nary a thought to making it consistent. I think that you can amuse yourself forever by discussing her continuity errors. At the end of the day if you want to enjoy the books you have to be willing to ignore them and just ride the roller coaster. I have no problem switching from one mode to the other. People who are stuck in one mode or the other either have their enjoyment spoiled, or must devote themselves to an endless defense of the indefensible. Ken, who thinks it is an immensely enjoyable work but no where near a finely crafted one. From maggyshannon at cox.net Wed Aug 8 17:44:19 2007 From: maggyshannon at cox.net (Margaret Shannon) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 13:44:19 -0400 Subject: missing 24 hours Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174826 One mystery DH didn't clear up for me is the question of what happened between the deaths of Lily and James and Harry's arrival at the Dursley house not quite 24 hours later. Did I miss something? Thanks, Maggy From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Aug 8 18:06:08 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:06:08 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: 7 reasons why - The Glass is Half Empty. References: Message-ID: <01d701c7d9e6$cc0eb590$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> No: HPFGUIDX 174827 >> > Steve wrote: >> >> People keep saying that there is no explanation for >> >> that letter being there, yet when explanations are >> >> suggested, they are written off as fan-fiction and >> >> fantasy. Well, you either want an explanation or >> >> your don't; apparently, many don't. > >> k12listmomma: >> >> Steve, I guess I will have to explain my take on this. >> ... We, as readers, shouldn't have to be looking for >> ways to plug the holes in Rowling's story for the >> FINAL BOOK. ... > > bboyminn: > > Sorry you feel that way, but this is only a plot hole > because you choose not to believe it. That FACT IS, > the letter was there. Now you can chose to believe > it couldn't be there, even though it was, or you can > choose to believe it /was/ there and accept > explanations as to why. > > This isn't a problem with the story, this is a problem > with what /you/ choose to believe or not believe. > > In my book (a pun), choosing to believe what is > written on the page always seem to make more sense. > > The letter is an extremely minor part of the overall > story. JKR simply can't waste precious pages explaining > every little minor point. The Letter was there, now on > with the story. > > And I am out of here. > > Steve/bboyminn Steve, I think you really missed my whole point. I am not arguing whether the letter was there or not. Really, I'm NOT! I don't have a problem with what I "choose to believe"- rather I have a problem with what's written and more importantly, HOW it's written! My greater point is that whole transition with Snape. The letter is the first real, tangible clue she gives (not to us, but to HARRY!) that Snape was really on Dumbledore's side- it's the start of a HUGE transition point from Harry thinking that Snape hated him to thinking that Snape was a brave man who was on his side after all. As was so clearly written in Book 1: "At the start-of-term banquet, Harry had gotten the idea that Professor Snape disliked him. By the end of the first Potions lesson, he knew he'd been wrong. Snape didn't dislike Harry-he hated him." and yet in the epilogue we see this: "Albus Severus", said Harry ... "you were named for two headmasters of Hogwarts. One of them was a Slytherin, and he was probably the bravest man I ever knew." This thought pattern of Harry hating Snape and even growing to Harry wanting to kill Snape remains for 6 1/2 books- so the turn around must be SIGNIFICANT to be believable, because the first emotion of hatred was so strong a theme. That transition must be smooth- it must be BELIEVABLE. Yet, we get something that feels shoddy and "because I told you so" and not "because I SHOWED you so". I'm only the reader- I want the author to SHOW me so. I want to feel it too! Thus, it's a big deal for me that Rowling did not write this transition clearly, and that the fans have to try to fill in for us what it is Rowling didn't write. For me, it would have been better just to have dropped that whole middle name and line about Snape being brave, if she wasn't going to write the ending so strongly to have us really feel that way too, by the point we read the epilogue. We should have already come to that conclusion as well, before the epilogue. For Pete's sake, we should be agreeing with her, not reading the epilogue and saying "Where in the hell did that come from?!? Snape the bravest man Harry ever knew!?! Surely not!" That whole transition starts with the letter, and thus the letter becomes a MAJOR plot point, and not a minor plot point, because is really starts the climax of that story arc. If you are to be a good writer, you must have all your major plot points polished. Rowling, for the first time in this series, really drops the ball here. I think she was so used to leaving things open to be answered in the next book that she really forgot that she was on the FINAL book, and thus was the time to shift her writing style to begin the "wrap up", and to be as detailed as possible. We know she can, because she does so wonderfully in many of the hospital scenes at the end of other books. This book really misses that "all tidied up" feel. We shouldn't even have questions on major plot points. Or if you would rather, "doubts" about their "believability". The fact that I and other fans even have a "what the hell" feel about Snape suddenly being a good guy is not the fault of us readers- no, the fault belongs to Rowling for not having made her views clearer. It was her transition- her case to prove. I cannot insert words into the text that aren't written there. I think this ties in with the feeling I had of "perv Snape" rather than brave and Dumbledore's man, Harry's protector Snape. If that transition had been written better, particularly about that letter, which gives the air of a stalker stealing what isn't his, then I would be in a position as a reader to nod my head with Harry, even with a tear in my eye as an apology to Snape post-humusly, to say "yes, Harry, you were right to name your son after him". As a reader, I just can't do that, because Rowling failed in giving us the proof in solid terms. She failed to make me FEEL a kindness for Snape. She still wrote in terms of letting us wonder, to suspect him, as if there was another book coming to explain it all- but there isn't another book coming- this was her book to wrap it up. Again, it's not about the letter- it's about the letter, Snape's memories, maybe a pep talk with Dumbledore about it, the insight into Harry's thoughts of reflection to show his change in thinking- there's a lot wrong or missing with that transition. She didn't make us feel it too, she didn't let those of us who thought Snape was pure evil or out for himself to really come around and have that change in thought with Harry, so that we could share his fond memory of Snape years later. Shelley From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Aug 8 18:15:18 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0000 Subject: Revenge, Greek tragedies & the heart (Re: Molly's "revenge" ) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174828 lizzyben: > If we look at things from the Rambo-esque revenge viewpoint, the > story starts to make a whole lot more sense. Harry's use of the > Cruciatus curse was totally justified, because he was taking revenge > on Carrow for using that same curse against students. That's why > Harry is never expected to question or regret his actions. The same > message is given in the various ironic deaths that the villains > suffer. And, in a larger sense, the same message is given in the > punishments that the good guys dish out to the bad guys throughout > the series. We really were supposed to cheer when DD took away the > House cup, laugh when Draco got stomped, gloat at the Dursleys' > magical punishments, smirk at traitor Marietta's scars. It's all > about the revenge, and the fact that Harry & co., as the > unquestioned moral arbiters of the Wizarding World, have the right > to exact that revenge. "Revenge plots" are one of the staple plots > of literature, and IMO the Harry Potter novels fit this model much > closer than a "coming of age" plot. Jen: There are elements of revenge in all the books, on both sides. I don't think the epigraph is from a Greek tragedy for nothing! Eye- for-an-eye justice is at the core of Western literature (not to mention the world of kids) so for the series to bypass this very real part of any society would make the WW come across as very sterilized indeed in my book. It seems like a distillation to say the series is focused on revenge to the exclusion of the overcoming of revenge as well, though. For every example cited of revenge, there are several examples of turning the other cheek and not just by the good guys. Which may very well be the point, or at least the point as I understand it. What I see as an important part of DH and the series is this question: How does a person, a society, stop action begetting action, cycles of violence, perpetuating conflict out of unexamined ideals? Because there are unexamined ideals on both sides of the fence and we see Harry/Trio, the good side, engage in some activities that aren't particular commendable but are a very real part of the world in which they live. Reading up on "The Libation Bearers" by Aeschylus yesterday, I was interested to find out it's a transition play, a second play in a triology about a society moving from a vengeance-based system, which was begetting cycles of violence, to a justice-based system of law, where responsibility for actions and choice is placed on humans instead of held in the hands of the gods. The protagonist is a man whose heart, whose agony about what he's done in perpetuating violence yet again, is the spark for the gods to reconsider the choice of man, ultimately pushing justice back down to the level of the human race. It's message is more hopeful than most Greek tragedies! The first parallel I see in DH is with Dumbledore. He's grown up in a family where violence perpetuated violence, first with the Muggle boys hurting Ariana, which led to the father seeking revenge, which led quite probably to some of Dumbledore's ideas about taking over Muggles for the greater good. Then a violence is perpetuated that causes a loss so great and feelings of guilt so deep, that Albus is stopped in his tracks and never fully recovers from what he might of done or come close to doing. His turning point plays out in the rest of the story because he passes on his (sometimes unexamined) ideals to Harry. Ultimately, despite the flaws, his ideals *are* better than those that have come before. The idea that a person can choose how to act and not only to carry out the dictates of their family's past, their house, and the various wizarding prejudice espoused toward each other, creatures and Muggles. By the standards that have come before him, Harry *is* an unusual wizard as pointed out by various creatures and humans, not because he was somehow born annointed and perfect but because of a combination of entering the WW later in life, latching onto Dumbledore's ideals - considered odd and dangerous to many in the WW - and his nature, which was oriented toward Lily's concept of justice more than James's interest in revenge. In the end, I'd say that Harry & Co., like Dumbledore and the Order before them, are not the Ultimate Right in the WW so much as *more* right than those they are opposing. Trying to stop cycles of violence, attempting to do so by making choices for right action more often than not, taking small steps against the various centuries-old rifts in the WW...all are meaningful and worth doing if only because the alternative, following the path Aberforth recommended and disregarded himself , is to do nothing. Jen From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 18:24:18 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:24:18 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46BA0A52.7000007@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174829 Dennis Grant blessed us with this gem On 08/08/2007 20:48: LK> First, Harry himself made his purpose crystal clear. "Whaddya know. LK> You really DO have to mean it!" Mean what? "I torture." His purpose LK> was torture. DG> No, his purpose was to *inflict pain with intent to incapacitate* No, I'm sorry Dennis, it was not. Incapacitation was the result, but it was not his purpose. Not, at least, according to Harry. I'll try once more: Harry TELLS us what his purpose is. Period. It works like this: Harry steps out from under the cloak, raises his wand, says, "I torture," and then, when he's finished, announces in mock surprise, "Well, you really do have to mean it." What "it" do you need to mean? Harry is, of course, harking back to Bellatrix's words in OotP, where, after he fails to Cruciate Bellatrix, she chastises him as follows: "You need to mean them, Potter! ... You need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy it." Nothing there about incapacitation. What drives the Cruciatus is the intense desire to cause pain, and to enjoy causing pain. That's canon. Yes, I'm taking a DE's word for it, because Harry confirms it: "Well, well, she was right. You really do need to mean it." There simply is no other way to read the text. Harry's PURPOSE was to cause pain. Incapacitation was merely the result. Now, we can believe Harry, or we can believe you. Tough choice. LK> Since you assert it, please tell us how many "legal definitions" LK> of torture there are. DG> From the United States Criminal Code: No, Dennis, that's not what I asked for. You stated there are many definitions of murder, as if that had something to do with torture. I asked you HOW MANY legal definitions of torture there were, but what you gave me is a single definition of torture, and one which, at that, is really more concerned with defining the conditions under which torture can occur than it is with defining the act itself. But since you've introduced it, let's take a look. Filtering out the bits defining the conditions, we find the US Code defines torture as "an act committed by a person ... specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering ... upon another person...." Begins to sound a lot like Cruciatus to me. LK> Ah. The end justifies the means. What happened to Stupefy? DG> Who knows? Bingo. YOU DON'T KNOW. You're engaged in pure speculation. Your argument boils down to, "the text doesn't say it isn't true, therefore I assert it is." > There is nothing in the canon that suggests Stupify is > unblockable Ditto for Cruciatus, with the added bonus that Harry has never successfully Cruciated. Conversely, he is by this point an expert on Stupefy. Now, if in the "heat of battle" you've got an enemy to incapacitate quickly, it makes absolutely no sense at all to suddenly abandon Ole Reliable for a weapon you've never successfully fired. No. Sense. At. All. And, please. No more "We don't know - there MAY have been something...." Give us canon. LW> There WAS no "heat of battle". DG> Harry is in the presence of Carrow, a known enemy. Nobody fired a shot. Nobody threatened to fire a shot. Carrow didn't even know Harry was there. I can't imagine anything LESS like a battle. Until Harry started firing, at least. Even then, it looked more like an ambush than a real fight. Let's take a closer look at the scene, shall we? Harry and Luna are in the Ravenclaw Common Room, hidden under the Cloak. Alecto is there, whom Luna stuns from hiding. Then Amycus appears outside the door and starts pounding on it, calling for his sister, who doesn't answer. The Ravenclaws are terrified, and we find Harry pondering whether to blast open the door and Cruciate -- oops, no, sorry, Stun -- Amycus. But he does nothing, because McGonagall appears on the scene. As soon as McGonagall opens the door, Amycus charges in, wand at the ready. Now THAT'S pretty threatening. Time to take baddie down, right? Hmm ... Guess Harry's not too concerned. Amycus finds Alecto on the floor, Stunned, and threatens to Cruciate the entire Ravenclaw population. Now, Harry, do it NOW! He's making horrific threats against the students. TAKE HIM OUT NOW! Umm, nope. Still nothing. Then follows a long dialog between Amycus and McGonagall, during which Harry has ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD to incapacitate the guy, using any spell he darn well pleases. But he just stands there, twiddling his proverbial thumbs, until... "And he spat in her face." Oooh, now THAT did it. "Harry pulled the Cloak off himself, raised his wand, and said, 'You shouldn't have done that.' As Amycus spun around, Harry shouted, 'Crucio!'" It wasn't the brandished wand that set Harry off. It wasn't Carrow's threats against the students that alarmed Harry. It was the SPITTING that pushed his button. Rammed it so hard, in fact, that it's apparently at this point that he abandons the Stunning Spell he was earlier contemplating in favor of his first-ever UC. > Harry knows he is going to fight Carrow, somehow. Sorry. Where is THAT in the text, again? LW> Stupefy, Dennis. Stupefy. It ALWAYS works. DG> Where in canon is this stated? There isn't a single instance in canon in which Stupefy, having connected with its target, has failed. Nor is there anything in canon to cast doubt on its absolute reliability. Once cast, there are only two reasons it might fail: the caster might miss his target, or it might get blocked. But since both are also possible with Cruciatus, we're back to square one: there is absolutely nothing in the text to indicate why Harry would suddenly abandon Stupefy -- a spell that had NEVER failed him -- for a curse he had never successfully performed. Well, apart from the obvious, that is. > If I have to take down Mike Tyson, 'Scuse me? Where IN THE TEXT does it ever say Amycus Carrow is Mike Tyson? He is described as "lumpy" at least twice, and the few times he speaks he actually comes off sounding rather on the low side of the intelligence curve (well, OK, so does Tyson). And, don't forget, this is not the first time Harry has faced Carrow in battle. He dispatched him in HBP, "Flight of the Prince", with a simple Impedimenta. And yet you ask us to believe Harry, who has survived multiple duels with LV himself, who has already gotten the better of Carrow once, is suddenly so desparately threatened by him that he panics into using Cruciatus? Hmmm ... let me think about that.... Nope. Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 18:22:58 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:22:58 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174830 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > > this is a big part of our problem > > with the scene. There IS no regret > > expressed, either here or later. > > Harry never does seem to "hate himself" > > afterward for what he has done. > >Eggplant wrote: I consider myself a nice guy, I'm certainly no monster, but I have to tell you if I had used the Crucio as Harry did I would not feel the smallest particle guilt, not for one second, not for one nanosecond. Indeed if JKR had put Harry through an indulgent orgy of hand wringing at that point it would be imposable for a reader (at least for this reader) to feel anything other than contempt for the weakness of our "Hero". *****Katie responds: THANK YOU, EGGPLANT. I agree entirely. It's completely unbelievable that Harry would, or even should, have guilt over this incident. Carrow was a vile person, who had been torturing children with pleasure for a year. Children, I may add, that are Harry's close friends! Harry has been put through more in his short life than is humanly possible to bear without a little bit of anger and resentment towards those that have put him through it. Carrow deserved what Harry gave him, and Harry did not prolong it. He used a UC out of anger, but he also did not stand there and hurt the man unneccisarily for hours! In fact, I thought his treatment of Carrow was more than fair, given what the man had done to Harry's friends. However, I do feel the need to say that "torture" is defined this way on http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture 1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain 2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure 3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining Soooo, technically Harry DID "torture" Carrow. I will not argue that. What I will argue is that Harry had every reason to do so, and to do so without guilt. Eggplant: > And the "Molly's revenge" thread seems even stranger to me, as if we need to think long and hard to figure out if it is moral for a mother to kill a notorious serial murder who is actively trying to kill one of her children. Some actually think this is debatable and needs thinking about! And after Molly whacked the creep is she supposed to go through the hand wringing routine too? Remember the title of the book was not "Harry Potter and the Quest for Pablum". > ****Katie responds: Again, I agree so much, I don't know where to begin. Molly had already lost a child that day. All of her children and her husband were in danger of being killed. She sees her daughter about to be killed by the nastiest nasty next to Voldemort himself...I'd get pretty maternal, too. I'm glad she killed Bellatrix. I'm glad she called her a bitch. I'm glad Molly got a chance to protect one of her children, even after losing Fred. Molly needs to make no excuses to me. In addition, Molly had been fighting with the Order since the beginning. She has, I'm sure, more than her share of anger against these horrible people for more than what was happening that day, at that moment. And for those that would argue that she shouldn't have "taken out her anger" on Bellatrix...Come on, people. Bellatrix deserved exactly what she got. She was an evil, nasty human being. And I, for one, actively wanted her dead from the moment she killed the poor innocent fox at the beginning of HBP. I was quite happy to see her go. I continue to not understand why so many people expect that our heroes should have guilt about killing or hurting these awful people. It's not like they're hurting innocents. And I do not believe that it says something about their lack of moral fiber...as a RW example of what I mean: World War II The United States SHOULD feel guilty about dropping bombs on Japan and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The United States/Allies should NOT feel guilty about executing the people found guilty of war crimes at Nuremburg. See the difference? For me, the dropping of the atom bombs said something pretty awful about what kind of a country we are...but executing Nazis didn't. That's my point. Katie From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 18:28:37 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:28:37 -0000 Subject: HP for Children? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174831 Tonks: > As to is HP for children. I wonder how the media that must not be > names is going to make book 7 into a children's film. And I wonder > about the impact of so many deaths on the children. Especially > Hedwig and Dobby. The kids might not be as upset about the adults in > the books as we are, but still one wonders if such a vivid depection > of war is good for very young children. > > Tonks_op > Lisa: I think it's up to parents to police what their children read and view. If a parent feels that a vivid depiction of war isn't good for his/her child, then they shouldn't allow the child to watch it. My 6 and 8 year olds have seen all the HP movies with no problems -- all the Star Wars movies, too. When I ask them about how they feel about them, they roll their eyes at me (already!) and tell me that "it's all PRETEND, Mommy, they're just ACTING." However, my nephew and his wife don't allow their kids (same ages) to see anything that's remotely scary, because they'll have nightmares. There is no way for authors/screenwriters/directors to make a movie that's universally appealing and acceptable. They produce their vision, and it's up to us, as parents, to determine what's best for our children, and that tends to mean that we must preview the movies and pre-read the books, IMO. Goodness knows I've sat in a midnight viewing, half-asleep, because I've promised my son he can see the first showing of Star Wars Ep. 3 on the day it came out, if I deemed it acceptable (I deemed it partially acceptable and covered his eyes during the burning-Anakin scenes). Lisa From nitalynx at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 18:35:29 2007 From: nitalynx at yahoo.com (nitalynx) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:35:29 -0000 Subject: The Message of DH - Moral Superiority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174832 Charles wrote: > Actually, I think that it is a lot less of a growing up story rather > than a story in which Harry grows up. A fine line, to be sure, but I > believe it is there. It seemed for multiple books that it was a coming > of age story. What it has become after DH may well be something else > entirely. Nita: Yes, exactly! And I think that's why some people (including me) are disappointed. It was pretty obvious that she was mixing different genres, themes and even clich?s in her stories, and we expected her to complete the series in a consistent way, without simply dropping any of them, which would be a wonderful achievement. But she didn't, and now it seems that she wasn't interested in that in the first place. So much for "subverting the genre". > As far as Harry's self-imposed mission, I think Voldemort would have > found another way around the protection the mirror provided if Harry > had not been there. This *is* the most powerful dark wizard ever we > are talking about here. Well, that's just speculation ;) Our powerful dark wizard keeps forgetting that AK consistently fails to work on our hero, for instance. Not very impressive, IMO. > Yes, what else is there to do. They could have tried to get another > teacher to go down into the chamber, yet they went themselves. His > concern is not for his dying, but for the living. I'm afraid your examples of Harry's heroic conduct like the above just make me think worse of him :) I read somewhere that true heroism lies in overcoming unavoidable obstacles, *not* almost getting killed solving problems created by your own stupidity/mistakes/etc. > He's willing to face his greatest fear for someone else. Courageous > and not real "selfish" in my opinion. I've never accused Harry of being cowardly or selfish (I might call him self-absorbed as in oblivious, though). Bellatrix seemed pretty brave and selfless (being a very devoted follower) to me as well, but that doesn't make her a good role model, does it? > I agree with you on a few points here. Yes, James also made a > sacrifice. Lily's sacrifice is the one spoken of the most because she > is the one who has living relatives for the protection of the blood > sacrifice to continue. I also agree that Harry's sacrifice was not > like Lily's in that it did not provide the protection to the people of > Hogwarts that Lily's sacrifice gave him. I think that the real defeat > of Voldemort was in the wand and Harry's sacrifice was just to rid him > of the Voldie bit. It does not make it any less of a sacrifice, nor > does it make it out of character for Harry to have done it. Oh, I wish you were right. But JKR seems to think otherwise: "Don't you want to ask me why James's death didn't protect Lily and Harry? There's your answer, you've just answered your own question, because she could have lived and chose to die. James was going to be killed anyway. Do you see what I mean? I'm not saying James wasn't ready to; he died trying to protect his family but he was going to be murdered anyway. He had no - he wasn't given a choice, so he rushed into it in a kind of animal way, I think there are distinctions in courage. James was immensely brave. But the caliber of Lily's bravery was, I think in this instance, higher because she could have saved herself." ( http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-1.htm ) And Harry says: "I've done what my mother did. They're protected from you. Haven't you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding? You can't torture them. You can't touch them. You don't learn from your mistakes, Riddle, do you?" (DH page 738, Scholastic hardcover) That last part is a pretty good observation, I think. I wonder why JKR gave her hero such a handicapped antagonist? > Interesting that you should phrase it that way, as I am a very curious > anarchist myself. Well, I'm very curious, but not an anarchist, myself. I guess that's why it's harder for me to sympathize with Harry and easier to see the flaws in the books :) > I'm going to leave the RW hot potato alone here, and > just ennumerate some more of Harry that I find admirable. He's > reasonably loyal to his friends (everyone has their breaking point) I think his friends are more loyal to him, actually. And it's presented like the Right Way to Be. > he's kind to the vast majority of people he interacts with, Until they dare question him or disagree with him about anything. > and he > even tries to protect those who have been immeasurably cruel to him. The only people who have been "immeasurably" cruel to him are Voldie and Umbridge, IMO. He indirectly kills him and leaves her to Dementors (why JKR decided that she was in a fit state to be judged and put in prison after that, I don't know). >I > guarantee you, If someone had treated me the way the Dursleys treated > Harry, my last act before leaving them would *NOT* be to get them > safely in hiding from the terror that could befall them, it would be > to make damn sure that they got everything that was coming to them. You would want people who neglected you and yelled at you in childhood to be *tortured* and *killed*? Well. I hope you'll never be tempted to leave anyone to that kind of fate, for your own sake :/ On the other hand, Harry isn't seriously damaged by the Dursleys' abuse simply because JKR wrote him that way (that is, I do think he has some serious issues, but apparently the Author does not agree). I'm not sure how realistic that is :) Nita From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Aug 8 18:34:45 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:34:45 -0000 Subject: Revenge, Greek tragedies & the heart (Re: Molly's "revenge" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174833 Jen: > In the end, I'd say that Harry & Co., like Dumbledore and the Order > before them, are not the Ultimate Right in the WW so much as *more* > right than those they are opposing. Trying to stop cycles of > violence, attempting to do so by making choices for right action more > often than not, taking small steps against the various centuries-old > rifts in the WW...all are meaningful and worth doing if only because > the alternative, following the path Aberforth recommended and > disregarded himself , is to do nothing. Jen: Correcting myself here because I messed up something pretty big. I didn't mean to say Voldemort was right and Dumbledore et. al. are simply more right, lol. I was trying to explain that I don't see Harry or anyone connected to Dumbledore as the moral arbiters of justice in the WW. It's more that they appear to be further along the path of what a just society looks like and how people should act in such a society rather than some of those they oppose, people/creatures who aren't followers of Voldemort but also not supportive of Dumbledore. Jen, noting this explanation takes place out of context from her initial post and is better read after the first one. From urghiggi at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 18:40:52 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:40:52 -0000 Subject: 7 reasons why - The Glass is Half Empty. In-Reply-To: <01d701c7d9e6$cc0eb590$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174834 Shelly: > I think this ties in with the feeling I had of "perv Snape" rather than > brave and Dumbledore's man, Harry's protector Snape. If that transition had > been written better, particularly about that letter, which gives the air of > a stalker stealing what isn't his, then I would be in a position as a reader > to nod my head with Harry, even with a tear in my eye as an apology to Snape > post-humusly, to say "yes, Harry, you were right to name your son after > him". As a reader, I just can't do that, because Rowling failed in giving us > the proof in solid terms. She failed to make me FEEL a kindness for Snape. snip > > Again, it's not about the letter- it's about the letter, Snape's memories, > maybe a pep talk with Dumbledore about it, the insight into Harry's thoughts > of reflection to show his change in thinking- there's a lot wrong or missing > with that transition. Julie H: Part of the "ick" factor, even for some of us who were always in the DDM!Snape camp, is that the "prince's tale" chapter didn't provide the expected redemptive payoff. As portrayed in the revelatory chapter, Snape appears motivated only by remose and obsessive love for the dead object of his affections. HIs dislike of all students but the Slytherins, and Harry in particular, is very real, not just part of his double-agent cover. He never appears to have gotten beyond the notion that he has to protect Harry because of his regret that Lily is dead, and because of Harry's physical resemblance to Lily (ah, the importance of those eyes). Most disturbingly, his allegiances never are clear, imo. He appears to be DDM grudgingly, almost in spite of himself, through some idea that this is what he owes Lily -- not through any growing realization that DD's side is indeed morally superior to LV's side. He does not seem to have progressed from "I'm suffering because I lost Lily" to "I want to be DDM because i'd rather serve good than serve evil." He does not, really, appear to have transcended his fascination with the dark side, other than the choice he made that resulted in Lily's death. He is DDM solely because he loves Lily, not because he loves DD or hates LV. Now, I could live with all that if it had had a clear payoff for Harry. You could plausibly argue that it was a necessary aspect of yanking our fascination away from Snape and back to the focal character. Getting Harry from point A to point B in terms of the realization that snape was on the "good" side (for whatever reason), and (perhaps even more significant), that Harry could be so wrong about someone, even when steeped in self-righteousness.... THAT is what many of us DDM!Snapers were expecting from JKR with this story arc. If she couldn't deliver any kind of redemption for Snape, at the very least the storyline could've been a stronger, clearer growth experience for Harry. The author didn't choose to give us that -- unless we supply it ourself with after-the-fact apologetics. It wouldn't have taken much. Just a sentence or 2 in the paragraphs after "prince's tale" -- just an acknowledgement that Harry now understands not only the dire ramifications of his own situation but also that he was hugely wrong about Snape and Snape's motivations. Those sentences aren't there. I want to see the payoff for the multi-book buildup; the little bit in the epilogue doesn't do it for me. It is annoying to be forced into do-it-yourself explanations/payoffs for the very clear setups that are in the first six books. Just as it is disturbing to have to create apologetics for the controversial Crucio, for the fact that Sluggy/Snape were the sole 'good' Slytherins (how hard would it have been to have even a few minor Slytherin students move to the 'good' side in the battle after all that blah blah blah about the need for unity?), for the fact that the G's do appear to be the 'elect' and the Slytherins irredeemably tainted (19 years later it still seems right for Ron to be exhorting the presumed Gryffindor Rose to 'beat' presumed Slytherin Scorpius). I don't expect sainthood from Harry. 7 books of that would've been a bore. I do expect more growth and self-realization than the author chose to provide, for a character whose actions we are clearly supposed to wish to learn from and emulate. The opportunities were there and appeared to be deliberately crafted, which makes the lack of fulfillment even more perplexing. Julie H, chicago From javalorum at yahoo.ca Wed Aug 8 17:05:58 2007 From: javalorum at yahoo.ca (javalorum) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:05:58 -0000 Subject: In response to: dumb question: What does "Cackling Stump" mean? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174835 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "taylorlynzie" wrote: > > Java, I believe that the "Cackling Stump" really just is a tree stump, > perhaps an enchanted one. I'm not sure if it was in reference to any > other story but it does not seem too far from the realm of > Potter-Possibility to just be a magical stump. It was a bit disappointing to find that the cackling stump is a tree stump. :( I guess not a lot of people refers rabbit's kicking as stump. Oh well. Thanks for clearing it up for me! Java From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Aug 8 18:50:08 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:50:08 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174836 Katie: > I continue to not understand why so many people expect that our > heroes should have guilt about killing or hurting these awful > people. It's not like they're hurting innocents. And I do not > believe that it says something about their lack of moral fiber... Magpie: Actually, I don't believe people are saying that Harry should feel *guilty* in the way you seem to mean it--thinking he was really wrong to do it. They said that they wanted a more nuanced exploration of this sort of thing. For instance, if Harry merely wondered about his own dark impulses in wanting to cause that kind of pain, or using that curse given the build-up he's had to it in his own life. Canon takes your view, that the only question is whether or not you're "hurting innocents" (innocents of course being proclaimed so by us/the heroes, and often being objectively *not* innocent because they're psychotic killers). If the person isn't innocent you don't need to feel anything. Maybe if the person isn't quite completely guilty you might feel a twinge of conscience in answer to that, but nothing too bad. There's still no connection between you and the other person, nothing to lead to any growth or change on your part. Just breaking some eggs to make that omlette. As someone else said, it's basically the point of any action movie-- only action movies aren't 7 book bildugsromans that seem to be trying to say something more than that. I don't think people are saying Harry should feel guilty for torturing Carrow or Molly should feel guilty for killing Bellatrix, they just said the scenes were Hollywood cheer moments and so not much concerned with morality at all beyond the pleasure of knocking out a hate object. And Harry's world is filled with hate objects. He's never seriously challenged in this way at all. This isn't executing Nazis after a trial or dropping bombs on Japan for strategic purposes. It's just gotcha moments that don't say much about anything except that these people are obviously guilty so it's satisfying having them taken out by the Good. There's other ways for Harry to wonder about his own actions than by feeling guilty. The fact that the only question is whether or not they're hurting people they consider innocents is what makes the morality of the books so easy. The Guilty pretty much walk around with a big G on their heads, but Harry until he's good and mad, and then he takes care of them, knowing that he fought evil. JKR says tolerance is the main message of the books, but she's put it in mostly just by making the bad guys virulent bigots. -m From marion11111 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 18:36:07 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:36:07 -0000 Subject: HP for Children? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174837 > > Tonks said: > > I wonder how the media that must not be > > names is going to make book 7 into a children's film. > Then Eggplant said: > It wasn't a children's book so why turn it into a children's film? I'm > thinking a R. > marion11111 replies: This *will* be a challenge. The public pretty willingly accepted the shift into PG-13, but I don't believe an R-rated Harry Potter will be tolerated. That's a big jump for most parents and very little kids were still going to OotP. But how to do this one justice in a PG-13, I don't know. I wonder just *how* much violence is allowed and if the type influences the rating. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 18:57:38 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:57:38 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46BA1222.6040308@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174838 Katie> It's completely unbelievable Katie> that Harry would, or even should, have guilt over this incident. I disagree. I have TWO friends, one an ex-cop, one still on the job, who have had to shoot criminals in the line of duty. Both were exonerated by the mandatory review boards, yet one is no longer a police officer today because he couldn't deal with the guilt of having killed another human being. The other went through months of counseling afterward, despite the fact the guy he shot is still alive. Try telling any of the thousands of returnng Iraqi soldiers suffering from PTSD that they shouldn't feel a moment's guilt for taking down baddies. Or take a trip down to your local police station and ask them what happens to good cops who shoot criminals in the line of duty. Trust me, good people DO have "issues" with these things, even when they are justified. It's the people who DON'T that I worry about. > Carrow was a vile person, who had been torturing children Then why didn't Harry take him down when he threatened to Cruciate the students? Sorry, it just doesn't seem Harry was too hot and bothered about that. > The United States/Allies should NOT feel guilty about > executing the people found guilty of war crimes at Nuremburg. It's traditional, when firing squads are used, to load one rifle with a blank round so that none of the squad members knows for sure whether he fired the fatal shot. Even executioners feel guilt. Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 19:11:02 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:11:02 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174839 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > Katie: > > I continue to not understand why so many people expect that our > > heroes should have guilt about killing or hurting these awful > > people. It's not like they're hurting innocents. And I do not > > believe that it says something about their lack of moral fiber... > > Magpie: > Actually, I don't believe people are saying that Harry should feel > *guilty* in the way you seem to mean it--thinking he was really > wrong to do it. They said that they wanted a more nuanced > exploration of this sort of thing. For instance, if Harry merely > wondered about his own dark impulses in wanting to cause that kind > of pain, or using that curse given the build-up he's had to it in > his own life. Canon takes your view, that the only question is > whether or not you're "hurting innocents" (innocents of course being proclaimed so by us/the heroes, and often being objectively *not* innocent because they're psychotic killers). If the person isn't innocent you don't need to feel anything. Maybe if the person isn't quite completely guilty you might feel a twinge of conscience in answer to that, but nothing too bad. There's still no connection > between you and the other person, nothing to lead to any growth or > change on your part. Just breaking some eggs to make that omlette. <<>> ***Katie: I guess I *didn't* want a more nuanced explanation of that. I don't look to Harry Potter books to be some great work of philosophical literature. JKR puts some philosophy in there, she touches on classical and Biblical references...she's obviously a well-read and intelligent person. However, she's not a writer of great literature. She's a writer of really good stories. And that is a big difference that makes me have different expectations for HP books than say, for Pepys, or Chaucer, or Lord Tennyson. I do not expect JKR to be any of these people. I do not expect her to be able to explore every single philosophical issue she brings up, because, quite honestly, she's not always a great writer. A fantastic story teller, always. As a writer, she is sometimes not so fantastic. And these are not great works of high literature. I don't want these books to be that, anyway! I want them to be fun and tell me a good story and be books I can read over and over until the spines release all their pages into my lap. And they are. The books have fulfilled my expectations for them. I did have a "Ha, b#$%h moment when Harry Crucioed Carrow, and when Molly killed Bellatrix. I *did* cheer! Because I don't expect a nuanced exploration of philosophical issues...I expect Harry and co. to get the bad guys. And they did. And I liked it. Katie, who is in no way claiming that great literature cannot be fun, just claiming that HP is *not* great literature on the level of the above-mentioned authors From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 19:18:26 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:18:26 -0000 Subject: question for any Brits re. slang in DH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174840 --- "muscatel1988" wrote: > > --- Jennifer wrote: > > "Berk". > > > > Can someone explain exactly what this means? Your help > > is greatly appreciated. > > http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561501496/berk.html > > Despite its etymology, it's a fairly innocuous word. > It's more generally used of men than women. > > Mus, who suspects she might be one. > bboyminn: Well, we are slightly off-topic here, but none the less, I surge forward. This has been discussed in the OT group, and while 'Berk' is innocuous in common usage, it is FAR FAR from innocuous in origin. This comes from Cockney Rhyming Slang. Rhyming Slang creates a two word rhyming substitute for another word. The second word in the rhyming phrase rhymes with the actual word. For example: Brown Bread = dead Bowler Hat = Cat Butchers Hook = look Chewy toffee = coffee Daisy Roots = boots Dickie Bird = word This further refined, to a shortened version. For example - "...give us a butchers..." Equals 'give us a look'. Berk is short for 'Berkeley Hunt'. Remember the second word rhymes with the word being substituted. 'Hunt' rhyme with a portion of the female anatomy which some Brits might also refer to as a 'Fanny', and which has no American 'polite' version that I am willing to use in this group. Though one American variation would be a reference to a cute little cat. So, this is actually a pretty vile word, but through common usage has become softened into something that is moderately acceptable in public speech. http://www.businessballs.com/cockney.htm For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From peckham at cyberramp.net Wed Aug 8 19:19:19 2007 From: peckham at cyberramp.net (luna_loco) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:19:19 -0000 Subject: missing 24 hours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174841 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Margaret Shannon wrote: > > One mystery DH didn't clear up for me is the question of what > happened between the deaths of Lily and James and Harry's arrival at > the Dursley house not quite 24 hours later. Did I miss something? > Thanks, Maggy > No new information directly applicable to the missing 24 hours was provided, but there was additional background provided that allow for better guesses about the time to be made. Pieces of information that were not previously available are that the attack occurred early enough in the evening for children still to be out on the street and that the Potters had neighbors they were friendly with (as opposed to Muggle neighbors that would have been generally unaware of the Potters). Theories that Voldemort was accompanied by Wormtail or that Lilly performed some special charm also appear to be incorrect. All this suggests that when the attack occurred and the Potter's house had a section collapse, Bathilda Bagshot or some other neighbor would have likely heard the disturbance and been able to send a message to either Dumbledore, the Ministry, or both. From this point news of the event spread fast enough for witches and wizards across the country to have learned of the event before Vernon Dursley's morning commute to work. In the mean time, while Hagrid was collecting Harry, Dumbledore was undoubtedly spending time at the Ministry taking care of the legal details involved with moving Harry to the Dursleys. This reasoning still leaves one big question unanswered: How did Dumbledore know that Lily sacrificed her life for Harry? Unless one of the devices Dumbledore kept in his office was able to provide the needed information, the answer to this question is still unknown. Allen From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 8 19:38:26 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:38:26 -0000 Subject: question for any Brits re. slang in DH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174842 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "muscatel1988" wrote: > > > > --- Jennifer wrote: > > > "Berk". > > > > > > Can someone explain exactly what this means? Your help > > > is greatly appreciated. > > > > http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561501496/berk.html > > > > Despite its etymology, it's a fairly innocuous word. > > It's more generally used of men than women. > > > > Mus, who suspects she might be one. > > > > bboyminn: > > Well, we are slightly off-topic here, but none the less, > I surge forward. This has been discussed in the OT group, > and while 'Berk' is innocuous in common usage, it is > FAR FAR from innocuous in origin. > > This comes from Cockney Rhyming Slang. Rhyming Slang > creates a two word rhyming substitute for another word. > The second word in the rhyming phrase rhymes with the > actual word. > Berk is short for 'Berkeley Hunt'. Remember the second > word rhymes with the word being substituted. > > 'Hunt' rhyme with a portion of the female anatomy > which some Brits might also refer to as a 'Fanny', > and which has no American 'polite' version that I > am willing to use in this group. > So, this is actually a pretty vile word, but through > common usage has become softened into something that > is moderately acceptable in public speech. Geoff: It has been extremely softened and is often used in a friendly way to chaff someone who ahs done something silly - which is how it usually gets used in the HP books. I use it myself without any qualms. Two thoughts. First, it is used equally with both sexes. Second, I think Encarta is wroing in one respect. Speaking as a paid-up native UK English speaker, my rhyming slang sources give it as Berkshire Hunt. Referring back to a previous comment on "tonk", I've never met the word before and my teenage rites of passage taught me a fair range of words..... I think that the Tonks family would be most upset to find out what the neighbours were saying about them. :-) From CariadMel at aol.com Wed Aug 8 19:34:41 2007 From: CariadMel at aol.com (Annette) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:34:41 -0000 Subject: missing 24 hours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174843 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "luna_loco" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Margaret Shannon > wrote: > > > > One mystery DH didn't clear up for me is the question of what > > happened between the deaths of Lily and James and Harry's arrival at > > the Dursley house not quite 24 hours later. Did I miss something? > > Thanks, Maggy > > > > No new information directly applicable to the missing 24 hours was > provided, but there was additional background provided that allow for > better guesses about the time to be made. Pieces of information that > were not previously available are that the attack occurred early > enough in the evening for children still to be out on the street and > that the Potters had neighbors they were friendly with (as opposed to > Muggle neighbors that would have been generally unaware of the > Potters). Theories that Voldemort was accompanied by Wormtail or that > Lilly performed some special charm also appear to be incorrect. > > All this suggests that when the attack occurred and the Potter's house > had a section collapse, Bathilda Bagshot or some other neighbor would > have likely heard the disturbance and been able to send a message to > either Dumbledore, the Ministry, or both. From this point news of the > event spread fast enough for witches and wizards across the country to > have learned of the event before Vernon Dursley's morning commute to > work. In the mean time, while Hagrid was collecting Harry, Dumbledore > was undoubtedly spending time at the Ministry taking care of the legal > details involved with moving Harry to the Dursleys. > > This reasoning still leaves one big question unanswered: How did > Dumbledore know that Lily sacrificed her life for Harry? Unless one > of the devices Dumbledore kept in his office was able to provide the > needed information, the answer to this question is still unknown. > > Allen cariad: I thought that ( but no canon supports it) DD witnessed the attack from under James' Invisibility Cloak. Of course, there would be no reason why DD could not have stopped the murders except he arrived too late. James fell and he just saw Lily throw out her arms to protect Harry. DD asumed that Harry was dead too and apparated out of there. Cowardly, yes, shocked and numb, obviously; but human, very human. cariad. > From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 19:59:52 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:59:52 -0000 Subject: I am about to rant/the hardest part In-Reply-To: <88843CAC-6D6A-4E57-B406-B12FE78BD6E4@hitthenail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174844 --- Maeg wrote: ... > > If you find "continual complaints" annoying because > you don't agree with them, am I allowed to find > continual praise of DH equally annoying if I don't > agree it? It sounds like you think I'm not allowed to > be annoyed. In other words, I'm to tolerate what I > don't like, but you're free to ban everything you > don't like. I don't think that's in the best interest > of this list. > > ... bboyminn: It is not a question of denying anyone their opinion. I can easily appreciate and accept the opinions of those who disagree with me. As I've said many times, once we agree the conversation is over. It's disagreement that makes for a discussion and an interesting ones at that. I don't have a problem that you (the general 'you') thought Harry shouldn't have used the 'Crucio'. I don't have a problem that you didn't like the resolution of the Slytherin plot line. ...or that you didn't like this, that, or the other thing. But I do have a problem when people start painting Harry as the most vile person to every walk the face of the earth. Or paint Slytherins as sweet innocent oppressed put-upon rosy cheek little cherubs. [OK, I'm exaggerating a bit...OK, a lot.] That's when I try to 'dial it back a bit'. That's when I start to make a plea for perspective and balance. Now I concede that we all, myself included, exaggerate aspects to make our point; to attempt to raise an aspect up where we can see it more clearly. And, as discussion goes on, we likely exaggerate even more, to emphasize our point even more strongly. But there is a point where the discussion becomes so extreme and so filled with vitriol, that, in my mind, it start to border on irrational. And again, that's when I try, with all my Libra-esque ability, to dial it back to the center or establish a more balance perspective. I will concede the same is true of those who take a hopelessly, and equally irrational, Pollyanna attitude toward the author and the story. Trying to paint the good guys, and by extension the author, as absolute saints who can do no wrong. Again, perspective. So, feel free to believe anything you want, feel free to say anything you want. Be as annoyed as you want. I welcome that because from that comes great discussions. But dial it back a notch or two. Try to keep it in perspective. When Harry becomes vile and Slytherins become saints, I think we've gone too far. [Admittedly, I'm exaggerating again.] But then, that's just my extreme and possibly irrational opinion. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 20:13:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:13:03 -0000 Subject: Harry's struggle with death and other matters (long) (Was: Requiescat in Pace) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174845 lizzyben wrote: > I've really struggled to figure out *what*, exactly, was the theme of this series. What was JKR trying to say? Why did she write 7 books about this? Carol responds: Good question, one I'm trying to get us to explore. Ideas, anyone? Lizzyben: > Based on the epilogue, it seems like it was intended to have a simple message of good brave Gryfindors beat the bad guys. Is that worth a series? These novels do not seem Christian to me, in the sense of embracing tolerance, forgiveness, non-judgment etc. There's a distinctly Old Testament flavor to the books. Carol responds: Maybe. Or how about "not my will but thy will be done," if we want to deal with Harry as Christ figure (not Christ!). However, you seem to be unwilling to accept at face value Harry's statement that Snape was probably the bravest man he ever knew, so I don't know what else to say. It's there, the most important moment in the epilogue (along with Teddy Lupin, the orphan who did not become an "abandoned boy"). As for tolerance, I believe that's a modern or postmodern virtue, not a Christian one specifically. (It's certainly promoted in schools today along with multiculturalism, at least in the U.S.) Forgiveness, however, *is* a Christian virtue and is exemplified by Harry's forgiveness of Snape (and to a lesser degree, the cessation of his rivalry with Draco). Please look again at Harry's public vindication of Snape and contrast it with his hatred of Snape and his view of him as evil until he encounters the Pensieve memories. Self-sacrifice and love are also Christian virtues, as are hope and faith. Death is not the end; it's the beginning. The soul is eternal. It does not die with the body. Moreover, the WW *has* changed. Muggle-borns and "blood traitors" are no longer being sent to Azkaban; Death Eaters are no longer at large, killing and torturing at will, nor are they in charge of the Ministry. The WW has been cleansed and normalcy restored. And there's just enough difference between Severus Snape's first encounter with two nasty little Gryffindor's and Harry's first encounter with a nasty little Slytherin and Harry's words to Albus Severus about Snape and Slytherin to indicate a glimmer of reconciliation. Bravery is not confined to Gryffindor; Slytherins can be heroes. It's okay to be placed in Slytherin, which is no longer a hotbed for budding Death Eaters, an extinct species. There's room for hope and progress and reconciliation, and the Sorting Hat is not (IMO) going to stop preaching unity until it happens. A house (or school) divided against itself cannot stand. A little canon might help with regard to Snape and forgiveness: Harry, missing Dumbledore's advice and thinking that he might have expected to live for centuries like Nicholas Flamel, thinks (as paraphrased by the narrator), "If so, he had been wrong. Snape had seen to that. Snape, the sleeping snake, who had struck at the top of the tower" (DH Am. ed. 279, ellipses changed to periods for readability). I'm sure I don't need to point out that the narrator is not exactly reliable here and that this view of events is contradicted on all counts by the Pensieve memory. Harry wants nothing more than to meet Snape, not to seek conciliation (reconciliation not being possible, as they were never friends) or to extend forgiveness, but to avenge DD's "murder." (that he's no match for snape in a duel never enters the equation.) Once Harry has entered Snape's mind, reaching an understanding of him that need not be stated because his epiphany emerges in tandem with the reader's (and because Harry has also learned, thanks to Snape's last act, that he has to sacrifice himself, a rather more pressing matter to him at the moment) we get Harry's view of himself and Severus and Tom (whom DD earlier wanted him to pity) as "the abandoned boys," surely empathy if not forgiveness. And we get Harry's Snape speech to Voldemort, the DA, the Order, the DEs, the staff and some of the students of Hogwarts, even the people of Hogsmeade: "Severus Snape wasn't yours [Voldemort's]. He was Dumbledore's, dumbledore's from the moment you started hunting down my mother. . . . Snape's Patronus was a doe, the same as my mother's, because he loved her for nearly all of his life. . . . [H]e was Dumbledore's spy from the moment you threatened her, and he's been working against you ever since!" (740-41). He also tells Voldemort that DD was already dying when Snape "finished him" and that DD chose his own manner of dying and arranged it with "the man you thought was your servant" months before he died (same pages). If that is not a 180-degree volte face, I have never seen one. > lizzyben: > It seems like Harry's voluntary embrace of death was meant to be a courageous act of self-sacrifice, dying for our sins, redeeming the Wizarding World. But the problem is, dying is not a struggle for Harry - it's what he's been trained to do. DD has been brainwashing Harry into becoming a martyr for his cause since Harry first arrived at Hogwarts. So when Harry obediently trots off to his death, called by the siren's song of dead loved ones, it felt less like a triumphant act of bravery, and more like a submission to DD's manipulations. Carol: Dumbledore's manipulations are part of the opposite process to the vindication of Snape. The whole Ariana/Grindelwald subplot in combination with the Dumbledore we see in Snape's memories, to whom he remained loyal even after he "knew" they were protecting Harry as a pig to the slaughter, serves to show that Dumbledore, the arch Gryffindor, is not nearly as perfect and saintly as Elphias Doge thinks him--and not nearly as brave as the man who repeatedly placed himself in mortal peril for him and for Lily, Severus Snape. As for Harry not struggling with death, can you please quote a passage to show where this view is coming from? I see the complete opposite. Harry has thought since DD revealed the Prophecy to him in OoP that he would either have to "murder" Voldemort or "be murdered" by him. Now he has to go like a lamb (a more Christian metaphor than Snape's "pig") to the slaughter, giving himself up to Dumbledore's will and the "greater good." He sees Dumbledore as having "betrayed" him (and the scene has been carefully set up via the Pensieve memory to make this view seem correct). There is no doubt that at this moment, at least, Dumbledore has manipulated him, but that does not rob Harry of a choice. This is the ultimate test of what is right vs. what is easy. Let's look at the canon, shall we? First, the unreliable narrator again: "Finally, the truth. Lying with his face pressed into the dusty carpet of the office where he had once thought that he was learning the secrets of victory, Harry understood at last that he was not supposed to survive" (691). This view is, of course, corrected in "King's Cross," but we're looking at what Harry feels, what Harry faces, as he chooses to face Voldemort for what he thinks is the last time. "He felt his heart pounding fiercely in his chest. How strange that *in his dread of death*, it pumped all the harder, valiantly keeping him alive. But it would have to stop, and soon. . . . *Terror* washed over him as he lay on the floor, with that funeral drum pounding inside him. Would it hurt to die?" (692) Granted, it doesn't occur to him to try to escape, which would be futile. He knows it has to end and only he can end it. But that doesn't make the walk through the forest, the willing self-sacrifice, any easier. "He envied his parents' deaths now. This cold-blooded walk to his own destruction would require a different kind of bravery. " He feels, ironically, more alive than ever, more aware of the miracle of human existence. He understands what he is sacrificing, but of course, he doesn't yet understand Dumbledore's plan, which looks like a betrayal. He is seeing, for once, from Snape's perspective, thanks to the Pensieve memory, or rather, from Snape's perspective combined with his own knowledge of the Horcrux hunt. And because Snape's information has been as limited as Harry's, Harry's perspective is still distorted. "He had never questioned his own assumption that Dumbledore wanted him alive. Now he saw that his life span had always been determined by how long it took him to destroy the Horcruxes. . . . How neat, how elegant, not to waste any more lives, but to give the task to the boy who had already been marked for slaughter. . . ." (695). Having reconciled himself to the (supposed) inevitability of his death and to DD's "betrayal," he faces fears of his own inadequacy. "Dumbledore had overestimated him. He had failed. The snake survived" (695). His only comfort is that Ron and Hermione also know about the Nagini Horcrux and will, he thinks, destroy it. "Like rain on a cold window, these thoughts pattered against the hard surface of the incontrovertible truth, that he must die. *I must die.* It must end" (693). Rond and Hermione seem far away. He makes his last arrangement to have Neville as a back-up to kill Nagini, unable to finish his last sentence because of a "suffocating feeling" (696). "Ripples of cold undulate... over his skin" as he passes Ginny. He has his moment of empathy with the now-dead Snape and Tom Riddle, those other "abandoned boys," as he looks at Hogwarts, the only home any of them had ever known, for what he thinks is the last time (697). Dementors approach and he has no strength to cast a Patronus. "He could not control his own trembling. It was not, after all, so easy to die" (697). And then the Snitch. "I open at the close." Harry understands at last what the words mean, and opens it with the words, "I am about to die." The Ressurrection Stone doesn't save him from death, but it givees him the hope and the courage to overcome his despair. "Dying is not a struggle for Harry"? Just because both he and Dumbledore have always known what his choice would be does not mean that the choice was not difficult and painful. He is saved from despair by hope and love, a point I would develop if I hadn't already written a book here. > Lizzyben: > Well, it'd be redundant for me to repeat my objections to the epilogue, but the main problem is that little to nothing appears to have changed in the WW. Despite all the talk about house elves & goblin rights, it doesn't seem like oppressed groups have gained rights, the house rivalries are just as strong, and the heroes have settled into comfortable middle-class complaceny. There hasn't been radical change, or social reform, so it's just a matter of time till> Dark Lord III rises. Carol: Change doesn't have to be radical. Progress is often gradual, and If the WW were perfect, what would be the point of an education or a career? Might as well move to Paradise and be done with it. (Sorry. I don't mean to sound sarcastic. Harry and Hermione still have work to do, as do the kids of the next generation. Perfection can never be achieved, which does not mean that we shouldn't strive to achieve it, assuming that we can agree on what constitutes perfection. If a third Dark Lord rises, the next generation will be ready for him. For one thing, they'll actually have been taught DADA! > lizzyben: > > Ah, well, I disagree that Snape got a hero's death. He got a villain's death, just as Regulus did. Carol: A villain's death? They died painfully and bravely, not in the heat of battle, true, but each performing an essential last service in the fight against Voldemort. (Sure, I'd have loved to see Snape dying like Boromir, fighting to the last, but Snape kept his cover to his dying breath, and he shared a moment of understanding with Harry that could not have happened any other way. Nor could Harry have understood what he had to do without Snape's memories, which also allow him to understand and forgive Snape. Lizzyben: And honestly, this is probably my real, > fundamental problem with the novel. Snape was not redeemed - he did not go to the afterlife, and he did not find forgiveness or peace. He was all the things you say, but it didn't matter. Snape's ultimate path was one of penance & pain, not redemption & renewal, and this is something I find difficult to get over. Carol responds: Did not go to the afterlife? Canon, please? Harry didn't see him at King's Cross because it was Dumbledore he needed to speak with, Dumbledore who had concealed information from both him and Snape. He needed DD as much as he needed clothes. Snape had already provided him with as many revelations as he could (the doe Patronus, the Sword of Gryffindor, George's ear, the ring curse, DD's death). But there were still questions only DD could answer. And, of course, Snape didn't accompany Harry to the confrontation with Voldemort. He summoned his loved ones, not the man he finally understood but who was still not likely to provide him with comfort and courage and hope. That Lupin is there indicates, I think, that Harry has forgiven him his cowardice. He has redeemed himself by returning to Tonks and he and Harry can now be reconciled. But Snape's absence from that group does not mean that he has not gone on to the afterlife. Mad-Eye Moody isn't there, either. Neither is Dumbledore, with whom Harry has already spoken. Harry's parents, Black, and Lupin are not the only people who have gone on to the afterlife, only the ones that Harry chooses to summon, just as DD would have summoned Ariana. Their youthful, healed appearance suggests that the afterlife is much happier and less painful than this Vale of Tears. "Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living, especially those who live without love." Snape has had a painful life, much of it spent atoning for his greatest sin. Unlike Voldemort, who knows no remorse for his exponentially greater crimes and is destined to spend eternity as a suffering, whimpering, helpless, neglected child wrapped in rags, he has shown remorse and suffered for it all his adult life. He has faced peril repeatedly, and both Harry and Dumbledore acknowledge his great courage. "Immense courage," JKR herself has called it. Harry has publicly vindicated him and forgiven him and named his second son after him. As for the afterlife, even the unredeemed Voldemort has one. Snape has felt the torture of remorse, and remorse, Hermione tells Harry and Harry tells LV, could save even LV's mangled and tattered soul. It will certainly save Snape's. The soul, Hermione tells Harry and Ron, is immortal. It does not die when the body is destroyed. A body is not a Horcrux and a soul bit is not a soul. Nothing short of a Demntor can destroy it. Snape is a wizard. He will face the choice of becoming a ghost, clinging to the site of his many sufferings, or "going on" to the peace and forgiveness and healing that awaits him if the state of Black and Lupin and DD after death is any indication. JKR has said that he's redeemed, and that is certainly the picture of the afterlife for everyone except Voldemort that's presented in the book. The Veil, too, suggested that the dead live on, as did DD's words about death as the next great adventure. Snape, I'm quite sure, will welcome it as a respite from his long suffering and reap the rewards for his courage and undying love. Carol, apologizing for the length of this post but really hoping to see canon support to counter her own in future counterarguments From kennclark at btinternet.com Wed Aug 8 20:10:06 2007 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (kenneth9840) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:10:06 -0000 Subject: Wands (Was: Inconsistencies) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174846 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: "NO! Draco's wand changed it's allegiance from Harry to Draco - that is a huge plot point - it's why Harry became the master of the Elder Wand." Ken says: "'Fraid not. Draco becomes the master of the Elder wand when he beats Dumbledore even though he never touches it thereafter. When Harry beats Draco, carrying whatever wand (both of them) he becomes the new master of the Elder wand even though it was not even present at the confrontation. At no time does Harry become master of Draco's wand, in fact there are several instances in DH of people using other people's wands and complaining how they don't seem to work so well for them. It is ONLY the Elder wand which changes its allegiance from master to master when its existing master is bested by a new one. This of course still leaves the question of when the Elder wand becomes aware of a change of masters. Does the Elder wand know that Harry is its master when Voldemort AKs him in the forest? If so then Harry is doubly protected, both by his shared blood and by being the master of the wand being used against him. Or does the Elder wand know that Harry is its master only when he proclaims himself so in the last confrontation with Voldemort in the Great Hall? Ken Clark From kennclark at btinternet.com Wed Aug 8 20:28:21 2007 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (kenneth9840) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:28:21 -0000 Subject: I am about to rant/the hardest part In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174847 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > I don't have a problem that you (the general 'you') > thought Harry shouldn't have used the 'Crucio'. I > don't have a problem that you didn't like the > resolution of the Slytherin plot line. ...or that > you didn't like this, that, or the other thing. > > But I do have a problem when people start painting > Harry as the most vile person to every walk the > face of the earth. Or paint Slytherins as sweet > innocent oppressed put-upon rosy cheek little > cherubs. [OK, I'm exaggerating a bit...OK, a lot.] > > When Harry becomes vile and Slytherins become saints, > I think we've gone too far. [Admittedly, I'm > exaggerating again.] Ken says: This is the Potterverse we are talking about here, a world where wizards and witches with considerable magical powers exist, where the school for kids regularly has children in hospital with pretty severe complaints, and where occasionally they die, where witches die due to failed magical experiments, where sometimes magic is so uncontrollable people end up in St Mungo's or hidden away at home, where the aforesaid St Mungos is full of people with permanent magical conditions. Dont foist the morality of Little Britain or Middle America on to such an environment. Its a tough place, the Potterverse, a place where despite the best intentions of its occupants the Unforgivables are regularly threatened and often used and where other spells are used which have effects that in a non-magical world would be unacceptable. Harry is a part of that world, not ours, with powers of that world. Given that I am surprised he didn't use more of the Unforgiveables in DH, given the situations he found himself time after time. Ask yourself. Wouldn't you have welcomed the opportunity to Crucio Bellatrix, given half a chance? Ken Clark From npilgaard at hotmail.com Wed Aug 8 20:35:46 2007 From: npilgaard at hotmail.com (Nikolaj P P) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:35:46 -0000 Subject: A few green shots In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174848 I have only occasionally skimmed posts on this (excellent) list - usually just after finishing yet another HP book :) - so I am not a regular writer here - not even a regular lurker :) Couldn't help adding a quick reply, though: > Geoff: > Well, I can only apologise. I had no intention of stopping anyone talking > about problems. I was trying - and still am - to persuade people to stand > back and take a wider look and see if there are any green shoots to > encourage you that it's not all desert. The calm patience and ability to keep the discussion at a 'sober' level here is quite remarkable () A shot on a few green shots: :) - the idea on conquering death by accepting it - HP has moved from a 'regular' (although great and very catchy) 'good-vs-evil'-story, to a story presenting views of more 'depth' to a huge audience (imho, the issue of death is a major 'drawback' of the modern/western world view, so it is definitely worth a thought) - the idea that 'love'/'compassion' protects Harry, but the opposite brings Voldemort down. Again a quite interesting view, and, it could be argued, true in a certain sense, in that the later (trying to force other to do ones bidding, with no compassion etc.) will result in a negative reaction from those affected, while the former (often) will result in a positive reaction (on a larger scale, history can be seen as one long struggle for power between kings, empires, states etc. Only with a different attitude against the enemy/the defeated (e.g. after World War I, but more explicit and successful after World War II) have thing improved significantly. On a smaller scale, something similar could be argued, although this is of course a subjective view) - 'pity (...) above all those who live without love" (DH, GB-edition, p. 578) - they are the true losers in the hunt for happiness. So don't hate them. Also, e.g. Snape (and Voldemort?) has lived without receiving much love, and this could be a probable factor in their (more (Vold.) or less (Snape)) non-loving behavior. Voldemort is incapable of feeling love, therefore he must act like he does. He simply doesn't have the ability of compassion (unless perhaps in a slight way for his lieutenant), and he wants power/fears death. Thus, how can he act differently from how he does (since he truly feels no compassion for his victims, there is simply no reason for him to act 'good'), when his character is as it is. Therefore he is forced to live in the tough, 'non-loving' 'version' of the world, thus no need to hate him, but rather pity him. This may seem rather deterministic, and lack of free choice, but to some extend that is how I see the characters. Some of them have a choice (e.g. Ron, Snape), but the most 'extreme' in either end of the spectrum, Harry and Voldemort, can't act against their true inner self, and are thus forced to act as they do. Of course, the above is only one view at things, but imho the greenest shots of HP (besides the 'catchy' universe and complex story) are those moral aspects, which are presented to a huge audience, who might otherwise doesn't care much for or think about such aspects of life. Regards Nikolaj From javalorum at yahoo.ca Wed Aug 8 20:38:54 2007 From: javalorum at yahoo.ca (javalorum) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:38:54 -0000 Subject: Slow Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174849 "Steve" wrote: > > Dumbledore continues to explain that he did not want > Harry to discover the nature and existence of the > Hallows until just the right time, so Harry's > 'hot head' would not overrule his 'good heart'. > Java: I'm sure this has been brought up before. Did Dumbledore said why he couldn't take out Voldie himself? I still don't get this. I know it's basic. Does Dumbledore just like making elaborate schemes so much, likes being the wise sage in the background, that he would rather kill himself to let somebody else gets all the credit? He's supposed to be a way better wizard. Even if Harry has all the blood advantage, Dumbledore still has a better chance at beating Voldemort. If only if he had thought about destroying Voldemort himself, (instead of reading too much LoTR and prefers to be Gandalf instead of Frodo,) I'm sure he'd have made a perfect plan to do so. He's that good. I know this is a story about Harry. But it's kind of boring that all Harry does (starting with book 5) is trying to figure out the massive puzzle Dumbledore leaves him. Voldemort is merely a tool for the teacher-pupil pair to experiment on. From marycosola at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 20:21:58 2007 From: marycosola at yahoo.com (seriousschwartz) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:21:58 -0000 Subject: missing 24 hours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174850 >"luna_loco" wrote: > > This reasoning still leaves one big question unanswered: How did > > Dumbledore know that Lily sacrificed her life for Harry? Unless one > > of the devices Dumbledore kept in his office was able to provide the > > needed information, the answer to this question is still unknown. > > > > seriousschwartz: My guess was DD figured it out from a crime-scene reconstruction, a CSI-WW, if you will. (How awesome would THAT show be?!) Given where the bodies were found, whether they were armed, and so on would allow DD or minstry folks to figure out how the events of that evening unfolded. Then, the fact that Harry didn't die and Voldemort disappeared might have given DD the clue that something protected Harry, his best guess being Lily's love. Serious Schwartz From blg200 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 8 19:55:35 2007 From: blg200 at hotmail.com (ishalou2000) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:55:35 -0000 Subject: Wands (Was: Inconsistencies) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174851 I think the Elder Wand is different than other wands. Other wands chose their owners. Think back to Harry first trying out wands in Ollivander's Shop. If you believe the lore about the Elder Wand, it didn't select its owner. Death created it and handed over to one of the Three Brothers. It makes sense to me that this particular wand would be different than other wands and could change allegiances to the one who wins it. ishalou2000 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 21:36:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:36:37 -0000 Subject: Off-page Snape (Was: Character construction) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174852 lizzyben wrote: > > As we now know, the ending was always supposed to involve Harry beating Voldemort while the world cheers, so Snape's prominence became a definite problem. This nasty unlikeable man has more fans than her heros! What's wrong with people? Right, Snape is staying off-page in DH. > Carol responds: It's a bit difficult to have a big reveal about an on-page character. Snape must be presented in the first chapter as seemingly evil, a follow-up to the tower scene as perceived by Harry and "supported" by the detail of George's ear. Harry has vowed never to forgive Snape; he has stated twice that he wants to meet him and get vengeance for Snape's murder. The narrator, of course, reinforces Harry's view with the snake/Snape comment I quoted in an earlier post. We get glimpses of Snape--the first line of his acceptance speech, the Patronus that many readers guessed was his, the supposedly horrible detention, Snape-fan Phineas Nigellus's information, which surely comes straight from Snape, the fake sword he sends to Gringotts (snape fooled? How likely is that?), the decrees he's posting knowing full well what happened when Umbridge posted them, kids allowed to go home for the holidays, Ginny banned from Hogsmeade (could there be something there to protect her from?), and so on. Snape is off-page, but he's very much on Harry's mind. And then we get the scene with McGonagall, a glimpse of Snape's personality as headmaster--calm and suave and in control until McG throws daggers at him, and even then using only defensive spells, jumping out the window and flying away! The death scene is tragic and ironic, Snape fearing not death but dying without delivering his message. And then the memories he needs to give to Harry--not random memories of DE days or fights with his parents but those that relate specifically to Lily and Harry and DD (and, BTW, confirm that James was a "toerag") enable Harry simultaneously to lose all hatred of Snape or desire for revenge on him *and* present himself as a sacrifice, which he would not have known to do without Snape. JKR *can't* show Snape on-page talking to DD's portrait or trying to save Lupin until the Pensieve memory. And he only *starts out* loving Lily but caring nothing about Harry. (How could he realistically have cared about James, whose death BTW is neither heroic nor a sacrifice but simple murder like Cedric's?) Snape moves from a DE whom DD holds in contempt to someone he can trust to watch Quirrell to a man whose bravery he praises and for whose life-long love of Lily he can shed a tear, from a man who didn't care about Harry's possible death to a man who spends his life protecting him even when he thinks Harry has to die in the end, never wanting his protection, the "best" in him, to be known--a man who has watched many people die, but "lately only those whom I could not save." Snape as headmaster helps Harry and protects the students--off-page, true, but we get just enough hints to have a good idea how he does it. BTW, we have a chance to see just how Voldemort's Legilimency works when he looks into Gregorovitch's mind and sees the young thief, Grindelwald. And we also see him looking into *Snape's* mind in chapter 1 and coming away satisfied, foiled, "hoodwinked," by Snape's "superb Occlumency." To have lied to the Dark Lord without detection for all those years is quite a feat. Snape is my favorite character, still and always, and I would have loved to see more of him on-page. But to think that he died accomplishing nothing or unredeemed is, I think, to badly misread what's on the page. And as for not seeing Harry forgive him, we don't need to. It happens without his conscious awareness as he moves through the memories. The contrast between his hatred of Snape before his death and his very public vindication of Snape afterwards speaks for itself, and the tribute in the epilogue shows that he still holds that view nineteen years later. Snape's courage and perseverance and devotion to duty and loyalty to a man who used him are just as evident as his love for Lily, which starts out selfish but does not remain so, as are Snape's many talents, which are there for anyone who reads the text to see. Carol, wondering if Snape could have saved himself from death with a healing spell if he had really wished to do so From guzuguzu at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 21:51:04 2007 From: guzuguzu at yahoo.com (guzuguzu) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:51:04 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174853 guzu wrote: > > Regarding the Bellatrix - Molly duel: > > > I found this scene to be completely > > ridiculous, actually. I'm leaving aside any moral issues, as I find > > them so muddy in DH anyway. We have a notoriously violent serial > > killer, who has taken down aurors and other veteran warriors, > >versus a housewife, who we have no reason to believe has any > >experience or particular skill as a warrior. Yet, *hundreds* of > >people stand and watch the fight and do NOTHING? Yes, I know a few > >girls try to help and Molly shoos them off... No stunning spells > >from the crowd? No Expelliarmus even? Not even from Ginny, who we > >were told repeatedly in HBP was very magically strong? It made no > >logical sense for Molly to win that fight, nor for everyone else to > >stand around enjoying the show. I agree that it did fit in with the > >larger message of DH, which was that apparently what you really need > >to defeat evil is dumb luck. > va32h: > Putting aside the highly offensive suggestion that "housewives" are > inherently incapable of any particular skill... guzu: It's not "any particular skill"-- it's battling a violently insane murderer. I don't believe it is offensive to assume a housewife does not have the skills of a trained warrior or assassin; nor offensive to assume Molly in particular has no experience dueling or using real violence at all. > va32h: > The Molly-Bellatrix duel seems to me to be clearly symbolic: Mother > Molly takes down Barren Bella. > (snip) > > When Molly says "you will never hurt our children again" she's not > referring to the Weasleys - she's referring to all children. The > hateful regime of Voldemort, as represented in that moment by > Bellatrix, will never hurt the future of the wizarding world again. Mother love is a huge motif in the series. guzu again: Yes, I realize this this is Rowling's point-- mother love conquers all (except when it doesn't-- See Tonks and the Albanian woman who Voldemort killed while she was shielding her children). It still doesn't excuse the scene for me-- there were ways Molly could have taken out Bellatrix that would have been more realistic and in character, and less (as someone else mentioned upthread) like an action movie scene. For me it's not the concept that's wrong, it's the execution (no pun intended!) of the scene. From monica.boukhalfa at verizonbusiness.com Wed Aug 8 21:01:16 2007 From: monica.boukhalfa at verizonbusiness.com (Boukhalfa, Monica M) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:01:16 +0000 Subject: Wands (Was: Inconsistencies) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98D429A6652B1340A78E486F9E3A244801B75A82@ASHEVS003.mcilink.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174854 Ken says: "'Fraid not. Draco becomes the master of the Elder wand when he beats Dumbledore even though he never touches it thereafter. When Harry beats Draco, carrying whatever wand (both of them) he becomes the new master of the Elder wand even though it was not even present at the confrontation. At no time does Harry become master of Draco's wand, in fact there are several instances in DH of people using other people's wands and complaining how they don't seem to work so well for them. It is ONLY the Elder wand which changes its allegiance from master to master when its existing master is bested by a new one. Monica now: Hmmm... not quite. In the book Ollivander states upon inspection of Draco's wand, "this wand used to belong to Draco Malfoy" or something to that effect. So here is canon proof that Draco's wand did change allegiance. Tadaaa!!! Monica, who really enjoyed the wand-lore part of the book. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Aug 8 22:26:12 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:26:12 -0000 Subject: The spiders (Re: The Joke's on Me) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174855 > > Doddie here: > > I actually thought that when the acromantulas made it to the castle > and Hagrid yelled, "No, don't hurt 'em"..that he was actually > telling the spiders not to hurt the students.. rather than Hagrid > yelling at folks not to hurt the spiders. > > LOL > > as if JKR hadn't pounded us over our heads with Hagrid's love of > dangerous creatures in ALL the books. > > I still blush and giggle at my mistake each time I read about the > acromantulas carrying Hagrid off.. > > Doddie > Hickengruendler: That scene came pretty close to made me hate Hagrid completely. At least it's ambigous enough, that I can still pretend, he was caring for the students here, but sadly I *fear* you are right and he told them not to hurt the spiders. Let's just say that I think it was a very wise decision from JKR not to have the spiders kill anyone (at least on-page), because it would IMO have been the destruction of Hagrid as a character. By the way, were Aragog's children working for the Death Eaters, or were they there on their own accord, because the walls of the castle had broken down? At first I thought they were with Voldie, but during rereading I realised, that the Death Eaters ran away from them as well. So maybe they just came up there because of the multitude of flesh? From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 21:33:22 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:33:22 -0000 Subject: Disappointment and Responsibility (was Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174856 > lizzyben: > I've really struggled to figure out *what*, exactly, was the > theme of this series. What was JKR trying to say? Why did she > write 7 books about this? Based on the epilogue, it seems like > it was intended to have a simple message of good brave > Gryffindors beat the bad guys. Is that worth a series? These > novels do not seem Christian to me, in the sense of embracing > tolerance, forgiveness, non-judgment etc. There's a distinctly > Old Testament flavor to the books. Okay, this brings up a very good point. I think, and I don't mean this as a criticism, that a lot of the problem is that over the years people have read all sorts of messages and meanings into the text JKR did not intend, and when she made some matters more clear in DH, it brought out a lot of disappointment. Now, this is inevitable in any book, but it was a special problem for the Potterverse due to a large number of factors. First of all, I don't want to criticise JKR's writing in this message. Not that I find it in any way above criticism, or that I think she is without responsibility with regard to these controversies. Far from it. She has been, at the very least, disingenuous and inconsistent in both canon and secondary canon (i.e. interviews and explanatory messages). But I want to focus on another factor, here -- one where readers bear at least a large share of the -- well, I don't want to say "blame," as that is such a loaded word, so let's just say "responsibility." Let's look at two instances in particular, just by way of example: the Christian nature of the books and the specific instance of Sirius' comment about the division of the world. With regard to the Christian nature of the books, let me reveal that I myself am a member, whether a faithful one or not I leave it to others to judge, of the Greek Orthodox Church. Now, Christianity, viewed as a set of ideas, is ancient, incredibly complex, often subtle, and wonderfully heterogenous. Its relationships with other faiths are likewise ancient, complex, subtle, shifting, and difficult to unravel. To cite just one example, the Old Testament of which lizzyben speaks is not at all the same set of books as the Hebrew Bible, even if the words are actually identical. That is, the meaning, interpretation, and use of the words, sentences, and stories is different, sometimes radically so. A Christian citing the Book of Isaiah and a Jew citing the Book of Isaias are citing two very different books even when quoting exactly the same words. And two Christians quoting Isaiah will likely mean very different things (as, I strongly suspect, would two Rabbis quoting Isaias). To focus more on literature, the arguable Ethical Calvinism of Rowling is quite different from the Catholicism of Tolkien, the Broad Church Anglicanism of Lewis, the Symbolic Romanticism of Williams, the Narrative Romanticism of Lawhead, the Episcopalian Spiritualism of L'Engle, or the Fundamentalist Literalism of LeHaye. It is therefore not surprising that when she talked about being a Christian people read all sorts of meanings into that she did not intend, and were therefore disappointed when her intent was more fully revealed. With regard to Sirius statement that the world is not divided into good people and Death Eaters, here the issue is even more complex. I understand and acknowledge that, even taking that statement at face value, there are problems with the way that JKR plays the theme out in the text, or fails to play it out as the case may be. I reiterate, I do not see JKR as having no responsbility in this matter. However, it seems to me in this example that some people were wanting her to have said something very different than what, in fact, was literally put down in the text. That is, they were wanting Sirius to have said "The world is not divided into people who are nice to you and people who hate you and mean you ill." They wanted this to play out particularly, to use loaded examples, with the Slytherins, particularly Snape and Draco. They wanted, it seems, Snape to not REALLY hate and bear ill-will toward Harry -- his cruelty was to have been an act, or a legitimate teaching method designed to teach Harry what he had to know, or an artifact of Harry's skewed perceptions. Draco's attitude likewise was to have been a result of petty, not-serious childhood rivalry and/or Harry's prejudice. Draco was to have been revealed to have been a boy much like Harry who really just wanted to be friends. Well, the trouble is that ISN'T what JKR said. Sirius DIDN'T say "The world isn't divided into people who are nice to you and people who hate you and bear you ill will." Regardless of the merits of such a message, that just isn't what's there. Snape DID hate Harry and bear him ill-will, if not always in the way Harry believed (but usually in the way Harry believed). Draco DID hate Harry and bear him ill-will, almost exactly in the way Harry believed. In this regard, to say something controversial, JKR might be justified in answering the charge, "You lied to us!" with a rejoinder "Errr, no. You lied to yourself." Lupinlore, who points out there are many other examples that might fit in such a discussion, and who once again points out that he does not feel JKR to be without responsibility. From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 22:36:55 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:36:55 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174857 guzu: > > Yes, I realize this this is Rowling's point-- mother love conquers all > (except when it doesn't-- See Tonks and the Albanian woman who > Voldemort killed while she was shielding her children). It still > doesn't excuse the scene for me-- there were ways Molly could have > taken out Bellatrix that would have been more realistic and in > character, and less (as someone else mentioned upthread) like an > action movie scene. For me it's not the concept that's wrong, it's the > execution (no pun intended!) of the scene. > Lisa: Oh, I disagree with this entirely. First of all, the Tonks analogy is sort of out of place here -- Tonks died joining her husband in battle, to assist him in ridding the world of evil, and she left her child in good hands. Would "I" have done it? Well, I guess if I was an auror and I thought I could be of help, perhaps; but personally, I'd've not gone. But the "mother's love conquers all" thing? I don't think Rowling believes this nor do I think she implies such a thing when she has Molly charge Bellatrix. Molly's actions were fueled by loss and fury and desperation, as well as love for her children. I think it's totally in character for Molly -- or any mother -- to protect her child. Much like adrenaline kicks in for us Muggles, allowing us to do things we'd never have thought possible, I would assume super-magic kicks in for witches and wizards, in such situations. Entirely believeable, for that particular character and for the situation in general, to me. Lisa From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 23:02:56 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:02:56 -0000 Subject: Wands (Was: Inconsistencies) In-Reply-To: <46B9A117.3090506@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174858 Lee: jlnbtr blessed us with this gem On 04/08/2007 07:22: Juli now: Are you being ironic? sarcastic? Katie: If disarming someone was enough to gain control of their wand... Juli (before): I think wand ownership only changes in a real duel. Lee: No, Juli, I think Katie's on the right track. How many times in seven books have we seen Expelliarmus used for real, and there was never any hint of a change of ownership. Juli now: You're absolutely right, but ALL those times, the wand was handed back to the original owner, therefore (I guess) giving back its alliegance to the original master. Anyway, those itsy bitsy details don't bother me so much, all I care for was that Harry won the Elder Wand from Draco when he took his Hawthrone wand, and Draco had taken it from Dumbledore. If there're inconsistencies, fine by me. Juli From erikog at one.net Wed Aug 8 23:00:17 2007 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:00:17 -0000 Subject: Off-page Snape and Snape questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174859 Carol writes: > wondering if Snape could have saved himself from death with a > healing spell if he had really wished to do so I want JKR to write 2 encyclopedias, I admit--the regular one she's promised, and an all-Snape one. And this is one of the topics I want JKR to eventually address--why did we learn Snape could do complex healing spells by voice alone? What was the point of that scene with Harry, Draco, and Snape in HBP? Sure, it helped the reader to connect Snape to Sectumsempra, but otherwise, why did Snape need to display such dramatic healing powers? In the rest of the book, his healing powers can be connected with his skill in potions (Katie's necklace, for example)--but not this one. So what gives with this glimpse of Snape, master of healing skills? I also want to know what happened that made Snape so very, very bitter about showing affection/emotion. While Snape/Lilly might explain his distaste for student love in general, it doesn't explain how he acts as if any display of emotion is something to be mocked, and mocked heavily. Before, when we theorized he got the name "Snivellus" from being emotional/crying easily, that would have explained this--he was horrified by his youthful emotions and how they set him up to be a social victim. But now that we know he didn't get the name for any such reason, there's no specific reason given from the leap between Early Snape (definitely an introvert, but able to express his emotions--see the whole sitting by Gryffindor Tower incident) and Bitter Snape ("fools who wear their hearts on their sleeves," mocking Tonks' patronus as "weak," etc.) Krista From leahstill at hotmail.com Wed Aug 8 23:05:58 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:05:58 -0000 Subject: I am about to rant/the hardest part In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174860 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kenneth9840" wrote: >> > > This is the Potterverse we are talking about here, a world where > wizards and witches with considerable magical powers exist, Leah: We don't have magical powers in our world, but we do have powers that only a few can devise and make work, powers for example that made one Muggle by the name of Oppenheimer say, "I am become Shiva, the destroyer of worlds". We can eliminate other species, we can poison the world, or we can eradicate disease and breed better foodstuffs. There's a lot of power around out there. where the > school for kids regularly has children in hospital with pretty severe > complaints, and where occasionally they die, Yes,children get fairly serious complaints in our world too, and sometimes they die. where witches die due to > failed magical experiments, In our world people die because the machines they invented crash or because they've overused the drugs they invented, or because a mine or a factory has polluted the ground. where sometimes magic is so > uncontrollable people end up in St Mungo's or hidden away at home, We have Alzheimers and schizophrenia and manic depression, and people end up in hospital with those conditions and sometimes they are hidden away at home. We have people with conditions that haven't been diagnosed or aren't medicated and they can be uncontrollable. We have belief systems that can be interpreted as making it ok to kill others. > where the aforesaid St Mungos is full of people with permanent > magical conditions. See above > > Dont foist the morality of Little Britain or Middle America on to > such an environment. No, piety won't do it in the Potterverse or here. But people have thought throughout the centuries that this world, which is so like the Potterverse, has needed something to live by. Do you think the morality of eg. The Gospels, or Buddism is easy?. I'd have far less trouble myself with flinging a Crucio than with returning good for evil. Its a tough place, the Potterverse, a place > where despite the best intentions of its occupants the Unforgivables > are regularly threatened and often used and where other spells are > used which have effects that in a non-magical world would be > unacceptable. Whereas building concentration camps or planting landmines, or evicting people from their land or making soldiers out of children, or blowing yourself up in a crowded building, or bombing cities, have effects which are perfectly acceptable. Harry is a part of that world, not ours, with powers > of that world. Given that I am surprised he didn't use more of the > Unforgiveables in DH, given the situations he found himself time > after time. > > Ask yourself. Wouldn't you have welcomed the opportunity to Crucio > Bellatrix, given half a chance? Yes, I certainly would. I'd have probably sunk to her level. But I haven't been the hero of a series of books which appeared to show the possibility of making other choices. Leah From va32h at comcast.net Wed Aug 8 23:20:14 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:20:14 -0000 Subject: Wands (Was: Inconsistencies) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174861 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kenneth9840" wrote: > "'Fraid not. > > Draco becomes the master of the Elder wand when he beats Dumbledore > even though he never touches it thereafter. When Harry beats >Draco, carrying whatever wand (both of them) he becomes the new >master of the Elder wand even though it was not even present at the >confrontation. > At no time does Harry become master of Draco's wand, in fact there va32h: 'Fraid so. Reference pg 494, US edition. Harry asks Ollivander: "I took this wand from Draco Malfoy by force; can I use it safely?" Ollivander says: "I think so. Subtle laws govern wand ownership, but the conquered wand will usually bend it's will to ITS NEW MASTER." (emphasis mine) Ken: > This of course still leaves the question of when the Elder wand becomes > aware of a change of masters. Does the Elder wand know that Harry is > its master when Voldemort AKs him in the forest? If so then Harry is > doubly protected, both by his shared blood and by being the master of > the wand being used against him. Or does the Elder wand know that > Harry is its master only when he proclaims himself so in the last > confrontation with Voldemort in the Great Hall? va32h: The Elder Wand recognizes that it was defeated by Draco's wand (hereafter referred to as "the hawthorn wand". The Elder Wand does not yet know the wizard who wields that wand - but it recognizes that wand as the wand that defeated it. Harry realizes this during is wandlore revelation moment with Ollivander, which is probably why he stops worrying about Voldemort having the Elder Wand from there after. The Elder Wand did not recognize Harry in the forest, because Harry very deliberately did not raise his (the hawthorn) wand against it. If he had - Voldemort's AK would not have worked (the Elder Wand would have met its master - the hawthorn wand). In the Great Hall confrontation, Voldemort casts another AK at Harry, and Harry wields the hawthorn wand - the Elder Wand recognizes its master (again - the wand, not Harry) and refuses to work against it. Harry then picks up the Elder Wand - thus allowing the Elder Wand to recognize Harry himself as its new master. Which is why Harry can go on to use his phoenix and holly wand, and still be the master of the Elder Wand. va32h From va32h at comcast.net Wed Aug 8 23:27:22 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:27:22 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174863 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "guzuguzu" wrote: > > guzu wrote: > It's not "any particular skill"-- it's battling a violently insane > murderer. I don't believe it is offensive to assume a housewife does > not have the skills of a trained warrior or assassin; nor offensive to > assume Molly in particular has no experience dueling or using real > violence at all. va32h: Because only trained warriors and assasins can kill anybody? I'm neither, but I know how to shoot a gun, and I expect that if a violently insane murderer burst into my home and tried to kill my children, I'd summon up the nerve to use it. Why do you assume Molly has no experience duelling? She went to Hogwarts, she would have taken the same Defense Against the Dark Arts classes that Hermione, Luna, and Ginny took. If you can believe that three female students can successfully duel Bellatrix, why do you assume that Molly can't? And whether you believe you were offensive or not - you sure as heck offended me. va32h, a housewife perfectly capable of kicking ass and taking names should the occasion call for it. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 23:35:59 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:35:59 -0000 Subject: Slow Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174864 > Steve/bboyminn > > Harry and Dumbledore are talking about the Hallows - > > Harry askes "Why did you have to make it so diffult?" > > and Dumbledore response - > > "I am afraid I counted on Miss Granger to slow you up, > Harry." > > Dumbledore continues to explain that he did not want > Harry to discover the nature and existence of the > Hallows until just the right time, so Harry's > 'hot head' would not overrule his 'good heart'. > > I don't understand how Hermione was suppose to > slow them down. > > I really don't understand how and why Dumbledore > would count on Hermione slowing the process down. > Mike: I think Dumbledore is giving a two pronged answer. First, he gave the book to Hermione, not Ron. Hermione is going to disect the book, look for clues, translate runes, that kind of thing. She will not think this "fairy tale" is the whole clue. Ron, having heard these fairy tales growing up, will know this one. Then the simple thinking Ron will take the straight forward approach, Dumbledore gave me the story so it must be true. The second has been mentioned by the other respondants in this thread. Once the trio has worked out the meaning of the book, that the Hallows *do* exist, Hermione is the least likely to believe it. This, of course is also where Dumbledore was counting on Hermione to insist they continue to follow his orders to destroy the Horcruxes. As we see, if there was enough of a delay, Voldemort was sure to get to the wand before Harry could. Iirc, Harry didn't know where the Elder Wand was until he read it from Voldemort's mind, by which time it was too late. Mike, wondering why Dumbledore even brought up the Hallows as a temptation in the first place. From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 23:44:57 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Transition Hating Snape to Not Hating Snape (was 7 reasons why - The Glass is Half Empty) In-Reply-To: <01d701c7d9e6$cc0eb590$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> Message-ID: <332508.65955.qm@web55002.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174865 Shelley: [snip] >Again, it's not about the letter- it's about the letter, Snape's memories, >maybe a pep talk with Dumbledore about it, the insight into Harry's thoughts >of reflection to show his change in thinking- there's a lot wrong or missing >with that transition. She didn't make us feel it too, she didn't let those >of us who thought Snape was pure evil or out for himself to really come >around and have that change in thought with Harry, so that we could share >his fond memory of Snape years later. [snip] Please don't speak for me ... I was of those who, by the end of HBP, thought Snape was out for himself -- loyal neither to Voldemort nor Dumbledore; loyal only to Snape. (I wanted him to be loyal to Dumbledore, but couldn't quite believe it. As a fictional character I love his complexity and ambiguity, but I could find very little to like about him.) However, I easily came around in DH and was able to "share [Harry's] fond memory of Snape..." First of all -- I don't want to get hung up on the letter -- really I don't -- but I do not place nearly the importance on it that others do. Taken on face value the first time we see it, it is not a clue to Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore (as you asserted in a piece I snipped) -- if anything its a clue as to Dumbledore's less-than-perfect past. Given the fact that the room Harry found it in was ransacked and given the number of years ago it was written, my simple mind could easily write off the missing second page. (Sometimes JKR gives us Details -- which foreshadow -- and sometimes she just give us details --- which completes the scene or titillates. And considering the second page completed Lily's thought about Dumbledore and Rita Skeeter has us curious about Dumbledore's past, the letter does indeed titillate. Had we never seen it again, it nevertheless served a purpose.) That said, I think Harry and I go through a similar transition from vilifying to revering Snape. However, since a part of me wants him to be a "good guy," I'm more open to the possibility and therefore I get there a little bit before Harry does. My first step is in Chapter 15, The Goblin's Revenage, when we learn that Snape punished Ginny, Neville, and Luna by sending "them into the Forbidden Forest, to do some work for the oaf, Hagrid." Harry's reaction is the same as mine ("...Snape might've thought that was punishment...but Ginny, Neville, and Luna probably had a good laugh with Hagrid...") (p. 302 US) However, unlike Harry, I wonder if perhaps Snape doesn't really think that is punishment at all, but chose it because he knew that others would. At this point, I decide to start giving him the benefit of the doubt (whereas after chapters 1 and 5, I'm afraid that he really is the "bad guy" I suspected he was). The second step in my transition occurs in Chapter 19, The Silver Doe. I just knew that that Patronus belonged to Snape -- it was logical to me: James's animagus form was a stag, Lily was his wife, the mate of a stag is a doe; I suspected something between Lily and Snape, therefore, since we know both James and Lily are dead, the Patronus must belong to someone else who loved her -- Snape. (I first suspected something back in the beginning of OOTP when Petunia mentioned that awful boy talking about dementors -- I don't have my copy of the book so I'm paraphrasing -- for whatever reason, I never consider the boy was James. That suspicion grew after reading Snape's Worse Memory in OOTP -- Snape calling Lily a mudblood was too hurtful -- you can only be hurt by those you care about and all that. I didn't know what was between them -- friendship, puppy love, unrequited love, but I suspected something. And, of course, JKR dropped a vague or two.) So, at that point, I'm willing to accept that Snape probably is a good guy after all. Harry, of course, doesn't make the connection between the doe and Snape that I and many others do. Nevertheless, he recognizes the doe as a Patronus ("..or was the doe, which he had taken to be a Patronus..." p.368 US) and fully accepts her and her help without question -- "He felt that he had been waiting for her to come, but that he had forgotten, until this moment, that they had arranged to meet...He knew, he would have staked his life on it, that she had come for him, and him alone." (p. 366 US) And he accepts that someone is helping him. ("Whoever cast the Patronus must have put [the sword] there." p. 373 US) The next step comes in Chapter 30, The Sacking of Severus Snape. Umm ... just realized something ... at the sight of Snape, "Hatred boiled up in Harry at the sight of him..." (p. 597) Giiven all the debate over Harry's use of the Cruciatus Curse only a few pages before, it's interesting that we don't see the supposedly morally deficient Harry raise his wand beneath his Invisibility Cloak and use his newly acquired skill against this man who he hates so much. I'm sure that that can't be because he knows its wrong to torture and perhaps doesn't want to repeat his lapse in judgment. I'm sorry I digress ... To get back to my point, when McGonagall attacks Snape, Snape, whom we know knows some pretty nasty spells, uses mainly defensive spells. I have no doubt he could have seriously harmed McGonagall before the other professors arrived if he wanted to or that he could have taken out Flitwick or Sprout or both before he fled. Of course, Harry, a witness to the confrontation between his old professors, still isn't as for along as I am in accepting Snape as a probable good guy. In fact I'm sure he agrees when McGonagall cries, "Coward! Coward!" to the retreating Snape. (Poor Severus; twice now he's been run out of Hogwarts with people calling him coward.) Then, Harry witnesses the exchange between Voldemort and Snape in the Shrieking Shack in Chapter 32, The Elder Wand" and watches as Nagini attacks Snape on Voldemort's command. Then, after Voldemort leaves, as Snape lays dying, "As quietly as he could, [Harry] pulled himself up into the room...He did not know why he was doing it, why he was approaching the dying man: He did not know what he felt as he saw Snape's white face, and the fingers trying to staunch the bloody wound at his neck. Harry took off the Invisibility Cloak and looked down upon the man he hated..." (p. 657) and he took possession of the memories Snape offered him. Harry has to be wondering, "why was Snape so intent on finding me? Why is he giving me -- the boy who violated his privacy by viewing his memories in a pensieve without permission -- memories now? What's so important that he is doing this as he dies? I believe at this moment, Harry is starting to wonder about Snape and his own beliefs about the man. Maybe here he starts to see not the cruel teacher, not the Death Eater, not the murderer, but the student who wrote notes in the margins of his potions book, whom Harry once thought was brilliant and cool, and the man that Dumbledore insisted that he trusted. If he previous convictions about Snape were so strong here, I believe he would have walked away. So then, we see Harry view Snape's memories in Chapter 33, The Prince's Tale (interesting that the chapter title harkens back to the boy who wrote in the margins). We and Harry together see a childhood friendship between Snape and Lily, we see Snape apologizing to Lily for calling her a mudblood (I wonder what Snape would have said if Lily hadn't cut him off and walked away?), we see Snape afraid and remorseful as he tells Dumbledore that Voldemort means to kill Lily, we see Snape mourning Lily's death wishing he were dead, we see Snape agreeing to protect Lily's son while begging Dumbledore not to tell anyone ("My word, Severus, that I shall never reveal the best of you?"), we see Snape's indignation when Dumbledore tells him that Lily's son must die (and don't we feel more than a little betrayed by and angry at Dumbledore too?), and we see him leave with the sword and we see his doe Patronus (the same Patronus that brought Harry the sword -- the Patronus that seemed so familiar -- perhaps it was familiar because of its connection to two people who have protected him, not just one) and we know that Snape has loved Lily for the past 30 years (give or take). (And the fact the second page of the letter shows up is no more that a "ah ha -- that's what happened to it" moment for me.) Everything that Harry believes about Snape is tossed out the window by those memories. Um, not unlike everything he believed about Sirius was tossed out the window when he learned the truth about who really was his parents' Secret Keeper. Bottomline: He learns the truth and with knowledge comes forgiveness. We see tangible evidence that Harry sees Snape differently during his 'Snape was Dumbledore's man' speech to Voldemort (in front of witnesses) and, of course, again when we learn his second son's middle name is Severus. Since we see Harry tell the truth about Snape as he faces off against Voldemort, I think we can be assured that he continued telling that truth over the years. I actually like how JKR resolved the Harry/Snape issue -- As I have said before in other threads, I would have found a Hallmark moment between them far-fetched and therefore totally unbelievable given their past relationship. And let's remember that Harry is processing all this new information he receives about Snape in a very short period of time -- he had seven years to form his initial opinions. Christy --------------------------------- Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 00:10:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:10:49 -0000 Subject: Aberforth Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174866 Just to lighten things up a little, I think that one prediction most if not all of us got right was that the Hog's Head bartender and DD's brother Aberforth were one and the same, and that he was the Order member we'd met but didn't properly know. Just out of curiosity (I'm addressing the group in general), what were your expectations for him and how close to the mark were they? What's your reaction to the character as he's presented? Is he just a plot device? A foil to Albus? Something else? Any symbolism involved with his opaque glasses but bright blue eyes? His goat Patronus? If we think that Snape has a hard time letting go of Lily, what are we to think of Aberforth and Ariana (and, no; I am not talking about an incestuous affection, only a lifetime obsession)? BTW, I read "unlettered" as a relative statement in contrast to the highly literate Albus and his dear friend, Gellert: "lacking facility in reading and writing and ignorant of the knowledge to be gained from books" (Merriam-Webster Online) as opposed to unable to write his name or read a book title. I don't think that a student could get through even his first year at Hogwarts without knowing how to read at least as well as the average eight- or nine-year-old even if he's not reading at his age level or grade level. I would be very surprised if he literally couldn't read, as Albus rather facetiously (and unkindly) suggested in an earlier book. I just doubt that he ever chose to do so for entertainment or voluntary intellectual advancement. (Side note: I think Crabbe and Goyle were a little too stupid to be believed, but Aberforth is in a different league.) Is he wiser than DD in your view, or are they both mistaken in their perceptions of each other? Any guesses as to which House he was in? (Another side note: I looked up the etymology of Ariana, which turns out to be a variant form of Ariadne, the name of the princess who rescued Theseus from the Minotaur and was later abandoned by him. Here's the etymology of Ariadne, assuming that Yahoo can replicate the Greek characters: Means "most holy", composed of the Cretan Greek elements (ari) "most" and α (adnos) "holy". http://www.behindthename.com/php/view.php?name=ariadne ) Carol, not looking for a "right reading" of Aberforth (or Ariana), only a variety of thoughts and opinions, preferably canon-based and tasting faintly of butterbeer From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 00:17:50 2007 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:17:50 -0000 Subject: 7 reasons why - The Glass is Half Empty. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174867 > Julie H: > Part of the "ick" factor, even for some of us who were always in the DDM!Snape camp, is > that the "prince's tale" chapter didn't provide the expected redemptive payoff. As > portrayed in the revelatory chapter, Snape appears motivated only by remose and > obsessive love for the dead object of his affections. HIs dislike of all students but the > Slytherins, and Harry in particular, is very real, not just part of his double-agent cover. He > never appears to have gotten beyond the notion that he has to protect Harry because of > his regret that Lily is dead, and because of Harry's physical resemblance to Lily (ah, the > importance of those eyes). Most disturbingly, his allegiances never are clear, imo. He > appears to be DDM grudgingly, almost in spite of himself, through some idea that this is > what he owes Lily -- not through any growing realization that DD's side is indeed morally > superior to LV's side. He does not seem to have progressed from "I'm suffering because I > lost Lily" to "I want to be DDM because i'd rather serve good than serve evil." He does not, > really, appear to have transcended his fascination with the dark side, other than the choice > he made that resulted in Lily's death. He is DDM solely because he loves Lily, not because > he loves DD or hates LV. Jack-A-Roe: Perception. I think alot of the unresolved feelings you and others have is that "you" went into DH expecting there to be a resolution between Harry and Snape. It could be because you believed that Snape was DDM and were able to overlook Snape actions and attitude towards Harry. I came from the opposite side. I never liked Snape (I had a teacher sort of like him). I didn't feel that if I was Harry, after viewing the memories, I would suddenly name my child after this man. I agree completely with your description above of his obsessive love, etc. The only thing that saves him naming his son Severus is that he believes that Snape was brave. I can live with that and I don't need a few sentences telling me more. I'm not sure Harry ever forgot exactly how Snape acted toward him and any sort of face to face resolution would have seemed forced to me because I don't believe you could have ever gotten the two of them to have a civil discussion. Jack-A-Roe From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Aug 9 00:28:24 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:28:24 -0000 Subject: DH as Christian Allegory (was Classical & Biblical Quotations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174868 > > >>Monica: > > Radical change occurs primarily within people themselves, rather > > than on an outward level. Perhaps this is what happened in the case > > of Harry. > > > > Betsy Hp: > If it did it all happened off-page. Which means (since this is the > end of the series) that it didn't happen. Harry doesn't change after > his fight with Voldemort. He's pretty much the same boy as ever. > Which, again, reflects the lack of epic, IMO. And makes it hard to > link with the Christ story. Pippin: You know, I've seen hundreds of copies of DH by now, and none of them are marked "Teacher's Edition." There's no answer key in the back of the book, IOW. I'm amazed that this is considered some kind of flaw. Hamlet begs Horatio to "report me and my cause aright to the unsatisfied" -- but we never get to hear that report. The meaning of the "carnal, bloody and unnatural acts, of accidental judgements, casual slaughters, of deaths put on by cunning and forced cause, and, in this upshot, purposes mistook fall'n on the inventors heads" is left to the audience's imagination, not to mention the analysis of centuries, and people are still arguing about it. Are we to conclude that Hamlet never changed, because Shakespeare doesn't neatly sum up how a callow princeling fell into a death spiral of murder and revenge? And aren't we left to decide for ourselves how much of Hamlet's madness was feigned and how much was genuine? Would you call that a cop out on the part of the Bard? We *know* that Harry changed. He went from saying he would never forgive Snape, never, to saying that Snape was the bravest man he ever knew. We don't know how he got there, *except* that as in Hamlet, we saw what Harry had to do. We saw him learn what it takes to live in hiding and constant fear as a *choice* not because someone was making him to do it. We saw him discover the beauty and tenderness of the doe, and then we saw him realize that his own patronus, the stag, was and always had been part of his own heart. I don't really get where you insist that Slytherin is shown as forever unclean. They were wrong about the pureblood thing, and some of them are still wrong about it, but considering the way the WW as a whole treats Giants, werewolves, etc the other Houses have nothing to boast of there. It's true that we don't see any Slytherins joining Harry in the battle of Hogwarts, but then, unlike Dumbledore, Harry didn't ask them to stand and be counted. That was his, Harry's, mistake, IMO, one of several. (Of course it would take some persuasion for Slytherins to do this, just as it took persuasion to convince Harry not to rush hotheaded into battle.) We *saw* that it takes just as much courage to fight Slytherin fashion, from the shadows, as it does to fight as a Gyffindor. Hero or not, Harry has to make mistakes, terrible ones, otherwise how are we to understand why he can't take up the Elder Wand and use it to right all the wrongs of the WW? We see that he can't because like Dumbledore before him, Harry found that the resolve to use no more force than is necessary was the first casualty of battle. We are shown this -- do we need to be told as well? Really, does anyone think that Amnesty International is going to be upset if most people who read the book conclude that Harry did wrong to use a torture curse and somebody should have said so??? Pippin From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 00:53:44 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:53:44 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174869 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "guzuguzu" wrote: > I don't believe it is offensive to assume a housewife does > not have the skills of a trained warrior or assassin; nor offensive to > assume Molly in particular has no experience dueling or using real > violence at all. You know, I thought that maybe Bella just underestimated Molly, that's all. She didn't take her seriously, Molly was for Bella just that short and plump housewife, who can only be good at household spells, nothing more :-). Bella didn't consider Molly to be a real threat. She changed her attitude halfway through the battle, but she didn't change it enough. She was still laughing and taunting Molly, as if she considered Molly's challenge to be a joke. I think that Sirius is mentioned in this scene not only because his death was about to be avenged, but also because Bellatrix repeated his mistake. Sirius underestimated Bella, and Bella underestimated Molly, IMO. zanooda From guzuguzu at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 00:59:41 2007 From: guzuguzu at yahoo.com (guzuguzu) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:59:41 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174870 guzu: > > guzu wrote: > > It's not "any particular skill"-- it's battling a violently insane > > murderer. I don't believe it is offensive to assume a housewife does not have the skills of a trained warrior or assassin; nor offensive to assume Molly in particular has no experience dueling or using real violence at all. > va32h: > Because only trained warriors and assasins can kill anybody? I'm > neither, but I know how to shoot a gun, and I expect that if a > violently insane murderer burst into my home and tried to kill my > children, I'd summon up the nerve to use it. guzu: Of course you would, even, I'm sure, if they were't your kids, as would many other people, even non-parents. However, if there were hundreds of people in your house would you want them to stand around and watch as you single-handedly tried to shoot the murderer down? Would you *expect* them to stand there? Instead of putting yourself in the position of Molly, put yourself in the position of Ginny. Would you stand there while a murderer went after your mother? > Why do you assume Molly has no experience duelling? She went to > Hogwarts, she would have taken the same Defense Against the Dark Arts classes that Hermione, Luna, and Ginny took. If you can believe that three female students can successfully duel Bellatrix, why do you assume that Molly can't? guzu: Actually, they didn't learn dueling in class, they learned it in Harry's DA club. But for argument's sake let's say Molly was in a dueling club at school-- that was how many years ago? If there had been one mention ever in the books of Molly and dueling, I would say you might have a point, but there isn't. And since you mentioned it, I think it *is* a bit silly that a bunch of kids successfully dueled the Death Eaters when we are repeatedly shown that aurors (an elite team of warriors) were easily overwhelmed by them (the Longbottoms, Scrimgeour, Tonks, Moody, Dawlish, etc). And I am not making any distinction between males and females in battle (I am female, by the way). And I believe it is silly that hundreds of people were standing around, not helping at all. va32h: > And whether you believe you were offensive or not - you sure as heck offended me. > va32h, a housewife perfectly capable of kicking ass and taking names should the occasion call for it. guzu: At the risk of offending you again, let me ask you to clarify your position. Are you saying that it is offensive to assume that a housewife (or a househusband or a lawyer or a baker or a candlestick maker of either gender) would not be as skilled in battle as a soldier or a policeman? That in a battle with a psycho killer a person (male or female) with little to no experience in battle would have the same probability of success as someone with experience and training? Do you think the hundreds of people watching Bellatrix and Molly duel should have assumed that Molly would win? If that's true for you, then we must agree to disagree here. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Aug 9 01:08:42 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 01:08:42 -0000 Subject: Disappointment and Responsibility (was Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174871 Lupinlore: > With regard to Sirius statement that the world is not divided into > good people and Death Eaters, here the issue is even more complex. > I understand and acknowledge that, even taking that statement at > face value, there are problems with the way that JKR plays the > theme out in the text, or fails to play it out as the case may be. > I reiterate, I do not see JKR as having no responsbility in this > matter. > > However, it seems to me in this example that some people were > wanting her to have said something very different than what, in > fact, was literally put down in the text. That is, they were > wanting Sirius to have said "The world is not divided into people > who are nice to you and people who hate you and mean you ill." > They wanted this to play out particularly, to use loaded examples, > with the Slytherins, particularly Snape and Draco. They wanted, > it seems, Snape to not REALLY hate and bear ill-will toward Harry > -- his cruelty was to have been an act, or a legitimate teaching > method designed to teach Harry what he had to know, or an artifact > of Harry's skewed perceptions. Draco's attitude likewise was to > have been a result of petty, not-serious childhood rivalry and/or > Harry's prejudice. Draco was to have been revealed to have been > a boy much like Harry who really just wanted to be friends. > > Well, the trouble is that ISN'T what JKR said. Sirius DIDN'T say > "The world isn't divided into people who are nice to you and people > who hate you and bear you ill will." Regardless of the merits of > such a message, that just isn't what's there. Snape DID hate Harry > and bear him ill-will, if not always in the way Harry believed (but > usually in the way Harry believed). Draco DID hate Harry and bear > him ill-will, almost exactly in the way Harry believed. In this > regard, to say something controversial, JKR might be justified in > answering the charge, "You lied to us!" with a rejoinder "Errr, no. > You lied to yourself." Magpie: Speaking as somebody who fully admits to being wrong in this area, I don't think that's quite what "we" (or I in this case) wanted. It wasn't that characters like Snape and Draco would turn out to really be nice--I for one always thought that they did hate Harry and never considered any of their actions as a "cover" for really helping him or anything like that. What I assumed--and was wrong--was that there would be some kind of new understanding in the end that did involve Harry himself seeing that even with those things being true, he could still have things to learn about them. Not meaning that Harry would say, "Wow, it's my fault you have been nasty to me!" (although I wouldn't mind some moments of that for Harry with some people) but that there'd be some connection. I felt like Harry had no connection with either of those two characters in DH-Harry kind of had a habit of not having to compromise with other people. Someone went through all of the Snape moments, but of course Harry doesn't recognize any of the "clues" about Snape's loyalties in DH. He just gets the memories, finds out (plot point) that Snape loved his mother and always worked to protect him. Some of said it would be "unrealistic" for Harry to reconcile with Snape, but this feels like lowering the possibilities to make JKR's choice the only possible one when it wasn't. Of course he could have had some scene with him where he had to actually deal with the guy--it wouldn't have to be a Hallmark moment. Not that JKR had to write it, but it's not like it was impossible. It's like I compared it to before--the Snape revelation to me was disappointing in the same way the reconcilation with Hermione is in PS/SS: there are some things you can't know about a person without respecting them, and finding out they loved your mother and protected you your whole life is one of them. It's not an emotional connection, it's a plot point: now Harry knows this about Snape, and he uses the information he has now. Emotional things in this canon tend to work more as plot points. (I think this is why stories that happened in the past are often more powerful than the ones in the present, because we can just hear the tale and fill it in ourselves.) So yeah, I did think from the first book that Slytherin seemed like the biggest conflict in the book and that would therefore mean the drama would come from that reconciliation--even if it was the first steps. (And no, I don't see that in DH--I don't consider the idea that we're to presume that Slytherin went away to lick its wounds and so was probably better in future to be any kind of step on the path to reconciliation.) I was wrong--it turned out they were the house of bad guys representing "people like that" that JKR feels we all have to deal with (and just as in real life they pick on you in school and pick on you as an adult and so anything done to them is obviously just standing up for yourself and others). Did I fool myself? I think that's a bit much. I was wrong about where the story was going, but stories depend on readers having expectations. This did seem like the biggest source of drama, the hat sang twice about the houses having to work together, Harry has his set up lines about "never" forgiving Snape or working with Draco, we're talking about kids in Harry's school. So I would argue with anyone who claimed this was just me projecting onto the text--it's not unreasonable to have expected it, just wrong. One reason I always thought it had to happen was I couldn't see how there could not be a real reconciliation that showed a *change* in the Slytherin dynamic on-screen (particularly Draco because he was the student representative and a kid who believed the Pureblood ideolgy--and I assumed Harry would also learn that Snape had already done it) was because I didn't see how it would really be much of a happy ending without it--more like dealing the symptoms rather than the cause. That's the way I still felt reading it. I can't say I was really fooling myself, because my feelings at the ending kind of confirmed. It didn't make JKR wrong for not writing the story I wanted, but it does explain why the story was unsatisfying for me personally. That's partially my responsibility, but I think the author's set up made my expectations at the very least not unreasonable and unfortunately she didn't write her own ending well enough for me to convince me it was just as good or better. -m From plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca Wed Aug 8 22:50:19 2007 From: plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca (ANGIE) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:50:19 -0000 Subject: HP for Children? In-Reply-To: <46B91EAD.5070406@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174872 > > Bart wrote: > I'm doing my second, careful, rereading of DH right now, and > did a double-take when I read the argument preceding Ron's > alteration of the Trio into a Duo, and he uses the term "effing". I > wonder if, being British, JKR even knows what "effing" is "short" > for. Reply from Angie: :- Yes, British people do know what effing stands for and use it almost as frequently as North American people use the 'F' counter part. As my hubby is British I hear this alot. I think we need to remember that these books have evolved over the years and they are no longer classifed as 100% childrens books any more. The last book in the series is dealing with young adults in their 17th year of life and I would ask any of you to tell me how many 17 year olds do you know who don't use that word. JKR has always endeavored to be as accurate as possible in depicting her characters in each stage of their growing up, and I think she has done so again this time, brilliantly. Angie From va32h at comcast.net Thu Aug 9 01:35:43 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 01:35:43 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174873 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "guzuguzu" wrote: > At the risk of offending you again, let me ask you to clarify your > position. Are you saying that it is offensive to assume that a > housewife (or a househusband or a lawyer or a baker or a candlestick > maker of either gender) would not be as skilled in battle as a > soldier or a policeman? That in a battle with a psycho killer a > person (male or female) with little to no experience in battle would > have the same probability of success as someone with experience and > training? Do you think the hundreds of people watching Bellatrix and > Molly duel should have assumed that Molly would win? If that's true > for you, then we must agree to disagree here. > va32h: Well one thing I'm saying right now is that, IMO, it's pretty silly to complain that hundreds of people just stood around watching Molly and Bella. The same people stood around watching Voldemort duel McGonnagal, Kingsley, and Slughorn and the same people stood around watching Harry and Voldemort walk around in circles and chit-chat. Why aren't you asking why Kingsley Shacklebolt didn't curse Voldemort from behind or why Hagrid didn't tackle Voldemort? Harry may be Harry - but as every single adult character likes to point out - he is a barely qualified teenage wizard. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that highly trained Aurors like Kingsley or very experienced professors like McGonnagal are more capable of killing Voldemort than a 17 year old kid. And yet this is how the story goes, because Deathly Hallows isn't a tactical manual, it's a novel and the set piece of "crowd watches in shocked silence while two characters duke it out" is very commonly used in works of fiction. There are plenty of people engaged in the Battle of Hogwarts who are neither soliders or policemen. There are students, teachers, shopkeepers, the residents of Hogsmeade, government workers. Since only 50 or so of them died, I think it's safe to conclude that they handled themselves pretty well. Percy Weasley seems to be doing quite well in battle, for someone whose job consists of fretting over the thickness of cauldron bottoms. In the magical world, there is no indication that one's skills as a witch or wizard are entirely determined by one's occupation. Bill Weasley is a banker, Arthur Weasley is in administration, Fred and George own a joke shop (and it wasn't a DE that killed Fred, it was a collapsing wall). I think you also give too much credit to Bellatrix. She's Voldemort's best lieutenant, but that doesn't make her the be-all and end-all of evil magical ability. We've seen her in battle one other time, at the Ministry, where she managed to kill one person. And this is the basis for her characterization as an unbeatable master duellist? If you are going to question why "just a housewife" could win a duel with a Death Eater, then you are going to have to question why the Death Eaters lost at all. The "Hogwartians", as they are so interestingly called in the book, were outclassed from the get go. But oh look - when your cause is just and your heart is in the right place, you can indeed triumph, even when the odds are against you. At least that's what the English thought at the Battle of Agincourt. (just to throw out the notion that unexpected victories need not only occur in novels). va32h From guzuguzu at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 01:39:00 2007 From: guzuguzu at yahoo.com (guzuguzu) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 01:39:00 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174874 guzu: > > Yes, I realize this this is Rowling's point-- mother love conquers all (except when it doesn't-- See Tonks and the Albanian woman who Voldemort killed while she was shielding her children). It still doesn't excuse the scene for me-- there were ways Molly could have taken out Bellatrix that would have been more realistic and in character, and less (as someone else mentioned upthread) like an action movie scene. For me it's not the concept that's wrong, it's the execution (no pun intended!) of the scene. Lisa: > Oh, I disagree with this entirely. > > First of all, the Tonks analogy is sort of out of place here -- Tonks died joining her husband in battle, to assist him in ridding the world of evil, and she left her child in good hands. Would "I" have done it? Well, I guess if I was an auror and I thought I could be of help, perhaps; but personally, I'd've not gone. I get your point. Perhaps I would have found the Molly-Bella duel more believable had Tonks (a trained auror) not been so completely useless for the past two books. I do not like the idea that Molly (someone with no warrior experience or training that we know of) succeeded where all the trained warriors failed. Mommy!Tonks killing Bella would have made more logical sense to me (though I know Rowling wanted Tonks dead so she could have lil' orphan Teddy -- I figured it out in the first chapter of DH). And technically, Tonks died while checking to see if Lupin was okay-- that's all she talked about. She never said one word about fighting or ridding the world of evil. Lisa: > But the "mother's love conquers all" thing? I don't think Rowling > believes this nor do I think she implies such a thing when she has > Molly charge Bellatrix. Molly's actions were fueled by loss and fury and desperation, as well as love for her children. I think it's > totally in character for Molly -- or any mother -- to protect her > child. guzu: Well, it was in character for Molly, yes, I should have wrote that clearer. I don't think it's in character for hundreds of people, including Harry and Ginny, to stand around and watch this duel and do nothing to help. Why would they assume that Molly would win when Bella has been killing people left and right? Lisa: Much like adrenaline kicks in for us Muggles, allowing us to do things we'd never have thought possible, I would assume super-magic kicks in for witches and wizards, in such situations. Entirely > believeable, for that particular character and for the situation in > general, to me. guzu: That is exactly what I meant by "mother love conquers all." Molly single-handedly succeeded where many trained aurors and experienced duelers had failed. Since there has never been one mention of Molly being particularly talented (unlike Ginny or Herminone, who we've heard are unusually strong) or even going on missions for the Order, the only good explanation for this is the "super-mother-magic" thing. If Molly had used intelligence or ingenuity (as per Hermione), instead of straight-out might to win, I might have bought it more easily. From penhaligon at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 01:43:15 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 18:43:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <691540630366418BA5E7A93204A0ACA0@Home> No: HPFGUIDX 174875 One might consider that under the new regime, the "unforgivables" are no longer unforgivable. The Carrows were instructing students on the use of Crucio. I would not be surprised at all to learn that the new ministry under Thickness had passed new laws to allow the previously illegal spells. Panhandle -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.8/941 - Release Date: 8/7/2007 4:06 PM From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 01:44:56 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 01:44:56 -0000 Subject: The Joke's on Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174876 > Potioncat > > Did anyone outsmart themselves in DH? The time you knew at once > what was going on and what was about to happen . But to your > surprise, it didn't? Not a disappointing moment, but a groaner > moment that made you laugh at yourself. Maybe even a place where > you half suspected JKR had just pulled one over on you. > Mike: Hi PC :) My moment came when they were all arriving at the Weasleys after the 7 Harry's left 4 Privet Dr. Lupin made this big show of confirming Harry et al were really themselves with all these personal questions. Now, I'm thinking JKR is setting us up for a traitor in the Order. Next thing I notice, Tonks arrives, and nobody asks her any personal questions. I'm jumping up and down, yelling at Lupin, "Tonks, hey what about Tonks, c'mon Remus you clod, ask her a question, she's your wife and a metamorphmagus, she doesn't even have to look the same." Somehow, I morphed this into believing that this is the clue that Tonks is the turncoat. So I'm waiting ..... and waiting .... and finally we see her at the beginning of the Battle of Hogwarts seeming kind of off. So I'm waiting again,... nothing, she even dies off stage. ::throws hands up in the air:: Oh yeah, I'm brilliant. Mike, who did get more predictions right than wrong, so he felt doubly good after reading DH :D From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 01:44:40 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 01:44:40 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174877 > guzu: > > At the risk of offending you again, let me ask you to clarify your > position. Are you saying that it is offensive to assume that a > housewife (or a househusband or a lawyer or a baker or a candlestick > maker of either gender) would not be as skilled in battle as a > soldier or a policeman? That in a battle with a psycho killer a > person (male or female) with little to no experience in battle would > have the same probability of success as someone with experience and > training? Do you think the hundreds of people watching Bellatrix and > Molly duel should have assumed that Molly would win? If that's true > for you, then we must agree to disagree here. > Lisa: Where were these policemen and soldiers that Molly apparently dismissed? I must've missed them. I read about three teenagers -- Hermione, Luna, and Ginny -- battling Bella, while Kingsley and others were battling Voldemort. And while the three of them have certainly escaped dangerous situations before, I think as far as "actual battle" goes, they, too, have little experience. So Molly should have, what, just allowed Bella to toy with the teens while she watched from the sidelines? Are you a mother? No mother would allow that, trust me. Lisa From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 02:13:08 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:13:08 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174878 guzu: > I get your point. Perhaps I would have found the Molly-Bella duel > more believable had Tonks (a trained auror) not been so completely > useless for the past two books. I do not like the idea that Molly > (someone with no warrior experience or training that we know of) > succeeded where all the trained warriors failed. Mommy!Tonks killing > Bella would have made more logical sense to me (though I know Rowling > wanted Tonks dead so she could have lil' orphan Teddy -- I figured it > out in the first chapter of DH). And technically, Tonks died while > checking to see if Lupin was okay-- that's all she talked about. She > never said one word about fighting or ridding the world of evil. Lisa: I wasn't fond of the portrayal of blinded-by-love Tonks, either -- but do you honestly believe that Tonks was just popping in to check on her dear hubby?? You seriously don't think that she was fighting alongside him? I think Tonks would've been helping Lupin and doing all she could to ensure his safety. And just to clarify, "I" never said one word about Tonks ridding the world of evil -- I said that's why Lupin was there, and she went to help him. > guzu: > > Well, it was in character for Molly, yes, I should have wrote that > clearer. I don't think it's in character for hundreds of people, > including Harry and Ginny, to stand around and watch this duel and do > nothing to help. Why would they assume that Molly would win when > Bella has been killing people left and right? Lisa: I believe that was explained, too. Through Harry's eyes, we see that as the duelers (Bella & Molly and Voldie and the gang fighting him) fight, they are flying about, and to aim a spell in the direction of the duelers would be to place "the good guys" in danger of being hit. > guzu: > > That is exactly what I meant by "mother love conquers all." Molly > single-handedly succeeded where many trained aurors and experienced > duelers had failed. Lisa: And when I was 19, I won a contest in which I was a complete, inexperienced newbie, against people who had been competing and winning for years. Sometimes it happens. guzu: Since there has never been one mention of Molly > being particularly talented (unlike Ginny or Herminone, who we've > heard are unusually strong) or even going on missions for the Order, > the only good explanation for this is the "super-mother-magic" thing. Lisa: Why? We haven't been told a LOT of things about a LOT of characters. I think it's silly to say that if we haven't been specifically told someone is "particularly talented," then they simply aren't. And like I said before, it wasn't personal for any of the other aurors or policemen and soldiers you seem to have discovered -- but it was for Molly. And frankly, now I think you're being purposely snide about your "super-mother-magic" comments, as you have been told that they are offensive, yet you continue to make them. The grand majority of this list is beyond that sort of continual thing. guzu: > If Molly had used intelligence or ingenuity (as per Hermione), > instead of straight-out might to win, I might have bought it more > easily. > Lisa: Oh, my, how on earth could stupid little housewife Molly conjure up any intellignce or ingenuity? All she's fit for is household cleaning spells, and she's apparently not good at those, either, since Fleur's mother came in and cleaned up the house in a jiffy. Poor Molly -- what a waste of wizarding breathing space. Lisa, who is DONE with this topic, as there is no point in trying to convince anyone who obviously thinks little of stay-at-home-mothers that said stay-at-home-mothers have any intelligence, ingenuity or talent whatsoever -- although my previous employers would take issue with that concept. From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 02:18:09 2007 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:18:09 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: <46BA0A52.7000007@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174879 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > LK> Since you assert it, please tell us how many "legal definitions" > LK> of torture there are. > > DG> From the United States Criminal Code: > > No, Dennis, that's not what I asked for. You stated there are many > definitions of murder, as if that had something to do with torture. > I asked you HOW MANY legal definitions of torture there were, but > what you gave me is a single definition of torture, and one which, > at that, is really more concerned with defining the conditions under > which torture can occur than it is with defining the act itself. > > But since you've introduced it, let's take a look. Filtering out the > bits defining the conditions, we find the US Code defines torture as > > "an act committed by a person ... specifically intended to inflict > severe physical or mental pain or suffering ... upon another > person...." I'm not Dennis and won't speak for him, but it seemed to me that a significant part of his argument was precisely that the "bits defining the conditions" were important in approaching a definition of torture, and a discussion of the events in the book that we're arguing about. This thread is going around in circles because there are two divergent viewpoints here that I'm not sure are reconcilable: one is insisting that Crucio is torture, end of story, forever and always; the other is arguing for circumstances figuring into what is torture and what is not. In any case, both lines of argument unavoidably invoke some hypothetics (to steal the term from a favorite writer of mine). -Nora doesn't think this will change anyone's mind, but it's always easier with the basic issues defined From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 02:18:48 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:18:48 -0000 Subject: Aberforth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174880 justcarol67 at ...> wrote: > Just out of curiosity (I'm addressing the group in general), what were > your expectations for him and how close to the mark were they? What's > your reaction to the character as he's presented? Is he just a plot > device? A foil to Albus? Something else? > > BTW, I read "unlettered" as a relative statement in contrast to the > highly literate Albus and his dear friend, Gellert: "lacking facility > in reading and writing and ignorant of the knowledge to be gained from > books" (Merriam-Webster Online) as opposed to unable to write his name > or read a book title. I don't think that a student could get through > even his first year at Hogwarts without knowing how to read at least > as well as the average eight- or nine-year-old even if he's not > reading at his age level or grade level. I would be very surprised if > he literally couldn't read, as Albus rather facetiously (and unkindly) > suggested in an earlier book. I just doubt that he ever chose to do so > for entertainment or voluntary intellectual advancement. > > (Side note: I think Crabbe and Goyle were a little too stupid to be > believed, but Aberforth is in a different league.) > > Is he wiser than DD in your view, or are they both mistaken in their > perceptions of each other? Any guesses as to which House he was in? > Alla: I already briefly confessed my love for Aberforth Dumbledore, but I am very happy to do so in more details. Did I have any expectations about him? Actually none, or should I say almost none, since I did not expect him to be DE, by virtue of him being DD's brother. Aberforth exceeded my almost non-existant expectations by quite a lot. First of all we see him as saving Trio from DE and anybody who saves Trio from DE is already a good man in my book. We see him not being afraid to stick it to DE and doing a little blackmail of his own. He is street-smart and I like that a lot. "You set off Caterwauling Charm?" "What if I did? Going to cart me off to Azkaban? Kill me for sticking my nose out my own front door? Do it then if you want to. But I hope for your sakes you haven't pressed your Dark Marks and summoned him. He is not going to like being called here for me and my old cat, is he, now?" *** "And where will you lot traffick potions and poisons when my pub's closed down? What'll happen to your little sidelines then?" - p.558 *** After that tirade I was already in love with the man. But JKR just had to make my love stronger and stronger with every word of his and he does not occupy too much page space, doesn't he? He was for me the voice of the readers like me who wanted to smack Dumbledore for years for his secrecy thing and just tell Harry to save himself and he does it oh so very well. How many times over last few books I wished that Harry just let WW rot and just disappeared with his friends? "My brother Albus wanted a lot of things," said Aberworth, " and people had a habit of getting hurt while he was carrying out his grand plans. You get away from this school, Potter, and out of the country if you can. Forget my brother and his clever schemes" - p.559 And of course my poor Harry despite being angry with Dumbledore just determined to do the job. I loved Harry for that. But was I thinking that Aberforth is the voice of reason? Oh yes. By the way on reread I was not sure if Aberforth was not testing Harry again with all this "Save yourself" stuff. Because despite saying that Order is finished, etc, he does not exactly give up the fight in my view. He helps Neville and other fighters, so I don't know. On the other hand, he is probably just calls things as he sees them in a very blunt way. Is he wiser than Dumbledore? I would say in a sense of wiser about life in general, yeah, absolutely and better too, I absolutely trust Dumbledore on that one. "Reality returned in the form of my rough, unlettered and infinitely more admirable brother. I did not want to hear truths he shouted at me" ? p.717. I also think that he can write and read by the way. As to the house, I honestly think that Gryffindor fits him. One must be brave to stick his neck with DE like this. Aberforth rocks :) Alla From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Aug 9 02:20:15 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 22:20:15 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: The Prophecy Message-ID: <2264925.1186626015591.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174881 JKR claims that she worded the prophecy VERY carefully. Well, I'm still scratching my head over it. Specifically, "and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives..." Well, clearly, they both lived for several years while the other survived. And one did NOT die at the hand of the other; Morty kept offing himself until it took. All he needed was antlers, a squirrel, a hat, and "This time for sure!" before casting YAAK. So, can anybody here, who actually understands the prophecy, explain it to me? Bart From urghiggi at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 02:52:39 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:52:39 -0000 Subject: Disappointment and Responsibility (was Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174882 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > Lupinlore: > With regard to the Christian nature of the books, let me reveal > that I myself am a member, whether a faithful one or not I leave > it to others to judge, of the Greek Orthodox Church. Now, > Christianity, viewed as a set of ideas, is ancient, incredibly > complex, often subtle, and wonderfully heterogenous. Its > relationships with other faiths are likewise ancient, complex, > subtle, shifting, and difficult to unravel. snip It is therefore not surprising that when she talked > about being a Christian people read all sorts of meanings into > that she did not intend, and were therefore disappointed when > her intent was more fully revealed. > Julie replies: Ah. Lupinlore, fair enough -- for of course every reader brings an individual worldview/ bias to the work. As someone else said, JKR's written a cracking good story and that's satisfying and a huge achievement. But when an author starts tossing around ancient Christian symbolism, issues of the immortality of the soul (and souls in eternity as distinct personalities vs a more Eastern idea of eternity), the notion of 'communion' with the saints who've passed before, love vs death, choice vs fate/predestination, doing what's right vs doing what's easy, substitutionary sacrifice -- it's not unreasonable that a pretty big series of expectations is going to be raised regarding the author's likely intent. You don't toss around those notions if you're not trying to explore transcendent stuff, beyond just spinning a great yarn. Christianity is nothing if not diverse, but certainly there is an agreed-upon core of basic tenets. I think what some of us were seeking was a more coherent final message consonant with basic Christianity (not allegory), as opposed to various individual scenes/take-away points that might be salutary to consider. I do get satisfying "stuff" beyond the "cracking good story" from many, many individual scenes/passages. Like lizzyben and Lee K, however, I'm still struggling with the overarching message here, whatever that is, and pondering to what degree that's consonant with basic Christianity (or mere Christianity, as Lewis would've had it). To what degree is Harry helpful to me as a reader with a Christian worldview (after having had my expectations raised by the author herself)? The crumb trail is THERE, both in canon text and interview quotes --i didn't bring it all to the work myself. I'm still trying to figure out how much of a meal the crumb trail leads to. In some respects, contemplation of Harry as a model (not a saint, but a fellow seeker) is helpful. In some respects, it's less helpful than I'd have preferred, especially in what I continue to perceive as a lack of self-reflection/growth from his experiences. (Vs a simple "thank goodness the good guys whupped the bad guys.") No, I really didn't expect/want everybody to make nicey nice. I can absolutely live with DDM!Snape as a nasty person, and I didn't need the Hallmark moment between him & Harry -- but I wanted a little more emotional payoff from Harry's realization of the huge gap between his assumptions and the reality. And after all that stuff about the need for house unity -- yeah, I wanted to see some repentance from a Slytherin or two, and some degree of reconciliation between the houses. (Practically ANY of them would have done -- Nott, for example, or Pansy P -- it didn't have to be Draco.) Again, I'm looking for examples of growth, not a wholesale conversion to "nice." The epilogue is trying to do that; i just don't think it's a strong enough payoff for all the setups that came before. But -- like every reader, I bring my own biases to the work. I don't think I was stupid to believe that JKR might've been going someplace other than where she went, given the clues, symbols, and themes that came before DH. Wrong, or wishful ... but not deluded, I think.... Julie H, chicago From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 03:08:51 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:08:51 -0000 Subject: Disappointment and Responsibility (was Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174883 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > Magpie: > Speaking as somebody who fully admits to being wrong in this area, I > don't think that's quite what "we" (or I in this case) wanted. It > wasn't that characters like Snape and Draco would turn out to really > be nice--I for one always thought that they did hate Harry and never > considered any of their actions as a "cover" for really helping him > or anything like that. Well, there were and are many different approaches to the subject, :-). Certainly what I've said doesn't create any sort of binary situation where you have to believe or advocate either this or that and nothing in-between. Nevertheless, I stand by my statement that many people DID want just such revelations. Many DID want for Harry to realize that he had been prejudiced against Snape and that Snape's cruelty and unfairness rested in Harry's mind. Many DID want a revelation that Snape was using legitimate, if harsh, teaching techniques to make sure Harry and Neville learned what they needed to know to battle Voldemort, because he (backed by DD) really, deeply, ETHICALLY cared about their education and their future as the leaders of the Light. Many, or at least some, DID advocate that Snape was largely acting when he was cruel to Harry and Neville -- acting because he had to keep up appearances with Voldemort and the Slytherins. With regard to Draco, I don't think anyone regarded his attitude as an act or a cover for helping Harry. But many did feel that Harry had been deeply, unfairly, prejudiced with regard to Draco. Many did think that the problem with Draco was a schoolboy rivalry in which Harry was as much to blame as Mr. Malfoy. Many did want a revelation in which it was revealed that Draco was a victim of his upbringing and the unfair prejudice of the trio, and that he really was a boy not very different from Harry who could have been a friend if Harry had just taken his hand when it was first offered. As I say, the problem is that the evidence for all this was, to say the least, in the eye of the beholder. And as it turned out, things didn't work out the way some wanted. Snape did NOT really, deeply, ETHICALLY care about Harry and Neville's education. He was a bitter and nasty many who was cruel to them because he felt a deep streak of hatred for them. He wasn't acting, and his cruelty was real, not a result of Harry's unfair prejudice against him. Draco, I know, is a more complex, and in some ways a more controversial case. Still, his hatred of Harry was quite a bit more real, and his moral flaws more genuine, than many wanted to be the case. > > So yeah, I did think from the first book that Slytherin seemed like > the biggest conflict in the book and that would therefore mean the > drama would come from that reconciliation--even if it was the first > steps. (And no, I don't see that in DH--I don't consider the idea > that we're to presume that Slytherin went away to lick its wounds and > so was probably better in future to be any kind of step on the path > to reconciliation.) I was wrong--it turned out they were the house of > bad guys representing "people like that" that JKR feels we all have > to deal with (and just as in real life they pick on you in school and > pick on you as an adult and so anything done to them is obviously > just standing up for yourself and others). > Yes, and here is where JKR's arguable Ethical Calvinism comes into play. As I have said, I do NOT absolve JKR of responsibility for these problems. I do think she was often misleading, inconsistent, and disingenuous in both primary and secondary canon. Still, I guess in the end it does come down to basic outlook. Some will simply have a severe ethical problem with JKR here. I am reminded of her statement early on that she didn't care whether she only had seven readers in the end, because it represented what she believed. I don't know if this is what she meant, but it might fit. Sigh. The only thing I can say is that, unpopular as her attitude may be, she isn't alone. I remember that one of the speakers to address our senior class in High School said "I'll tell you something that you don't want to hear. The world of high school is divided into snots and good guys. The world of adults is too, except that male adult snots are your SOB's and female adult snots are your old bags. And a snot in High School will still be a snot at your 25 year reunion." He was right, we didn't want to hear it. Lupinlore From jmmears at comcast.net Thu Aug 9 03:34:58 2007 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:34:58 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174884 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "guzuguzu" wrote: > I get your point. Perhaps I would have found the Molly-Bella duel > more believable had Tonks (a trained auror) not been so completely > useless for the past two books. I do not like the idea that Molly > (someone with no warrior experience or training that we know of) > That is exactly what I meant by "mother love conquers all." Molly > single-handedly succeeded where many trained aurors and experienced > duelers had failed. Since there has never been one mention of Molly > being particularly talented (unlike Ginny or Herminone, who we've > heard are unusually strong) or even going on missions for the Order, > the only good explanation for this is the "super-mother-magic" thing. > If Molly had used intelligence or ingenuity (as per Hermione), > instead of straight-out might to win, I might have bought it more > easily. "Straight-out might"? You make it sound as if Molly wrestled Bella to the ground instead of simply landing one accurate spell (Not that she couldn't, mind ;-)) Did you struggle with Sirius Black being in a duel? After all, he's been pretty much doing nothing for 16 years apart from rotting in Azkaban, eating rats while hiding in caves, and finally hanging around GOP drinking and feeling sorry for himself. He was probably in really lousy shape when he left to go the Ministry and apparently did pretty well against the DE's until he got cocky while facing Bellatrix. The fact that Molly, in addition to being a housewife and mother is also a member of the Order seems to have been overlooked. It's pretty strongly implied on OOP that she spends her time doing something other than cooking and cleaning when Sirius refuses to tell Ron what she's off doing for the Order (fireplace scene). There's no doubt that the power of mother-love is an important theme in the books. Apparently, some readers don't care for this theme, but no one who's been reading the 6 previous books should be surprised by it. What I don't understand is why it's so improbable to accept that it would be Molly who landed the fatal blow rather than say, Hermione. She's always been portrayed as a pretty formidable character and she certainly had ample motivation to get the job done. Jo S., who's amused when anyone thinks it's safe to trifle with housewives and mothers. From teddyb14 at swbell.net Thu Aug 9 03:09:10 2007 From: teddyb14 at swbell.net (teddyb142002) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:09:10 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174885 guzu wrote, in part: > It's not "any particular skill"-- it's battling a violently insane > murderer. I don't believe it is offensive to assume a housewife > does not have the skills of a trained warrior or assassin; nor > offensive to assume Molly in particular has no experience dueling > or using real violence at all. guzu also asked va32h, in part: > Are you saying that it is offensive to assume that a housewife > (or a househusband or a lawyer or a baker or a candlestick > maker of either gender) would not be as skilled in battle as a > soldier or a policeman? Teddyb replies: I believe one of the points that Dumbledore tried to drive home to Harry is that it can be costly to underestimate people based on limited knowledge. I know many police officers and soldiers that are completely harmless and frankly inept. I also know many bankers, doctors, stay at home mom, etc. that can be quite dangerous when pressed. Assuming a certain skill level in a person can cloud your observation skills. It seems fairly obvious to me that the was a lot of power being thrown around in this battle since the ground was heating up and cracking. Teddyb From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 04:05:14 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Another Timeline Problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <990081.96398.qm@web55002.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174886 KMC: > In the Prince's tale we see the progression of > memories as Snape ages > - 2 were prior to Hogwart's > - Train to Hogwart's > - Sorting > The problem arises in that we know from one of > the early books that James saves Severus in their > 6th year. In OOTP, we see from Snape's worst memory > that calling Lily a Mudblood happen in their 5th year. houyhnhnm: >The only logical conclusion is that Sirius was wrong, >that the Prank took place in their fifth year. Or it >was just one more detail that Rowling couldn't be bothered with. >The memories are not in exact chronological order, though. >The very last one is of Snape finding Lily's letter at 12 >GP and that couldn't have taken place after he went to the >Forest of Dean with the Sword. Harry had already found >the torn photograph months before. Christy: I have no canon to support what I am about to say and Snape was dying when he gave Harry his memories (however, no doubt Snape was a powerful wizard) ... perhaps Snape gave the memories in the order he thought it best for Harry to view them. Just a thought... Christy --------------------------------- Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 04:36:02 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:36:02 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <46ba99bc.1bbd600a.58b1.4a45@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174887 guzu: Since there has never been one mention of Molly > being particularly talented (unlike Ginny or Herminone, who we've > heard are unusually strong) or even going on missions for the Order, > the only good explanation for this is the "super-mother-magic" thing. Sherry: Didn't molly help guard the prophecy in OOTP? I thought there was one mention of molly doing guard duty. I don't think Dumbledore would have had her guarding the prophecy if he thought she was useless. Sherry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 05:07:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 05:07:27 -0000 Subject: Another Timeline Problem In-Reply-To: <990081.96398.qm@web55002.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174888 > Christy: > I have no canon to support what I am about to say and Snape was dying when he gave Harry his memories (however, no doubt Snape was a powerful wizard) ... perhaps Snape gave the memories in the order he thought it best for Harry to view them. Carol responds: The memories seep out of his head and eyes in no sort of sequence and Harry randomly stuffs them into the vial that Hermione has conjured, yet I agree that they're the specific memories that Harry needs to enter in order to understand both Snape and the message Snape is so desperate to give him. They're also necessary so that Harry will *trust* Snape, understand that he's DDM and that the memories are not some sort of trick played on him by a dying man. There are no extraneous memories of Snape and Voldemort or young Severus and his parents or even of the eavesdropping, which I would have liked to see but which Snape perhaps realized, even as he was dying, would interfere with his purpose in communicating to Harry. Once the memories are poured into the Pensieve, however, they seem to arrange themselves in a coherent chronological sequence. It's only after reading them (and reading the chat transcript) that we realize that the letter scene is out of sequence. As for the Worst Memory and the so-called Prank, I think that we as readers placed the SWM before the "Prank" either because we thought that it showed a mor noble James or because we thought that the Prank was the trigger that led Severus to join the DEs (wrong on both counts). There's no canon evidence for that sequence except that JKR refers to James as fifteen during the SWM. If the March birthday in DH is correct, however, James, like Severus (born in January) would have been sixteen at the time of the OWL exams in June. (So would Remus, born in March according to JKR's website, and Lily, born in January according to DH; Peter's and Sirius's birth months are unknown.) The adult Snape refers to the so-called Prank as occurring when Sirius Black was sixteen, which may be the reason why we assumed that it occurred later, but chances are that, unless he had a summer birthday, he, like the others whose ages we know, was sixteen near the end of fifth year. Or Snape may be assigning his own age at the time to a classmate (much as DD refers to Harry and Hermione as "two thirteen-year-old wizards" when Hermione has been fourteen since September. (BTW, I've always wondered how Krum could already be eighteen in August and yet still be in school.) The choices are A) the memories are chronological except for two that appear to be out of sequence or B) the memories are random except for about sixteen that are chronological. The first seems more likely. If any really are out of sequence, I think it's because JKR forgot the original or intended sequence. I'm not trying to nitpick, just noting that JKR's math can't be trusted. She also has Severus writing at least one spell used in his fifth year in his sixth-year Potions book. As I said before, will someone please send JKR a calculator? And a calendar with moon cycles on it while we're at it? The strength of the books is obviously not in their consistency. I've spotted other continuity errors (and a typo that the proofreader should have caught), but I see no point in bringing them up here except to note that we shouldn't read too much into numbers and sequences in JKR's books. What's important about this Pensieve memory is that it serves as a recognition scene or reversal of Harry's previous view of Snape (and some readers'). It provides the truth about Snape (not as simple as some posters seem to want to make it) and the "truth" about DD and Harry's confrontation with LV that will lead to Harry's choice to sacrifice himself (not a choice that he's realized he would have to make until he receives Snape's message). With regard to Snape, I see it as a beautiful counterpoint to his terrible and tragic death. Ironically, understanding comes too late, but it comes, and his last act is as much a stroke against Voldemort as Neville's killing of Nagini. "Fighting in the shadows," as Pippin so beautifully put it, is still fignting and requires just as much courage as openly confronting an enemy on a battlefield (which I'm not sure that Snape, branded as a DE by the Order members, could have done, however great his duelling skills--and I don't doubt them for a moment). As for the order of the memories, which I realize I'm supposed to be discussing, JKR was shouldering the heavy burden of finishing a massive literary work, and if it didn't have flaws in it, she wouldn't be human. I, after all, can't even keep to the topic of a post about a sequence of memories! Carol, noting that JKR also seems to have forgotten that Muggles can't get onto Platform 9 3/4 (or else I'm misreading the memory!) From mariabronte at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 05:29:56 2007 From: mariabronte at yahoo.com (Mari) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 05:29:56 -0000 Subject: I was right - Christian Symbols (was The Joke's on Me) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174889 Tonks: "I am not normally one to say "I told you so"... but after all the flack I took here for saying that there was Christian symbolism all though these books.. well there is." Mari: I was one hundred percent with you regarding this aspect of the series, even before DH. I too was amazed at the backlash from many readers of the series in all walks of life who didn't see it as a viable argument. Whether you personally believe it or not, it's there, and has been from the beginning. I take my hat off to JKR for the way she has handled it over the series as a whole. I love the fact that you don't need to pay attention to this symbolism unless you want to. Because I am from a Christian background, this symbolism was obvious to me from the beginning, but it will not be obvious to everyone. I still remember the long post you sent about this subject, more than a year ago, which impressed me heaps. Isn't it a nice feeling to be proved right ;-) From elora_fay at rogers.com Thu Aug 9 04:36:09 2007 From: elora_fay at rogers.com (Jennifer) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 00:36:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: question for any Brits re. slang in DH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <580580.99277.qm@web88213.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174890 > > Jennifer wrote: > > "Berk". > > > > Can someone explain exactly what this means? Your help > > is greatly appreciated. > Mus : > http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561501496/berk.html > > Despite its etymology, it's a fairly innocuous word. It's > more generally used of men than women. Jen: Thanks for the link, as I understand the definition inre. Cockney rhyming slang then berk is meant to actually mean a word that rhymes with "hunt"... and I can only come up with one which is a rather vulgar term for a part of the female anatomy... I suppose the meaning has softened over time... :-) > Steve wrote: > Well, we are slightly off-topic here, but none the less, > I surge forward. > > Berk is short for 'Berkeley Hunt'. Remember the second > word rhymes with the word being substituted. > > 'Hunt' rhyme with a portion of the female anatomy which > some Brits might also refer to as a 'Fanny', Thanks Steve, although now I'm wondering how Brits would come up with the word "fanny" to reference that part of the anatomy... But it is very OT now... jen From zenonkowalewski at hotmail.com Thu Aug 9 04:51:38 2007 From: zenonkowalewski at hotmail.com (zenonkowalewski) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 04:51:38 -0000 Subject: Fly on the wall commentator Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174891 Hogwartians, After finishing Deathly Hollows I decided to listen-in on this groups messages to see what other people thought. Is it just me or is there a lot of complaining going on in this group? I felt like using Crucio myself after reading some of the messages (I will not point fingers!). If you want to read a dissertation on human moral behaviour then go read Freud or Dostoy-what-his-name-ski. Personally I thought Deathly Hollows was an excellent finale to 7 fantastically addictive books. My only complaint is that the story is over and I feel a little empty inside :( Crucio!!! zenonkowalewski From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Aug 9 06:00:54 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 06:00:54 -0000 Subject: Aberforth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174892 Carol: > Just out of curiosity (I'm addressing the group in general), what > were your expectations for him and how close to the mark were they? > What's your reaction to the character as he's presented? Is he just > a plot device? A foil to Albus? Something else? Jen: I expected Aberforth to be another Dumbledore loyalist along the lines of the Order members in OOTP: Dumbledore directed and Aberforth followed. What a surprise. Not only did Aberforth express ambivalence about the cause, he didn't even have Albus on a pedestal! Yet, he did follow through with what Albus would have wanted in the end, making me like him all the more for his ability to put aside personal differences. Although, did anyone else think Harry's story about the cave might have been the impetus for Aberforth to show up at Hogwarts? I wondered if he might have stayed a grumbling resistance fighter in the background had he not heard that Albus was tormented by their shared past as much or more than Aberforth was. Even though so little page time was devoted to him, Aberforth was almost as fully developed as several adult characters who were part of multiple books in the series, i.e., the Weasleys, Mad-Eye or Tonks. Part of this development was tied to learning so much about Aberforth's life in conjunction with Dumbledore's. As for Aberforth's role in the story...that's difficult for me to say. He provides necessary historical information as well as adding to Dumbledore's character development. He acts as a plot device to save the Trio. Twice. In fact, had JKR characterized Aberforth with twinkly smiles and a do-gooder spirit, I might have rolled my eyes at how obviously he was there to move the plot along and provide exposition. Instead, he's this crusty, gruff, goat-loving sort of conscience for the series, seemingly the only one in the Order who looks at the epitome of goodness and says, 'you know what your problem is Albus? You're just not good enough.' I loved that Aberforth was the reason Harry stopped at a pivotal moment and decided having secrets wasn't always the best choice, that perhaps Dumbledore was wrong to believe he had to isolate himself with his secrets. Carol: > His goat Patronus? If we think that Snape has a hard time letting go > of Lily, what are we to think of Aberforth and Ariana (and, no; I am > not talking about an incestuous affection, only a lifetime > obsession)? Jen: I caught this while re-reading, that his goat Patronus symbolized Ariana; I found it touching rather than thinking of it as an obsession, touching to discover that some of Aberforth's happiest memories were of the little sister who loved him dearly just as he loved her. There was a certain need attached to their bond of course, since he was the one who understood her best and she felt comfortable with him, but that didn't diminish the mutual affection each felt for the other, not in my eyes at least. Carol: > (Another side note: I looked up the etymology of Ariana, which turns > out to be a variant form of Ariadne, the name of the princess who > rescued Theseus from the Minotaur and was later abandoned by him. Jen: Ah, clever Ariadne, the inspiration for my yahoo name. ;) I'm trying and failing to think how the Ariana character might have been inspired by this particular myth - anyone else have an idea? Jen From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 06:27:38 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 06:27:38 -0000 Subject: Slow Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174893 --- "javalorum" wrote: > > "Steve" wrote: > > > > Dumbledore continues to explain that he did not want > > Harry to discover the nature and existence of the > > Hallows until just the right time, so Harry's > > 'hot head' would not overrule his 'good heart'. > > > > Java: > I'm sure this has been brought up before. Did > Dumbledore said why he couldn't take out Voldie > himself? I still don't get this. ...edited... bboyminn: Well, define 'take out', and no I don't mean food from the Chinese Deli. Do you mean Dumbledore should kill Voldemort? Just one problem, Voldemort can't be killed. AKing him too early in the process would only delay thing. Voldemort would come back, and it would start all over again. If you mean capture, Voldemort doesn't strike me as that easy to capture, and once captured, he doesn't strike me as that easy to contain. Dumbledore wants it to end once and for all. When Voldemort is finally gone, he wants him truly and completely gone forever. That means a very complex sequence of events has to happen. As to what did happen, it seems near impossible to for Dumbledore to have predicted. How could Dumbledore know that Harry would, through a complex chain of events, become the Master of the Elder Wand? That certainly helped, but it wasn't part of Dumbledore's plan. So, to your basic question, why didn't he; I think the answer is, if he really wanted to win, he couldn't. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 06:46:49 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 06:46:49 -0000 Subject: Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, -Legal or Moral? In-Reply-To: <691540630366418BA5E7A93204A0ACA0@Home> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174894 --- "Jane Penhaligon" wrote: > > One might consider that under the new regime, the > "unforgivables" are no longer unforgivable. The > Carrows were instructing students on the use of > Crucio. I would not be surprised at all to learn > that the new ministry under Thickness had passed new > laws to allow the previously illegal spells. > > Panhandle > > -- > Jane Penhaligon > penhaligon at ... bboyminn: This brings up an interesting point that I hadn't considered before. With Death Eaters in charge of the Ministry, they would have certainly removed the restrictions on the use of Unforgivables. Like their use was now very routine in the Ministry. But that bring a whole new perspective. Even it the curses were now 'forgivable' curses, does that remove the moral implication. Are the curses automatically OK because they are now legal, tolerated, and even common? Is the alway an unforgivable moral element even if they are now legal? I suspect more than ever, the curses are now seen as OK for the good guys, but not OK for the bad guys. Trouble is, it is the Death Eaters who have change the rules and they see themselves as the Good Guys, and those that oppose them as the Bad Guys. Makes thing very confusing. I've already said that I think Harry's actions were wrong, but that they are understandable and forgivable. But circumstances play a role in that view. I would never say that Harry, as OUR personal Good Guy, has blanket and unlimited rights to use those curses. Still from a purely legal perspective, I think you are right. The Ministry, under control of Death Eaters, would likely have removed the restriction on those curses. That means that Legally, Harry wasn't wrong. Steve/bboyminn From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Aug 9 05:48:00 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 23:48:00 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's Big Mistake References: <620847.66589.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007201c7da48$d88f02e0$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> No: HPFGUIDX 174895 > Ok, here's my take on all this "JKR failed us and the series is really > crappy" talk that's going on, and I swear to god, this is my final word on > this topic. > > In my opinion, JKR's big mistake wasn't her plotholes, her > inconsistancies, her red herrings or her unresolved moral issues. Her big > mistake was writing books that were so darned good that she sucked us into > her world so entirely, and we took over. We have picked over these books > until nothing is left but shreds of paper and little chunks of binding > glue. We have dedicated years of our lives to analyzing these books, > waiting desperately for the next one, and reading and rereading until our > books are literally crumbling (my own copy of GoF is no longer readable > because all the pages are loosed from it's binding). We have created in > our own minds and between each other, plots that will never be written, > questions that need to be answered, and clues that "MUST MEAN SOMETHING". > We have taken HP into a whole other place, a place JKR could never have > forseen and could never have been prepared for. Her big mistake was that > her books are so beloved, her fandom so dedicated, that > NO book could hold up to that kind of critique and analysis. Even JRR > Tolkien made mistakes - and as much as I love HP and JKR, she ain't no > Tolkien - if you get my point. > > I know there are missing pieces and unanswered (or multi-answered) > questions, I know the Hallows were distracting, the wand lore > confusing...I am not claiming the story is perfect. But...is it her fault > for writing an imperfect story, or our fault for expecting a perfect one? Shelley: I cut this off here, so I could answer that question. I wasn't expecting a perfect book, but all means. And, probably unlike most people here, I didn't really develop any pet theories that I was judging the book by to say "YES- she used my idea" or "Darn, I was wrong." So, I was not judging this book by that standard. The standard I used, and illustrated in my last post, was only the other 6 books. If she had kept to the standard of book 6, and no better, that would have been good enough for me. I felt she used techniques in other books very successfully that she failed to use to wrap up this one, and kept some traditions that failed her when she used them in the wrong place in this last book. The ending felt so much like she was a brand new writer yet, and that was such a huge disappointment, because I expected that "mature writer" voice to shine through, all the way through to the end, for this final book. I expected that when Rowling told us something at the very end, that I would have all the pieces to understand it, and to agree with it, based on her writing alone. I am not judging Rowling harshly, but I do feel cheated that she didn't uphold even to her own standard. I still love her, and I will reread the books till they fall apart (a number of ours already are, due to poor binding!), even if the very ending doesn't get as reread as much as the others. I will probably line JKR's pockets with even more money in the future with the whole audio series. So, still as a loyal fan, I feel ok in telling her that she could have done better. I don't feel that being a very loyal fan means only saying perfectly lovely things about all of her books. I think JKR is quite a mature woman, and she can handle the fans being disappointed here and there- after all, she's made tons of us cry over Sirius's and Dumbledore's deaths, and she already knew she was doing it again when he killed Moody, Hedwig, Fred and the others for this book. I don't think Rowling expected everyone to love it- she even said beforehand that some of us wouldn't. Shelley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Aug 9 06:28:02 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 00:28:02 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Off-page Snape (Was: Character construction) References: Message-ID: <00d701c7da4e$70548500$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> No: HPFGUIDX 174896 Snipping a lot of good stuff before this: Carol responds: > And as for not seeing Harry forgive him, we don't need to. It happens > without his conscious awareness as he moves through the memories. The > contrast between his hatred of Snape before his death and his very > public vindication of Snape afterwards speaks for itself, and the > tribute in the epilogue shows that he still holds that view nineteen > years later. > > Snape's courage and perseverance and devotion to duty and loyalty to a > man who used him are just as evident as his love for Lily, which > starts out selfish but does not remain so, as are Snape's many > talents, which are there for anyone who reads the text to see. > > Carol, wondering if Snape could have saved himself from death with a > healing spell if he had really wished to do so Shelley: It's this line that I take exception to: "And as for not seeing Harry forgive him, we don't need to." Says who? Ok, for those that already had worked out a redemption plan in their heads for Snape long before reading this book, all they were looking for was a confirmation that their theory was correct. Those people weren't directly looking for all the backup and supporting details of such a conclusion probably didn't even notice that anything was missing. Why read the details in the book when your fan theory already has worked out all the details you will ever need? But for those of us who wanted to know exactly WHY and HOW Snape gets redeemed, there's just something terribly wrong. We are reading this book expecting Rowling to tell us through Harry's eyes how Harry forgives Snape. As I and some others have pointed out, a few damn lines here or there would have done it- Harry, under the invisibility cloak, wanting to be alone- heck it would be one paragraph to have him stop and consider Snape and whether he had been wrong about him. A single line to say that "he now understood, and chose right there and then to forgive him.". Then, the name Albus Dumbledore would have made sense. Or Harry talking to Dumbledore, questioning the fact that he misunderstood Snape and Dumbledore wishing him to forgive Snape so that he could moving forward with his life, tying the idea of coming back to life with a clean slate, without the burden of hating Snape any longer. Both of those would have MOVED me, a solid "Snape is scum" believer, into the realm of forgiving Snape with Harry. I strongly disagree that "I" personally didn't need to feel that forgiveness, that redemption, that turn around. I did, and because I didn't, when I read that Harry had named his son after Snape, it caused me to scream and yell at my book- I just couldn't believe that Harry had done that, and then later I realized that Harry wasn't the one at fault, it was all Rowling's for not helping me to see that transition more clearly. Shelley From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 07:43:03 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 07:43:03 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy In-Reply-To: <2264925.1186626015591.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174897 --- Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > JKR claims that she worded the prophecy VERY carefully. > > Well, I'm still scratching my head over it. > Specifically, "and either must die at the hand of the > other for neither can live while the other survives..." > Well, clearly, they both lived for several years while > the other survived. And one did NOT die at the hand of > the other; Morty kept offing himself until it took. > All he needed was antlers, a squirrel, a hat, and "This > time for sure!" before casting YAAK. > > So, can anybody here, who actually understands the > prophecy, explain it to me? > > Bart > bboyminn: Can anyone explain the Prophecy to you? Actually, NO. It is the nature of Prophecies to be misunderstood and misinterpreted. Usually, it is only after the fact, that even a limited subjective interpretation is possible. Think of Nostradamus, someone who live in the 16th century. People are still using his prophecies today to predict the end of the world. Trouble is, using him as a base, they have predicted the end of the world several times over, and of course, sooner or later, they are bound to get it right even if just by accident. As to '...neither can live while the other survives...' it comes down to your definition of 'live'. After the fact, it seem as if it should have said, 'neither can DIE while the other survives'. I think that really is what it is meant to say, but it does so in a very mysterious and round about way. As to 'either must die at the hand of the other', it hinges on your definitions of 'hand'. Could Voldemort's death scene have occurred the way it did with anyone other than Harry? I don't think so. In a sense, Harry is responsible for Voldemort's death because Harry understood what it would take to kill him. So, Voldemort is dead, figuratively, by Harry's hand, because no other 'hand' understood how to kill him. Voldemort is literally dead by his own curse, but that curse only rebounded on him because he was up against Harry. Consider the perspective of the wizard world, don't you think they interpret the scene as Harry killing Voldemort even if they know he didn't literally kill him? I think so. So, we can never really truly understand any prophecy, we can only try to twist the facts to fit it after the fact. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 08:34:08 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:34:08 -0000 Subject: question for any Brits re. slang in DH In-Reply-To: <580580.99277.qm@web88213.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174898 > Jen: > Thanks Steve, although now I'm wondering how Brits would > come up with the word "fanny" to reference that part of > the anatomy... Goddlefrood: This is something I can perhaps assist with. I believe it is a shortening of sweet fanny adam, meaning basically a floccinoccinihilipilification (not sure if that's spelt correctly, or even appropriately used). This would be in an extremely loose usage of the word anyway. Perhaps what should press the mind is why those in the US use the word fanny for another unmentionable part of the anatomy. As to berk, which gave rise to this thread and is in canon, thus making this post slightly on point, it is a very inoffensive word as far as I'm concerned, as is effing in fact for a good number of people. That both would be used by advanced teenagers is not at all surprising. A berk would perhaps equate with a dolt, perhaps not. If the above is of any use at all to anyone then I'll be pleasantly surprised. Goddlefrood From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 08:39:55 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:39:55 -0000 Subject: Aberforth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174899 > Carol: > > (Another side note: I looked up the etymology of Ariana, which > > turns out to be a variant form of Ariadne, the name of the > > princess who rescued Theseus from the Minotaur and was later > > abandoned by him. > Jen: Ah, clever Ariadne, the inspiration for my yahoo name. ;) > I'm trying and failing to think how the Ariana character might > have been inspired by this particular myth - anyone else have an > idea? Goddlefrood: Ariadne could have something to do with all those spiders and does indeed have a variant usage of Ariana. It also means silver and is of Welsh origin according to thinkbabynames. That would then tie in to the location of Godric's Hollow, which while clearly in England as can be ascertained from the chapter of the same name in Deathly Hallows, it is likely to be proximate to the Welsh borders seeing as Hagrid had to fly over Bristol while traveling from there to Little Whingeing. Possibly about as helpful as my last post on another matter, but there it is. Goddlefrood From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Thu Aug 9 08:56:00 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:56:00 -0000 Subject: Harry, Voldemort & the Horcrux at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174900 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > > Brothergib: > > I think you could argue the case either way. Yes he did use a peasant > > and a tramp to make a couple of Horcruxes. However, he also > > specifically hunted down his father to make one of his Horcruxes, and > > also used Hepzibah for another. > > Carol responds: > Actually, he didn't. He was hunting for the Gaunts to find out more > about his history of the Heir of Slytherin. Morfin Gaunt let slip that > Tom looked "mighty like that Muggle" and Tom, who did not set out to > murder anyone, learns about his mother running off with the locket to > marry the man who lived on the hill. He also learns about the Peverell > ring. So he Stuns Morfin, steals the ring, and sets out to commit a > previously unplanned murder, for revenge. But the ring is not yet a > Horcrux; we see it on his finger when he talks to Slughorn, presumably > immediately after he returns to school for his sixth year. He wants to > know whether a wizard can make more than one Horcrux (he's already > made the diary) and is already thinking in terms of six Horcruxes and > a seven-piece soul. But he neither creates the Horcrux on the spot nor > performs the murder specifically to create the Horcrux. It seems, > though, that even though he's murdered three more people (his > grandparents thrown in because they're there, in the way, or just to > punish and destroy the whole Riddle family and wipe out his "filthy" > Muggle heritage), he's apparently reserving that soul piece (don't ask > me how he can distinguish one from another) to use for the ring > Horcrux. And he kills Hepzibah as much to get the cup and the locket > as to have a soul bit for the Horcrux. > > Clearly, DD was wrong about Tom's reserving important murders for the > Horcruxes (Bertha Jorkins? An Albanian peasant?). Brothergib again: Are we absolutely sure that Riddle had made one Horcrux when he talked to Slughorn. When I read that chapter, it seems to me that Riddle is learning how to make a Horcrux. He does not possess the knowledge as yet, but he does possess the ring. I will admit to my mistake, that LV did not hunt down his father specifically to create a Horcrux. However, on finding out how to create a Horcrux, LV had already split his soul with the murder of his father and possessed the Peverell ring. It seems logical to me that this would have been his first Horcrux. And it is significant, because the ring and his father are strongly linked to his ancestry. The diary makes no sense as a first Horcrux ? as DD says; `The careless way in which Voldemort regarded this Horcrux seemed most ominous to me. It suggested that he must have made ? or been planning to make ? more Horcruxes, so that the loss of his first would not be so detrimental' p468 HBP, UK ed We know that LV is a prefect both during his chat with Slughorn and when he opens the COS. IMO, the ring came first (it is a far more obvious first attempt!), the diary second. Myrtle is a significant death, because she is a Muggleborn, and the first fatality at the hands of LV's basilisk. The next two Horcruxes are the cup and locket. Hepzibah is a direct descendant of Hufflepuff, and therefore has a very significant link to the cup. So far, IMO, DD's comment is proving correct; `He seems to have reserved the process of making Horcruxes for particularly significant deaths.' P473 HBP, UK edition. I agree that a muggle tramp and an Albanian peasant are not particularly significant deaths, but this is the period in his life, where Tom Riddle disappears without a trace. There are no particular links to Slytherin or Ravenclaw that could be used, and neither is LV actively engaging his enemies at this point. Therefore he may have decided that it was more important to create the Horcruxes, but not draw any further attention to himself. Therefore, I don't think the canon necessarily proves that DD was wrong to assume that LV intended to use significant deaths to make Horcruxes. > > Brothergib previously: > > I think the creation of the Nagini horcrux was a sign that LV was > panicking. He had convinced himself that a 7 piece soul was most > magically powerful, but had attempted to kill Harry while it was still > only in six pieces. As soon as he was able to use a wand after that > night, he created his final Horcrux from the one thing he had to hand. > > Carol: > Panicking? Can you cite any supporting evidence for this view? He has > five Horcruxes already, and we see from his smug attitude in DH that > he thinks they're all perfectly safe. And his dear Nagini has helped > to restore him and keep him alive. In his view, she would deserve the > honor, not to mention that she makes a fearsome Horcrux, as shown in > the Bathilda chapter (and comes in handy in OoP as well). He rewards > her by feeding her his victims. I don't think he's panicking so much > as resigning himself to the impossibility of ever getting his hands on > the Sword of Gryffindor. > Brothergib again: `But you seem so much stronger, my Lord ?` `Liar', breathed the second voice. `I am no stronger, and a few days alone would be enough to rob me of the little health I have regained under your clumsy care. Silence!' P14 GOF, UK edition This particular piece of canon, actually comes chronologically after the creation of the Nagini horcrux. He was actually weaker at the time he created the horcrux. IMO, this is not the best time to be creating a horcrux, which is clearly going to demand a certain amount of magical prowess and thus, in theory, call on LV's limited reserves of strength. He needs Nagini for her venom, and after his last encounter with Harry, it is more than possible that he wants his sixth Horcrux in place before he confronts him again. Perhaps panicking is too strong a word, but I do think that Nagini is a horcrux out of necessity, at a time when perhaps even LV knew it was a risky venture. . Brothergib previously > > As for DD being mistaken, I was convinced after HBP, that DD had > made a mistake somewhere along the line - maybe that Nagini wasn't > actually a Horcrux. However, DH proved that DD was absolutely spot on! > Therefore, I now find it difficult to believe that he was mistaken > about Godric's Hollow. It is possible that he may have been, but I > think the evidence argues against it! > > Carol: > What evidence? I don't see it. Can you find it in the scene in DH > where LV is actually planning and committing the murder? Surely, > that's were it would be if it existed. Unless you mean that Harry > became an accidental Horcrux, in which case, he's not mistaken (though > I was!), but DD doesn't mention that in the HBP scene we're > discussing. I'm saying DD was mistaken about Tom wanting to use > important murders to create his Horcruxes, and if JKR's chat comments > count as canon, he *was* mistaken on that one (minor) point. Neither > an Albanian peasant nor Bertha Jorkins counts as an important murder, > and Myrtle is only important as his first-ever victim. As for objects > important enough to be made into Horcruxes, what was left? Only the > Sword of Gryffindor, which he certainly didn't have. (I was sure that > Nagini was a Horcrux, BTW, and boy, was she!) Brothergib again: `So,' said Harry, `the diary's gone, the ring's gone. The cup, the locket and the snake are still intact and you think there might be a Horcrux that was once Ravenclaw's or Gryffindor's?' `An admirably succinct and accurate summary, yes,' said Dumbledore bowing his head. P474 HBP, UK edition DD's ideas about the Horcruxes were 100% accurate. I don't want to make this post even longer by providing a long list of events that DD correctly predicted, but I hope that you would agree that DD is seldom wrong. `I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death'. P473 HBP, UK edition DD was SURE. IMO, canon shows us that, yes DD is fallible, but when it comes to predicting how LV acted/will act ? he is always correct. As LV himself says; `You are omniescent as ever, Dumbledore'. P416 HBP, UK edition Harry was a significant death, and would therefore fit with DD's theory. There is no particular evidence in the text that LV was thinking about Horcruxes as he approached the cottage in Godric's Hollow, but if DD was sure this is what LV was intending, then that is good enough for me. > > > > Brothergib previously; > > Again, I'm not sure that proves that he wasn't intending to make a > > Horcrux after the event. But I agree that the lure of Gryffindor's > > sword must have been great. > > Carol: > Okay, good. A compromise view we can agree on. He went to GH to kill > the Prophecy Boy, his primary motive and the only one revealed in the > text, with the possible hope or intention of obtaining the Sword of > Gryffindor now that he was invincible ("the one with the power to > defeat the Dark Lord" having been destroyed). It would have been easy > enough, in his view, to kill DD, take over Hogwarts, steal the Sword, > and make it a Horcrux to complete his collection. But with the only > one who could defeat him out of the way, he would have felt a little > less need to create an additional Horcrux. Only, of course, it didn't > quite work out as planned. > Brothergib again: Thinking this through again LV has always possessed the object destined to become the horcrux before commiting the murder. Therefore it seems unlikely that he would split his soul on the offchance that he might acquire the object at a later date. Therefore, I do believe that LV intended to make a horcrux with Harry's death, but that the sword was not necessarily the intended horcrux. I certainly do not believe that LV believed that he could easily kill DD and claim the sword; For a second, Harry was on the verge of shouting a pointless warning: he was sure that Voldemort's hand had twitched towards his pocket and his wand. `Lord Voldemort's Request, P417 HBP, UK edition When push comes to shove, LV does not have the bottle to take on DD. Perhaps LV intended to make his wand a horcrux, the wand that had defeated his greatest threat ? that would have been significant to LV. While I agree that there is no direct canon evidence to state that LV wanted to create a horcrux with Harry's death, but I do think that DD's comments represent very strong circumstantial evidence. As JKR herself says `The man was brilliant'! Brothergib From mz_annethrope at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 09:13:35 2007 From: mz_annethrope at yahoo.com (mz_annethrope) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:13:35 -0000 Subject: Another Timeline Problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174901 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > KMC: > > > In the Prince's tale we see the progression of > > memories as Snape ages > > - 2 were prior to Hogwart's > > - Train to Hogwart's > > - Sorting > > > The problem arises in that we know from one of > > the early books that James saves Severus in their > > 6th year. In OOTP, we see from Snape's worst memory > > that calling Lily a Mudblood happen in their 5th year. > > houyhnhnm: > > The only logical conclusion is that Sirius was wrong, > that the Prank took place in their fifth year. Or it > was just one more detail that Rowling couldn't be bothered with. > > The memories are not in exact chronological order, though. > The very last one is of Snape finding Lily's letter at 12 > GP and that couldn't have taken place after he went to the > Forest of Dean with the Sword. Harry had already found > the torn photograph months before. > mz_annethrope: At least in my book Snape's finding Lily's letter at 12 GP comes just after Snape's severing George's ear and just after the Forest of Dean set up. (Taking into account Carol's suggestion that Sirius was 16 at the time of the Prank) So I think everything is chronological here. It just means that Snape must have entered 12 GP after Moody died so he got by the trap Moody set for him. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 09:13:47 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:13:47 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46BADACB.3030800@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174902 nrenka blessed us with this gem On 09/08/2007 10:18: LK> Filtering out the bits defining the conditions Nora> it seemed to me that a significant part of his argument Nora> was precisely that the "bits defining the conditions" were Nora> important Thanks. I did, in fact, pick up on that. My intention was to show that the canonical portrait of Cruciatus strongly resembled the US Criminal Code's definition MINUS the "condition bits". And my point was (and is) that, no matter how important conditions/circumstances/intent are to Dennis, to me, to you or to the USCC, there is absolutely no indication in canon that they are important to the WW. Dennis is expending a lot of energy trying to build an argument that essentially leads nowhere until he can demonstrate his point FROM CANON. Even if I were in full agreement with Dennis (and I may be; but neither my nor his personal views are the issue here), it's irrelevant. I'm interested in discussing the story JKR gave us, not the story somebody wishes she had given us. Nora> in approaching a definition of torture, and a discussion of the Nora> events in the book that we're arguing about. Dennis is attempting to judge and to justify events in the books based on a set of rules that, as far as I can see, do not exist IN THE BOOKS. And he appears to be so intent on doing this that he's making points that are directly refuted by the text itself. Nora> it's always easier with the basic issues defined Thanks again. You've made some good points. I just see a different set of basic issues here, to wit: is it or is it not in the canon? Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From mz_annethrope at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 09:55:20 2007 From: mz_annethrope at yahoo.com (mz_annethrope) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:55:20 -0000 Subject: Aberforth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174903 > Carol: > > His goat Patronus? If we think that Snape has a hard time letting go > > of Lily, what are we to think of Aberforth and Ariana (and, no; I am > > not talking about an incestuous affection, only a lifetime > > obsession)? > > Jen: I caught this while re-reading, that his goat Patronus > symbolized Ariana; I found it touching rather than thinking of it as > an obsession, touching to discover that some of Aberforth's happiest > memories were of the little sister who loved him dearly just as he > loved her. There was a certain need attached to their bond of > course, since he was the one who understood her best and she felt > comfortable with him, but that didn't diminish the mutual affection > each felt for the other, not in my eyes at least. > > Carol: > > (Another side note: I looked up the etymology of Ariana, which turns > > out to be a variant form of Ariadne, the name of the princess who > > rescued Theseus from the Minotaur and was later abandoned by him. > > Jen: Ah, clever Ariadne, the inspiration for my yahoo name. ;) I'm > trying and failing to think how the Ariana character might have been > inspired by this particular myth - anyone else have an idea? > > Jen > mz_annethrope: Goat Patronus? Wait a second, Dionysus was in love with Ariadne (Ariana), in some stories he married her. In one story he descended into the the underworld to rescue her from death. He also rescued his dead mother (Semele?)on the same journey, brought both women back to life and turned them into goddesses. The center of Dionysian worship was Naxos, the island where Ariadne was stranded. And who attends bacchanals and Dionysian revelries but maenads and satyrs? And satyrs are half goat. Of course Aberforth has a goat Patronus! mz_annethrope (who until this moment had always assumed that the inappropriate charms were merely rude suggestions) From darksworld at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 11:34:20 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:34:20 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174904 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "guzuguzu" wrote: > > > I don't believe it is offensive to assume a housewife does > > not have the skills of a trained warrior or assassin; nor offensive to > > assume Molly in particular has no experience dueling or using real > > violence at all. > > > You know, I thought that maybe Bella just underestimated Molly, that's > all. She didn't take her seriously, Molly was for Bella just that short > and plump housewife, who can only be good at household spells, nothing > more :-). Bella didn't consider Molly to be a real threat. > > She changed her attitude halfway through the battle, but she didn't > change it enough. She was still laughing and taunting Molly, as if she > considered Molly's challenge to be a joke. I think that Sirius is > mentioned in this scene not only because his death was about to be > avenged, but also because Bellatrix repeated his mistake. Sirius > underestimated Bella, and Bella underestimated Molly, IMO. > Charles: Yep. Bellatrix underestimated Molly because she thought that Molly was "just a housewife" But not only was this housewife a powerful witch, she was also a soldier in the Order of the Phoenix. She may not have been in the order the first time, but her brothers were. She knew what the order was about and she was a full fledged member. When DD asks the Weasleys to join in GOF, he doesnt ask Molly, "can I count on Arthur?" He asks, "Can I count on *you* and Arthur." Even though the OotP is an underground resistance type of organization does not mean that their members are any less formidable. Look at the French resistance in WWII. How many housewives and clerks and typists, what have you decided to pledge their lives to get the Nazis out of their country. Would you laugh at them? Is a bullet from them any less deadly from any SS man? Nope. A mother whose family is threatened is a force to be reckoned with. Just ask the remains of someone who messes with the cubs of a mama bear. Charles, damn proud of Molly and her defeat of Bella. From samaramims at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 11:29:13 2007 From: samaramims at yahoo.com (samaramims) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:29:13 -0000 Subject: Unanswered Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174905 I'm not sure if this has been answered or not. Has the identity of the individual who was wearing a black veil at DD's funeral been answered? samaramims From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Aug 9 12:02:51 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:02:51 -0000 Subject: FILK: Silver Doe Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174906 Silver Doe To the tune of Morning Glow, from Pippin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcQj8LaR6X4 Dedicated to - who else? - Pippin THE SCENE: Deep in the Forest of Dean. The Trio, a sword, a Horcrux and an oddly-familiar Patronus. HARRY: Silver doe, silver doe Leads me here so she can show S of G in H2O To slice the Horcrux through Silver doe, do I know you? RON: Silver doe, I respond Pulling Harry from the pond To rejoice as friendship's bonds Are forged as good as new Silver doe, do we know you? BOTH: Oh, silver doe, wherever did you go? It's light and life which you bestow HARRY & RON (antiphonally): So, silver doe, bright outburst. Inner demons Ron's/I've dispersed The locket so greatly accursed Has now been split in twain HARRY: Silver doe, you've kept us sane. (HARRY & RON take a deep breath to try to do justice to the spectacular climax) BOTH: Silver doe, you're a dear Nothing in you that's severe As you spread Patronal cheer Our burdens have been eased (Enter HERMOINE, looking angry) HERMIONE: Ron Weasley, I'm unappeased. Exit RON, pummeled by HERMIOINE - CMC http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm HARRY POTTER FILKS From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 12:07:50 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:07:50 -0000 Subject: Unanswered In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174907 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "samaramims" wrote: > > I'm not sure if this has been answered or not. Has the identity of > the individual who was wearing a black veil at DD's funeral been > answered? > > samaramims **** Katie: I thought about this, too, and the first person I thought of was Aberforth. He wouldn't want to be known or seen, I am assuming, but DD *was* his brother...That's my best guess. Katie From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 12:23:53 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 07:23:53 -0500 Subject: The dust corpse Message-ID: <8ee758b40708090523vdc48521vce09d5194bd31ace@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174908 > > mz_annethrope: > > It just means that Snape must have entered 12 GP > after Moody died so he got by the trap Moody set for him. montims: in fact, I'm a little confused about the dust corpse. If Snape were unable to say that line about not killing DD, either because of the tongue lock or because it's not true (on the surface...), what would that dusty thing have done to him? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From samaramims at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 12:11:53 2007 From: samaramims at yahoo.com (samaramims) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:11:53 -0000 Subject: Unanswered In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174909 samaramims: > > I'm not sure if this has been answered or not. Has the identity > > of the individual who was wearing a black veil at DD's funeral been > > answered? > Katie: > I thought about this, too, and the first person I thought of was > Aberforth. He wouldn't want to be known or seen, I am assuming, > but DD *was* his brother...That's my best guess. Katie I never thought of Aberforth. I always believed that Ssnape was DD's man and when I first read HBP, I thought maybe it was Snape. samaramims From literature_Caro at web.de Thu Aug 9 12:33:43 2007 From: literature_Caro at web.de (literature_Caro) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:33:43 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] an 8th year??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <159523107.20070809143343@web.de> No: HPFGUIDX 174910 Sally: > I was just thinking, will Harry, Ron and Hermione need to return for > their last year at Hogwarts? I mean, in their 7th year, they never > attended classes. > I guess I don't want the series to end and I am grasping at straws or > looking for any loophole I can :o) I think the one who finishes off LV doesn't need NEWTs to enter the Aurors and I believe that neither does one who helps finishing him off by destroying a horcrux. Hermione already has mastered NEWT standard in fifth grade will have gotten a leg up by somebody or just done the tests or so. Did JKR say something about it? I haven't read the transcripts of interviews etc. so far. Greetings Caro From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 12:36:41 2007 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:36:41 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: <46BADACB.3030800@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174911 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > Dennis is attempting to judge and to justify events in the books > based on a set of rules that, as far as I can see, do not exist IN > THE BOOKS. And he appears to be so intent on doing this that he's > making points that are directly refuted by the text itself. I have to disagree here. I think that we're all bringing an apparatus of assumptions and arguments to the text, so it's very difficult at best, extremely presumptuous at worst to come up with a hard and fast "this is in the text, this is not" rule, in this case. (There are more cut and dried cases out there, but as Pippin beautifully pointed out, the books do not come with an answer key at the end.) > Thanks again. You've made some good points. I just see a different > set of basic issues here, to wit: is it or is it not in the canon? We all make canonical 'extensions' of sorts all the time. Or, more accurately, we all interpret canon constantly, working from the base of "the same thing". I don't think your hypothetics about Stupefy are any more 'strictly canonical' than Dennis' arguments about the noted effects of the curse used. -Nora enjoys a sunny morning before descending into the depths of fiche From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 12:48:23 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:48:23 -0000 Subject: Unanswered In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174912 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "samaramims" wrote: > > samaramims: > > > I'm not sure if this has been answered or not. Has the identity > > > of the individual who was wearing a black veil at DD's funeral been > > > answered? > > > Katie: > > I thought about this, too, and the first person I thought of was > > Aberforth. He wouldn't want to be known or seen, I am assuming, > > but DD *was* his brother...That's my best guess. Katie > > > I never thought of Aberforth. I always believed that Ssnape was DD's > man and when I first read HBP, I thought maybe it was Snape. > > samaramims **** Katie again: Maybe. Although I wonder if Snape would have taken the chance, knowing how much he was needed and knowing that everyone at the funeral thought he was an evil murderer...I wonder if he would have compromised his position by possibly being found out and captured. That would have either: 1 - Gotten him killed by any number of people there, including Harry, before Snape had a chance to explain. or 2 - He would have told them everything to save himself and blown his cover with Voldemort. So, I stick with Aberforth. :) But since JKR hasn't said, I guess it could have been virtually anyone. Cheers, Katie > From va32h at comcast.net Thu Aug 9 12:58:11 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:58:11 -0000 Subject: Unanswered In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174913 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > Katie again: > Maybe. Although I wonder if Snape would have taken the chance, > knowing how much he was needed and knowing that everyone at the > funeral thought he was an evil murderer...I wonder if he would have > compromised his position by possibly being found out and captured. > That would have either: 1 - Gotten him killed by any number of people > there, including Harry, before Snape had a chance to explain. > or 2 - He would have told them everything to save himself and blown > his cover with Voldemort. > > So, I stick with Aberforth. :) But since JKR hasn't said, I guess it > could have been virtually anyone. Cheers, Katie va32h: Aberforth is at the funeral with no disguise - Harry recognizes him "the barman from the Hog's Head". We are also specifically told that the person in the veil is Madam Pince, so I don't really understand why this is a question at all. va32h From va32h at comcast.net Thu Aug 9 13:07:56 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:07:56 -0000 Subject: an 8th year??? In-Reply-To: <159523107.20070809143343@web.de> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174914 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, literature_Caro > I think the one >who finishes off LV doesn't need NEWTs to enter the > Aurors and I believe that neither does one who helps finishing him > off by destroying a horcrux. Hermione already has mastered NEWT > standard in fifth grade will have gotten a leg up by somebody or just > done the tests or so. > Did JKR say something about it? I haven't read the transcripts of > interviews etc. so far. va32h; But Harry didn't defeat Voldemort with any NEWT-level magic. He used Expelliarmus and a combination of unique magical properties that existed only between himself and Voldemort. It's not as if Auror-Harry is conveniently going to have a bit of the soul of every other Dark Wizard he happens to hunt floating around in his head. Ron didn't use any NEWT level magic either, although I suppose he could cut an imposing figure patrolling Diagon Alley while swinging the Gryffindor sword. Both young men were very brave and resourceful, but neither of them exhibited the abilities of say....Snape and McGonnagal in their duel. Maybe Fudge would have let a couple of teenagers with more reputation than training be in charge of the most important department in the Ministry, but I doubt someone as intelligent and level headed as Kingsley Shacklebolt is supposed to be would do so. And frankly, I don't care anymore what JKR says about anything. We have the entire series now upon which to base our interpretations, and if there is sufficient evidence for one conclusion or another, whatever the author happens to make up off the top of her head in an interview doesn't overrid that. IMO of course. va32h From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 13:40:34 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:40:34 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: <691540630366418BA5E7A93204A0ACA0@Home> References: <691540630366418BA5E7A93204A0ACA0@Home> Message-ID: <46BB1952.2000206@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174915 Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon blessed us with this gem On 09/08/2007 09:43: JP> One might consider that under the new regime, the "unforgivables" JP> are no longer unforgivable. ... I would not be surprised at all JP> to learn that the new ministry under Thickness had passed JP> new laws to allow the previously illegal spells. While speculative, it would not be unlikely. I would rather expect the new regime, however, to restrict the UCs to, say, DEs, rather than opening them up for everyone. Don't want to go arming the enemy, after all. Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Aug 9 13:50:27 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:50:27 -0000 Subject: I was right - Christian Symbols/Off-page Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174916 > Tonks: > > "I am not normally one to say "I told you so"... but after all the > flack I took here for saying that there was Christian symbolism all > though these books.. well there is." > > > Mari: > > I was one hundred percent with you regarding this aspect of the > series, even before DH. I too was amazed at the backlash from many > readers of the series in all walks of life who didn't see it as a > viable argument. Whether you personally believe it or not, it's there, > and has been from the beginning. I take my hat off to JKR for the way > she has handled it over the series as a whole. I love the fact that > you don't need to pay attention to this symbolism unless you want to. > Because I am from a Christian background, this symbolism was obvious > to me from the beginning, but it will not be obvious to everyone. > > I still remember the long post you sent about this subject, more than > a year ago, which impressed me heaps. Isn't it a nice feeling to be > proved right ;-) Magpie: Sorry to be a downer, but maybe I'm forgetting just what this "Christian symbolism" that you predicted is that you're referring to? Because I seem to remember lots of people agreeing that Harry might symbolically die and be resurrected, and that the stuff they disagreed with that Tonks said was in fact a lot more detailed and was no more confirmed in DH than it was before. Stuff like, iirc, Harry and Ginny being Adam and Eve, and the scar being the mark that he was baptised, and that the name James was directly referring to the apostle James, and Peter Pettigrew was Saint Peter, and the skull over Hogwarts when Dumbledore died was symbolizing Gesthemane (?). So if you can claim you were right I think the people disagreeing with you (if I'm remembering the same thread) can claim the same thing. The story was not a thin mask for a hundred different references to things in the Bible. Shelley: I strongly disagree that "I" personally didn't need to feel that forgiveness, that redemption, that turn around. I did, and because I didn't, when I read that Harry had named his son after Snape, it caused me to scream and yell at my book- I just couldn't believe that Harry had done that... Magpie: Kind of a me too, but I was somebody who already believed in DDM! Snape and I thought the transition was non-existant as well. I'm still scratching my head over why Harry would name his child after Snape. -m From kennclark at btinternet.com Thu Aug 9 13:42:19 2007 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:42:19 -0000 Subject: Wands (Was: Inconsistencies) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174917 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > 'Fraid so. Reference pg 494, US edition. > > Harry asks Ollivander: "I took this wand from Draco Malfoy by > force; can I use it safely?" > > Ollivander says: "I think so. Subtle laws govern wand ownership, > but the conquered wand will usually bend it's will to ITS NEW > MASTER." (emphasis mine) > > The Elder Wand did not recognize Harry in the forest, because Harry > very deliberately did not raise his (the hawthorn) wand against it. > If he had - Voldemort's AK would not have worked (the Elder Wand > would have met its master - the hawthorn wand). Ken says; So many things to disagree with here. Lets take the logic of wands recognising wands through to its logical confusion. I borrow Jim's wand and defeat the owner of the Elder wand. I then give Jim back his wand. Does the Elder wand recognise Jim as its master? After all he has the wand that defeated it even though he was not wielding it. I meanwhile now have my own wand. Does it recognise me as its master even though I am not wielding the wand that defeated it? The elder wand is specifically stated to recognise its master - a wizard not a wand. It recognises Harry (either immediately or when he declares himself to be its master) As to the AK I think Harry's blood relationship with Voldemort is what stopped him being killed but if the wand at that point knew he was its master it would not have killed him. He was doubly protected. But at the last AK it isnt that he wielded a wand that had that effect but that he openly declares himself the Elder wand's master so even if there was doubt about whether the Elder wand knew the first time it certainly knew the second time. By your logic if Harry had lost Draco's wand in the Hogwarts fighting and had been fighting with a wand he had picked up (say from some deatheater) then the Elder wand would not have recognised him and would have killed him. If the Deatheater had subsequently picked up Draco's wand would the Elder wand have recognised him or her) as its master. The mind boggles at the possibilities in wand swapping if we go down this route. I stand by what I wrote. The Elder wand recognises its master. It recognises Draco as its master even though he had not even picked it up. It recognises Harry even though he has never even touched it. Monica: > In the book Ollivander states upon > inspection of Draco's wand, "this wand used to belong > to Draco Malfoy" or something to that effect. So here > is canon proof that Draco's wand did change allegiance. > Tadaaa!!! Ken says: "belong" and "allegiance" - two entirely different things Ken Clark From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 14:23:55 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:23:55 -0000 Subject: Disappointment and Responsibility (was Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174918 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > > lizzyben: > > > I've really struggled to figure out *what*, exactly, was the > > theme of this series. What was JKR trying to say? Why did she > > write 7 books about this? Based on the epilogue, it seems like > > it was intended to have a simple message of good brave > > Gryffindors beat the bad guys. Is that worth a series? These > > novels do not seem Christian to me, in the sense of embracing > > tolerance, forgiveness, non-judgment etc. There's a distinctly > > Old Testament flavor to the books. > > > Okay, this brings up a very good point. I think, and I don't > mean this as a criticism, that a lot of the problem is that over > the years people have read all sorts of messages and meanings > into the text JKR did not intend, and when she made some matters > more clear in DH, it brought out a lot of disappointment. Now, > this is inevitable in any book, but it was a special problem for > the Potterverse due to a large number of factors. > Let's > look at two instances in particular, just by way of example: the > Christian nature of the books and the specific instance of Sirius' > comment about the division of the world. > > To focus more on literature, the arguable Ethical Calvinism of > Rowling is quite different from the Catholicism of Tolkien, the > Broad Church Anglicanism of Lewis, the Symbolic Romanticism of > Williams, the Narrative Romanticism of Lawhead, the Episcopalian > Spiritualism of L'Engle, or the Fundamentalist Literalism of > LeHaye. It is therefore not surprising that when she talked > about being a Christian people read all sorts of meanings into > that she did not intend, and were therefore disappointed when > her intent was more fully revealed. lizzyben: I never read a Christian message into the text, and am not a practicing Christian. I don't care if the books have a Christian, pagan, atheist or Hindu theme, as long as there is some type of coherent theme in the novels. And that's what I find lacking. So, I'm not disappointed by the lack of a Christian theme, but the lack of any coherent theme. L'Engle's "Wrinkle in Time" is one of my favorite novels, and is a good example of a children's novel w/a consistent overarching theme. Meg hates her faults & differences that make her a misfit - but by the end of the novel, she's learned about the dangers of total conformity (reprensented by Camazotz), and learned to appreciate the qualities that make her different & unique. I don't see a similar clear theme in the Harry Potter novels. What has Harry learned by the end of these novels? How is he a different person at the end? A protagonist is the character who profoundly *changes* as a result of the experiences he has had throughout the story - and I just don't see this w/Harry. He's a hero, not a protagonist. IMO, a good argument could be made that Neville Longbottom is the real protagonist of the novels - he's the only one who truly faces his weaknesses, realizes his strengths, and becomes a stronger better person at the end. So, what was the theme of the novels? You've explained what it was *not*, but not what the underlying theme of the novels actually was. What was the message of this 7-novel opus? Was it really just "some people suck & there's not much you can do about it?" lupinlore: > With regard to Sirius statement that the world is not divided into > good people and Death Eaters, here the issue is even more complex. > I understand and acknowledge that, even taking that statement at > face value, there are problems with the way that JKR plays the > theme out in the text, or fails to play it out as the case may be. > I reiterate, I do not see JKR as having no responsbility in this > matter. > > However, it seems to me in this example that some people were > wanting her to have said something very different than what, in > fact, was literally put down in the text. That is, they were > wanting Sirius to have said "The world is not divided into people > who are nice to you and people who hate you and mean you ill." > They wanted this to play out particularly, to use loaded examples, > with the Slytherins, particularly Snape and Draco. > They wanted, > it seems, Snape to not REALLY hate and bear ill-will toward Harry > -- his cruelty was to have been an act, or a legitimate teaching > method designed to teach Harry what he had to know, or an artifact > of Harry's skewed perceptions. Draco's attitude likewise was to > have been a result of petty, not-serious childhood rivalry and/or > Harry's prejudice. Draco was to have been revealed to have been > a boy much like Harry who really just wanted to be friends. > Well, the trouble is that ISN'T what JKR said. Sirius DIDN'T say > "The world isn't divided into people who are nice to you and people > who hate you and bear you ill will." Regardless of the merits of > such a message, that just isn't what's there. Snape DID hate Harry > and bear him ill-will, if not always in the way Harry believed (but > usually in the way Harry believed). Draco DID hate Harry and bear > him ill-will, almost exactly in the way Harry believed. In this > regard, to say something controversial, JKR might be justified in > answering the charge, "You lied to us!" with a rejoinder "Errr, no. > You lied to yourself." lizzyben: Well, again, I feel you're sort of projecting expectations that I personally did not have. I never expected Snape's nastiness to be all a cover, or thought Draco was just a nice kid who wanted friends. However, based on the large amount of pages devoted to them in HBP, I did expect them to play a significant role in the final novel. If JKR characterized the two books as "two halves" of the same novel, it seems odd that the antagonists from the first half were mostly dropped in the second half. Odd, but not unforgiveable. No, what really broke the novel for me wasn't the lack of Snapey-poo or Draco, but the lack of any example of a good, or even decent Slytherin - and the total acceptance of labels & stereotypes that this represents. I don't need to see a good Snape or Draco, but I really did need to see some example of a good Slyth; whether that's Pansy, Blaise Zabini, or even anonymous Slyths in the ROR, or unknown Slyths staying for the battle of Hogwarts. We didn't see any of that. I needed to see *some* indication that these children are not eternally damned by a singing hat at eleven years old. But that seemed to be the ultimate message - whether that's "ethical Calvinism" or dehumanization of the other is, I suppose, a matter of individual interpretation. But we *can*, in JKR's world, neatly divide people into the "good people" and the "Death Eater"/bad people based soley on what House they belong to. We can even neatly divide the saved & the damned w/the same label. So easy. So wrong. This goes totally against Sirius' statement, and the sorting hat's pleas. I don't believe readers were lying to themselves to think that maybe humanity could not be neatly sorted as good or bad based on what tribe they're in - this was what Sirius had said. But it's not, ultimately, what the books said. lizzyben From snifsmak at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 14:25:28 2007 From: snifsmak at yahoo.com (Natalie) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:25:28 -0000 Subject: The dust corpse In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708090523vdc48521vce09d5194bd31ace@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174919 > montims: > > in fact, I'm a little confused about the dust corpse. If Snape were unable > to say that line about not killing DD, either because of the tongue lock or > because it's not true (on the surface...), what would that dusty thing have > done to him? > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > I too don't understand how Moody's spells worked. I can't see how the tongue-tying spell could've prevented Snape from telling the others about the location of Grimmauld Place outside the house, and how the dust corpse could've prevented Snape from entering the house. Natalie From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Aug 9 14:55:23 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:55:23 -0000 Subject: Another Timeline Problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174920 mz_annethrope: > At least in my book Snape's finding Lily's letter at > 12 GP comes just after Snape's severing George's ear > and just after the Forest of Dean set up. (Taking into > account Carol's suggestion that Sirius was 16 at the > time of the Prank) So I think everything is chronological > here. It just means that Snape must have entered 12 GP > after Moody died so he got by the trap Moody set for him. houyhnhnm: Quite right. I don't know where my head was when I wrote that, plainly not in the book. I think what confused me about the timeline was the fact that Snape talked to Dumbledore's portrait *before* he went to 12 GP and it would have to have been before the meeting at Malfoy Manor, before Voldemort took over the MoM and Hogwarts. How did Snape come to be in DD's office? But it's not really a problem. It's not hard to imagine Snape breaking into Hogwarts after the students had gone home and, of course, DD's office would have been open to him. From rolshan2000 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 15:37:36 2007 From: rolshan2000 at yahoo.com (rolshan2000) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:37:36 -0000 Subject: Fly on the wall commentator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174921 Completely agree. To me (and my husband and our 13 yo an 8yo) DH is a magnificent conclusion to what is surely one of the best fantasy adventure series of the ages. I am a verrrrrrrrrrrrrry long time lurker and it often seems that those on this list have been reading a completely different book. The ultimate heroism of Harry, as well as Ron and Hermione is deeply moving and feels very real. All romances have lovely conclusions (long foreshadowed). The intricate plotting is amazing - just think of all the echos in DH of the first book - even Griphook and Gringotts dragon make an appearance, to say nothing of Serius' motorbike (on which Harry leaves Privet Drive just the way he arrived there) and Dumbeldore's broken nose (noted in the very first chapter of the first book)! And anyone who doesn't cheer when Bellatrix got hers from Molly (of all people) or understand that Snape really could not have been turned into a nice guy (his redemption was just right, giving him a noble purpose and showing his courage and, yes, loyalty while not pretending he was ever anything other than a sadistic jerk we have always seen)... Well I think, as you say, many posters got derailed into some parallel HP series that was in their head but never on the page! --- In HPfor Grownups at yahoogroups.com, "zenonkowalewski" wrote: > > Hogwartians, > > After finishing Deathly Hollows I decided to listen-in on this groups > messages to see what other people thought. Is it just me or is there > a lot of complaining going on in this group? I felt like using > Crucio myself after reading some of the messages (I will not point > fingers!). From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 15:56:03 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:56:03 -0000 Subject: Disappointment and Responsibility (was Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174922 > > lupinlore: > > With regard to Sirius statement that the world is not divided into > > good people and Death Eaters, here the issue is even more complex. > > I understand and acknowledge that, even taking that statement at > > face value, there are problems with the way that JKR plays the > > theme out in the text, or fails to play it out as the case may be. > > I reiterate, I do not see JKR as having no responsbility in this > > matter. > > > > However, it seems to me in this example that some people were > > wanting her to have said something very different than what, in > > fact, was literally put down in the text. That is, they were > > wanting Sirius to have said "The world is not divided into people > > who are nice to you and people who hate you and mean you ill." > > They wanted this to play out particularly, to use loaded examples, > > with the Slytherins, particularly Snape and Draco. > > They wanted, > > it seems, Snape to not REALLY hate and bear ill-will toward Harry > > -- his cruelty was to have been an act, or a legitimate teaching > > method designed to teach Harry what he had to know, or an artifact > > of Harry's skewed perceptions. Draco's attitude likewise was to > > have been a result of petty, not-serious childhood rivalry and/or > > Harry's prejudice. Draco was to have been revealed to have been > > a boy much like Harry who really just wanted to be friends. > > Well, the trouble is that ISN'T what JKR said. Sirius DIDN'T say > > "The world isn't divided into people who are nice to you and people > > who hate you and bear you ill will." Regardless of the merits of > > such a message, that just isn't what's there. Snape DID hate Harry > > and bear him ill-will, if not always in the way Harry believed (but > > usually in the way Harry believed). Draco DID hate Harry and bear > > him ill-will, almost exactly in the way Harry believed. In this > > regard, to say something controversial, JKR might be justified in > > answering the charge, "You lied to us!" with a rejoinder "Errr, no. > > You lied to yourself." > > lizzyben: > But we *can*, in JKR's world, neatly divide people into > the "good people" and the "Death Eater"/bad people based soley on > what House they belong to. We can even neatly divide the > saved & the damned w/the same label. So easy. So wrong. This goes > totally against Sirius' statement, and the sorting hat's pleas. I > don't believe readers were lying to themselves to think that maybe > humanity could not be neatly sorted as good or bad based on what > tribe they're in - this was what Sirius had said. But it's not, > ultimately, what the books said. > > Lanval: Am I the only one who read Sirius's statement as meaning nothing more than: there are bad, cruel people in this world who aren't Death Eaters, or are in any way associated with Voldemort? As in, all DE's are bad, but not every bad person is a DE? I don't have the book in front of me, but I seem to remember that Harry and Sirius were discussing Umbrigde in this scene, and Harry voiced some concern over Umbridge perhaps being an ally to LV, because of his scar hurting. The way I remember it, it had nothing at all to do with Slytherin or the House System either. I may be thinking of the wrong scene, of course. However, as to the statement itself, I *never* read it as a call for Harry to open up his mind and see beneath the surface of people, or look for the good in Slytherin House, or rethink the Hogwarts Sorting System (please, this is Sirius. I love him dearly, but he strikes me as a rather unlikely Ambassador of Tolerance.) From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 16:08:19 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:08:19 -0000 Subject: Unanswered In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174923 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > Katie again: <<>> > > So, I stick with Aberforth. :) But since JKR hasn't said, I guess it > > could have been virtually anyone. Cheers, Katie > > va32h: > > Aberforth is at the funeral with no disguise - Harry recognizes > him "the barman from the Hog's Head". We are also specifically told > that the person in the veil is Madam Pince, so I don't really > understand why this is a question at all. > **** Katie again: OOPS. I don't have the book on me, but I take your word for it. I didn't remember Madame Pince being mentioned at all, though I do now remember Aberforth being there. Oh, well, it was fun to ponder while it lasted! Katie From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Aug 9 14:59:57 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:59:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Aberforth Message-ID: <186345.95366.qm@web86202.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174924 Carol wrote: Just out of curiosity (I'm addressing the group in general), what were your expectations for him and how close to the mark were they? What's your reaction to the character as he's presented? Is he just a plot device? A foil to Albus? Something else? Is he wiser than DD in your view, or are they both mistaken in their perceptions of each other? Any guesses as to which House he was in? Irene: I didn't have much expectations, but I've enjoyed this character immensely. I thought the purpose of the character was to present a contrast between academic cleverness, represented by Dumbledore, and a street-wise person with the "heart of gold". Where JKR failed miserably in making me like her beloved Hagrid (I'll explain in the end of the post), I really liked Aberforth. I thought he was spot-on in his assessment of his dear brother. Oh, and Albus was really petty and mean to call him illiterate, twice. I'm pretty sure he was a Gryffindor (never mind his rather Slytherinish speech to Harry), for no other reason that Rowling likes him. Which brings me back to my Hagrid rant. He really should have died twice in that book. First, during the Seven Potters chase, where in the heat of the battle he almost managed to kill Harry, by indulging his inferiority complex. I thought - OK, JKR, it would serve him right, but you don't want to kill him so early in the book, fine. Then came the acromantula moment - surely that would be a fitting tragic death, the very definition of hubris? But nooooo, he had to survive. :-( JKR just didn't have the guts in the end. Irene From muellem at bc.edu Thu Aug 9 16:18:06 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:18:06 -0000 Subject: Fly on the wall commentator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174925 >>zenonkowalewski wrote: >> Is it just me or is there > > a lot of complaining going on in this group? I felt like using > > Crucio myself after reading some of the messages (I will not point > > fingers!) >rolshan2000 wrote: >Well I > think, as you say, many posters got derailed into some parallel HP > series that was in their head but never on the page! > colebiancardi: I didn't want to respond to the first charge, but after the second one, I felt I needed to add my 2 knuts on these charges. I've read every post since the reopening of these boards after DH's came out. I read positive and negative reviews - at this point, the boards are split pretty much down the middle. So, I am not sure where "a lot of complaining" comment is coming from. There are just as many positive threads as ones that are disappointed. Also, I do not believe that "many posters got derailed into some parallel HP series". Canon through-out the first 6 books gave us insight into "not all evil people are DH" and that there might be some good Slytherians out there. We saw the Unforgiveable Curses being names as such and through out the series, Harry could not issue such a curse because he never had it in him. That is not a parallel HP series; those are the writings of JKR. To think that those who were expecting more on these lines of thought and to suggest they were reading some other books is absurd in my opinion. Last time I checked, this board was set up to provide lively and polite discussions on the HP series. To many readers, many things were still left unresolved - from the ages of certain people to the moral use of UC's to the division of the Houses. I've been on these boards a long time; to paraphrase a certain Potions professor, I see no difference in the boards prior to the release of DH and now. The discussions are still going on and if you take a snapshot of the boards after any of the book's releases, you will see both positive and so-called negative comments. If you wish to discuss the positive aspects of the book, then you are free to start a thread, as many others have done so. But I do wish members would not try to demean or insult other members who have valid criticisms of this last book. I have posted on both positive and the *so-called* negative threads. I believe that in our group, we have space enough to have both sides. colebiancardi From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Thu Aug 9 16:22:52 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 12:22:52 -0400 Subject: Another Timeline Problem Message-ID: <003201c7daa1$8956deb0$43c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 174926 mz_annethrope: " So I think everything is chronological here. It just means that Snape must have entered 12 GP after Moody died so he got by the trap Moody set for him." Unfortunately, JKR in her online chat, or one of the interviews after publication of DH, said Snape went to 12 GP immediately after DD's death. Moody had not yet set the charms. That one memory is out of sequence by two or three memories (it should occur 2-3 before it does). CathyD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 16:27:19 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:27:19 -0000 Subject: Aberforth In-Reply-To: <186345.95366.qm@web86202.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174927 > Carol wrote: > > > Just out of curiosity (I'm addressing the group in general), what were your expectations for him and how close to the mark were they? What's your reaction to the character as he's presented? Is he just a plot device? A foil to Albus? Something else? > > > Is he wiser than DD in your view, or are they both mistaken in their > perceptions of each other? Any guesses as to which House he was in? *** Katie: I liked Aberforth very much. I had no expectations for him at all - actually, I never expected even to meet him, unlike alot of more observant people in this group! I thought Aberforth was a very *intelligent* man, although he was obviously less *intellectual* than Albus. I thought he was strong, clever, caring, and capable, if a bit negative and gruff. I thought Aberforth was a good example of how intelligence can be manifested differently. He certainly wasn't like Hermione or Albus...but he obviously wasn't dumb. I also thought JKR may have meant him as an example of how Albus could have been, had he not been arrogant and power-hungry as a youth. I found the two brothers very similar in temperment - warm, funny, and often gruff. But Aberforth laced the arrogance of Albus, the arrogance so many find distasteful. I would guess that he was also in Gryffindor, considering that he *is* so very much like Albus in many ways...and some would argue that he's actually braver than Albus. I think Albus might even argue that. One thing I wondered about was the constant description of Aberforth's eyes and glasses as (I don't have the book on me) white or opaque. I mean, we know JKR is obsessed with eyes, but I wondered what the specific signifigance of his opaque eyes was. My immediate thought when reading it was that he was blinded by his anger about Albus's ability to change...but that might be a stretch. Any thoughts? Katie From va32h at comcast.net Thu Aug 9 16:38:09 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:38:09 -0000 Subject: Aberforth In-Reply-To: <186345.95366.qm@web86202.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174928 Before I get to Aberforth I wanted to address this: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > Which brings me back to my Hagrid rant. He really should have died twice in that book. First, during the Seven Potters chase, where in the heat of the battle he almost managed to kill Harry, by indulging his inferiority complex. I thought - OK, JKR, it would serve him right, but you don't want to kill him so early in the book, fine. Then came the acromantula moment - surely that would be a fitting tragic death, the very definition of hubris? But nooooo, he had to survive. :-( JKR just didn't have the guts in the end. va32h: I adamantly disagree that Hagrid's survival was a matter of JKR not having the "guts" to kill him. Whether you personally like Hagrid or not, he does act as a symbol of transition in Harry's life - Hagrid carrying Harry's "dead" body out of the forest is a very obvious bookend to Hagrid's taking Baby Harry out of the ruined house in Godric's Hollow. And in between those two events, we have Hagrid coming to rescue Harry from the Hut on the Rock and return him to his true home in the wizarding world. Having the spiders carry Hagrid into the forest is merely the plot device that puts Hagrid in the forest so he can be there when Harry is killed. I understand why readers would dislike Hagrid, but I put him in the category of James and Sirius as "characters JKR intends us to like, even though she hasn't given us any particularly good reasons to do so." Now on to Aberforth. I had expected him to be very different - which is to say very much like Albus. Like others, I was pleasantly surprised. I definitely like the idea of some longstanding grudge between the brothers. I doubt it is *that* deep a rift, if Aberforth chooses to live in (of all places) the village outside the school where his brother lives. And Albus has frequented the Hog's Head enough that we can safely assume his brother doesn't break his nose every time Albus walks in the door. Aberforth acts much as Belltrix did in the Spinner's End chapter of HBP. Asking questions the readers are asking. Why did Dumbledore assign this immensely difficult, deadly task to a bunch of teenagers! I do see a similarity between Aberforth and Snape...both men have loved someone very much (Ariana, Lily) and lost that person. It would appear that both men have concluded "right well, that's the last time I'm ever going to care about another human being, it hurts too much to lose them." But while Snape seems to be determinedly following that path, Aberforth has allowed himself to care about other people after all, even while outwardly continuing to deny it. va32h From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Aug 9 16:54:16 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:54:16 -0000 Subject: Aberforth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174929 Ceridwen: I thought Aberforth would be more in tune with Albus, working together behind the scenes to further the mission of the Order. I thought the public falling-out had something to do with the goat issue, and was a ruse to fool the questionable characters who haunt the Hog's Head; ditto Albus's comments about Aberforth's reading and writing abilities. I liked what we got in the character. I guess I should have guessed that, of all people, Albus's sibling would see him as merely mortal, and maybe more than a little flawed. My kids don't think their sibs are anything spectacular. As a sib, Aberforth had higher expectations for Albus as well, and was sorely disappointed. I think they were both old enough at well over a hundred, to put differences aside and work together in the Order. Aberforth was a member in VWI and II, gave Albus a place to meet Trelawney and presumably other appointments, and sent information about Riddle's group calling themselves Death Eaters, and that those DEs were waiting for Tom back at the Hog's Head. Aberfort seemed to understand that carrying the grudge to extremes would not bring Ariana back. va32h: I do see a similarity between Aberforth and Snape...both men have loved someone very much (Ariana, Lily) and lost that person. It would appear that both men have concluded "right well, that's the last time I'm ever going to care about another human being, it hurts too much to lose them." But while Snape seems to be determinedly following that path, Aberforth has allowed himself to care about other people after all, even while outwardly continuing to deny it. Ceridwen: Yes, I see the similarity, now that you brought it up. But, Aberforth has had a very long life to learn how to care again, while Snape died in his thirties. He may have come around, like Aberforth. It's interesting that, based only on what we have in canon, Aberforth, too, has never married. Maybe he's able to care about people now, but not enough to care that deeply. Ceridwen. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 16:58:00 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:58:00 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174930 > ****Katie responds: > Again, I agree so much, I don't know where to begin. Molly had > already lost a child that day. All of her children and her husband > were in danger of being killed. She sees her daughter about to be > killed by the nastiest nasty next to Voldemort himself...I'd get > pretty maternal, too. I'm glad she killed Bellatrix. I'm glad she > called her a bitch. I'm glad Molly got a chance to protect one of > her children, even after losing Fred. Molly needs to make no > excuses to me. snip> > And I, for one, actively wanted her dead from the moment she killed the poor innocent fox at the beginning of HBP. I was quite happy to see her go. > > I continue to not understand why so many people expect that our > heroes should have guilt about killing or hurting these awful > people. It's not like they're hurting innocents. And I do not > believe that it says something about their lack of moral fiber... Tonks: I am one that has some concerns about Molly. And she is one of my favorites. But what kind of a message is Rowling sending? This is not a black and white option. And Molly's response is not what we are told to do as a Christian. It is a very difficult point and I don't really know the answer. Maybe Rowling did it that way to show us that there is no easy answer. When we kill those who are killers, do we not become one of them? How is our killing different than theirs? I understand that we can not allow someone to kill our family. I would probably respond in self defense and to protect my family too, just as Molly did. But does that make my actions right? I think it makes me a fallen human being. And I also thing that we as human beings are meant to find a way to something higher. But what? How can we protect ourselves and those that we love without becoming like the very ones we are fighting against? Victim and perpetrator are one. There is no separating us. As we see with Harry, the only way to separate the two is for one to be willing die. But as someone said to me recently, if Christians practiced what they preach they would be very few of them left. I don???t know the answer, but I think it far more than just an eye for an eye. Tonks_op From rolshan2000 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 17:00:29 2007 From: rolshan2000 at yahoo.com (rolshan2000) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:00:29 -0000 Subject: Fly on the wall commentator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174931 The curses were Unforgivable in peacetime (like murder), things are different in wartime. Harry could not issue them because he was still too young and innocent. He (and I identified with this thoroughtly) had seen enough by end of DH to have sufficient maturity and anger to wield them (again, think of deadly weapons). Not all evil people are death eaters was indeed true throughout the novel (as most clearly shown in the ministry, with respect to the ease with which the bureacrats were corrupted). There were good Slytherins - Slughorn fought (against all his instincts!) until the end and Snape was revealed to have been loyal to Dumbledore and brave in fulfilling his mission. The fact that this did not make Snape "good" shows the complexity of the world (not only are not all bad people deatheaters but not all people against Voldermort are good). To me all of that is exquisitely consistent with the earlier books. I did not mean to descend into metacommentary, but stand by my statement that many of the criticisms (not all) seem to be from people who were reading a different series. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: >> > colebiancardi: > > > Also, I do not believe that "many posters got derailed into some > parallel HP series". Canon through-out the first 6 books gave us > insight into "not all evil people are DH" and that there might be some > good Slytherians out there. We saw the Unforgiveable Curses being > names as such and through out the series, Harry could not issue such a > curse because he never had it in him. That is not a parallel HP > series; those are the writings of JKR. > > To think that those who were expecting more on these lines of thought > and to suggest they were reading some other books is absurd in my > opinion. > From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 9 17:02:18 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:02:18 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174932 "sistermagpie" wrote: > I don't think people are saying Harry > should feel guilty for torturing Carrow > or Molly should feel guilty for killing Bellatrix If I had done either of those things I'd feel more than not guilty, I'd feel extraordinarily proud of myself. And I think each tear a fictional hero shed over this would cut down book sales by a million copies. Nobody wants to read about a self absorbed, hand wringing, sickly sweet wimp of a hero, I certainly don't. > they just said the scenes were Hollywood > cheer moments and so not much concerned > with morality at all beyond the pleasure of knocking out a hate object. And they seem to expect me to understand instinctively that a "Hollywood cheer moment" is a bad thing; but I don't have that instinct. > so not much concerned with morality Good! The last thing in the world I want is a heavy handed morality lesson stuck into the middle of a Harry Potter book. If JKR wants to send a message she'll write you an E mail. > It's just gotcha moments that don't say much > about anything except that these people are > obviously guilty so it's satisfying having > them taken out by the Good. Don't say much? It seems to me that good people taking out obviously guilty people says quite a lot. And it is satisfying! Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From karen at dacafe.com Thu Aug 9 17:15:34 2007 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:15:34 -0000 Subject: Another Timeline Problem In-Reply-To: <003201c7daa1$8956deb0$43c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174933 Thanks to all who responded. This discussion has allowed me to get past the inconsistency in my interpretation of the events. Your help in this is greatly appreciated, KMC From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Aug 9 17:17:23 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:17:23 -0000 Subject: Off-page Snape (Was: Character construction) In-Reply-To: <00d701c7da4e$70548500$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174934 Shelley: > Says who? Ok, for those that already had worked out a > redemption plan in their heads for Snape long before > reading this book, all they were looking for was a > confirmation that their theory was correct. Those > people weren't directly looking for all the backup > and supporting details of such a conclusion probably > didn't even notice that anything was missing. houyhnhnm: Although I was a DDM!Snaper, I was not a LOLLIPOPS adherent. The Snape whose story I finally learned in DH was not the Snape I thought I knew. Snape's backstory came as a complete surprise to me. Harry's acceptance of it, which I couldn't even imagine before DH, did seem abrupt. Here is why it worked for me. First, Harry has already been presented as someone with very little psychological inertia once he accepts discrepant facts. He went from wanting to kill Sirius to being willing to die for him all in the space of a few hours. (The fact that this took place in the Shrieking Shack, the same place where Harry received Snape's memories is no coincidence, IMO.) Secondly, as I pointed out in Message #174279, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174279 we *see* Harry actively empathizing with Snape as he is viewing the memories. It is no stretch for me to believe that Harry could go on from empathizing with Snape as a young adolescent suffering under a hopeless crush to empathizing with Snape as a grown man caught between his loyalty to Dumbledore and his resentment that he is not trusted enough to be told the truth. I think Snape's frustration at being kept in the dark is something Harry would have immediately identified with. He comes to understand Snape's brand of courage because he experiences it for himself on his walk into the forest to face Voldemort. "This cold-blooded walk to his own destruction would require a different kind of bravery." A Slytherin kind of bravery actually, very different from hot-blooded Gryffindor daring and chivalry. If we still needed it at this point, there is Harry's near death experience in "King's Cross" in which he doesn't need his glasses because all the scales have finally fallen from his eyes and he can see clearly. Finally, there is gratitude. Jane Austen wrote of Elizabeth Bennet that, "If gratitude and esteem are good foundations of affection, Elizabeth's change of sentiment will be neither improbable nor faulty." Harry has two reasons for gratitude to Snape. Snape gave him the thing he wanted so desperately that no one else would give him: The truth. And Snape gave Harry his mother, just as Sirius had given him his father. Snape had known Lily longer than anyone else (except Petunia) and in a way no one else had known her. For all of Slughorn's unctious praise, I never felt I knew Lily and I don't think Harry did either. After reading "The Prince's Tale" Lily was at last real for me and I think for Harry also. So, although Snape's story did not turn out to be as I had envisioned it and though I still have some problems with other aspects of DH, the resolution of the Snape-Harry conflict was one thing that was believable and satisfying to me. From guzuguzu at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 17:22:55 2007 From: guzuguzu at yahoo.com (guzuguzu) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:22:55 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" [LONG] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174935 I want to respond to these posts, especially since I think there was some misinterpretation of what I was saying. But first, here is the duel scene from canon. (DH UK version) Pages 589-590: [guzu's note: Harry is walking wearing his invisibility cloak] "Voldemort was now dueling McGonagall, Slughorn and Kingsley all at once, and there was cold hatred in his face as they wove and ducked around him, unable to finish him - Bellatrix was still fighting too, fifty yards away from Voldemort, and like her master, she duelled three at once: Hermione, Ginny and Luna, all battling their hardest, but Bellatrix was equal to them, and Harry's attention was diverted as a Killing Curse shot so close to Ginny that she missed death by an inch - He changed course, running at Bellatrix rather than Voldemort, but before he had gone a few steps he was knocked sideways. 'NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!' Mrs Weasley threw off her cloak as she ran, freeing her arms. Bellatrix spun on the spot, roaring with laughter at the sight of her new challenger. 'OUT OF MY WAY!' shouted Mrs Weasley to the three girls, and with a swipe of her wand she began to duel. Harry watched with terror and elation as Molly Weasley's wand slashed and twirled, and Bellatrix Lestrange's smile faltered, and became a snarl. Jets of light flew from both wands, the floor around the witches' feet became hot and cracked; both women were fighting to kill. 'No!' Mrs Weasley cried, as a few students ran forwards, trying to come to her aid. 'Get back! Get back! She is mine!' Hundreds of people now lined the walls, watching the two fights, Voldemort and his three opponents, Bellatrix and Molly, and Harry stood, invisible, unable to be sure that he would not hit the innocent. 'What will happen to your children when I've killed you?' taunted Bellatrix, as mad as her master, capering as Molly's curses danced around her. 'When Mummy's gone the same way as Freddie?' 'You - will - never- touch- our - children - again' screamed Mrs Weasley. Bellatrix laughed, the same exhilarated laugh her cousin Sirius had given as he toppled backwards through the veil, and suddenly Harry knew what was going to happen before it did. Molly's curse soared beneath Bellatrix's outstretched arm and hit her squarely in the chest, directly over her heart. Bellatrix's gloating smile froze, her eyes seemed to bulge: for the tiniest space of time she knew what had happened, and then she toppled, and the watching crowd roared, and Voldemort screamed." (snip) Whew... okay, first of all: Lisa: I wasn't fond of the portrayal of blinded-by-love Tonks, either -- but do you honestly believe that Tonks was just popping in to check on her dear hubby?? You seriously don't think that she was fighting alongside him? guzu: Unfortunately, that is exactly what Tonks says. Granny Longbottom says she is there to assist Neville. Ginny wants to fight. Tonks says, "Have you seen Remus?" I'm sure she fights after she's found him (or found him dead), but if she was really there to fight, she should have just said so-- she's an auror. Believe me, I wish the text was written differently, because Tonks was one of my top 5 favorite characters before DH. My top five are: Snape, Ron, Molly, Neville and pre-DH-Tonks. Yes, Molly is one of my favorite characters, which is why I am taking the time to post about her. guzu: > Well, it was in character for Molly, yes, I should have wrote that > clearer. I don't think it's in character for hundreds of people, > including Harry and Ginny, to stand around and watch this duel and do nothing to help. Why would they assume that Molly would win when Bella has been killing people left and right? Lisa: I believe that was explained, too. Through Harry's eyes, we see that as the duelers (Bella & Molly and Voldie and the gang fighting him) fight, they are flying about, and to aim a spell in the direction of the duelers would be to place "the good guys" in danger of being hit. guzu: It does say that but it doesn't ring true to me-- it seems like a plot point created to make the scene work. First of all, Harry is running to help out Ginny when he's knocked out of the way by Molly-- why didn't Harry have that fear of aiming properly when Ginny, Hermione and Luna were dueling? Why didn't Ginny, Hermione and Luna run back beside Molly and fight as a team (as they were doing 10 seconds earlier)? Hundreds of people independently came to the conclusion that they might accidentally stun the wrong person? I'm not suggesting that people should have thrown AK at them, but how about Expelliarmus? If they hit them both, then both of them would be disarmed. How about a nice jellylegs or bat bogey curse? What if Molly hadn't been victorious and hundreds of people had stood around and watched her get killed without trying to help? That would have been too horrible to contemplate. Of course lucky things happen. I don't see why the hundreds of bystanders would *think that would be likely to happen*. va32h: > Well one thing I'm saying right now is that, IMO, it's pretty silly > to complain that hundreds of people just stood around watching Molly > and Bella. The same people stood around watching Voldemort duel > McGonnagal, Kingsley, and Slughorn and the same people stood around > watching Harry and Voldemort walk around in circles and chit-chat. > Why aren't you asking why Kingsley Shacklebolt didn't curse Voldemort > from behind or why Hagrid didn't tackle Voldemort? guzu: Well, it was a minor battle (thematically) that went nowhere, but now that you mention it, I am asking it. Why was everyone just standing there for that? Why wasn't anyone helping? The good guys outnumbered the bad guys by several hundred. Why is everyone not kicking butt? va32h: Harry may be Harry - but as every single adult character likes to point out - he > is a barely qualified teenage wizard. It's perfectly reasonable to > assume that highly trained Aurors like Kingsley or very experienced > professors like McGonnagal are more capable of killing Voldemort than > a 17 year old kid. guzu: Good point. However, Harry is "the chosen one" and we know why no one but Harry can kill Voldemort-- it's because of the prophesy/horcruxes/elderwand/hisbloodisinharry'sveins/fishcakes. :-) And yes, I really wish that a highly trained auror or experienced professor had been able to take *someone* down successfully. I found it so disappointing that with the exception of Kingsley, every auror we meet gets their butts whupped (Moody, Longbottoms, Tonks, Dawlish, Scrimgeour). Aurors are supposed to be an elite police force?why are they so incompetent? Are we meant to think it's Ministry corruption? va32h: > And yet this is how the story goes, because Deathly Hallows isn't a > tactical manual, it's a novel and the set piece of "crowd watches in > shocked silence while two characters duke it out" is very commonly > used in works of fiction. guzu: I know, and it works fine for Harry's duel, as it's dramatic and gives a chance for Harry to give all his plot exposition. *In my opinion* it was not a successful piece of writing for Molly's duel scene because it was written like a scene from an action movie-- I found it jarring and out-of-place. A smaller setting, with only a few people around fighting (similar to Sirius's death scene), may have worked better. Or to have her win the duel through cunning or intelligence, and not a lucky shot. guzu: > That is exactly what I meant by "mother love conquers all." Molly > single-handedly succeeded where many trained aurors and experienced > duelers had failed. Lisa: And when I was 19, I won a contest in which I was a complete, inexperienced newbie, against people who had been competing and winning for years. Sometimes it happens. guzu: Of course-- beginner's luck. It does happen. However, it's not logical nor probable-- it's quite fantastic when it happens. When someone hits the lotto jackpot, it's always a more interesting story if that's the first time the winner ever bought a ticket, as opposed to buying them every day. But it's interesting because it's unexpected. guzu: Since there has never been one mention of Molly > being particularly talented (unlike Ginny or Herminone, who we've > heard are unusually strong) or even going on missions for the Order, the only good explanation for this is the "super-mother-magic" thing. Lisa: Why? We haven't been told a LOT of things about a LOT of characters. I think it's silly to say that if we haven't been specifically told someone is "particularly talented," then they simply aren't. guzu: As Hermione said to Mr. Lovegood, I can't prove a negative, so I can't prove that Molly was not particularly talented and had no dueling training or experience. However, if Molly had some training or experience, or was a talented hex-thrower, that would have been an interesting and relevant thing for Rowling to mention somewhere. It would have been quite easy to throw a line about Molly in-- I know that Flitwick was a dueling champion. I know Snape's mother was talented at gobstones. I know far too little about Molly. Lisa: And frankly, now I think you're being purposely snide about your "super-mother-magic" comments, as you have been told that they are offensive, yet you continue to make them. The grand majority of this list is beyond that sort of continual thing. guzu: I believe you are being unfair to me-- I made that statement *once* and exactly one person told me they were offended by my comments, and I don't even think that's the comment that they were talking about-- I think they were offended by my use of the word housewife. Anyway, It was supposed to be a joke, the joke being that it doesn't actually exist. I am a mother (I have a four year old daughter) and a former full-time housewife and I am sorry to say I have no special butt-kicking abilities. Lisa: I must've missed them. I read about three teenagers -- Hermione, Luna, and Ginny -- battling Bella, while Kingsley and others were battling Voldemort. And while the three of them have certainly escaped dangerous situations before, I think as far as "actual battle" goes, they, too, have little experience. So Molly should have, what, just allowed Bella to toy with the teens while she watched from the sidelines? Are you a mother? No mother would allow that, trust me. guzu: Actually, I am a mother, but that is beside the point-- if I saw *any* children in a dangerous situation 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago-- I would have tried to help them. As I think most people would, whether they had children, or whether the children in danger were their own children. I work at a school-- many people protect children other than their own parents. My point is-- there is something in between watching from the sidelines and going it alone. Would Ginny have let Bella toy with her mother while she watched from the sidelines? My opinion is no. I don't think it fits her character. I don't know who the hundreds of people on the sidelines were, but I'm betting there was at least one more Weasley there. va32h: > There are plenty of people engaged in the Battle of Hogwarts who are > neither soliders or policemen. There are students, teachers, > shopkeepers, the residents of Hogsmeade, government workers. Since > only 50 or so of them died, I think it's safe to conclude that they > handled themselves pretty well. Percy Weasley seems to be doing quite > well in battle, for someone whose job consists of fretting over the > thickness of cauldron bottoms. > In the magical world, there is no indication that one's skills as a > witch or wizard are entirely determined by one's occupation. Bill > Weasley is a banker, Arthur Weasley is in administration, Fred and > George own a joke shop (and it wasn't a DE that killed Fred, it was a collapsing wall). guzu: The soldiers and policeman I am talking about are all of the Aurors, Order Members and other people who were killed, kidnapped, tortured and imperiused in books 4, 5, 6, 7 (prior to the final battle) and in also Voldemort's first reign of terror (Moody, Emmaline Vance, Sirius, Scrimgeour, the Longbottoms, the Potters, Fabien and Gideon Prewitt, the entire Bones family, etc.) The Death Eaters have been killing, kidnapping and torturing people for years-- many more than 50 people died. And I agree, as you pointed out, it does seem to be the most unlikely people who are actually successful in battle. I believe that to be improbable. Not impossible, but not a logical assumption. I need to be given a reason in the text if I'm supposed to believe that. I know why Harry is successful. Not so sure about everyone else. I contrast the character arc of Molly with the character arc of Neville. Both are third-tier characters who did not start off strong, but throughout the books Rowling slowly but surely shows us Neville's growth as a dueler and warrior. I thought Neville's scenes were some of the best written in DH. I found Molly's dueling scene to be poorly written ?I felt like there were several things missing for it to be fully believable. And I would have felt exactly the same way had it been *Mr. Weasley* or Bill in that scene. It had absolutely nothing to do with Molly or her occupation. If the duel had been Bella versus Bill and everyone had stood around and watched without helping, I would have argued that it was improbable that everyone would believe a banker would be a better fighter than an auror and why wasn't anyone helping Bill? Nothing against bankers, of course! :-) va32h: > I think you also give too much credit to Bellatrix. She's Voldemort's > best lieutenant, but that doesn't make her the be-all and end-all of > evil magical ability. We've seen her in battle one other time, at the > Ministry, where she managed to kill one person. And this is the basis > for her characterization as an unbeatable master duellist? guzu: This is a good point-- we don't know much about what Bella has done specifically. However, the Death Eaters have been on a rampage for 2 years, and for some time during Voldemort's first reign as well-- killing, kidnapping, torturing. I'm sure many if not all of those victims fought back, including ones that were aurors and order members, but they were unsuccessful. My point is that it doesn't matter which Death Eater Molly was up against-- she was up against someone who had viciously attacked many people-- a particularly dangerous person. And I figure that Voldemort's best lieutenant would be an extra-specially dangerous person. va32h: > If you are going to question why "just a housewife" could win a duel > with a Death Eater, then you are going to have to question why the > Death Eaters lost at all. The "Hogwartians", as they are so > interestingly called in the book, were outclassed from the get go. guzu: I never questioned whether she could win it-- she won it. I said it was not a logical assumption that she would definitely win it, and therefore I was horrified by the hundreds of people standing around as if they were watching a K1 fight instead of helping (Molly *and* Kingsley). And I *thought* that the reason that the Hogwartians won was teamwork-- the different houses working together with the alumi, the order members, the teachers, the centaurs, the house elves... the whole being the greater than the sum of the parts. I thought that was a major theme throughout the series, starting in PS when Harry, Ron and Herminone had to work together to get to get to the Mirror of Erised. As I mentioned up thread there something in between standing aside and going alone. Lisa: And like I said before, it wasn't personal for any of the other aurors or policemen and soldiers you seem to have discovered -- but it was for Molly. guzu: It wasn't personal for the Longbottoms? For the Potters? The Bones family? Gideon and Fabien Prewitt? Tonks-- they killed her father? Anyway, it was personal for Molly since before Harry was born-- the Death Eaters killed her two brothers. guzu: > If Molly had used intelligence or ingenuity (as per Hermione), > instead of straight-out might to win, I might have bought it more > easily. Lisa: Oh, my, how on earth could stupid little housewife Molly conjure up any intellignce or ingenuity? All she's fit for is household cleaning spells, and she's apparently not good at those, either, since Fleur's mother came in and cleaned up the house in a jiffy. Poor Molly -- what a waste of wizarding breathing space. guzu: That is the *EXACT OPPOSITE* of my point. My point was that I would think that Molly, as an intelligent, rational person, would be *more likely* to use intelligence, logic and cunning against an opponent instead of a straight-on duel like Sirius did. Molly was much smarter and more rational than Sirius, and had a lot more to lose so it would be more believable to me to have her use cunning and ingenuity instead of shooting spells. We often see Herminone use logic and cunning to much success-- why not Molly? To me this would have been a more believable way to have her defeat Bella, and just as in-character, instead of the cage match scene that we got. In my opinion, Molly won by getting a lucky shot in-- I wish I could have seen more from her than that. Lisa: Lisa, who is DONE with this topic, as there is no point in trying to convince anyone who obviously thinks little of stay-at-home-mothers that said stay-at-home-mothers have any intelligence, ingenuity or talent whatsoever -- although my previous employers would take issue with that concept. guzu: I am sorry that the way I wrote my argument led you to taking the opposite meaning from my intention. As a former stay-at-home mother, I think my current employers would also take issue with that. va32h: > But oh look - when your cause is just and your heart is in the right > place, you can indeed triumph, even when the odds are against you. At > least that's what the English thought at the Battle of Agincourt. > (just to throw out the notion that unexpected victories need not only > occur in novels). I agree with you-- and that has been the case in all the books of the series. However, I wish that some *expected* victories had come along with the unexpected ones. If the underdog always wins and the powerful guy always loses, it's not believable anymore. I didn't believe that scene in DH. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 17:30:11 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:30:11 -0000 Subject: Off-page Snape (Was: Character construction) In-Reply-To: <00d701c7da4e$70548500$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174936 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > Snipping a lot of good stuff before this: > > Carol responds: > > And as for not seeing Harry forgive him, we don't need to. It happens > > without his conscious awareness as he moves through the memories. The > > contrast between his hatred of Snape before his death and his very > > public vindication of Snape afterwards speaks for itself, and the > > tribute in the epilogue shows that he still holds that view nineteen > > years later. > > > > Snape's courage and perseverance and devotion to duty and loyalty to a > > man who used him are just as evident as his love for Lily, which > > starts out selfish but does not remain so, as are Snape's many > > talents, which are there for anyone who reads the text to see. > > > > Carol, wondering if Snape could have saved himself from death with a > > healing spell if he had really wished to do so > > Shelley: > > It's this line that I take exception to: "And as for not seeing Harry > forgive him, we don't need to." > > Says who? Ok, for those that already had worked out a redemption plan in > their heads for Snape long before reading this book, all they were looking > for was a confirmation that their theory was correct. Those people weren't > directly looking for all the backup and supporting details of such a > conclusion probably didn't even notice that anything was missing. Why read > the details in the book when your fan theory already has worked out all the > details you will ever need? > > But for those of us who wanted to know exactly WHY and HOW Snape gets > redeemed, there's just something terribly wrong. We are reading this book > expecting Rowling to tell us through Harry's eyes how Harry forgives Snape. > As I and some others have pointed out, a few damn lines here or there would > have done it- Harry, under the invisibility cloak, wanting to be alone- heck > it would be one paragraph to have him stop and consider Snape and whether he > had been wrong about him. A single line to say that "he now understood, and > chose right there and then to forgive him.". Then, the name Albus > Dumbledore would have made sense. Or Harry talking to Dumbledore, > questioning the fact that he misunderstood Snape and Dumbledore wishing him > to forgive Snape so that he could moving forward with his life, tying the > idea of coming back to life with a clean slate, without the burden of hating > Snape any longer. Both of those would have MOVED me, a solid "Snape is scum" > believer, into the realm of forgiving Snape with Harry. > > I strongly disagree that "I" personally didn't need to feel that > forgiveness, that redemption, that turn around. I did, and because I didn't, > when I read that Harry had named his son after Snape, it caused me to scream > and yell at my book- I just couldn't believe that Harry had done that, and > then later I realized that Harry wasn't the one at fault, it was all > Rowling's for not helping me to see that transition more clearly. > > Shelley > Carol responds: Sorry about the "we." I should have said, "I, for one," though I'm sure I speak for many readers besides myself. For one thing, showing is usually more effective than telling, and I think that the reader is expected to mirror Harry's thought process. The Snape in the memory isn't the Snape he thought he knew, the Snape he hated. Instead, it's a man who loved his mother, felt remorse for her death, protected Harry and spied for DD at great personal risk, killed DD against his will on DD's orders, and sent Harry the Sword of Gryffindor using his doe Patronus. Even George's ear is an accident, the result of saving Lupin's life. IMO, JKR doesn't need to say, "Harry's eyes were opened. Snape wasn't at all the man he thought he was. He no longer hated him." To do that would (IMO) destroy the impact of the memories, which speak for themselves. Show, don't tell, is the first rule of good writing. (Well, usually.) Instead we get the very understated, and yet, to me, moving, "Snape might just have closed the door" (DH Am. ed. 690). He has just watched Snape leaving Portrait!DD to bring him the Sword of Gryffindor. He doesn't need to feel his hatred fall away. It has slipped away so gradually that he's not even aware of it. Snape is human to him at last, too late. Harry's reaction (next chapter) is "finally, the truth." (691). The truth from a wholly unexpected source, Severus Snape. Unfortunately, the truth about Snape is accompanied with a much more bitter "truth" about Dumbledore and the revelation that Snape died giving Harry, that Harry himself must die. But that Harry has, indeed, forgiven Snape (along with many readers) is clear from the text itself. "Albus Severus" does not come out of nowhere. First, there's the "abandoned boys" reference, showing that he understands and empathizes with young Severus's homelife and his view of Hogwarts as home (697). And then there's the very public vindication speech, starting with the part about "the man you thought was your servant" and more emphatically from "Severus Snape wasn't yours. He was Dumbledore's" (740) and continuing to "Dumbledore was already dying when Snape finished him" (741). the key point, for Harry, is that "Snape was Dumbledore's . . . [man] from the time [LV] started hunting down [Harry's mother]" and Voldemort "never realized it because of the thing [he didn't] understand": love. He mentions the doe Patronus, makes clear that what Snape felt was love, not desire. He has also made clear that DD's death was arranged months before it happened with Snape, who was loyal to him and not to LV. Granted, his courage is not specifically mentioned in this scene, but Harry knows the risks that Snape has taken and the perils he has faced. He has seen him die, sending mesaages from his own head to Harry so that he won't have died in vain. After that speech, in which Snape is publicly presented as working with the man he had supposedly murdered to bring down Voldemort, also publicly declaring Snape's love for his own mother, why should we be surprised that Harry would name his son after him? And in "King's Cross, both Harry and Dumbledore sit in silence "for the longest time yet" in memory of "poor Severus," who died because the plan went wrong (721). JKR does not overtly tell the reader what to think. She lets these scenes work for themselves. That they did not work for you, as a reader, is understandable. No scene works for everyone. But they worked for me, and I didn't want Snape's motive to be love. (It helps that we see him grow and change, with lines like "Lately, only those I could not save," which bring to mind Snape healing Draco and Katie in HBP. And he has seen Healer!Snape in action, using wand and potion to slow the action of the ring curse. No wonder, BTW, that DD didn't want to recount that "thrilling tale" in HBP. As for his own "prodigious skill" in contrast with "Professor Snape's timely action"! Makes me want to shake him. It's Snape who has the prodigious skill, and had DD called him earlier, Snape might have been able to save him from his own supreme folly in putting on the ring.) But I fail to see how "Albus Severus" could come as a shock after Harry's very public vindication of a man he once hated. Carol, who still thinks that Harry's perception has been cleansed by the Pensieve memory and his own intended self-sacrifice, as symbolized by the absence of glasses in "King's Cross," and part of that cleansed perception relates to Snape From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 17:43:09 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:43:09 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174937 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > ****Katie responds: > > Again, I agree so much, I don't know where to begin. Molly had > > already lost a child that day. All of her children and her husband > > were in danger of being killed. She sees her daughter about to be > > killed by the nastiest nasty next to Voldemort himself...I'd get > > pretty maternal, too. I'm glad she killed Bellatrix. I'm glad she > > called her a bitch. I'm glad Molly got a chance to protect one of > > her children, even after losing Fred. Molly needs to make no > > excuses to me. > snip> > > And I, for one, actively wanted her dead from the moment she > killed the poor innocent fox at the beginning of HBP. I was quite > happy to see her go. > Tonks: > I am one that has some concerns about Molly. And she is one of my > favorites. But what kind of a message is Rowling sending? This is > not a black and white option. And Molly's response is not what we > are told to do as a Christian. ***Katie again: Well, since I'm not a Christian, and I don't see these as Christian books...not so much a problem for me. I don't think Molly is a Christian, either. She's a human being and I think she did the right thing. This whole idea of Christianity is really killing this group for me. I want to discuss the books, not Christian philosophy - especially because I do not see these as Christian books. There is a lot more in there than Christianity references in there, and they certainly are not some treatise on Christian virtue. As you yourself point out, Molly's response "isn't Christian"...which leads me to believe that it wasn't intended to be, and that Christianity doesn't figure into her decision at all. <<>> I would probably respond in > self defense and to protect my family too, just as Molly did. But > does that make my actions right? I think it makes me a fallen human > being. And I also thing that we as human beings are meant to find a > way to something higher. Tonks_op ***Katie again: I don't think it makes you a fallen human being - it makes you the defender of your family against an evil and hurtful person. Not sure how that makes you a bad person... Also, sure, I would hope people can transcend their earthly realm and try and be spiritually and morally good people. I believe in god, the Force, the Great Spirit, whatever you want to call her/him/it...but Harry Potter books, as I posted yesterday are not philosophy books. Quite honestly, and I do not mean to offend, JKR isn't a talented enough writer to create great works of philosophy. She wrote great stories with remarkably lifelike and believeable characters that captured our imaginations, and for me personally, ignited a love of fantasy that I hadn't tapped since I was a kid. These are important books to me in my life, as they obviously are to others...but at this point in this whole discussion of "what the books mean/say/stand for", I really think a mountain is being made out of a molehill. She put philosophical and religious references in there to make the books have some heft, and I think she acheived that...but I do not believe that they are some moral and spiritual dissertation. I think people are taking this too far. She's not Nietzche or Plato or something! She's not Saint Augustine! She's just a really good fantasy author who threw some classical and Biblical stuff in there for profundity...which worked. All this other stuff, to me, is over the top. Katie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 18:09:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:09:23 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy In-Reply-To: <2264925.1186626015591.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174938 Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > JKR claims that she worded the prophecy VERY carefully. > > Well, I'm still scratching my head over it. Specifically, "and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives..." Well, clearly, they both lived for several years while the other survived. And one did NOT die at the hand of the other; Morty kept offing himself until it took. All he needed was antlers, a squirrel, a hat, and "This time for sure!" before casting YAAK. > > So, can anybody here, who actually understands the prophecy, explain it to me? Carol: Well, our first step should be to quote the whole thing, right? The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches. . . born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies. . . and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not. . . and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives. . . the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies. . . . "The one with the power" is Harry (given the power he would not otherwise have had through Voldemort's attempt to thwart the Porphecy). He "approaches" in the sense that he's been conceived and will be "born as the seventh month dies" to "those who have thrice defied the Dark Lord" (how or why, we don't know, but they're Order members, so they must have fought his DEs at several points). "The Dark Lord will mark him as his equal" is a bit misleading since Harry, though "marked" with the scar and "a marked man" in terms of DD's viewing his death as indispensable (though he's not "the only one [LV] ever feared"). Clearly, though Harry has received at least one power (and a unique form of communication through the scar/soul bit connection), Harry is by no means Voldemort's equal in power or skill, with possession, flying, and Legilimency as just a few examples. That Harry's victory will not be through his own power is emphasized, IMO, by his wand's taking action on its own when he would otherwise have been hit by Voldemort's AK (but not killed, thanks to the shared drop of blood). Hermione insists that the power is Harry's, but Harry knows better. He is not Voldemort's equal, or even Hermione's equal, with any spells except his exceptional Patronus (which matches Snape's). Matters are quite literally out of Harry's hands, and continue to be so when his wand is broken. What power he had was tied, in his mind, to his wand. He has been counting on the protection of the twin cores, and that protection is gone. (Ironically, with Harry's wand broken, LV no longer needs the Elder Wand and would have been better off using his own.) Back to the Prophecy. "He will have the power the Dark Lord knows not." I think we agree that that power is Love, the willingness to sacrifice himself for the whole WW, and particularly for his friends, to protect them from LV by making him mortal. At this point, he parallels Regulus, who died to destroy a Horcrux and make Voldemort mortal (as he thought). Harry is the next-to-last Horcrux, and he has arranged for Neville to destroy the last one, Nagini, if Ron and Hermione fail. But his self-sacrifice does more than make Voldemort mortal; it strips him of his power and his spells no longer hold. Now for the tricky part. "Either must die at the hand of the other" seems to mean that "either," meaning "one or the other of two" will kill or cause the death of the other. And really, that's what happens. One, Harry, causes the other, Voldemort, to die by causing the AK to rebound on its caster, exactly as it did in GH. (That plot, like the Snape subplot and the Hagrid subplot and the entry into Hogwarts subplot, comes full circle.) Harry doesn't murder Voldemort, as he feared, but he certainly "vanquishes" him and brings about his death. "Neither can live while the other survives" is easy, too, if we see it as meaning that LV has not "lived" since he started creating Horcruxes and cannot be immortal (his definition of living) until Harry is killed. Harry can't truly live (become Just Harry with no Dark powers or connection to the Dark Lord or terrible destiny as the Chosen One) as long as Voldemort survives. IOW, I don't think we need to bring the drop of blood or the Elder Wand into the Prophecy. Neither of those events was inevitable; both were mistakes that Voldemort made in his hubris and anger and lust for power. Carol, just giving her own interpretation and complicating things as usual From urghiggi at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 18:14:01 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:14:01 -0000 Subject: cave potion refill...possible flint? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174939 OK, whole new subject. I'm puzzled how the cave potion came to be refilled after RAB took the locket horcrux and substituted the fake locket. According to DH, the sequence of events vis a vis the cave was as follows: 1) LV asks RAB for the 'loan' of Kreacher for an apparent dry run of his locket horcrux safety engineering scheme. According to "Kreacher's Tale," LV and Kreacher go to the cave, LV makes Kreacher drink all the potion, and then ".... He [LV] dropped the locket into the empty basin... He filled it with more potion. And then the Dark Lord sailed away...." Kreacher disapparates from the Inferi-filled lake and returns to Grimmauld Place, where he reports to RAB what he has seen. 2) RAB returns to the cave with Kreacher and a fake locket. RAB drinks all the potion that LV had replaced after the first incident. Kreacher switches the lockets when the potion is gone. The Inferi drown RAB when he drinks from the lake. "And he drank -- all the potion -- and Kreacher swapped the lockets -- and watched ... as Master Regulus ... was dragged beneath the water... and ...." Etc. Kreacher returns home as ordered with the real horcrux, and says nothing to anyone. 3) Dumbledore and Harry go to the cave. The basin is full of potion. The fake Horcrux is at the bottom. DD drinks all the potion, HP tries to get lake water for him and riles the inferi, DD rallies to fight off the inferi with fire. "Dumbledore scooped the locket from the bottom of the stone basin and stowed it iside his robes...Dumbleore led Harry back to the boat." There's nothing more about the basin or potion in this scene. My problem -- according to Kreacher, LV actively "filled it [the basin] with more potion" during the initial dry run & potion consumption. Why did he need to do this? Because in order for there to have been potion there for DD to drink in incident 3 (HBP "The Cave," the basin would have had to refill ITSELF. LV could not have gone back to do it after RAB consumed it, because LV, in "DH: The Final Hiding Place", clearly has no idea that the locket horcrux has been switched for a fake one. "How could the boy, or anybody else, know about the cave or penetrate its protection? The idea of the locket being stolen was absurd...." Later, LV struggles to choose which horcrux site to visit first, with the cave being among the candidates. He had no idea anyone had been there after his first visit with Kreacher. If the basin had to BE "filled" (as Kreacher indicates) rather than filling itself, then it should've been empty after RAB drank it all. There shouldn't have been any potion there for Dumbledore to drink. Tell me what I'm missing here. Sure looks flinty to me... like something a continuity editor ought to have caught.... Julie H, Chicago From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Aug 9 18:13:00 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:13:00 -0000 Subject: Disappointment and Responsibility and The Prank/Requiescat in Pace: Unf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174940 Lizzyben: No, what really broke the novel for me wasn't the lack of Snapey-poo or Draco, but the lack of any example of a good, or even decent Slytherin - and the total acceptance of labels & stereotypes that this represents. I don't need to see a good Snape or Draco, but I really did need to see some example of a good Slyth; whether that's Pansy, Blaise Zabini, or even anonymous Slyths in the ROR, or unknown Slyths staying for the battle of Hogwarts. We didn't see any of that. I needed to see *some* indication that these children are not eternally damned by a singing hat at eleven years old. But that seemed to be the ultimate message - whether that's "ethical Calvinism" or dehumanization of the other is, I suppose, a matter of individual interpretation. Magpie: You know, I go back and forth on this issue because I think it's two separate ones, both of which say slightly different things. JKR shot both of them down in the book. The first is having Slytherins stay for the fight. That, I think, would have made Slytherin at least like any other house. It would make allegiance more about individuals. By having all of Slytherin leave, JKR was pretty much being consistent about the linking of Slytherin with Voldemort throughout the books, especially in the seventh book. And if not linking them with Voldemort, showing they were not loyal to Hogwarts. At the end of the series I felt much more negatively about Slytherin than I had at the beginning. Being a Slytherin really did say something about your character that being a Ravenclaw didn't--it didn't necessarily mean you were a DE, but it predicted certain basic behavior traits as surely as being a House Elf did. They represented, as JKR said, the less noble parts of human nature (which leads to the odd suggestion that they might be carrying the burden of those traits for the other houses on the school scale). Then there is the slightly different idea of redemption for characters like Snape and Draco, because especially with Draco because he was a kid like Harry, here's where we see whether prejudice can be beaten at a more important level than just fighting a war once it gets to the point of rounding up Muggle-borns and putting them in jail. It shows that it can be beaten at the individual level, which is where it's really fought first. I'm not a Christian either, but the preconceptions I had when JKR mentioned it being a factor was that I associate Christianity with an open- heartedness and love of redemption--the worse the sinner, the more satisfying the redemption. It's that idea that we're all sinners and the expectation of reaching out to others and transformation. (In canon, for me, this was made into a sort of easier version on the level of being nice to a house elf and having it switch allegiance go you--not the same thing at all.) It's very much against how JKR ultimately uses her characters. This meant that certain things wound up feeling really unnatural to me in the story, while to her perhaps the way I felt the story pulling was impossible. So what seemed to me to be the ultimate solution that people don't change and that it's more a case of recognizing the elect from the damned and dealing with them...that to me was far more damning for Slytherin. While having Slytherins decide to fight would have redeemed the house in showing that it was filled with people just like in other houses, the relative lack of hope for all bad Slytherins, even those who seem to have their path to something better laid out for them, was for me even more disappointing. I guess what I'm saying is for me it's about the possibility for change in the individuals in the House more than just proving the House itself wasn't bad--but both of these things send a clear message and JKR was for me very clearly negative about both of them. And just to be clear, this had nothing to do with either Snape or Draco being *nice.* I never doubted Snape was DDM but also never doubted that he genuinely hated Harry and was mean to him and Neville for petty reasons. I also predicted Snape/Lily--it's just the ultimate explanation for him was far more limited than the potential I saw in the story--and yes, that's my own expectation, but it's never a good thing when the author writes a story that compared to what you saw coming was underwhelming. (Of course this wasn't just about those two either--I thought Harry was going to have to deal with other people in a humbling way too, which didn't happen. Oh well.) I didn't have a specific way I wanted it to be written, but the ending was a let down to me, so presumably I would have preferred something else. It's also about real challenges to the protagonist which, as you say, never really happen. It was actually kind of fascinating to me the way I could always see even "surprising" revelations lining neatly up with the basic rules of life according to the series and Harry. (I think again this is why fanfic is so popular for this series--it often overturns the most consistent patterns in the story.) This actually makes me think of another thing fandom concentrated on where at least my expectations turned out to be wrong: The Prank. That incident has always been a big issue in fandom, and I don't think I was alone in expecting some important information about it in DH. In trying to think of why I was wrong in that, I thought about Dumbledore's line about choices showing who you are. JKR once misquoted this line in an interview as DD saying choices "make you" who you are, and that surprised me because they're not the same thing. In canon it's consistently the former--choices show who you are, because there's not a lot of change. (Even Neville actually shows who he really is back in PS/SS--at his core Neville has always been the kid who was the most brave for the best reasons at the best times while being kind and quiet other times. He becomes more superficially confident, but is very much the same boy. He goes through the same ritualistic story in DH as in PS.) Although I had already really been shown in canon that choices were more about "showing" than "making" I think I did still look at the Prank and assume this was one of those choices that "made" characters who they were through the consequences. It was just so rich with them: Sirius makes this stupid choice (I always thought it was reckless rather than murderous) and surely it changed everything. I imagined Snape getting the message that he was worthless as far as the school was concerned and going further down the road to DE-dom. I know some imagined James changing his ways due to what could have happened. Perhaps it was this Prank that made people more able to believe Sirius could be a DE (a theory I know I heard). And Lupin--well, obviously he could never really trust Sirius again, could he? After he almost used his weakness as a weapon and destroyed his life? But it turned out that the Prank wasn't life-changing at all. Snape just hissed and spit at the Marauders because that's what he did--if anything it was just a cover story to conceal his real focus on Lily. James just showed who he always was: a guy who could be an arrogant toe rag but also like his son had a life-saving thing that made him a magnet for life debts from people he hated. Sirius' reaction to the Prank at the time was the same as it was as an adult: Snape deserved it, and there were no bad consequences. And Lupin at the time seemed also like he was as an adult: It was just a Prank. Fine by me. Choices do have important consequences, but not in a way that makes the character-development less inevitable. It's usually easy to see what choices define the character, sometimes adding up to two main traits that act against each other. Magpie: > so not much concerned with morality Eggplant: Good! The last thing in the world I want is a heavy handed morality lesson stuck into the middle of a Harry Potter book. If JKR wants to send a message she'll write you an E mail. Magpie: Oh, I wouldn't go that far. The books send plenty of messages, and often in pretty heavy-handed ways. Not really exploring morality isn't the same as not presenting any as a given in black and white. JKR has no problem heavy-handedly presenting her own views on who's right and wrong in her book. -m From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Aug 9 17:09:27 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 17:09:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Aberforth Message-ID: <666307.1206.qm@web86207.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174941 va32h: I adamantly disagree that Hagrid's survival was a matter of JKR not having the "guts" to kill him. Irene: Of course you are right, I never meant in the sense that she wanted to, but got cold feet or anything like that. She has never planned to kill him. I understand why readers would dislike Hagrid, but I put him in the category of James and Sirius as "characters JKR intends us to like, even though she hasn't given us any particularly good reasons to do so." Exactly. :-) But I was just so incredibly annoyed by the spiders moment. Here they are, killing children, and all Hagrid cares about is "don't hurt them"?! Damn him, does he have to stay such a huge baby all his life? Irene From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Aug 9 18:53:40 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 12:53:40 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fly on the wall commentator References: Message-ID: <007801c7dab6$9a4318a0$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> No: HPFGUIDX 174942 >> zenonkowalewski wrote: >> >> Hogwartians, >> >> After finishing Deathly Hollows I decided to listen-in on this groups >> messages to see what other people thought. Is it just me or is there >> a lot of complaining going on in this group? I felt like using >> Crucio myself after reading some of the messages (I will not point >> fingers!). > Completely agree. To me (and my husband and our 13 yo an 8yo) DH is a > magnificent conclusion to what is surely one of the best fantasy > adventure series of the ages. I am a verrrrrrrrrrrrrry long time > lurker and it often seems that those on this list have been reading a > completely different book. The ultimate heroism of Harry, as well as > Ron and Hermione is deeply moving and feels very real. All romances > have lovely conclusions (long foreshadowed). > > The intricate plotting is amazing - just think of all the echos in DH > of the first book - even Griphook and Gringotts dragon make an > appearance, to say nothing of Serius' motorbike (on which Harry leaves > Privet Drive just the way he arrived there) and Dumbeldore's broken > nose (noted in the very first chapter of the first book)! > > And anyone who doesn't cheer when Bellatrix got hers from Molly (of all > people) or understand that Snape really could not have been turned into > a nice guy (his redemption was just right, giving him a noble purpose > and showing his courage and, yes, loyalty while not pretending he was > ever anything other than a sadistic jerk we have always seen)... Well I > think, as you say, many posters got derailed into some parallel HP > series that was in their head but never on the page! Shelley: The thing is- those of us who have a criticism of DH are criticizing only certain parts. Or, at least, that is my position. I confess I haven't read all of the ton of messages that have appeared here since the book's release, so I really don't know how others feel. Most of the book is great, but on my part, I have a few gripes. Airing those few gripes, and talking it over with other in no way implies that I have thrown the baby out of the bathwater. Secondly, I don't think a negative thread about a limited parts of the book can be applied to saying we hate the whole book. Nor that the recent threads are representative of all the conversation about DH. The positive things that you mentioned here have been a part of other threads- not all the conversation has been negative! There have been threads about the "great moments" of DH- maybe those who think the talk has been all negative should reread those, just to gain some prospective. Threads will come, and threads will go. From urghiggi at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 19:07:41 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:07:41 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174943 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > Katie: > She's not Nietzche or Plato or > something! She's not Saint Augustine! She's just a really good > fantasy author who threw some classical and Biblical stuff in there > for profundity...which worked. > Julie: Of course she's not Nietzche or Plato. But she HAS to believe, herself, that the books are 'about' something more than a superficially clever story. Because the themes are not just sprinkled in like raisins in a fruitcake; they're pervasive. All that stuff about a 'soul' and its immortality or lack thereof, what death means, the relationship of the living to the dead -- that stuff is central to the series, not peripheral, as is all the stuff about love being stronger than mere might. As the series has progressed, the "fun" aspects (the quirky spells, quiddich, house rivalries/points, jokes, etc) became more and more peripheral and the "big" notions have taken more and more of center stage. (Thus some reviewers' complaints that the charming wimsey of the earlier books is extremely diluted by HP5, or even earlier.) Lots of authors write really entertaining fantasy. Eoin Colfer for instance. The Artemis Fowl books are fun stories. But they're not messing around with metaphysical themes. Peripherally, there's some "different races/species can be friends" stuff in there, but that's about it. I read that stuff, I enjoy it as fantasy, I don't expect any more. The author doesn't ask that much of me. Whereas ... Pullman, Tolkein, Lewis, L'Engle ... and, yeah, JKR ... write fantasy that, at the very least, seems to want to be 'about' more. (Not in the sense that "hey, I'm going to set out to write fantasy that's deliberately crafted to be didactic" but rather "hey, this is the kind of story/subject matter I'm interested in as an author.") What JKR is interested in, apparently, is an exploration of some pretty heavy stuff. Julie H, chicago From tenne at redshift.bc.ca Thu Aug 9 18:54:09 2007 From: tenne at redshift.bc.ca (terri_anneca) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:54:09 -0000 Subject: remember my last In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174944 > SSSusan: > That has always been my belief and contention as well, Terri -- that > DD had offered protection to the Dursleys as well as to Harry, that > that was part of the 'deal' the Dursleys sealed when they agreed to > take Harry in. Thing is... unless I missed something, we didn't get > any confirmation (or refutation, either) of this in canon. So unless > JKR elects to address this one some time in an interview or chat, I > don't know that we'll ever find out. > If the Dursleys had to take Harry in to protect their own family and make him a part of their family, that would explain the rotten presents they sent him every holiday etc. I've always wondered why they bothered to give him tooth picks, old socks etc. Seems to be too much work for them to do it just to be mean. But to save their own hides, I am sure they would make at least that much effort. Terri From mcjuels at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 18:06:40 2007 From: mcjuels at yahoo.com (mcjuels) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:06:40 -0000 Subject: The picture of Lilly and Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174945 Long time lurker here. I really liked DH. The trio plus Ginny survived and my hunch that each Horcrux would be destroyed by someone different proved correct. But, anyway... I have read DH twice and am currently listening to the CD. Harry has just found the letter and picture. He is watching himself as a baby riding his broom in and out of the torn picture. Later, of course, we discover Snape has the rest of the picture. So...has Snape been constantly looking at a picture of Lily with baby Harry flitting in and out of his portion of the photo? I am still trying to decide whether this would irritate Snape or cause him guilt. Any ideas? McJuels From tenne at redshift.bc.ca Thu Aug 9 19:08:16 2007 From: tenne at redshift.bc.ca (tenne at redshift.bc.ca) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 12:08:16 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Molly's "revenge" [LONG] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1186686496.46bb6620a3038@members.uniserve.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174946 guzu: > > > Well, it was in character for Molly, yes, I should have wrote that > > clearer. I don't think it's in character for hundreds of people, > > including Harry and Ginny, to stand around and watch this duel and > do nothing to help. Why would they assume that Molly would win when > Bella has been killing people left and right? I think it is very much in character for people to stand around watching a duel to the death and not do anything. For one, this has happened in real life, countless times, from the gladiator fights to people being murdered in plain view and no-one doing anything about it. And Two, when there is a group of people, everyone seems to think someone else is going to help and no-one seems to take initiative. I was watching a show on SAS and one memeber explained that as soon as they see an enemy, tehey shoot. If this was't their plan, all the SAS would wonder who was going to shoot first. Terri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 19:22:46 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:22:46 -0000 Subject: Harry, Voldemort & the Horcrux at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174947 Brothergib wrote: > Thinking this through again LV has always possessed the object destined to become the horcrux before commiting the murder. Therefore it seems unlikely that he would split his soul on the offchance that he might acquire the object at a later date. Therefore, I do believe that LV intended to make a horcrux with Harry's death, but that the sword was not necessarily the intended horcrux. I certainly do not believe that LV believed that he could easily kill DD and claim the sword; > >" For a second, Harry was on the verge of shouting a pointless warning: he was sure that Voldemort's hand had twitched towards his pocket and his wand." > `Lord Voldemort's Request, P417 HBP, UK edition > > When push comes to shove, LV does not have the bottle to take on DD. > > Perhaps LV intended to make his wand a horcrux, the wand that had defeated his greatest threat ? that would have been significant to LV. > > While I agree that there is no direct canon evidence to state that LV > wanted to create a horcrux with Harry's death, but I do think that > DD's comments represent very strong circumstantial evidence. As JKR > herself says `The man was brilliant'! > > Brothergib > Carol responds: I guess we're at a stalemate, then, as we're certainly shown no object that LV took to Godric's Hollow with him. As for that wand movement, I've always read it as LV casting a curse on the DADA position. DD notes that from that time forward, he's never been able to keep a DADA teacher for more than a year. Carol, who used to think that Tom had not yet made a Horcrux when he talked to Slughorn but now thinks that he had indeed made the diary, which could "carry on Salazar Slytherin's noble work" without being recognized as a Horcrux From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Aug 9 19:25:53 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:25:53 -0000 Subject: Aberforth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174948 > > Alla: > > I already briefly confessed my love for Aberforth Dumbledore, but I > am very happy to do so in more details. > > Did I have any expectations about him? Actually none, or should I > say almost none, since I did not expect him to be DE, by virtue of > him being DD's brother. > > Aberforth exceeded my almost non-existant expectations by quite a > lot. > > First of all we see him as saving Trio from DE and anybody who saves > Trio from DE is already a good man in my book. > > We see him not being afraid to stick it to DE and doing a little > blackmail of his own. He is street-smart and I like that a lot. > > "You set off Caterwauling Charm?" > > "What if I did? Going to cart me off to Azkaban? Kill me for > sticking my nose out my own front door? Do it then if you want to. > But I hope for your sakes you haven't pressed your Dark Marks and > summoned him. He is not going to like being called here for me and > my old cat, is he, now?" > *** > "And where will you lot traffick potions and poisons when my pub's > closed down? What'll happen to your little sidelines then?" - p.558 > *** > > After that tirade I was already in love with the man. > > But JKR just had to make my love stronger and stronger with every > word of his and he does not occupy too much page space, doesn't he? > > > He was for me the voice of the readers like me who wanted to smack > Dumbledore for years for his secrecy thing and just tell Harry to > save himself and he does it oh so very well. How many times over > last few books I wished that Harry just let WW rot and just > disappeared with his friends? > > > "My brother Albus wanted a lot of things," said Aberworth, " and > people had a habit of getting hurt while he was carrying out his > grand plans. You get away from this school, Potter, and out of the > country if you can. Forget my brother and his clever schemes" - p.559 > > And of course my poor Harry despite being angry with Dumbledore just > determined to do the job. I loved Harry for that. But was I thinking > that Aberforth is the voice of reason? Oh yes. > > By the way on reread I was not sure if Aberforth was not testing > Harry again with all this "Save yourself" stuff. > > Because despite saying that Order is finished, etc, he does not > exactly give up the fight in my view. He helps Neville and other > fighters, so I don't know. > > On the other hand, he is probably just calls things as he sees them > in a very blunt way. > > Is he wiser than Dumbledore? I would say in a sense of wiser about > life in general, yeah, absolutely and better too, I absolutely trust > Dumbledore on that one. > > "Reality returned in the form of my rough, unlettered and infinitely > more admirable brother. I did not want to hear truths he shouted at > me" ? p.717. > > I also think that he can write and read by the way. > > As to the house, I honestly think that Gryffindor fits him. > > One must be brave to stick his neck with DE like this. > > Aberforth rocks :) > > Alla > Hickengruendler: Indeed he does. And he had one of the best lines of the entire book: "With brains like that, you could be a Death Eater." And he helped making me truly like Albus as a character as well. I have no idea how much of the Dumbledore backstory was planned from the beginning (in spite of the fact, that we knew since book one, that Dumbledore had the Invisibility Cloak), but at least now some of Dumbledore's actions in the previous books are meant to be seen as flaws. Flaws of a man in a very difficult situation, after all, it was not him but Voldemort, who made Harry a marked man, and Dumbledore just had to deal with the situation, but still flaws. It helps a lot that someone else is critical of Dumbledore's actions as well. I still think that not him but Harry was the voice of reason in this chapter, when he told Aberforth that sometimes you have to work for the greater good. The only think I wondered about Aberforth is, that for a man, who thought all was lost, he surely helped a lot. Not only saving the Trio, but also helping the DA and getting into contact with Percy. Hickengruendler From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 19:42:22 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:42:22 -0000 Subject: Fly on the wall commentator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174949 "colebiancardi" wrote: Canon through-out the first 6 books gave us > insight into "not all evil people are DH" and that there might be some > good Slytherians out there. We saw the Unforgiveable Curses being > names as such and through out the series, Harry could not issue such a > curse because he never had it in him. That is not a parallel HP > series; those are the writings of JKR. Lisa: But that's just it -- it's NOT the writings of JKR. JKR had Hary unable to do the Unforgiveable Curses before because he didn't MEAN them ("You have to MEAN them, Potter!"), not because he "never had it in him." Once he MEANT them, he could do them. Some see that as an inconsistency in canon -- but not I. Lisa From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 19:43:38 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:43:38 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174950 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "urghiggi" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > > Katie: > > She's not Nietzche or Plato or > > something! She's not Saint Augustine! She's just a really good > > fantasy author who threw some classical and Biblical stuff in there > > for profundity...which worked. > > > Julie: <<>> > Whereas ... Pullman, Tolkein, Lewis, L'Engle ... and, yeah, JKR ... write fantasy that, at the > very least, seems to want to be 'about' more. (Not in the sense that "hey, I'm going to set > out to write fantasy that's deliberately crafted to be didactic" but rather "hey, this is the > kind of story/subject matter I'm interested in as an author.") > > What JKR is interested in, apparently, is an exploration of some pretty heavy stuff. > > Julie H, chicago > ***Katie: Well, I'm interested in all that stuff, too, but I couldn't write a coherent book about it. I'm not saying she sprinkled it in for flavor, arbitrarily. Maybe I phrased that poorly. Certainly she meant to put those things in there, but I see it differently. What I really meant by that was that she put this stuff in there, but it was to give substance to her main theme, which was about Harry beating Voldemort because Harry has the ability to love. Classical references, mythological references, biblical references, helped to tell her story. They were the plate upon which she served the meal - which was Harry's personal story. Without the plate, your meal is on the floor...but you wouldn't eat the plate when you're done with your food. I see that she put those things in there, but I do not believe that was the main point. As far as WHY she would write these books, if not to explore these themes...She has said many times that Harry basically hit her over the head. He came to her fully realized. She HAD to write his story. As a writer myself, I know this feeling well. Sometimes, things just have to be put on paper, and you don't sit down to sort out the complexities of the various historical or theological references that you're putting in there. I was more interested in her more earthly (and I think, much better realized) themes of corruption of power, authority not being able to be trusted, friendship, loyalty, and strength of character. If her point was to explore thoroughly the themes of religious philosophy that everyone is assigning to her, in my opinion, she failed. However, since I don't believe that was her point, I am perfectly happy with the books morality. I will never see these as "Christian" or even "religious" books. They are books that incorporate spiritual themes, and that is very different. Also, I believe that JKR has stated that she purposefully put these questionable moments, like Harry's "crucio" on Carrow, to show that even the best of us do questionably moral things. I understand that people feel she didn't explain this well in the text, and that is certainly still arguable. However, I don't think it's arguable WHY she put it in, or what it meant. She told us. Katie, loving the books just the way they are From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 19:52:57 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:52:57 -0000 Subject: Aberforth and Albus too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174951 Alla: > Aberforth rocks :) > > > > Alla > > > > Hickengruendler: > > Indeed he does. And he had one of the best lines of the entire > book: "With brains like that, you could be a Death Eater." Alla: YES. Totally. Hickendrueller: > I still think that not him but Harry was the voice of reason in this > chapter, when he told Aberforth that sometimes you have to work for > the greater good. Alla: Not for me no, for me Harry was the voice of the hero, who decided to follow Dumbledore no matter what, despite being manipulated by Dumbledore. I mean voice of reason in a sense that Voldemort should be defeated, sure. Not in a sense that seventeen year old who was manipulated from birth and probably into killing should follow a dead leader like that. IMO obviously. I was like - you GO Aberforth :). And do not get me wrong, I did like Dumbledore after book 7. I do not think he was evil or anything like that. I feel for him. But the extent of his manipulations while certainly did not bother me in regard to Snape ( NOT because I did not see Dumbledore behaving as jerk to Snape, I did, I just thought it was something that Snape more than deserved) that certainly bothered me in regards to Harry. Did he really raise Harry to die? If he did, I find it despicable. I mean, I have no doubt that after GoF he guessed that Harry would not die, but would be nice to know when exactly he learned that Harry is a horcrux. It did not stop me from enjoying the book or enjoying Dumbledore's character, but that was because I totally bought his remorse and plea for forgiveness from Harry. And because I do believe that he grew to love Harry, but did he grew to love the boy he indeed raised as pig for slaughter? I wonder. Great Albus Dumbledore? Not for me. I know you did not say he is great. I am just bringing this adjective to say that he is not for me. So, if I were to compare two brothers in goodness' department, well Aberforth to me wins hands down. Hickengruendler: > The only think I wondered about Aberforth is, that for a man, who > thought all was lost, he surely helped a lot. Not only saving the > Trio, but also helping the DA and getting into contact with Percy. Alla: That is why I thought that he was not thinking everything was truly lost :) He was probably testing Harry in his own way too, although I think he was totally sincere when he told Harry all that. > Ceridwen: > I thought Aberforth would be more in tune with Albus, working > together behind the scenes to further the mission of the Order. I > thought the public falling-out had something to do with the goat > issue, and was a ruse to fool the questionable characters who haunt > the Hog's Head; ditto Albus's comments about Aberforth's reading and > writing abilities. Alla: Oh oh oh. Me too. For all the reasons I snipped I agree that they were pretty close - obviously not super close, but close enough to fight for the cause and at least some affection between each other. Ceridwen: >Aberfort seemed to > understand that carrying the grudge to extremes would not bring > Ariana back. Alla: Did you see grudge? I only saw pain and spot on assessment of Albus. IMO. Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 20:17:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:17:01 -0000 Subject: The dust corpse In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708090523vdc48521vce09d5194bd31ace@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174952 montims wrote: > > in fact, I'm a little confused about the dust corpse. If Snape were unable to say that line about not killing DD, either because of the tongue lock or because it's not true (on the surface...), what would that dusty thing have done to him? Carol responds: I think it was just supposed to scare him, the avenging corpse of his victim apparently about to attack him. They all think that snape is a coward, remember? Personally, I can't see Snape being frightened by it or unable to deal with it even if he were DD's murderer given his extensive knowledge of DADA. But since it seems to collapse into dust on the word "kill" or "killed," all he would need to do to dispatch it is to say calmly, "Albus, you know that I didn't kill you willingly" or "You know that I killed you on your orders." If it didn't dissolve into dust, he could use some other spell from his extensive arsenal, but I don't think that would have proved necessary. Seems like a feeble protective device to me if Snape were really evil, but as I said, I think Mad-Eye Moody was counting on Snape's fear and guilt as a deterrent. He has no idea who he's really dealing with. It would have required a lot more than a dust corpse to make the Order HQ Snape-proof. As for the tongue-tying curse, since Snape didn't intend to reveal the Secret anyway, it would have provided him with a new, Legilimency-proof excuse for not revealing the Secret. (I choose to believe that the Pensieve memories are in their proper sequence and JKR's chat response is uncanonical. ;-) ) Carol, who thinks that the Order had no more clue regarding Snape's powers than his loyalties From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 20:42:43 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:42:43 -0000 Subject: Another Timeline Problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174953 --- "kmcbears1" wrote: > > In the Prince's tale we see the progression of > memories as Snape ages > - 2 were prior to Hogwart's > - Train to Hogwart's > - Sorting > > The problem arises in that we know from one of the > early books that James saves Severus in their 6th > year. In OOTP, we see from Snape's worst memory > that calling Lily a Mudblood happen in their 5th year. > > In DH, Lily stopped talking to Severus after he called > her a Mudblood. > > How did the Snape get the memory of talking to Lily > after the tunnel rescue if Lily didn't talk to Severus > after 5th year? > > Why was the tunnel memory put out of sequence from > past stories? > > Thanks to anyone who can explain this > > - KMC > bboyminn: First, I think it is WE who are forcing chronology on the story, not the story errantly forcing chronology on us. How do we know that Harry's own psychic needs didn't guide him through the memories in an order necessary for him to make sense of them? In other word, Harry saw them in the order he needed to see them. Of course, over it all is the author and the needs of the story forcing the order, but internally, I think a fair explanation is the Harry was guided through them in the order he needed to see them. I think because they are chronologically-ish, we are trying to force an absolute chronology on them. It was just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 20:29:28 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:29:28 -0000 Subject: Social Correlates of Hogwarts Houses Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174954 Okay, let's try taking the energetic debate about Hogwarts Houses in another direction. We have had discussion about whether certain houses line up with certain racial and ethnic stereotypes. I'd like to explore the idea of whether the houses line up with social groups. I'm not saying they necessarily do, I just think it's an idea worth exploring. After all, it works relatively well with Tolkien and his races, so lets try it with JKR and her Houses. GRYFFINDOR: The heros, of course. These are brave soldiers and police and fire fighters. Also, however, I would guess, crusading journalists and honest bureaucrats and noble lawyers. These are the people on whom society ultimately relies for leadership and, indeed, salvation in times of great danger. These are the people to look for in DADA and when you are recruiting for the Aurors, and also the ones that dominate in dangerous, flashy practices like transfiguration. They can be stubborn, like Ron. They can be mistaken, like Seamus. They can fall from grace, like Pettigrew. They can be deceptive in appearance and manner, like Neville. But when the great darkness is abroad, they are the ones to whom you must turn. HUFFLEPUFF: These are the ordinary folks of any and all varieties -- the secretaries and clerks and factory workers and farmers and small businessmen and schoolteachers. They are stolid and a little dull, and sometimes can be stupid and easily fooled. They tend to go in for the dirty, grubby things like Herbology, or the non-glamorous fields like Muggle Studies. They have their bullies and cowards like Zacharias Smith. They can occasionally produce a surprising, if slightly shallow, prodigy like Cedric Diggory. Overall, they are loyal, hardworking, and kind, if not particularly bright or accomplished. They tend to get along very well with the heros, and when the darkness is abroad, a large number of them will pick up their weapons and get down in the trenches. RAVENCLAW: The artists and intellectuals. These folks are intelligent and can be loyal, kind, and witty, like Flitwick. They do have a tendency to confuse intelligence with wisdom, and deep in their hearts many would like to stay in their tower and enjoy the splendid view while events play out below. Too often they can be shallow and histrionic, like Cho, or selfish and weak, like Marietta. But they can also be brave like Michael Corner or display flashes of great insight, like Luna. These folks revel in subjects like Ancient Runes or Arithmancy. When push comes to shove, many will abandon their tower and join the heros and the ordinary guys in the trenches. SLYTHERIN: The politicians and power-brokers, slick media barons, avid government drones, CEOs, and old families. These folks are selfish and arrogant, ultimately concerned with their own advancement and the maintenance of their wealth, power, and the class privileges that allow them to view everyone else with scorn. Mostly they will leave others to fight darkness, and of all the groups they are the ones who provide the dark with most of its soldiers and leaders. Their subjects are the Dark Arts, per se, and also Potions with its overtones of poison. Some will end up aiding the light, but usually for supremely personal reasons, like Snape, out of fear like Slughorn, or out of cowardice and calculation, like the Malfoys. They are an inevitable part of any society, embodying the morally sordid, hypocritical, and ignoble aspect of the human condition that comes from a fallen world. Lupinlore From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Aug 9 21:02:17 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:02:17 -0000 Subject: Aberforth and Albus too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174955 Alla: > And do not get me wrong, I did like Dumbledore after book 7. I do not > think he was evil or anything like that. I feel for him. > > But the extent of his manipulations while certainly did not bother me > in regard to Snape ( NOT because I did not see Dumbledore behaving > as jerk to Snape, I did, I just thought it was something that Snape > more than deserved) that certainly bothered me in regards to Harry. > Did he really raise Harry to die? If he did, I find it despicable. I > mean, I have no doubt that after GoF he guessed that Harry would not > die, but would be nice to know when exactly he learned that Harry is > a horcrux. Hickengruendler: This is why I said, it was not Dumbledore, who made Harry into a marked man, it was Voldemort. Dumbledore was the one, who had to deal with the situation. I don't know, when Dumbledore found out, that Harry was a Horcrux, my guess is around "Chamber of Secrets", when he suspected the diary to be one, (surely it must have been prior to Voldemort's rebirth, otherwise the gleam of triumph makes no sense), but I don't think he was raising Harry to die. He might have thought, that it could happen one day, but he tried his best not to think about it. And prior to Voldemort's rebirth, it was still a very abstract situation. Dumbledore might have believed, that Voldemort would return some day, but there was the still the glimmer of hope, that it might not happen. And the moment Voldie did return, a possible way out was presented to Dumbledore. IMO, Dumbledore was just a man, who had to deal with a situation, that Voldemort created, and it was not an easy one. Should he have told Harry earlier, when the boy had just found happiness in his life? (And yes, I realise, that the fact that Harry wasn't happy for 10 years was to a big part Dumbledore's fault, but I'm only talking about the Horcrux situation right now. ;-) ) I know he seems incredibily cold in that particular scene in the Pensieve, but at this point he already knew (or suspected), that Harry would live. His behaviour was much more about Snape than it was about Harry, here. Hickengruendler From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 21:17:16 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:17:16 -0000 Subject: an 8th year??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174956 --- "Lisa" wrote: > > --- "greendayisawesome" wrote: > > > > I was just thinking, will Harry, Ron and Hermione > > need to return for their last year at Hogwarts? I > > mean, in their 7th year, they never attended > > classes. > > > > I guess I don't want the series to end and I am > > grasping at straws or looking for any loophole I > > can :o) > > > > Sally Brown > > > Lisa: > > I wish. ;0) However, I think Harry and friends > pretty much don't need anymore Hogwarts education -- > they've LIVED it. > > Lisa > bboyminn: This seems as good a place to jump in as any. First, in the UK, it is not the school that certifies your qualifications. In other words, no High School Diploma. Students take the OWLs and NEWTs and that is the only standards of Qualifications necessary. For Muggles, that would be GCSE and A-Levels. There is no reason why you can't take NEWTs, or A-Levels to us muggles, without actually taking the class. For example, we saw how Hermione, an extremely intelligent girl, struggle with her large class load. Yet, Percy managed to pass every available subject in his qualification tests. It seem the only way he could, is to have taken test for classes he didn't actually take. I believe you can do that with the real GCSE and A-Level tests. It's not about taking the class, it's about passing the test. Further, how many of you know kids in high school who are taking classes at the local college? It is actually pretty common in the USA. Kids finish out high school by taking classes at the local college, that lets them finish their high school qualification and get a head start on college. To those not in the USA, keep in mind there are no qualifying tests here. Each individual school certifies that a student has achieved a certain level of knowledge. Now, Auror's School is an additional three years. I seriously doubt that Ron and Harry went strait from Hogwarts to full fledged Aurors. They would have still had to go through the training. That, in my view, is the equivalent of a student finishing High School by taking college classes. Ron and Harry gained the knowledge they needed in Auror's school. As to Hermione, is there anyone here who doubts that she could breeze her way through the NEWT tests? As to the other students, I think it was each to his (or her) own. They could choose to take the OWL/NEWT tests, or they could choose to repeat a year, or they could simply choose, as Fred and George did, to go out into the world and get on with their lives. It really is not a 'one size fits all' solution. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 21:26:54 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:26:54 -0000 Subject: Aberforth and Albus too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174957 > Hickengruendler: > > This is why I said, it was not Dumbledore, who made Harry into a marked > man, it was Voldemort. Dumbledore was the one, who had to deal with the > situation. I don't know, when Dumbledore found out, that Harry was a > Horcrux, my guess is around "Chamber of Secrets", when he suspected the > diary to be one, (surely it must have been prior to Voldemort's > rebirth, otherwise the gleam of triumph makes no sense), but I don't > think he was raising Harry to die. He might have thought, that it could > happen one day, but he tried his best not to think about it. And prior > to Voldemort's rebirth, it was still a very abstract situation. > Dumbledore might have believed, that Voldemort would return some day, > but there was the still the glimmer of hope, that it might not happen. > And the moment Voldie did return, a possible way out was presented to > Dumbledore. > > IMO, Dumbledore was just a man, who had to deal with a situation, that > Voldemort created, and it was not an easy one. Should he have told > Harry earlier, when the boy had just found happiness in his life? (And > yes, I realise, that the fact that Harry wasn't happy for 10 years was > to a big part Dumbledore's fault, but I'm only talking about the > Horcrux situation right now. ;-) ) I know he seems incredibily cold in > that particular scene in the Pensieve, but at this point he already > knew (or suspected), that Harry would live. His behaviour was much more > about Snape than it was about Harry, here. > Alla: Well, of course Dumbledore did not mark Harry, thanks Goodness :) Part of the reason why I was not shocked by Dumbledore's manipulativeness is because the theories I read here took him to much greater extent of manipulativeness than I could ever swallowed and I was sort of prepared for that. No, NOT expected or was right, but was prepared in a sense that I had this theory in my mind, just as I was absolutely wrong about DD!M Snape, but totally was not **shocked**, you know? We talked about it for so long, etc) and since the book did not make DD to engineer the prophecy or do something like that, I was like Oh he only did those things, heeh. So, of course Dumbledore did nothing to contribute to make Harry's life initially the Life of marked one. Snape and Vodlemort did. It is their sin NOT Dumbledore's. Nevertheless I still do not like Dumbledore's many actions in dealing with Harry's life, you know? Another reason why I was not shocked is because I always saw those actions as bad, it is just I kept telling myself that Dumbledore is not doing it for the reasons of being master manipulator. He is doing it for other reasons. He is a good man who would never sacrifice a child to be a weapon, I was telling myself, ever. And even though he went against those child's parents wishes and took him away from his Godfather, well he was concerned with his child's life, for the sake of this child's life. And even though he brought him to the relatives to suffer and never ever checked on him, it just cannot be that he was concerned about his plam first and foremost. Well, no more. I believe that before Harry came to school, Dumbledore did not give a flying fig about him as a person. I believe that his plan is the only thing why Dumbledore wanted to keep Harry's alive. BUT I also believe that when Harry came to school, Dumbledore indeed fall for him and grew to love him and that indeed interfered with his plans. The fact that Dumbledore grew to love Harry AND that he asked for forgiveness is to me Dumbledore's saving grace. But as I said - I consider his actions towards baby Harry to be quite despicable. I was not talking about that scene where he tells Snape that Harry has to die, I fully agree that by that time he knew. I am just wondering whether it was a period in time, when Dumbledore coldly decided that Harry must die for the greater good and if he did, i wonder how long it lasted. By the way, again, I am not talking about evil Dumbledore, I fully bellieve him that he realised that power is his temptation, etc, that he left his youthful views behind him. BUT his manipulations made me wonder whether he fallen into exercising his power over innocent without even realising it. Having said all that, I really do love Dumbledore. No matter how many bad things character does, if I see him asking for forgiveness, I can forgive a lot. Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Aug 9 21:28:57 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:28:57 -0000 Subject: Fly on the wall commentator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174958 > "colebiancardi" wrote: > Canon through-out the first 6 books gave us > > insight into "not all evil people are DH" and that there might be some > > good Slytherians out there. We saw the Unforgiveable Curses being > > names as such and through out the series, Harry could not issue such a > > curse because he never had it in him. That is not a parallel HP > > series; those are the writings of JKR. > > Lisa: > > But that's just it -- it's NOT the writings of JKR. JKR had Hary > unable to do the Unforgiveable Curses before because he didn't MEAN > them ("You have to MEAN them, Potter!"), not because he "never had it > in him." Once he MEANT them, he could do them. Some see that as an > inconsistency in canon -- but not I. Potioncat: Jumping in against her better judgement. In this case, Lisa has offered a bit of canon to oppose Colebiancardi's statement. There's now the chance to discuss the issue with canon, citing pages and chapters. To be told, as some of us have, that our ideas are wrong because we had a "parallel HP series" playing in our heads, or that we had read too much fan-fic---well, that's just an insult. Insults won't get us anywhere, canon will. Potioncat, who hasn't read all the posts, but has a general idea of what's going on.....or not. From tigerfan41 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 21:31:10 2007 From: tigerfan41 at yahoo.com (tigerfan41) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:31:10 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174959 I could be mistaken but I was sure I saw examples of good slyths. Not many to be fair but they were there. Regulus may have started down the wrong path but his heart led him to the correct choice. Phineas in his portrait gave his support to the school and it's head. Professor Slughorn he may have been reluctant but wasn't it he and Bill that went to fetch the reinforcements for the final battle? I'm pretty sure there were a few Gryphs that were less than perfect in the series. It's the system that the founders used to set up the houses that leads to one being populated by a large group of less that pleasing folks. Slytherin prefered pure bloods but his real preference seems to be more for those with no moral compunctions about the use of power. Blind ambition more than blood. If I may one other thought. I've seen numerous comments on the lack of talent displayed by Harry. I thought he did extremely well on his OWLS? He even pulled out an E in a course in wich he had no direction or encouragement. He followed that by proving that given adequate instruction he was capable of brewing devine potions. Think of what he could have done if Snape had spent a second or two telling him how to improve instead of looking for ways to belittle and undermine him. He did all this in the middle of a school year filled with mortal danger every year. I would like to see your grades if you were saving the world in your spare time......... He was able to master that most important weapon his head. Cool and calculating in a tight spot He taught others to fight using something beside just his signature spell. They all seemed to think he had something on the ball. You are seeing Harry from inside his own head. Take a look at the big picture and he might be a little more able than you think. From muellem at bc.edu Thu Aug 9 21:37:20 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:37:20 -0000 Subject: Social Correlates of Hogwarts Houses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174960 >Lupinlore wrote: > GRYFFINDOR: But when the great darkness is > abroad, they are the ones to whom you must turn. colebiancardi: hmmmm. ok. > > HUFFLEPUFF: They are stolid and a little dull, > and sometimes can be stupid and easily fooled. They can occasionally produce a surprising, if > slightly shallow, prodigy like Cedric Diggory. Overall, they are > loyal, hardworking, and kind, if not particularly bright or > accomplished. They tend to get along very well with the heros, and > when the darkness is abroad, a large number of them will pick up their weapons and get down in the trenches. colebiancardi: I totally disagree with this - where are hufflepuffs *stolid & a little dull* ? And Cedric was shallow, even if you softened it with "slightly"? What about Amelia Bones? She seemed pretty darn bright to me. > > RAVENCLAW: Too often they can be shallow and histrionic, like Cho, or selfish and weak, like Marietta. colebiancardi: again, where is Cho being shallow & histronic? She was loyal to her friend, Marietta. That is a Gyff trait. > > SLYTHERIN: The politicians and power-brokers, slick media barons, > avid government drones, CEOs, and old families. These folks are > selfish and arrogant, ultimately concerned with their own advancement > and the maintenance of their wealth, power, and the class privileges > that allow them to view everyone else with scorn. Mostly they will > leave others to fight darkness, and of all the groups they are the > ones who provide the dark with most of its soldiers and leaders. > Their subjects are the Dark Arts, per se, and also Potions with its > overtones of poison. Some will end up aiding the light, but usually > for supremely personal reasons, like Snape, out of fear like Slughorn, or out of cowardice and calculation, like the Malfoys. They are an inevitable part of any society, embodying the morally sordid, hypocritical, and ignoble aspect of the human condition that comes from a fallen world. > colebiancardi: so totally disagree on the Slytherin commentary. Voldemort was responsible for making it a dark house - but it seems that Slytherins were not always like that. To damn a whole house like that, after 1000 years of coexisting with the other 3, is like damning Germany for what happened in WWII and never letting go. I really hope that this is NOT what JKR did with the Houses - because then magpie and others(like me) who had hoped for a reconcilation with the Houses are correct - that you are damned at age 11 if you get sorted into Slytherin. What does the Hat have to say about the 4 houses: from PS/SS "You might belong in Gryffindor, where dwell the brave at heart, their daring, nerve and chivalry set Gryffindors apart; You might belong in Hufflepuff, where they are just and loyal, those patient Hufflepuffs are true and unafraid of toil; Or yet in wise old Ravenclaw, if you've a ready mind, where those of wite and learning will always find their kind; Or perhaps in Slytherin, you'll make your real friends, those cunning folk use any means to achieve their ends" In fact,nothing in the sorting hat's song about the four houses called any of the houses dull or shallow. And Harry became a Slytherin in the end, didn't he? He used certain magics (UC) to achieve his goal. So, I guess JKR does believe that the end DOES justify the means. Totally different from the way she wrote the first 6 books, imho. colebiancardi (all of the students in Hogwarts have all of the characteristics you put in the separate houses. I don't view Gryffindor any better or any worse that the other three. That type of thinking DOES led to the rise of a dicatorship) From prep0strus at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 21:48:28 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:48:28 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174961 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tigerfan41" wrote: > > I could be mistaken but I was sure I saw examples of good slyths. Not > many to be fair but they were there. > > Regulus may have started down the wrong path but his heart led him to > the correct choice. > > Phineas in his portrait gave his support to the school and it's head. > > Professor Slughorn he may have been reluctant but wasn't it he and > Bill that went to fetch the reinforcements for the final battle? > Prep0strus: Sure, there were some good Slyths. But of evil characters, who is actually evil, other than Slyths? Well, Karakoff, who reneged on evil, was presumably from Durmstrang. And Peter, he turned towards evil, if from cowardice rather than a strong desire for evil. But other than that... As far as I know, all other Death Eaters were Slytherin. But more importantly, are there any ADMIRABLE slytherins? Any likable? Any one would like to emulate? Not every one turned to evil, but could any be liked? The board is filled with discussion about Snape, but I maintain my opinion that while he made up for some of his evil by turning good and spy, he is still not an admirable person, because he is petty and nasty to children, and generally of an unpleasant personality. We see examples of familial love in the Malfoys, but still... who wants to be a Malfoy? Phineus, like most of his family, is arrogant, prejudiced against muggleborn, and, well, unpleasant. Regalus is a character I see members of the board wishing to be good so much. People say that James and Sirius have not been shown enough for us to make a true judgment on their characters. Well, we have been given even less on Regalus. What we know is that he was a typical slytherin, and a death eater, until he had a change of heart. I haven't read anything that makes me feel he was in any way a likable person. And Slughorn, the least evil Slytherin we've seen, is still unpleasant. He heaps favors on those he thinks will be able to do something for him, and rudely dismisses those less connected or talented. He's basically a coward, a sycophant, and a glutton, and while he exhibits goodness and bravery in the finale, I don't think anyone would aspire to be Slughornish. It's very disappointing to me to not have a single Slytherin that I feel I would want to spend any time with at all. JKR appears to have tried to show that they're not all incarnations of evil. But having one we could like would've gone a long way towards giving them equality in my mind. There are unpleasant people from all houses. But good and true and nice and wonderful people (if flawed) as well. Slytherins' flaws always seem to outweigh their benefits. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From muellem at bc.edu Thu Aug 9 21:53:44 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:53:44 -0000 Subject: Fly on the wall commentator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174962 > > "colebiancardi" wrote: > > Canon through-out the first 6 books gave us > > > insight into "not all evil people are DH" and that there might be > some > > > good Slytherians out there. We saw the Unforgiveable Curses being > > > names as such and through out the series, Harry could not issue > such a > > > curse because he never had it in him. That is not a parallel HP > > > series; those are the writings of JKR. > > > > > Lisa: > > > > But that's just it -- it's NOT the writings of JKR. JKR had Hary > > unable to do the Unforgiveable Curses before because he didn't MEAN > > them ("You have to MEAN them, Potter!"), not because he "never had > it > > in him." Once he MEANT them, he could do them. Some see that as > an > > inconsistency in canon -- but not I. > colebiancardi: OotP US hardcover edition p 843 DD speaking "He did not know that you have 'power the Dark Lord knows not' --" "But I don't!" said Harry in a strangled voice. "I haven't any powers he hasn't got, I couldn't fight the way he did tonight, I can't possess people or -- or kill them --" earlier in the book: p 810 Bellatrix: "Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy?" she yelled. She had abandoned her baby voice now. "You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy it - righteous anger won't hurt me for long" So, based on OotP, JKR's writings WERE pointing, imho, to the fact that Harry would never, ever cast an Unforgivable Curse because *he didn't have it in him* - he would *never* want to cause pain and enjoy the pain on those that he inflicted it upon. Of course, DH's changed all that. Obviously, Harry enjoys giving pain - something that is distressing. But that is what those of us who are debating this - the Unforgivable's - are bringing up - CANON statements in the books. Not a figment of our imaginations or that we are reading another work of fiction under the guise of the Harry Potter books colebiancardi From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Aug 9 22:00:54 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:00:54 -0000 Subject: Disappointment and Responsibility (was Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174963 > > lizzyben: > > I never read a Christian message into the text, and am not a > practicing Christian. I don't care if the books have a Christian, > pagan, atheist or Hindu theme, as long as there is some type of > coherent theme in the novels. And that's what I find lacking. So, > I'm not disappointed by the lack of a Christian theme, but the lack > of any coherent theme. Pippin: I think the theme is stated all over the place. It's choosing what to believe, specifically, whether to believe, as Dumbledore did, that one can " find something to value in anyone, however apparently insignificant or wretched" (ch 2). Kingsley put it another way in his broadcast: "Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving." (ch 22) Did Harry know this all along? I don't think so -- didn't he say, back in PS/SS that Neville was worth ten of Malfoy because Neville was a Gryffindor and Malfoy was in "stinking Slytherin" ? And yet at the end of it all he says this "It doesn't matter to us. But if it matters to you, you'll be able to choose Gryffindor over Slytherin." Sounds like rather a major shift in Harry's thinking. Of course we're not told how it happened, um except for Harry getting to walk a mile in Snape's black boots in HBP, masquerading as the Halfblood Prince, trying to find proof that his classmates are messing with something way over their heads, and nearly getting expelled for it, being accused of messing with Dark Magic, thinking his best friend will drop him if he finds out who Harry fancies, etc. Then there's Harry in DH, given the seemingly impossible task of destroying a wizard incomparably mightier than he, unable to share the burden with anyone except his two closest friends, cut off from his parents, having to dismiss the help of their best surviving friend, and no longer sure he can trust the master who gave him the task. Sound familiar? Lizzyben: > > No, what really broke the novel for me wasn't the lack of Snapey-poo > or Draco, but the lack of any example of a good, or even decent > Slytherin Pippin: Must we define good and decent, or brave and trustworthy, in Gryffindor terms? If good and decent means rushing headlong into battle with no idea what you're going to do except hit the enemy with everything you've got -- well, that's not the Slytherin way. But as Harry discovered, there are other kinds of bravery. If trustworthy means never being sneaky and underhanded, then there's scarcely a character who qualifies. Certainly not Harry. But as Dumbledore says, he wouldn't trust anyone but Snape to be able to dangle on Voldemort's arm and yet betray only the information that Dumbledore deems worthless. Snape never let Dumbledore down, despite feeling, more than once, that Dumbledore had let *him* down. And contrary to what many seem to believe, IMO, Snape died bravely. Now, I may be way off course here, but consider the facts. The legend of the wand that must pass by conquest was widely known. Voldemort and Snape seem to have discussed it. Everyone knew that Grindelwald was supposed to have had a wand of exceptional power. Everyone knew that Grindelwald had been beaten by Dumbledore. Snape knew he himself had *not* beaten Dumbledore. So.... Regardless of whether Snape realized that Draco had disarmed Dumbledore, (and he certainly could have found that out) Snape had to know all along that the wand could not have passed to him by conquest. Snape could have given Voldemort, if not the *real* reason that the wand was useless, at least *a* reason that the wand was useless. Snape could, in other words, have tried to get Voldemort to spare him, at the cost of setting Voldemort on a few more innocent lives. But he didn't. He may not have shown remorse for all his failings, but he did show true repentance for one of them-- he faced the same temptation he had faced when he gave the prophecy to Voldemort, and this time he passed it by. Choose to believe, or not. As to the other Slytherins... Voldemort claims that the Slytherins who left the school joined him. But he is a notorious liar. In fact, we don't see *any* of the Slytherin students doing his bidding Draco is acting quite on his own. We don't know whether the Slytherins left in order to join him, or whether they left to keep their families from being used as hostages, as Voldemort used Neville's grandmother. Some of them might even have had sneaky plans, ala Regulus. They might have even come back with Slughorn, polyjuiced or in disguise. JKR doesn't tell us. Once we had to choose whether to believe with no certain evidence that Dumbledore was right to trust Snape, Now we have to choose to believe that we can "find something to value in anyone, no matter how *apparently* (emphasis mine) insignificant or wretched." Or not. JKR doesn't make it easy for us, because in RL it's not easy. There are always going to be occasions when people *apparently* fit the labels and stereotypes. And there are genuine, deeply felt differences between cultures that are not going to be wiped away by everybody standing in a circle singing the WW equivalent of Kumbayah. We should take heart, JKR seems to be saying, from brief glimpses of how things could be: the chastened wizard, Fudge, led forward by the goblin and the house elf at the end of OOP. Or the moment in DH when "nobody was sitting according to House anymore." Including Draco Malfoy. Pippin From ida3 at planet.nl Thu Aug 9 22:01:44 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:01:44 -0000 Subject: Another Timeline Problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174964 "kmcbears1" wrote: > > The problem arises in that we know from one of the > > early books that James saves Severus in their 6th > > year. In OOTP, we see from Snape's worst memory > > that calling Lily a Mudblood happen in their 5th year. > > > > In DH, Lily stopped talking to Severus after he called > > her a Mudblood. > > > > How did the Snape get the memory of talking to Lily > > after the tunnel rescue if Lily didn't talk to Severus > > after 5th year? Steve: > I think because they are chronologically-ish, we > are trying to force an absolute chronology on them. Dana: Dana: Never in canon is it stated that the prank occurred in the sixth year or after SWM. That always has been just an assumption on the basis of Sirius age (as being mentioned by Snape during the Hospital scene in PoA) and Harry's observation about Lupin's appearance during the OWL and him wondering if the full moon was approaching (in SWM in OotP). Then Sirius later saying he wished it was a full moon and Lupin stating that they first had the transfiguration OWL's. As Carol already pointed out JKR made an error about James's age when Harry talks to Sirius and Lupin in the fire in OotP (well at least in comparison to James's birthday mentioned in DH), James was already 16 at that point and not 15 as mentioned during this conversation. The prank according to the last canon did happen before SWM for the simple fact that Lily broke off their friendship after it and therefore the conversation about Snape being ungrateful about James saving his life would not have taken place after Snape called Lily a mudblood. Although I too believed that it happened after SWM, it does not contradict canon besides James not being 15 during SWM. James's age discrepancy actually says nothing about Sirius's age at the time so in this contrast it actually contradicts nothing. Just JKR toying with everybodies mind. JMHO Dana From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Aug 9 22:08:57 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:08:57 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174965 > > Prep0strus: > But more importantly, are there any ADMIRABLE slytherins? Any > likable? Any one would like to emulate? > Hickengruendler: What about Mrs Tonks? Granted, she is a very minor character, but she married a Muggleborn, much to her family's displeasure. This definitely shows some positive character traits. Snape's mother, too, was a Slytherin, who in spite of any pureblood biases in the house married a Muggleborn. Granted, it's hard to call her admirable, since she seemed to have been a very phlegmatic woman, who let herself bullied by her husband, in spite of the fact, that she was the witch. (On the other hand, it does show, that she was unwilling to use her powers against someone, who doesn't have them, which is a virtue Hagrid or the Weasley twins did not share). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 22:37:51 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:37:51 -0000 Subject: I was right - Christian Symbols/Off-page Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174966 Magpie wrote: > Kind of a me too, but I was somebody who already believed in DDM! > Snape and I thought the transition was non-existant as well. I'm > still scratching my head over why Harry would name his child after > Snape. Carol responds: Maybe Harry starts with what he already knows but has never accepted as "truth." Snape spied for Dumbledore "at great personal risk" before Godric's Hollow. Snape thwarted Quirrell's Halloween attempt to use the troll as a diversion and questioned him about "where his loyalties lie." He also saved Harry from Quirrell's curse while Voldemort was in Quirrell's head. Snape stayed at Hogwarts while Karkaroff fled, stayed away from the graveyard, helped to thwart Fake!Moody, showed his Dark Mark to Fudge, and went off to face Voldemort and lie to him after Godric's Hollow. Snape continued to spy, lie, and risk his life from the end of GoF till he was killed in the line of duty in DH, passing information to Harry as his last act, still undetected by the Dark Lord. He risked his cover by trying to teach Harry Occlumency, saved the kids by sending the Order to the MoM, agreed to kill Dumbledore at the risk of his own soul to protect Draco and Harry, continued to work for Portrait!Dumbledore after DD's death, sending a fake Sword or Gryffindor to the Lestrange's vault and a fake one to Harry and protecting the students with such Slytherin-style measures as decrees that he knew the DA would violate. He risked discovery, and his life, saving Lupin from an AK with a Sectumsempra aimed at a DE's hand. And how about lying to a Dark Lord who can look into your eyes and see your thoughts? Contrast Gregorovitch as LV invades his mind and Snape's calm facade as he "hoodwinks" the Dark Lord with his "superb Occlumency," concealing the key point (polyjuiced Harry's) in chapter one. And all the time that Harry was at Hogwarts, protecting him without wanting Harry to find out. Snape against the Dark Lord, unacknowledged and undetected. Seems brave to me. "Immensely brave." Carol, who sees every reason for Harry to admire the courage of the man who took such risks behind the scenes and without whose help he could not have destroyed the locket Horcrux or the soul bit in his scar From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Aug 9 22:53:41 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:53:41 -0000 Subject: I was right - Christian Symbols/Off-page Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174967 > Magpie wrote: > > Kind of a me too, but I was somebody who already believed in DDM! > > Snape and I thought the transition was non-existant as well. I'm > > still scratching my head over why Harry would name his child after > > Snape. > > Carol responds: > Maybe Harry starts with what he already knows but has never accepted > as "truth." Magpie: I do suppose that's supposed to be it--I mean, certainly I understand what Snape was actually doing when I see the memories, so there's no confusion as to why Harry gets it now. JKR's style isn't to get into that sort of stuff. Harry has already known most of this stuff for a while now, but disregarded it not really for lack of information but because of his feelings.I just don't really know what the transition was like for Harry. > Carol, who sees every reason for Harry to admire the courage of the > man who took such risks behind the scenes and without whose help he > could not have destroyed the locket Horcrux or the soul bit in his scar Magpie: Oh, I see every reason for Harry to admire the courage of Snape, absolutely. It just still seems weird to name his son after him given the history. All I've got to go on is the facts, and for me that would lead to me certainly admiring the guy's bravery and respecting what he did, but not naming my kid after him. -m From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 23:23:10 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:23:10 -0000 Subject: Another Timeline Problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174968 KMC: James saves Severus in their 6th year. In OOTP, we see from Snape's worst memory that calling Lily a Mudblood happen in their 5th year In DH, Lily stopped talking to Severus after he called her a Mudblood. How did the Snape get the memory of talking to Lily after the tunnel rescue if Lily didn't talk to Severus after 5th year? Juli: The Prank takes place in the sixth year, we know that for a fact. Snape's Worst Memory (calling Lily a Mudblood) happens at their 5th year (right after the OWLS). Do we know that Lily didn't talk to Snape after that? As I see it she only stopped talking to him during that day, we have nothing on whether they talked afterwards or not. My guess is that they did. In the seventh year Lily started dating James, I'm guessing her love for him made her cast the doe patronus, also in the seventh year they learn how to cast a patronus. Severus must have seen it, otherwise how to explain Severus' patronus? I bet they continue to talk, perhaps they weren't best friends afterwards, but still friends. Juli From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 23:25:21 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:25:21 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables - Context In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174969 --- "colebiancardi" wrote: > > DG wrote: > > > And then, once he had Carrow in his custody, he > > turned it off, thus avoiding crossing the line > > from necessary force into torture. > > > > Agsin, I have absolutely zero problems with this. > > Harry. Never. Tortures. > > > > > colebiancardi: > > The Cruciatus Curse: per GoF - You don't need > thumbscrews or knives to torture someone if you can > perform the Cruciatus Curse. p 215 US ed hardcover > > As a DE stated this, I think this is pretty much canon. > If anyone would know about torture, it is a DE > > Your arguments aren't convincing me or others who > believe that Harry performed a legit UC called the > Cruciatus Curse, whose only purpose is to torture > someone - perhaps it is to convince yourself, I don't > know. Whether it is for a second or prolonged, it is > does what it is supposed to do - torture someone. > > Harry.Does.Torture > > and he meant it, according to canon. > > colebiancardi > bboyminn: It seems as if the lines are drawn. People have made their choice and they are not willing to be swayed. I'm sure it will come as no surprise to anyone when I side with Dennis. The thing that many people are ignoring is context. Something can exist in one context, but the exact same thing will not exist in another context. If I used electric shock to induce pain and did so repeatedly, would you classify that as torture? Well the courts have said that the use of a Taser (Stun Gun) by the police is not torture. That it is humane way of subduing a suspect when the alternative is even greater and even excessive force. Yet, would any of us deny that a Taser COULD be used as an instrument of torture? Perhaps with some modification, even an instrument of death? So, what is the difference, how can it be torture in one case and not the other. Simple; context. Context matters, details matter, intent and purpose matter. Without a doubt Harry wanted to cause this person pain, but he did so in a restrained way. Just as police officers with a Taser must restrain themselves. He did not prolong it. He did not sustain it. He did not repeat it. Did he 'mean it'? Well it worked, but I think Harry comment was more a case of sarcasm than anything else. Harry found himself in a den of Dragons, and even though one of the hungry dragons wasn't immediately attacking him, doesn't mean he didn't understand the supreme danger he was facing. Compound that with one of the dragons insulting and degrading someone Harry cares about, and I think Harry's actions can be understandable. Wrong, but understandable. I do understand the counter point. JKR set these curse up as Unforgivable, and then creates a circumstance in which she expects us to forgive them. Well, either they are unforgivable or there aren't. But it is not that simply. Can you come up with any other broad action like this that isn't ruled by context? Again, while I understand, all I can do is appeal for understanding of context. Are you really comparing what Harry did, to Crabbe and Goyle taking joy in using the Cruciatus Curse as punishment for wayward students? To me, one seem a nice dose of Karmic Justice and the other seem impossibly cruel and cold hearted. I simply can't isolate an action from it's context. I would never say Harry's actions were right, only that in context, they were understandable and forgivable...but none the less still wrong. Steve/bboyminn From nitalynx at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 23:29:08 2007 From: nitalynx at yahoo.com (nitalynx) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:29:08 -0000 Subject: Social Correlates of Hogwarts Houses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174970 Lupinlore wrote: > I'd like > to explore the idea of whether the houses line up with social groups. Nita: Oh, I like this idea! And I think you drew the parallels the way JKR herself would :) But I'd like to do some independent exploration based exclusively on the criteria declared by the Sorting Hat. Let's see... -Gryffindors- "You might belong in Gryffindor, Where dwell the brave at heart, Their daring, nerve and chivalry Set Gryffindors apart;" "By Gryffindor, the bravest were Prized far beyond the rest;" "Said Gryffindor, "We'll teach all those With brave deeds to their name,"" "While the bravest and the boldest Went to daring Gryffindor," So, it's bravery, daring, nerve, chivalry and boldness. I agree that these people are great to have around in dangerous situations, but I don't think they make good leaders in general. Firstly because they would tend to get restless and irritable during a long peacetime, and secondly because rushing headlong into danger sometimes results in bad consequences for everyone involved. Thus, we get the archetypally perfect soldiers and firefighters, but also brawling football fans, street racers and crusaders of all sorts. Non-HP fictional example: the Spartans in 300. -Hufflepuffs- "You might belong in Hufflepuff, Where they are just and loyal, Those patient Hufflepuffs are true And unafraid of toil;" "For Hufflepuff, hard workers were Most worthy of admission;" "Said Hufflepuff, "I'll teach the lot, And treat them just the same."" "Good Hufflepuff, she took the rest, And taught them all she knew," Ideally, a 'Puff is just, loyal, patient, true and hard-working (wow, isn't that an impressive set?), but the founder of the house valued equal treatment, so they also accept the kids who don't match anyone's demands. I'd say these are the people who get most of the work done in any given society, simply because they go ahead and do it, instead of waiting for something more heroic, intellectually stimulating or rewarding to come up. So, yes, various kinds of hard work, but the more glamorous varieties are usually taken by the other three types. That means clerks, paediatricians, caretakers, teachers, factory workers, lower-level administrators, farmers, stay-at-home mothers, and so on, and so forth, I suppose. Non-HP fictional example: hobbits, I guess - or at least Sam :) (btw, I think this personality type is rather underappreciated in fiction) -Ravenclaws- "Or yet in wise old Ravenclaw, If you've a steady mind, Where those of wit and learning, Will always find their kind;" "For Ravenclaw, the cleverest Would always be the best;" "Said Ravenclaw, "We'll teach those whose Intelligence is surest."" "And only those of sharpest mind Were taught by Ravenclaw" So, a steady mind, wit, learning, cleverness, intelligence - all things brain-related. Hmm, why artists? Of course, all sorts of intellectual snobs, these days also known as geeks and nerds, fit very nicely in here. And many of them would very much like the world to go away and leave them alone with their pet theories / experiments / creations / objects of research :) Thus, we get scientists, highly specialized experts (not necessarily good or useful ones), conspiracy theorists, critics, and a whole lot of folks who know they're working below their intellectual capacity and rant about daily frustrations in various blogs ;) Non-HP fictional example: any genius detective, any mad scientist. And, finally... -Slytherins- "Or perhaps in Slytherin You'll make your real friends, Those cunning folk use any means To achieve their ends." "And power-hungry Slytherin Loved those of great ambition." "Said Slytherin, "We'll teach just those Whose ancestry is purest."" "For instance, Slytherin Took only pure-blood wizards Of great cunning, just like him," Well. Cunning, using any means to achieve one's ends, ambition and blood purity (though, evidently, half-bloods are OK?). Minus the ancestry bit, these are the right qualities for a leader: the military strategist type (see Sun Tzu's "Art of War"), the power behind the throne type, or the modern clever manager type. They are also the qualities that drive progress the most, IMO. Developing and implementing new ideas requires the efforts of very motivated individuals. I'm not one of them, but I do appreciate their contribution. So, what keeps a Slyth from being completely OFH and against the rest of us? It seems that in Potterverse this mysterious power lies in family ties (the Malfoys), True Love (Snape) or the "old boy network" (Slughorn). Note how two of those are supported by valuing blood purity. None of them applied to Tom Riddle, hence the birth of LV. Once we have our society populated by the required number of heroes, workers and thinkers, the Slytherin types are the ones who can get all these people to work together and actually achieve something, be it survival or victory. The trick is to get them to care about that :) Non-HP fictional example: the Corleones in "The Godfather" (strong family ties here), practically all central characters in "Pirates of the Caribbean" (there's love and friendship, and there's plain old OFHness, but everybody's doing it, so nobody seems to mind) Nita, who also recommends this essay: http://community.livejournal.com/lightning_war/491.html From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Aug 9 23:31:18 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:31:18 -0000 Subject: Disappointment and Responsibility (was Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174971 Pippin: > As to the other Slytherins... > > Voldemort claims that the Slytherins who left the school joined him. > > But he is a notorious liar. > > In fact, we don't see *any* of the Slytherin students doing his > bidding Draco is acting quite on his own. Jen: Draco is acting on his own and his actions are suspect. How many times did he exhort the other two not to kill Harry in the Room of Requirement? Draco sounded remarkably like Snape in HBP, telling them not to kill Harry because the Dark Lord wanted him alive. Then he doesn't allow Crabbe to try to hurt Ron/Hermione, claiming something might happen to the diadem. No spells were cast my him before he lost his wand. He's not acting like a man on a mission, or at least not the mission Crabbe claims for him! Draco seems more like a guy trying to keep the other two from hurting the Trio and damaging the diadem. To top it off, he apparently dragged an unconcious Goyle as high as he could take him in the burning room instead of attempting to find a way out by himself - practically a saving people thing . Finally, Harry doesn't treat Draco like a man who wanted to sell him out to Voldemort when he sees him in the Great Hall...I realize absence of interaction isn't proof but it was enough for me to know that things had changed for Draco and between Harry/Draco, something confirmed at the train station 19 years later. Magpie: > JKR once misquoted this line in an interview as DD saying > choices "make you" who you are, and that surprised me because > they're not the same thing. In canon it's consistently the former-- > choices show who you are, because there's not a lot of change. Jen: In GOF DD says 'it's not what someone is born, but what they grow to be.' I don't agree with the intepretation of his COS statement as a Calvinist thought. Choice isn't an inborn trait and abilities have at least *some* component of genetic predisposition. So if Dumbledore's saying choice is more important to show what a person truly is than abilites, he's making a statement consistent with the one in GOF (when he said choice was more important than blood). Jen From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 23:41:31 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:41:31 -0000 Subject: cave potion refill...possible flint? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174972 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "urghiggi" wrote: > I'm puzzled how the cave potion came to be refilled after RAB took > the locket horcrux and substituted the fake locket. > > If the basin had to BE "filled" (as Kreacher indicates) rather than > filling itself, then it should've been empty after RAB drank it > all. There shouldn't have been any potion there for Dumbledore to > drink. I noticed this too :-). But, you know, the basin *does* refill itself, because when LV comes to the cave to check, the potion is there again. We see it (together with Harry) through LV's eyes. He turns the potion clear to be able to see the bottom, but, clear or green, it's still there (p.595 Am.ed.). It means that the basin refilled itself after DD drank the potion. I don't know why Kreacher said it was LV who refilled the basin. Maybe he just saw the basin filling with the potion again and assumed it was LV who did it, or maybe it can work both ways. Anyway, I don't think that after drinking the potion Kreacher was in a condition to understand everything clearly, poor thing ;-(. zanooda From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 23:49:14 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:49:14 -0000 Subject: Fly on the wall commentator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174973 > > > "colebiancardi" wrote: > OotP US hardcover edition p 843 > > DD speaking > "He did not know that you have 'power the Dark Lord knows not' --" > "But I don't!" said Harry in a strangled voice. "I haven't any > powers he hasn't got, I couldn't fight the way he did tonight, I can't > possess people or -- or kill them --" > > earlier in the book: > > p 810 > > Bellatrix: > "Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy?" she yelled. > She had abandoned her baby voice now. "You need to mean them, > Potter! You need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy it - > righteous anger won't hurt me for long" > > > So, based on OotP, JKR's writings WERE pointing, imho, to the fact > that Harry would never, ever cast an Unforgivable Curse because *he > didn't have it in him* - he would *never* want to cause pain and enjoy > the pain on those that he inflicted it upon. Lisa: Again, I still don't see where it's stated in canon that Harry would never be able to cause pain and enjoy it - to the contrary, Harry has always been clear that he despised Voldemort, and my interpretation is that he was always prepared to kill him if he had to. The passage you quoted simply tells me that Harry underestimates his own power, and specifically, Dumbledore meant the power of love, not the power to cast an unforgiveable curse, anyway. > colebiancardi: > Of course, DH's changed all that. Obviously, Harry enjoys giving pain > - something that is distressing. Lisa: Oh, I think there's a difference between enjoying doing something like, and feeling satisfaction. Bella enjoyed it and did it "for fun," so to speak (witness the Lestranges); Harry was pushed to the brink in the middle of a war, and felt satisfaction when he did so. Would he have ever done it for fun? Well, there's no canon to tell us he wouldn't, but it's my interpretation that he wouldn't. Also, Bella told Harry that righteous anger wouldn't hurt her for long -- Harry didn't attempt to do any Unforgiveables "for long," anyway, so "righteous anger" served his purpose in the end after all. colebiancardi: > > But that is what those of us who are debating this - the > Unforgivable's - are bringing up - CANON statements in the books. Not > a figment of our imaginations or that we are reading another work of > fiction under the guise of the Harry Potter books Lisa: Actually, I think we're all debating our interpretations of canon, LOL! Lisa From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Thu Aug 9 23:48:50 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:48:50 -0000 Subject: Social Correlates of Hogwarts Houses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174974 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nitalynx" wrote: >Nita wrote: > -Slytherins- > > "Or perhaps in Slytherin > You'll make your real friends, > Those cunning folk use any means > To achieve their ends." > "And power-hungry Slytherin > Loved those of great ambition." > "Said Slytherin, "We'll teach just those > Whose ancestry is purest."" > "For instance, Slytherin > Took only pure-blood wizards > Of great cunning, just like him," > > Well. Cunning, using any means to achieve one's ends, ambition and > blood purity (though, evidently, half-bloods are OK?). > > Minus the ancestry bit, these are the right qualities for a leader: > the military strategist type (see Sun Tzu's "Art of War"), the power > behind the throne type, or the modern clever manager type. They are > also the qualities that drive progress the most, IMO. Developing and > implementing new ideas requires the efforts of very motivated > individuals. I'm not one of them, but I do appreciate their contribution. Quick_Silver: But can we really dismiss the blood purity part of the Sorting Hat's song that easily? I mean none of the other houses seem to have a selection citeria like Slytherin's "purest ancestry". So right at it's very foundation Slytherin seems to set itself up as the "different" house...and it doesn't seem to have turned out to well for them. Quick_Silver From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Aug 10 00:02:53 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:02:53 -0400 Subject: The True Meaning of the Harry Potter Series Message-ID: <46BBAB2D.4060709@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174975 Bart: People here have been asking what the Harry Potter series means. Well, I can tell you what it means. It means that nobody in the Rowling family will have to work for a living for the next few hundred years. Bart From nitalynx at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 00:27:26 2007 From: nitalynx at yahoo.com (nitalynx) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:27:26 -0000 Subject: Social Correlates of Hogwarts Houses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174976 Quick_Silver wrote: > But can we really dismiss the blood purity part of the Sorting Hat's > song that easily? I mean none of the other houses seem to have a > selection citeria like Slytherin's "purest ancestry". So right at > it's very foundation Slytherin seems to set itself up as > the "different" house...and it doesn't seem to have turned out to > well for them. Nita: Well, I have three theories about this criterion. Two are Author-friendly, the third - not quite ;) The first (I didn't come up with it myself): Valuing blood purity is an extension of loyalty to family. Consider Hermione's gradual, seemingly inevitable alienation from her parents, or the Lily/Petunia situation. When Muggleborns join the WW, they practically have to abandon their families. From a family-centric point of view, how can someone who does that be trusted? On the other hand, if they stay loyal to their Muggle families, it does introduce an additional security risk into the fragile relationship between Wizards and Muggles. If things go bad and there's a confrontation, whom will they support? And then Voldie comes along and twists the idea... The second: Same as above, but it's been taken to unreasonable lengths right from the start thanks to Salazar's ageing, slipping, paranoid mind. He was described as "ancient", wasn't he? Hence the over-the-top Chamber of Secrets. The third: JKR threw blood purity into the Slytherin list of requirements because she decided that the cunning, ambitious folk will be the Bad Guys, so they also must be merciless bigots (otherwise they might be too easy to sympathize with, for instance). Personally, I believe that genocidal oppressive regimes, just like enlightened progressive democracies, are maintained by a group effort that "takes all kinds". So her choice to tie the Evil to a specific personality type makes me rather uncomfortable. Nita From kjones at telus.net Fri Aug 10 00:44:53 2007 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:44:53 -0700 Subject: Aberforth Message-ID: <46BBB505.3020204@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 174977 Carol wrote: Just out of curiosity (I'm addressing the group in general), what were your expectations for him and how close to the mark were they? What's your reaction to the character as he's presented? Is he just a plot device? A foil to Albus? Something else? Is he wiser than DD in your view, or are they both mistaken in their perceptions of each other? Any guesses as to which House he was in? KJ writes: I had great hopes for Aberforth. Considering the fact that he was in the first Order, I expected him to be seen taking a more active role. The build-up about Dumbledore's family increased my interest in Aberforth. He is close to DD and Hogwarts, he obviously has the means to provide information to the next Order generation, and from the scene in DH, we see that he gets a certain amount of latitude from the DEs. When DD made the comments about Aberforth's literacy, I expected the opposite from Aberforth. I think we are now meant to understand it as a sibling joke, but considering the pain and damage DD caused his brother and his family, I don't find it amusing. I feel like JKR created this character for the sole purpose of telling us about DD's life. There was bitterness on the part of Aberforth, and righteous indignation as we might expect. What was missing, was Dumbledore's feelings about his brother. How can Dumbledore be made to show that he regrets his past life, when he makes puerile cracks about his brother's intelligence. There was no resolution between the brothers. There was almost no need for Aberforth at all. I feel like she invented him and had to have him do something. He could have been a great character instead of another "What the heck was that?" moment. KJ From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 01:12:01 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:12:01 -0000 Subject: Social Correlates of Hogwarts Houses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174978 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nitalynx" wrote: > > So, it's bravery, daring, nerve, chivalry and boldness. > > I agree that these people are great to have around in dangerous > situations, but I don't think they make good leaders in general. > Firstly because they would tend to get restless and irritable during a > long peacetime, and secondly because rushing headlong into danger > sometimes results in bad consequences for everyone involved. Depnds on what you look for in a leader. Certainly almost all of the leader figures JKR lauds are Gryffindors. I think the type of leadership they are meant to provide is leadership by example. They are the warrior chieftans that rush into battle at the head of their troops, the law partners who take on pro bono cases themselves, etc. This seems to be the kind of leadership JKR admires. > > So, a steady mind, wit, learning, cleverness, intelligence - all > things brain-related. > > Hmm, why artists? Of course, all sorts of intellectual snobs, these > days also known as geeks and nerds, fit very nicely in here. And many > of them would very much like the world to go away and leave them alone > with their pet theories / experiments / creations / objects of research :) Yes, I would say that's what I'm getting at. Many varieties of personality analysis point out that artists and intellectuals are much more similar than most people realize, indeed the boundary between them is notoriously blurred. Both live primarily in their own thoughts. Both become enraptured with their own mental/physical constructs. And both have a tendancy to be at best withdrawn and at worst prickly, hysteric prima-donnas. > > Well. Cunning, using any means to achieve one's ends, ambition and > blood purity (though, evidently, half-bloods are OK?). > > Minus the ancestry bit, these are the right qualities for a leader: > the military strategist type (see Sun Tzu's "Art of War"), the power > behind the throne type, or the modern clever manager type. They are > also the qualities that drive progress the most, IMO. Developing and > implementing new ideas requires the efforts of very motivated > individuals. I'm not one of them, but I do appreciate their contribution. > I see what you mean. However, going with canon, it doesn't seem that JKR would agree. Her notions of leadership make her extremely suspicious of ambition and cunning -- which is odd considering how large those figure in DD's character. Yet, I think we are meant to see those aspects of Dumbledore as problematic, and DD himself indicates as much. Indeed, I'd say the closest we have to a clear statement on leadership from JKR is when Dumbledore says that you probably should never give power to someone who wants it -- i.e. don't give it to him, and don't give it to a Slytherin. Lupinlore From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Aug 10 01:39:56 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:39:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Aberforth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46BBC1EC.5080309@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174979 Jen: > I expected Aberforth to be another Dumbledore loyalist along > the lines of the Order members in OOTP: Dumbledore directed and > Aberforth followed. What a surprise. Not only did Aberforth express > ambivalence about the cause, he didn't even have Albus on a > pedestal! Bart: One of the more interesting knights of the Arthurian Round Table was Sir Kay. He wasn't the smartest knight, he wasn't the best fighter, and he wasn't even the most noble knight (nor was he the least, for that matter). But he was the only knight who could and would speak his mind and be perfectly frank to Arthur's face, because, after everything else, they STILL grew up together, and, sword or no sword, Arthur was still his little brother. On ships, one of the jobs of the first mate has traditionally been to second guess the captain. The captain needs someone who can disagree to his face, just in case the captain IS making the wrong decision. And, to me, that is why Abe the Goat was especially important to DD; he was the one who thought of DD not as the Great Good Wizard(tm), but as the brother he grew up with, and could say, "You're being an idiot, Alby!" to his face. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 01:55:10 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:55:10 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174980 Hickengruendler wrote: > > What about Mrs Tonks? Granted, she is a very minor character, but she married a Muggleborn, much to her family's displeasure. This definitely shows some positive character traits. > > Snape's mother, too, was a Slytherin, who in spite of any pureblood biases in the house married a Muggleborn. Granted, it's hard to call her admirable, since she seemed to have been a very phlegmatic woman, who let herself bullied by her husband, in spite of the fact, that she was the witch. (On the other hand, it does show, that she was unwilling to use her powers against someone, who doesn't have them, which is a virtue Hagrid or the Weasley twins did not share). > Carol responds: Bullied? Can you show me the canon for that, please? I remember Ted Tonks standing up for his wife when Harry briefly mistakes her for Bellatrix, and when he's on the run with Dean, Dirk Cresswell, and the goblins, he sounds like a gentle, kind man who under ordinary circumstances might be jovial. He expresses concern for the kids who got detention from Snape for trying to steal the Sword of Gryffindor, and when Dirk suggests that Harry may already have been killed, he says, "Ah, don't say that, Dirk" (DH Am. ed. 300). I don't understand the reference to not using her powers against her husband, who is a Muggleborn, not a Muggle, and has just, among other things, regrown Harry's knocked-out tooth and healed his broken ribs. As for Andromeda, Sirius Black's favorite cousin who hasn't spoken to her sisters (and vice versa) since her marriage to Tonks, she suffers as greatly as anyone in the books, losing her husband, her daughter, and her daughter's new husband (who seems to have had a falling-out with the Tonks family and become reconciled off-page) and having to raise an infant grandson alone, shades of Gran Longbottom though apparently doing a better job to judge from the epilogue. We see only a glimpse of Andromeda, but I don't see her as bullied or tempted to use her powers against her husband. Ted Tonks introduces himself with his first name and then his full name, reassures Harry that Hagrid is okay and that his wife is tending him and that he himself has mended Harry's injuries. He expresses alarm regarding the Death Eaters and explains why Voldemort vanished (because of the protective charms). Harry, having just gone through a rather traumatic experience, is apparently not listening to the part about Ted's wife tending Hagrid. As she enters the room, he sees her resemblance to her DE sister and shouts at her, "You!" Ted responds mildly by telling him where his wand is and saying, "That's my wife you're shouting at" (65). Harry sees that her eyes are wider and kinder than Bellatrix's hooded ones, but she naturally looks a bit haughty (she's a Black, and all of them, including Sirius and Regulus have an arrogant look) considering Harry's less-than-friendly and grateful greeting. But instead of reprimanding him, her first concern is for her daughter: "What happened to our daughter? Hagrid said you were ambushed; where is Nymphadora?" Ted, though his exchanged look with his wife indicates that he shares her fear, reassures "'Dromeda" that "Dora" will be all right. Harry, feeling remorse for endangering her daughter but having no words to comfort her promises that he'll have "Dora" send word that she's okay. Ted shows Harry and Hagrid the portkey, and so ends our little glimpse into the life of what seems to be a happy and loving family, the Slytherin wife, her big-bellied husband who is surely a Hufflepuff like Tonks, and their absent but much-loved daughter. If we want a good Slytherin, the grieving widow who tends the newborn child of her daughter and her daughter's werewolf husband while the younger people battle against Death Eaters and raises him lovingly when they die, there she stands. Carol, raising a goblet of blood-red wine to Andromeda Black Tonks, whose daughter was murdered by Andromeda's own sister From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Aug 10 02:10:31 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:10:31 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174981 > Hickengruendler: > > What about Mrs Tonks? Granted, she is a very minor character, but she > married a Muggleborn, much to her family's displeasure. This > definitely shows some positive character traits. > > Snape's mother, too, was a Slytherin, who in spite of any pureblood > biases in the house married a Muggleborn. Granted, it's hard to call > her admirable, since she seemed to have been a very phlegmatic woman, > who let herself bullied by her husband, in spite of the fact, that > she was the witch. (On the other hand, it does show, that she was > unwilling to use her powers against someone, who doesn't have them, > which is a virtue Hagrid or the Weasley twins did not share). Potioncat: Do we have canon for Andromeda or Eileen being Slytherins? I know Draco says everyone in his family was Slytherin, but I'm not sure he considers Andromeda as being family. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 10 02:11:25 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:11:25 -0000 Subject: The dust corpse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174982 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol responds: > > As for the tongue-tying curse, since Snape didn't intend to reveal the > Secret anyway, it would have provided him with a new, > Legilimency-proof excuse for not revealing the Secret. (I choose to > believe that the Pensieve memories are in their proper sequence and > JKR's chat response is uncanonical. ;-) ) > > Carol, who thinks that the Order had no more clue regarding Snape's > powers than his loyalties > Ken: I never thought of this until now but what good is the tongue-tying curse anyway? Snape could write the address on a pieces of paper, or parchment if he really must, and hand them out as party favors at the next DE shindig at the Malfoy's. That is how Harry was let in on the secret after all. I really do find DH a satisfying conclusion to the series for some reason. The more I think about it, the more comments I read here, the more it seems like a really good first draft rather than a finished book. The things that Rowling does well, she seems to do really well and almost effortlessly. I guess that saves it for me because she simply can't get the details right. Ken From muellem at bc.edu Fri Aug 10 02:10:29 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:10:29 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174983 > Hickengruendler wrote: > > > > What about Mrs Tonks? Granted, she is a very minor character, but > she married a Muggleborn, much to her family's displeasure. This > definitely shows some positive character traits. > > > > Snape's mother, too, was a Slytherin, who in spite of any pureblood > biases in the house married a Muggleborn. Granted, it's hard to call > her admirable, since she seemed to have been a very phlegmatic woman, > who let herself bullied by her husband, in spite of the fact, that > she was the witch. (On the other hand, it does show, that she was > unwilling to use her powers against someone, who doesn't have them, > which is a virtue Hagrid or the Weasley twins did not share). > > > Carol responds: > Bullied? Can you show me the canon for that, please? I colebiancardi: I believe Hickengruendler was referring to Eileen Snape, not Andromena Tonks, in the case of being bullied. Snape's parents seemed to be always arguing and we have that scene in the Pensive where a man is towering over a cowering woman - which I had always believed to be Tobias Snape & Eileen Snape. colebiancardi From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 02:14:13 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:14:13 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy In-Reply-To: <2264925.1186626015591.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174984 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > JKR claims that she worded the prophecy VERY carefully. > > Well, I'm still scratching my head over it. Specifically, "and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives..." Well, clearly, they both lived for several years while the other survived. And one did NOT die at the hand of the other; Morty kept offing himself until it took. All he needed was antlers, a squirrel, a hat, and "This time for sure!" before casting YAAK. > > So, can anybody here, who actually understands the prophecy, explain it to me? > > Bart > Tonks: Intuitively it seems to me that another way to look at this is by looking at what LV and Harry symbolize. ???He will mark him as his equal..??? Remember the part about the brother who owned the invisibility cloak? He took the clock off and walked with death ???as an equal???. LV as a symbol of Death can not live fully??? that is he can not win the battle as long as someone is still alive. On the other hand Harry representing humankind can not live (meaning live forever) as long as death exist. There is a balance between them. Death is only defeated by the sacrifice of Love. By being willing to die Harry has won what LV tried to have. As Hermione tells us in the graveyard at GH, it is not the type of victory over death that LV envisioned, it is of another type. It is a Christ type victory. Death is now defeated and Harry has eternal life. Not life on earth forever, but eternal life in the spiritual sense. Tonks_op From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Aug 10 02:47:57 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:47:57 -0000 Subject: Fly on the wall commentator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174985 Lisa: > Oh, I think there's a difference between enjoying > doing something like, and feeling satisfaction. houyhnhnm: Please explain what you mean by the difference between "enjoying" and "feeling satisfaction." . "Feeling satisfaction" has to be something a little more savage than righteous anger, at least according to Bellatrix. Perhaps not as savage as Voldemort's "surge of vicious anger" while torturing Ollivander (Scholastic, 85). More like Voldemort's feelings when he's "gliding along, that sense of purpose and power and rightness in him that he always knew on these occasions . . . Not anger . . . that was for weaker souls than he . . . but triumph, yes . . ." (343) I don't see how your "feeling satisfaction" at causing someone else's pain can be an emotion that isn't Dark. If a monster can feel a "sense of purpose and power and *rightness*" when he goes to kill, then clearly these feelings are not reliable signposts to tell us we're on the right road. From elfundeb at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 02:52:09 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 22:52:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Social Correlates of Hogwarts Houses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708091952r9c7b3cs88b840789f54f317@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174986 Nita: Valuing blood purity is an extension of loyalty to family. Consider Hermione's gradual, seemingly inevitable alienation from her parents, or the Lily/Petunia situation. When Muggleborns join the WW, they practically have to abandon their families. From a family-centric point of view, how can someone who does that be trusted? [snip] The second: Same as above, but it's been taken to unreasonable lengths right from the start thanks to Salazar's ageing, slipping, paranoid mind. He was described as "ancient", wasn't he? Hence the over-the-top Chamber of Secrets. The third: JKR threw blood purity into the Slytherin list of requirements because she decided that the cunning, ambitious folk will be the Bad Guys, so they also must be merciless bigots (otherwise they might be too easy to sympathize with, for instance). Debbie: I'll take door #3. Theoretically, sorting students into Houses with the characteristics of the Hogwarts Houses (excepting the pureblood part) should be a benign exercise, tracking (as they do but for the pureblood bit) the Jungian types (which I believe have been discussed ad nauseam of late). Slytherin's pureblood mania, however, poisoned the House system and Slytherin house in particular from the very beginning. By not excising Slytherin's brain from the Sorting Hat when Slytherin left the school, the remaining Founders set the stage for Voldemort's rise. The Sorting Hat further aided and abetted Slytherin's so-called noble work to purge Hogwarts of Muggleborns by taking into account two things in the sorting process: ancestry and preference. In this way, the Hat kept Slytherin House free of Muggleborns who might have ameliorated muggleborn prejudice while filling it with cunning young bigots who would do anything -- including Dark Magic -- to achieve their ends. What a gold mine for Voldemort to tap! It's no wonder that by the Snape era, Slytherin has become the equivalent of the Hitler Youth, or that the Hat thought Snape, armed with enough curses to defeat a seventh year, would fit right into Slytherin. The Hat obviously put Snape in Slytherin because it thought Snape would like it there. So, when the Sorting Hat finally makes its desperate call for House unity in OOP, it's to contain the monster the Hat itself has created, and that monster is Slytherin House. Thus, despite the words of the song, the Sorting Hat itself probably has no expectation of real house unity, and that what it really expects is that the other three houses will join together to excise the Death Eater cancer from Slytherin. And Dumbledore's comment that "we sort too soon" is an implicit recognition of the Hat's deplorable contribution to the current state of affairs. Slytherin House is a prison, just like the DEs are prisoners. The Malfoys don't want to be there, and haven't wanted to be there since the end of VWI. The evidence now seems to suggest that they sent the Lestranges after the Longbottoms and made sure they were caught to get them and their inconvenient desire to track down the Dark Lord out of the way. They don't want Voldemort at Malfoy Manor. Draco wants out of his Crucio job. Their presence in the Great Hall after Voldemort's defeat was in fact rather poignant; though huddled and wondering if they belonged there, the presence of at least some Slytherins is a positive sign for the future. It's not surprising, though, that no Slytherin chose to stay and fight the DEs. Harry's Slytherin contemporaries at Hogwarts all appear to have very strong family ties, and those ties are to Death Eater families. In that light, I think it's unreasonable to expect any Slytherins to stick around. Given the way Voldemort generally reacts to bad news, they would likely be putting their families in special danger if they did so. So, there's a lot of truth in choice #1 as well. Lupinlore: I see what you mean. However, going with canon, it doesn't seem that JKR would agree. Her notions of leadership make her extremely suspicious of ambition and cunning -- which is odd considering how large those figure in DD's character. Yet, I think we are meant to see those aspects of Dumbledore as problematic, and DD himself indicates as much. Indeed, I'd say the closest we have to a clear statement on leadership from JKR is when Dumbledore says that you probably should never give power to someone who wants it -- i.e. don't give it to him, and don't give it to a Slytherin. Debbie: That JKR is wary of ambition has been evident at least since GoF, and it's one of the main fault lines in the series. The Sorting Hat can pontificate about House unity all day, but JKR seems not to have meant to include Slytherin in that equation. Yet practical Slytherin-style ambition provides the leadership is essential to getting things done. Granted, too much ambition may result in a power-hungry despot, but too much bravery makes one foolhardy, and JKR shows us that too much cleverness can produce a Xenophilius Lovegood or an Ollivander, so caught up in the inner workings of his chosen field of study that he fails to notice that moral and ethical questions come into play. I never had any illusions about the dismantling of the House system, disgustingly dysfunctional as it is. Voldemort proposes to eliminate the House system on the basis that *only* Slytherin traits are to be valued. JKR retains the entire House system -- including Slytherin -- implying that the traits of all four houses should be valued, minus the pureblood mania, of course. And if we're lucky, the Hat has learned something from Voldemort's attempt to burn it at the stake, and has stopped trying to stock Slytherin House with pureblood fanatics and Dark Wizards in training. If only the Hat would stop giving choices to eleven year olds, then the sorting system might work properly. For the first time ever. Debbie suspecting that she rambled way too long and threw in the kitchen sink [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From witherwing at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 10 02:58:38 2007 From: witherwing at sbcglobal.net (Rebecca Scalf) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:58:38 -0000 Subject: The Joke's on Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174987 > Mike: > Hi PC :) My moment came when they were all arriving at the Weasleys > after the 7 Harry's left 4 Privet Dr. Lupin made this big show of > confirming Harry et al were really themselves with all these personal > questions. Now, I'm thinking JKR is setting us up for a traitor in > the Order. > > Next thing I notice, Tonks arrives, and nobody asks her any personal > questions.... Witherwing: Like you, after reading about Snape's *source* in the Order, and that the Ministry has been infiltrated by the Death Eaters, I was terrified to read in that same scene you mentioned, on p.74, DH US edition: "I'll prove who I am, Kingsly, after I've seen my son, now back off if you know what's good for you!" Harry had never heard Mr. Weasley shout like that before. End quote. The scene ends without Mr. Weasley proving he's himself, and so I spent the rest of the book with the terrible feeling that Arthur had been imperiod... Thank goodness I was wrong! -Witherwing From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Aug 10 03:05:24 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 03:05:24 -0000 Subject: The Joke's on Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174988 Witherwing: >snip< > The scene ends without Mr. Weasley proving he's himself, and so I spent the rest of the > book with the terrible feeling that Arthur had been imperiod... Thank goodness I was > wrong! Potioncat: I was right there too! And when he wouldn't let Harry into the hen house---I really knew something was up! I think I settled down sooner than you did, but I was so sure... From phyllisdbarnes at comcast.net Fri Aug 10 02:50:18 2007 From: phyllisdbarnes at comcast.net (Phyllis D. (P. D.) Barnes) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:50:18 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174989 Recently there were posts questioning Molly Weasley's magical abilities versus those of Bellatrix Lestrange, because she was "only a housewife". I believe that there were hints to "the real Molly" throughout the books and that the Molly that fought Bellatrix was the real Molly. Of course Molly went after the witch that tried to kill her daughter; but I believe Molly had the mad skills to take on and beat Bellatrix. We know that when she was at Hogwarts she was in Gryffindor; the house with Courage. We know that Molly raised six boys and Mr. Weasley who is a big kid himself. This is not an easy feat at any time, but especially when two of them are Fred and George. I believe Bill and Charlie were not much different from Fred and George when they were growing up. The first time we see Bill and Charlie is at the beginning of GOF where they battle each other with the tables. This is when they were grown and mature; it makes one wonder what they were like as children. Bill is a curse-breaker; Charlie works with dragons and both of them would have liked to have been at Hogwarts to participate in the Tri-Wizard tournament. These are not two meek men and I doubt they were meek, quiet boys either. Let's see Bill, Charlie, Fred and George in the house at one time. We've seen her as a healer. Sectumsempra is not an easy curse to undo but Molly stems the blood flow when George is hit. He could have been taken to Madam Pomfrey (staying away from St. Mungos which is ministry controlled) and word sent to the Weasley's via patronus; but he's taken home to Mom who fixes him right up. At the end of GOF when Dumbledore asked Molly if he could count on her and Arthur. There was no questions, no hesitation only an immediate "Of course you can". Also, I have always wondered (though there is nothing in canon) if Dumbledore had Molly (an ally) meet Harry at the Hogwart's Express his first day. When do you read of Molly speaking a command; her commands are nonverbal. In HBP this did not appear to be an easy skill to master. Lastly, Bellatrix was not the first Death Eater Molly fought. The Bellatrix fight was the only DE fight specifically mentioned in DH; but we know that Molly was somewhere in Hogwarts in the heat of battle against the DE's and she survived. IMO Molly has been underestimated but I think she's a witch with mad skills. In the interest of space I will not give my defense of housewives, in general, whom I believe sometimes do not get the respect they deserve. Phyllis From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 03:13:36 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 20:13:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Prophecy In-Reply-To: References: <2264925.1186626015591.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <700201d40708092013l2bcf4318m2f89b773cba575ea@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174990 > Tonks: > Intuitively it seems to me that another way to look at this is by > looking at what LV and Harry symbolize. > > 'He will mark him as his equal..' Remember the part about the > brother who owned the invisibility cloak? He took the clock off and > walked with death 'as an equal'. > > LV as a symbol of Death can not live fully? that is he can not win > the battle as long as someone is still alive. On the other hand > Harry representing humankind can not live (meaning live forever) as > long as death exist. There is a balance between them. Death is only > defeated by the sacrifice of Love. By being willing to die Harry has > won what LV tried to have. As Hermione tells us in the graveyard at > GH, it is not the type of victory over death that LV envisioned, it > is of another type. It is a Christ type victory. Death is now > defeated and Harry has eternal life. Not life on earth forever, but > eternal life in the spiritual sense. Kemper now: I've never bought into the idea that LV was the symbol of Death, which is a a part of Life. Rather, I see him as the symbol of Fear. DD described LV as being afraid of the unknown. Harry is the symbol of Life made more obvious by his 'death'. He did not go unwanded into the forest to sacrifice himself and face Humanity's greatest unknown so that others would live. He faced the unknown so that others could and would live to face their fears, whether real (Molly losing a child to the Dark Lord) or imagined (Ron losing Hermione to Harry). The Hallows and the Horcruxes: objects man made out of fear. Death is not evil. It's what makes living so valuable... if you don't live in fear which is just existing. imao, Kemper From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 03:46:05 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 03:46:05 -0000 Subject: Fly on the wall commentator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174991 > houyhnhnm: > > Please explain what you mean by the difference between > "enjoying" and "feeling satisfaction." . Lisa: Let's see ... I "enjoy" dancing, watching my children play, and singing along with the radio in the car -- much like Bella enjoys torturing her victims, I presume. I "feel satisfaction" when I am proven right about something, when something I predicted actually happens, and when what goes around, comes around. A grim satisfaction, possibly, but certainly satisfaction. Much like Harry when he zapped Carrow for spitting on McGonagall, I would think! Lisa From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Aug 10 04:12:50 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:12:50 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174993 > > Prep0strus: > > > But more importantly, are there any ADMIRABLE slytherins? Any > > likable? Any one would like to emulate? > > > > Hickengruendler: > > What about Mrs Tonks? Granted, she is a very minor character, but she > married a Muggleborn, much to her family's displeasure. This > definitely shows some positive character traits. > > Snape's mother, too, was a Slytherin, who in spite of any pureblood > biases in the house married a Muggleborn. Granted, it's hard to call > her admirable, since she seemed to have been a very phlegmatic woman, > who let herself bullied by her husband, in spite of the fact, that > she was the witch. (On the other hand, it does show, that she was > unwilling to use her powers against someone, who doesn't have them, > which is a virtue Hagrid or the Weasley twins did not share). Magpie: These examples suddenly made me think of Monty Python and the Holy Grain: "...and also, Sir Not Appearing in this Film." Pippin: Did Harry know this all along? I don't think so -- didn't he say, back in PS/SS that Neville was worth ten of Malfoy because Neville was a Gryffindor and Malfoy was in "stinking Slytherin" ? And yet at the end of it all he says this "It doesn't matter to us. But if it matters to you, you'll be able to choose Gryffindor over Slytherin." Sounds like rather a major shift in Harry's thinking. Magpie: Doesn't sound like much of a shift to me at all, to be honest. It's a change, but I think the same change would have happened without any Snape--much of it comes from context to begin with. Harry at 11 is responding to his friend telling him a mean Slytherin told him he wasn't brave enough for Gryffindor. "You're worth twelve of him--he couldn't even make Gryffindor, he's in stinkin' Slytherin!" is a normal response. Harry the father responding to a son afraid of being a "stinkin' Slytherin" says equally appropriately, "If you're in Slytherin, son, Slytherin would be lucky to have you. Your mother and I love you no matter what house you're in." That's not a major shift, it's an 11-year-old bucking up his friend when involved in the rivalry directly, and a father bucking up his son decades after he stopped identifying anybody by their school house. Pippin: Of course we're not told how it happened, um except for Harry getting to walk a mile in Snape's black boots in HBP, masquerading as the Halfblood Prince, trying to find proof that his classmates are messing with something way over their heads, and nearly getting expelled for it, being accused of messing with Dark Magic, thinking his best friend will drop him if he finds out who Harry fancies, etc. Magpie: Well, yeah. I think we can all follow it and fill it in, but I've no idea what Harry went through, really. He experienced most of those things while we were in his head and he went on feeling the same way. A lot of care went into exactly how Harry hated Snape even after briefly feeling sorry for him etc. The change from hate to dispassionate respect I fill in on my own. Pippin: As to the other Slytherins... Voldemort claims that the Slytherins who left the school joined him. But he is a notorious liar. Magpie: There's no reason for Voldemort to be lying in that scene iirc, and he's confirming what we all just saw anyway with no contradiction anywhere. The three Slytherins we see we know are acting on their own (with Crabbe the one taking charge)--we know Voldemort isn't sending them to do anything, but that's another reason it doesn't sound like Voldemort is lying. He really doesn't know where Draco is. Pippin: Some of them might even have had sneaky plans, ala Regulus. They might have even come back with Slughorn, polyjuiced or in disguise. Magpie: *blinks* So maybe we're supposed to write a different story ourselves when they did involving Polyjuice and disguise? They're not there! If a sneaky scheme falls in the forest and the writer didn't write any of it down, it didn't make a sound. She went to the trouble of showing the table empty. Pippin: JKR doesn't make it easy for us, because in RL it's not easy. There are always going to be occasions when people *apparently* fit the labels and stereotypes. Magpie: This goes beyond not making it easy for us. This is her not writing something and expecting the audience to fill in something else. However hard life is, JKR doesn't usually make reading that hard--in fact, she seems to discourage this kind of filling in stuff to make things say something completely different than what she wrote. There are no other Slytherins for me to look at. If she writes Slytherins "apparently" fitting the stereotype and the ones who don't are hidden in disguise, under invisibility cloaks and Polyjuiced, they don't exist. Pippin: And there are genuine, deeply felt differences between cultures that are not going to be wiped away by everybody standing in a circle singing the WW equivalent of Kumbayah. Magpie: Well, yeah. But I don't think anybody's advocating Kumbayah. These aren't cultures, it's a school of people ostensibly in the same culture. JKR didn't have to take on this problem in her story, but I don't believe that means it's because it's impossible that any progress could be made. If she wanted more progress, I think she could have done it. Pippin: We should take heart, JKR seems to be saying, from brief glimpses of how things could be: the chastened wizard, Fudge, led forward by the goblin and the house elf at the end of OOP. Or the moment in DH when "nobody was sitting according to House anymore." Including Draco Malfoy. Magpie: I believe Draco Malfoy is huddled with his parents not being bothered, but not part of the celebration. -m From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 04:47:49 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:47:49 -0000 Subject: Social Correlates of Hogwarts Houses In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0708091952r9c7b3cs88b840789f54f317@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174994 Folks, the topic of Hogwarts House personality analysis has already been analyzed in scientific literature! I believe the strucure of personality types and temperaments has shown to be a useful tool in exploring this aspect of the Potterverse. For those who have the patience to delve into personality type analysis, here is a bit of background, and some sources to explore: 1. The conceptual framework for personality typing began with Socrates and Plato (if not earlier), and its progress can be traced through a series of philosophers and scientists. 2. In the modern era, Jung is often cited as the father of personality typing. 3. The analytical work of Myers and Brigg is brilliant. They defined 4 pairs of parameters which define 16 personality types that cover 100% of humanity. Essentially, there are four continuums: Introversion (I)<----> Extroversion (E) This measures the extent to which a person's energy level is generated internally vs. externally. Note this is *NOT* the normal, every day use of these terms. Introverts, in this sense, are not shy or lacking in self-confidence; extroverts are not necessarily bubbly, confident and loud. Intuition (N) <----> Sensation (S) This measures the tendency to be abstract (I imagine/think, therefore I am), vs. the requirement for physically measurable evidence to "prove" reality (I use my senses, therefore I am). Thinking (T) <----> Feeling (F) Self-evident. Logical and consistent vs. touchy-feely. Judging (J) <----> Perceiving (P) The need to be decisive, seeking closure and finality (ready, aim, fire) vs. the need to explore options and reluctantly decide, issues always remaining open for revisit (ready, aim, aim, aim, aim...). I am a businessman (who uses this structure in hiring decisions, and in understanding the people I live and work with), not a professional pyschologist and am trying to keep this short. Don't write nastygrams about how I horribly screwed up the above definitions. I really won't care. Perhaps that's because I consistently test as INTJ. The most astute readers might suspect I am off-the-chart I and T, and moderate N and J. Those readers would be Ravenclaws, and so they would be correct. 4. David Kiersey (with Marilyn Bates) summarized the 16 personality types into 4 Temperaments in the book "Please Understand Me, Character & Temperament Types." [Promotheus Nemesis Book Company, P.O. Box 2748, Del Mar, California 92014, Gnosology Books Ltd, 1984]. NOW HERE IS THE POINT.......... In the LATEST editions of this book (Please Understand Me II), not only do Kiersey/Bates update their brilliant analysis of the 16 types, and summarize them into 4 temperaments, but..... THERE IS A CHAPTER ON THE POTTERVERSE!!!!!!!!! IIRC, the latest edition was written after GoF was published. In this chapter, Kiersey/Bates analyze the Hogwarts Houses and assign each to a different temperament! While I do not fully agree with their analysis, it is beautiful in its objectivity, logic and structure. The authors are consistent in their application of the perspective that the Temperaments (or personality types) are DIFFERENT from each other, yet NONE are superior/inferior or worthier/worthless than the others. There are at least 10 billion web sites that discuss these concepts. One I found tonight, http://www.friesian.com/types.htm#potter is worth 15 minutes or so of your time, and includes a few paragraphs applying these concepts and structures to the Potterverse. There is also a link to an essay that compares Potterverse to sociopolitical issues to the RW, again with objectivity and logic. BTW, types are determined by taking Myers-Briggs tests, which consist of of anywhere from 50 to 100+ questions. This leads to my final conclusion concerning the Sorting Hat. The Sorting Hat is the WW version of the personality typing test. Just as the test does not "force" you to be something you are not - it just measures what you already are - so does the Hat. Just as the test could not make you be something you are not, neither does the Hat. It just objectively measures your personality traits, determines your Temperament (out of the four possibilities) and gives you a home (each possible home assigned to a temperament) to share with you co-tempermentalists. Are the Temperments assigned to humans genetically, at birth? Or they a combination of genetic predisposition with childhood environmental exposure? Are they set in stone, or are they fluid, evolving over a lifetime? I do not know. I suspect that much has already been explored in scientific research. Those who are interested will enter into informed and objective debate after reviewing the literature. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Aug 10 04:54:05 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:54:05 -0000 Subject: Social Correlates of Hogwarts Houses In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0708091952r9c7b3cs88b840789f54f317@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174995 Debbie: > The Sorting Hat further aided and abetted Slytherin's so-called > noble work to purge Hogwarts of Muggleborns by taking into account > two things in the sorting process: ancestry and preference. In > this way, the Hat kept Slytherin House free of Muggleborns who > might have ameliorated muggleborn prejudice while filling it with > cunning young bigots who would do anything -- including Dark Magic - > - to achieve their ends. What a gold mine for Voldemort to tap! Jen: Huh, I never thought to make the Sorting Hat Undesirable Number One but you make a good case for it. Maybe the final assessment should be Mr. Weasley's? "Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain." I've skipped along believing the hat is wise and all-knowing for singing of unity but that assumes the brains in the hat are wise and all-knowing, someting proven untrue of the Founders. Hermione seemed to understand that striving for unity with three houses was better than nothing. Debbie: > And Dumbledore's comment that "we sort too soon" is an implicit > recognition of the Hat's deplorable contribution to the current > state of affairs. Jen: I'm following and agreeing with most everything you're saying until here. If Dumbledore really believed this was going on, the Hat was creating a house of bigots, why oh why didn't he just trash the thing himself or come up with another way to sort? Oh...it's the choice thing, isn't it? And Dumbledore's flaw: He believes in choice yet allows loyalty to his ideals to surpass his better judgement sometimes. Godric's flaw all over again, his loyalty to Slytherin allowing him to overlook the danger signs of Slytherin's agenda. In fact, the whole Dumbledore/Grindelwald relationship is a mirror for what occurred between Slytherin/Gryffindor, isn't it? Dumbledore is so loyal to & enraptured of his new friend that he chooses to overlook Grindelwald's true plans (army of Inferi for example). Debbie: > Slytherin House is a prison, just like the DEs are prisoners. Jen: This is my take to a certain extent. Voldemort picked up where Slytherin left off and poisoned his own house even further by recruiting and ensuring loyalty of the offspring, either out of fear or zealousness for the ideaology. And any discussion of Slytherin's line needs to include the Gaunts, proof that attempts to keep the lineage all pureblood led to 'instability and violence.' Not sure how many other pure-blood families went this route but there it is. That's where the question of being born bad comes in: With everything against them, their inter-marrying, their tradition, their criteria for being sorted, Voldemort's influence, *do* Slytherin kids at 11 really have a choice by the time we reach Harry's generation? And Voldemort, very close to being born bad...his choices were razor thin at best. Even if I eventually come down on the side of JKR executing this part of her story poorly, I don't buy she *intended* a Calvinistic WW. I can't see a rationale for populating the world with all the individuals who made choices, sometimes reversing prior choices, if no real choice existed. Debbie: > It's not surprising, though, that no Slytherin chose to stay and > fight the DEs. Harry's Slytherin contemporaries at Hogwarts all > appear to have very strong family ties, and those ties are to Death > Eater families. In that light, I think it's unreasonable to expect > any Slytherins to stick around. Given the way Voldemort generally > reacts to bad news, they would likely be putting their families in > special danger if they did so. Jen: Role-models are a very real problem as well. Those who have defied are often in positions of keeping quiet about it, like Snape or Regulus, and those who openly defy are cast out of their families and burned off family trees, a significant problem in a house with a value on familial ties. From Meliss9900 at aol.com Fri Aug 10 05:06:27 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:06:27 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: good and bad slytherins Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174996 In a message dated 8/9/2007 9:11:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time, willsonkmom at msn.com writes: Potioncat: Do we have canon for Andromeda or Eileen being Slytherins? I know Draco says everyone in his family was Slytherin, but I'm not sure he considers Andromeda as being family. I believe that we have Sirius saying, in OOTP (which has gone missing from my book case . .hmmm) that he was the first of his family that wasn't in Slytherin. If he was correct then Andromeda has to be in Slytherin (cuz I think it would have warranted a mention if she had been in Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw). Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Aug 10 05:09:21 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 05:09:21 -0000 Subject: Another Timeline Problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174997 Juli: > The Prank takes place in the sixth year, we know that for a fact. Dana: Could you provide canon for your so called fact? Because there is none. Lupin never mentioned in what year the prank took place and Sirius never said anything more about it then "served him right". Just because sources *outside* of canon say it is assumed to have taken place in the 6th year, does not make it fact. And if you read the conversation between Lily and Snape about James saving Snape then you see that Lily and Snape were still friends at that point in time, while after Lily talked to Snape after the SWM, they are parting their ways. The prank took place before SWM as canon stands now. Dana From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Aug 10 05:17:24 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 05:17:24 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 174998 > Pippin: > We should take heart, > JKR seems to be saying, from brief glimpses of how things could be: > the chastened wizard, Fudge, led forward by the goblin and the house > elf at the end of OOP. Or the moment in DH when "nobody was sitting > according to House anymore." Including Draco Malfoy. > Magpie: > I believe Draco Malfoy is huddled with his parents not being > bothered, but not part of the celebration. Jen: I don't get why the state of the Malfoys matters there. They're in the Great Hall and not fleeing to the hills, a huge change from being in the forest with Voldemort only hours before. This is an example of the weakness in the argument for the cast-off Slytherins. When Slytherins are notable for contributing to the defeat of Voldemort, it has no bearing on the story. When Pansy Parkinson and all the Slytherins leave the Great Hall, that's deeply significant. Examples are good except when they aren't, and it's a movable feast as to which ones matter. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 05:33:40 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 22:33:40 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The spiders (Re: The Joke's on Me) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0708092233ue078d93n9dad1d6eb6d08278@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 174999 Hickengruder: That scene came pretty close to made me hate Hagrid completely. At least it's ambigous enough, that I can still pretend, he was caring for the students here, but sadly I *fear* you are right and he told them not to hurt the spiders. Let's just say that I think it was a very wise decision from JKR not to have the spiders kill anyone (at least on-page), because it would IMO have been the destruction of Hagrid as a character. Lynda: I never considered this. Not even for a second. That Hagrid was pleading for the spiders, that is... Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 05:48:14 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 22:48:14 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: 7 reasons why - The Glass is Half Empty. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0708092248l7172f8c1x42636eb4e6b9af8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175000 Julie H.: his allegiances never are clear, imo. He appears to be DDM grudgingly, almost in spite of himself, through some idea that this is what he owes Lily -- not through any growing realization that DD's side is indeed morally superior to LV's side. He does not seem to have progressed from "I'm suffering because I lost Lily" to "I want to be DDM because i'd rather serve good than serve evil." He does not, really, appear to have transcended his fascination with the dark side, other than the choice he made that resulted in Lily's death. He is DDM solely because he loves Lily, not because he loves DD or hates LV. Lynda: I understand the "ick factor" for you. I don't share it, however. I always thought that Snape was working for DD and the ministry and at the same time I never thought of him as being necessarily good, for the sake of goodness, nice, or not enchanted with the dark arts. It was obvious to me that he was, in fact still attracted to the dark arts and had another purpose for working for DD. So, his obsessive love for Lily being the motivation and that being the only motivation, doesn't bother me. I've seen real people do similar things, after all. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 06:22:21 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 06:22:21 -0000 Subject: The spiders (Re: The Joke's on Me) In-Reply-To: <2795713f0708092233ue078d93n9dad1d6eb6d08278@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175001 > > Lynda wrote: > > I never considered this. Not even for a second. That Hagrid was pleading for > the spiders, that is... > > Lynda > Doddie here: Of course, I never considered this either...but I always felt that after Hagrid had chased them out of the castle he would have came back...but he didn't--he was carried off..(probably a good thing in the end as they(acro-clan) probably went to the "base camp" or "rendevouz point" Voldie had chosen in the forest....aragog's old den.. JKR however didn't let me down in the end...or you either...remember the thestrals and hippogriffs(who Hagger had trained) pecking/clawing the giants?!?!? I'd imagine most creatures in the forbidden forrest wouldn't attack Hagrid unless provoked and would probably come to his aid--(00ppps...perhaps his rant at the centaurs did more than the de's taunts or even Harry's "death"..) And Hagrid being forced to carry Harry's seeming corpse out of the forrest..bought back memories of DD's funeral and all--just heart wrenching--all the more so after remembering Hagrid carrying DD..*teary sigh* I also thought that JKR may have purposely left Hagrid alive because, how truly Hagrid forgives...(let's face it..the one safe place Pettigrew could have hoped to survive in POA was in Hagrid's hut, Buckbeak did attack Draco-yet Hagrid protected him, the acromantulas did attack Harry and Ron, after Aragog died Hagrid called the spiders a "bit restive" but never went out on a acro hunt,...he never voraciously sought to have his wand status reinstated after cos etc. .. perhaps we could all take a lesson from him(forgive and move on)...Harry certainly did. I just get the picture of Harry & Co. telling Hagrid about their adventure and when it came to Rita and DD's "history"...Hagrid saying "Cadswallop in my opinion" LOL and then all of them heading to the hogshead where the night ending with a rousing chourus of Aberforth and Hagrid singing tribute to "Odo".. As you can see I gave this some thought..however each time I reread...I come to this point, and reach the same end in my head yippee...Hagrid will save his side from them!..but alas..much blushing a giggles ensue..LOL one day someone will ask JKR about this and I may be proved wrong..but I love being sadly mistaken, at least for now. :) Doddie From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 06:52:52 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 23:52:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The spiders (Re: The Joke's on Me) In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0708092233ue078d93n9dad1d6eb6d08278@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0708092352u19322cb5l81103c7dc614fdbe@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175002 Doddie: I also thought that JKR may have purposely left Hagrid alive because, how truly Hagrid forgives...(let's face it..the one safe place Pettigrew could have hoped to survive in POA was in Hagrid's hut, Buckbeak did attack Draco-yet Hagrid protected him, the acromantulas did attack Harry and Ron, after Aragog died Hagrid called the spiders a "bit restive" but never went out on a acro hunt,...he never voraciously sought to have his wand status reinstated after cos etc. .. perhaps we could all take a lesson from him(forgive and move on)... Lynda: She may very well have. Hagrid certainly does have an understanding of true forgiveness. Something I'm still learning how to do. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 07:06:25 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:06:25 -0000 Subject: Good and Bad Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175003 --- "tigerfan41" wrote: > > I could be mistaken but I was sure I saw examples of > good slyths. Not many to be fair but they were there. > > Regulus may have started down the wrong path but his > heart led him to the correct choice. > > Phineas in his portrait gave his support to the school > and it's head. > > Professor Slughorn he may have been reluctant but > wasn't it he and Bill that went to fetch the > reinforcements for the final battle? > > I'm pretty sure there were a few Gryphs that were > less than perfect in the series. > > It's the system that the founders used to set up > the houses that leads to one being populated by a > large group of less that pleasing folks. Slytherin > prefered pure bloods but his real preference seems > to be more for those with no moral compunctions about > the use of power. Blind ambition more than blood. > bboyminn: Remember when you were in high school, how important certain things seems; the big game, who likes who, are your clothes cool enough, are your friends cool enough? Now think a few years beyond high school, didn't all those 'life-and-death' things that mattered in high school, suddenly seem pathetically unimportant? I don't think Hogwarts is a model for the entire wizard world. School life is dominated by petty concerns; the 'big game' is life and death, the 'big dance' means everything. Your House, regardless of which House it is, is most certainly the best, and naturally all the other Houses are filled with clueless idiots and losers, with a few small exceptions among friends you've made in other Houses. What I am about to say, is not build on canon, but on common sense and worldly experience. It seems unreasonable to me to assume EVERY SINGLE person in Slytherin becomes a Dark Wizard. That's not exactly what Hagrid said, but the implication is the same. How can anyone possibly think that Slytherins don't leave Hogwarts and live perfectly normal lives. They get jobs, they build careers, they establish relationships, just like anyone else. They are just cunning and ambitious about how they accomplish it. There is no reason to think that Slytherins don't interact with other citizens of the wizard world in a perfectly normal way. I mean, are you not going to buy you robes from Madam Malkin simply because she was a Hufflepuff? Are you not going to drink Tom's ale simply because he was a Gryffindor? Are you going to shun the Potions Shop simply because the shopkeeper is a Slytherin? I just don't thinks so. Those petty schoolboy rivalries are mostly left behind in school. Take Lucius Malfoy, ignoring for the moment that he became a New Death Eater; he seems a respected citizen. He gives to worthy causes. To maintain his fortune, he must conduct business as usual, and in the process, he must interact normally with other citizens. He must be able to function in the world. I'm sure he is ruthless, cunning, and arrogant in how he does it, but none the less, he functions in the normal wizard world. I'm sure the House alumni still maintain allegiance to their old Houses, and still support the House Quidditch team. But I don't think those games, or those old House alliances, have the same 'life and death' fervor for citizens that they have for current students. Once you are out of high school, the 'big game' doesn't seem so big any more. Likely, you've move on to supporting one of the National or International teams. I just can't see how any reasonable path of logic or analysis or common sense can lead anyone to believe that Slytherins do not leave school and live normal lives; cunning, ambitious, but normal lives. There are good and bad in every House. Loyalty can lead you astray. Intellect can be misapplied. Courage used wrongly can have very negative results. And cunning and ambition can be used in positive and productive ways. I do think there is probably a higher percentage of Slytherins who are willing to skirt the boundaries of ethics, morals, and laws to achieve their ends, but only a /higher/ percentage. I have no logical reason to believe that there isn't also some percentage of Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs, and Ravenclaws that are also willing to skirt the edges. Again, that's not based on canon, that's based on common sense, something that shouldn't be abandon simply because we are in the wizard world. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 07:10:41 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:10:41 -0000 Subject: The True Meaning of the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: <46BBAB2D.4060709@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175004 Bart wrote: > People here have been asking what the Harry Potter series means. Well, I can tell you what it means. It means that nobody in the Rowling family will have to work for a living for the next few hundred years. > Bart Doddie here: The series is probably the most significant literary event in this millenium thus far. Can literary critics rip the work to shreds? Absolutely.. Has any work in the past 200 hundred years had such a widespread, international fan base? (doubful in my opinion) Did she write a compete story? yes in my opinion Did I like all the components to the story--nope.. Do I think she developed all the characters as she needed to complete her story? YEP Do I think she developed all the characters enough to reach where I thought the characters could have ended up? NOPE But JKR has never written a perfect book for me...but she has created a story with characters who have grown and whose themes have gained depth in a way that kept millions reading...and in my opinion will keep millions more reading.. Yes, there were some things I disliked about ALL of her books, but I kept reading I wanted to know the rest of the story... She did warn us in the beginning that the books would only cover Harry from age 11 to 17... epilogue doesn't need to be there at all, but she put one in anyhow.. I enjoyed my "potter-distractions" over the years and still do...I read and reread 4 to six books per week(most often not of the potter variety)...I always float back to read some portion of the potter series..It just takes me to some other place..who on earth can read Fred and George's feats in book five and not have a smile on their face afterwards? To escape my world even for an instant would be worth more than any millions or billions JKR would have made. She deserves all she gets. And of course her kids will work, just like she works and her husband works..not because they have to, but because they want to... Doddie, Who has never experienced another author write a character that gets under her skin quite like Snape..and still loathes him anyhow and considers it quite a feat that JKR was able to endear Albus Severus to her in the epilogue despite one of his namesakes, whose name still gives her the shudders. I'm secretly glad Harry got something that I did not...gives me a griphook feeling LOL) From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Aug 10 08:40:49 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:40:49 -0000 Subject: Harry, Voldemort & the Horcrux at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175005 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Brothergib wrote: > > Thinking this through again LV has always possessed the > object destined to become the horcrux before commiting the murder. > Therefore it seems unlikely that he would split his soul on the > offchance that he might acquire the object at a later date. Therefore, > I do believe that LV intended to make a horcrux with Harry's death, > but that the sword was not necessarily the intended horcrux. I > certainly do not believe that LV believed that he could easily kill DD > and claim the sword; > > > >" For a second, Harry was on the verge of shouting a pointless > warning: he was sure that Voldemort's hand had twitched towards his > pocket and his wand." > > `Lord Voldemort's Request, P417 HBP, UK edition > > > > When push comes to shove, LV does not have the bottle to take on DD. > > > > Perhaps LV intended to make his wand a horcrux, the wand that had > defeated his greatest threat ? that would have been significant to LV. > > > > While I agree that there is no direct canon evidence to state that LV > > wanted to create a horcrux with Harry's death, but I do think that > > DD's comments represent very strong circumstantial evidence. As JKR > > herself says `The man was brilliant'! > > > > Brothergib > > > Carol responds: > I guess we're at a stalemate, then, as we're certainly shown no object > that LV took to Godric's Hollow with him. As for that wand movement, > I've always read it as LV casting a curse on the DADA position. DD > notes that from that time forward, he's never been able to keep a DADA > teacher for more than a year. Brothergib again: Lets hope someone asks JKR at some point! As for LV's movement towards his wand, I always felt that was an instinctive wish to attack his most formidable adversary, borne out of frustration and anger at DD's dismissal of LV's request. IMO, the DADA curse came later - maybe as he was leaving! > > Carol, who used to think that Tom had not yet made a Horcrux when he > talked to Slughorn but now thinks that he had indeed made the diary, > which could "carry on Salazar Slytherin's noble work" without being > recognized as a Horcrux > Brothergib again: The diary may have been mada first without it being a Horcrux. Canon doesn't let us know which event occurred first i.e. the COS events or the chat with Slughorn. We only know that they both occurred within a two year period during which Riddle was a prefect. I still think the ring was probably first. From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Aug 10 08:53:40 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:53:40 -0000 Subject: I was right - Christian Symbols/Off-page Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175006 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > Carol, who sees every reason for Harry to admire the courage of the > > man who took such risks behind the scenes and without whose help he > > could not have destroyed the locket Horcrux or the soul bit in his > scar > > Magpie: > Oh, I see every reason for Harry to admire the courage of Snape, > absolutely. It just still seems weird to name his son after him > given the history. All I've got to go on is the facts, and for me > that would lead to me certainly admiring the guy's bravery and > respecting what he did, but not naming my kid after him. > > -m > Brothergib: I think this is very much in character for Harry. I had the same gut reaction when I read the final chapter i.e. Severus' role in LV's defeat was based on his very selfish love for Lily. There is NO way I would have named my son after Snape. But that is what sets Harry apart from the rest of us mere mortals. As DD put it (can't remember the actual quote) the fact that Harry is able to love after everything that has happened to him is an amazing thing. Harry named his kid after Snape because he honoured and respected the love that Snape had shown towards his mother. Harry certainly is the 'better man'. From catlady1949 at comcast.net Fri Aug 10 08:46:26 2007 From: catlady1949 at comcast.net (Phyllis Stevens) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:46:26 -0400 Subject: Sorting and House System / Sorting "too soon" References: Message-ID: <00d801c7db2a$f06b6d30$c0fe3e44@user53796g88h2> No: HPFGUIDX 175007 I have always been of the opinion that kids going to Hogwarts should have to switch houses, and therefore, experience all four of them. Maybe the first four years? Then during the owl year, they then can choose the house that they prefer. They would be older and have experienced each house so could truly make an intelligent choice. catlady1949 at comcast.net From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Aug 10 09:30:33 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:30:33 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175008 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > > Prep0strus: > > > > > But more importantly, are there any ADMIRABLE slytherins? Any > > > likable? Any one would like to emulate? > > > > > > > Hickengruendler: > > > > What about Mrs Tonks? Granted, she is a very minor character, but > she > > married a Muggleborn, much to her family's displeasure. This > > definitely shows some positive character traits. > > > > Snape's mother, too, was a Slytherin, who in spite of any pureblood > > biases in the house married a Muggleborn. Granted, it's hard to > call > > her admirable, since she seemed to have been a very phlegmatic > woman, > > who let herself bullied by her husband, in spite of the fact, that > > she was the witch. (On the other hand, it does show, that she was > > unwilling to use her powers against someone, who doesn't have them, > > which is a virtue Hagrid or the Weasley twins did not share). > > Magpie: > These examples suddenly made me think of Monty Python and the Holy > Grain: "...and also, Sir Not Appearing in this Film." > Hickengruendler: Yes, you are of course totally right. I thought something like this would come up, and I agree with you. However, that's what I expected. JKR didn't give us any major "admirable" Slytherins (in the sense that they are perfect role models) in the first six books, and I didn't expect them to pop up suddenly in book 7. In fact, I think I would have found it a cop out. What I wanted to see were Slytherins, who overcame their flaws and worked for redemption. And I was satisfied with it thanks to the portrayal of Regulus, Slughorn and especially Snape. Regulus basically was a youth, who happened to get disllusioned once he saw what Voldie did to Kreacher, and tried to stop him, which is pretty much what I expected from such a relatively minor character. He also showed real heroism in drinking the Potion himself, instead of, as Harry at once suspected, made Kreacher do it. And the reason, why Kreacher led the house-elves into battle, was not because of Harry, but because of "Master Regulus, the defender of House-Elves". His respect for a creature is something not many of the other wizards (including the Gryffindors) share, and it is definitely something I find admirable. Slughorn was always presented as a character, for whom safety came first. That's why he moved from house to house, once Voldemort returned. That's why he at first hesistated to start teaching at Hogwarts. And that's why he at first left the castle, before the battle started. But he returned, and ended even up fighting Voldemort himself, overcoming his cowardice. That's something I find admirable. Snape was presented as someone, who since his youth basically only cared for one person, Lily. Lily alone was the reason he changed sides, and in the beginning he even had no qualms about what happened to Harry and James, which is, as Dumbledore correctly said, disgusting. But during the Pensieve memories, I also saw a man, who changed. I'll use two sets of Pensieve scenes as example. The first one is, where he tried to apologise for calling Lily a mudblood, and Lily pointed out, that he calls everyone of her birth a mudblood, so why should she be any exception. This is contrasted with the scene, where he told Phineas not to call Hermione this. This shows a progression for Snape. The other example, and maybe the more significant one, is the scene, where he admitted in front of SDumbledore, that he asked Voldemort to spare Lily in exchange for James and Harry. This is till the old Snape, only caring about Lily and nobody else. But one of the last Pensieve scenes, shows him trying to save Remus Lupin from another Death Eater. This is a big change in Snape. Not only has Remus nothing really to do with Lily, he even was a person, who is closely connected to James, and who was hated by Snape. Yet Snape didn't hesistate a second trying to save him. This shows an enormous change in Snape's character. And in spite of the fact, that he only agreed to work for Dumbledore, to save Lily's son, he did not stop working for the good side, once he thought Harry had to die. I also saw a change in Draco in Deathly Hallows, even though he never became directly heroic the way Snape, Slughorn or Regulus did, but he was not the same boy, he was in the beginning of the series. Therefore for me, the, as correctly pointed out, minor characters of Andromeda and Eileen are just additional characters to show a better side of Slytherin, and that the more major characters got more major parts in this regard. Potioncat asked, if we know, that Andromeda and Eileen are Slytherins: Hickengruendler: Sirius still considers Andromeda as family, and he said, that every family member was a Slytherin. So I think it is at least likely that Andromeda was as well. And Snape was that eager to get into Slytherin, that I find it likely, that his family was as well. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Aug 10 11:10:02 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:10:02 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175009 > Hickengruendler: > > Sirius still considers Andromeda as family, and he said, that every > family member was a Slytherin. So I think it is at least likely that > Andromeda was as well. And Snape was that eager to get into > Slytherin, that I find it likely, that his family was as well. Potioncat: Yeah, I remembered that about Andromeda after I wrote the post. She really is an exceptional Slytherin. She took a great deal of risks for the cause. She lost a lot too. I agree that Eileen was likely in Slytherin, I just don't think we can base anything on it. It's interesting that Severus considers Slytherin the house for the brainy...why not Ravenclaw? Why does he think his Muggle-born friend could get into Slytherin? And why is he so sure he will. Something seems a bit off. Although I can see him thinking that he's good enough to get in and that being half-blood won't matter in 'his' case. I'm still surprised he was so well accepted into the House. From karen at dacafe.com Fri Aug 10 11:26:58 2007 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:26:58 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175010 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > Do we have canon for Andromeda or Eileen being Slytherins? I know Draco > says everyone in his family was Slytherin, but I'm not sure he > considers Andromeda as being family. > We have cannon for Andromeda being in Slytherin. Sirius says that he was the first of his family not to be sorted into Slytherin. He also said that he liked his Aunt Andromeda and she was blasted off the family tree at the time of her marriage to Ted Tonks. I believe this all happened in OOTP but as I just moved and my books are still packed I cannot provide a proper reference. KMC From mcjuels at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 12:10:01 2007 From: mcjuels at yahoo.com (mcjuels) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:10:01 -0000 Subject: The picture of Lily and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175011 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mcjuels" wrote: > Harry has just found the letter and picture. He is watching > himself as a baby riding his broom in and out of the torn > picture. Later, of course, we discover Snape has the rest > of the picture. So...has Snape been constantly looking at > a picture of Lily with baby Harry flitting in and out of > his portion of the photo? McJuels again: Okay, I can have this conversation with myself. I think that Snape looked at that picture of Lily with wee Harry zipping in and out and he was forced to confront the unfairness of his hatred for Harry. I also believe that Snape chose the memories for Harry to view in an effort to make some amends, though a bit late. When Snape asked Harry to "Look at me!" I choose to believe that Snape was finally forcing himself to look at Harry and see him for who Harry is and not who his mother and father were. I know there is no canon to support this. But the books have been written. Everything that happens off-page is open for interpretation. I believe Snape truly wanted Lily's son to know that he was on the right side. And obviously, it was important to Harry's ability to beat Voldemort that he finally understand what motivated Severus Snape. I imagine that during the intervening nineteen years, Harry spent a lot of time thinking about Snape and his tragic life. So, I guess I disagree with the author here, I believe Snape didn't hate Harry to the last. I hope he came to respect him a little bit. Mcjuels (hoping that someone will pause from their discussion of crucios and criticisms of the author to consider my post.) From graynavarre at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 12:42:47 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 05:42:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <732483.82455.qm@web30113.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175012 > Potioncat: > Why does he think his Muggle-born friend could get > into Slytherin? > And why is he so sure he will. Something seems a bit > off. Although I > can see him thinking that he's good enough to get in > and that being > half-blood won't matter in 'his' case. I'm still > surprised he was so > well accepted into the House. Before entered into Slytherin House, Severus didn't have any trouble believing that Muggle-born or half blood were just as good of wizards as full blood. He told Lily that it didn't make any difference if you were muggle-born or wizard-born. He wanted to go into that house because it emphasized brain over brawn (I would have wanted to be that house also and for the same reason). It was only after he had been in the house for several years that he started using the term mudblood. There was something going on in the house, outside of view of the others that was turning normal 11 year olds into bigots and death eaters. I found the fact that the first person to greet and welcome Severus into Slytherin was Lucius Malfoy. (Apparently, the hatred of half born wasn't in Slytherin yet.) I wonder if that was the reason he favored Draco so much. Barbara From colwilrin at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 13:20:55 2007 From: colwilrin at yahoo.com (colwilrin) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:20:55 -0000 Subject: The picture of Lily and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175013 > Mcjuels :(hoping that someone will pause from their discussion > of crucios and criticisms of the author to consider my post.) > Colwilrin: Thank you for starting a new topic!!!!! It is much appreciated. The crucio thing is getting old. I agree that by the end, Snape tried to show Harry why he acted as he did. The memories served not only to instruct Harry that he was a Horcrux, but to attempt to express his remorse and sorrow at the destruction he had caused. He tried to explain, the best he could, why he was drawn to the dark side, why he came back, and how he had to behave to remain undercover. I disagree, however that he had Harry look at him at the end to see Harry for himself. I think that throughout his entire life, Snape was directed to act from his love for Lily. In his last moments, he wanted to leave his life looking into the eyes of his beloved Lily. It was his last comfort, and I'd like to think that in those eyes some forgiveness and comfort was given to him by Harry. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 13:45:04 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:45:04 -0000 Subject: The picture of Lily and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175014 McJuels: <<>> When Snape asked Harry to "Look at me!" I choose to believe > that Snape was finally forcing himself to look at Harry and see > him for who Harry is and not who his mother and father were. > Colwilrin: <> > I disagree, however that he had Harry look at him at the end to see > Harry for himself. I think that throughout his entire life, Snape was directed to act from his love for Lily. In his last moments, he wanted to leave his life looking into the eyes of his beloved Lily. It was his last comfort, and I'd like to think that in those eyes some > forgiveness and comfort was given to him by Harry. <> ***Katie: Now, here's one of those circumstances where I think JKR intended one meaning, but I hope for another. I think JKR meant for us to think that Snape looking into Harry's eyes was supposed to be him wanting to look into Lily's eyes one last time. I prefer to believe that Snape *was* trying to look into Harry's, not Lily's, eyes, and tell Harry that he, Snape, was a good man. Of course, there is nothing in canon to support this, but I choose to believe that interpretation. I would be so disappointed in Snape if his dying moment was spent trying to do something as selfish as see Lily's eyes one more time, after all his selfless behavior...it would just be odd. Also, they weren't Lily's eyes - they were the eyes of a 17 year old boy whom Snape had loathed and tormented for 6 years. I would find that more than a little bit creepy. And since I do not usually find Snape creepy - I wouldn't like that. I also would hope, and this may be venturing into different territory, that even though Harry did not see Snape with the other dead ones, Snape had "gone on". I think the only reason we did not see Snape in that scene is because Harry (even though he had forgiven Snape by then) would not NEED Snape, the way he would all the people that loved him in life. However, I would hope that Lily and "Sev" would be reunited in friendship and that Snape would finally be able to have peace with James and Sirius and Lupin in the afterlife. I would hope Snape would be able to look into Lily's eyes himself, and see forgiveness and friendship there, and finally have peace. So, he wouldn't have needed to use Harry's eyes as a surrogate for Lily, because he would be seeing her soon. Katie, hoping Snape wasn't all creepy, selfish, and obsessive in his last moments of life. From va32h at comcast.net Fri Aug 10 13:52:05 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:52:05 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: <732483.82455.qm@web30113.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175015 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barbara Key wrote: > Before entered into Slytherin House, Severus didn't > have any trouble believing that Muggle-born or half > blood were just as good of wizards as full blood. He > told Lily that it didn't make any difference if you > were muggle-born or wizard-born. He wanted to go into > that house because it emphasized brain over brawn (I > would have wanted to be that house also and for the > same reason). It was only after he had been in the > house for several years that he started using the term > mudblood. > I found the fact that the first person to greet and > welcome Severus into Slytherin was Lucius Malfoy. > (Apparently, the hatred of half born wasn't in Slytherin > yet.) I wonder if that was the reason he favored Draco > so much. va32h: I have a very different interpretation of that scene with young Severus and Lily. When she asks if it makes a difference whether she is Muggle born or not - there is a very telling pause on Snape's part, during which he looks at her very longingly. My understanding is that Snape knows full well that it *does* matter, but because he has already come to love Lily, it doesn't matter *to him*. Now - would an 11 year old know that a Muggleborn couldn't get into Slytherin? Well we don't even really know that ourselves. Snape seems confident that he, a half-Muggle, will be in Slytherin. Nor do I think that Severus chose Slytherin solely as a matter of brain over brawn. I would wager that his mother was a Slytherin and that some discussion of house rivalry has already taken place at Severus' house - he knows a great deal about Hogwarts before he starts school after all. I really do wish we'd gotten some backstory on Snape's parents, though. I have to wonder why Eileen married a Muggle, why she stayed married to a Muggle who apparently made her life miserable, how Snape learned so much magic at home if he gave off an air of being neglected... Anyway - yes, I would agree that Malfoy's welcoming of Snape into Slytherin house led to Snape's closeness with that family. Although we don't see Harry liking his prefects much, or Ron and Hermione doing much as prefects, I got the impression that their job was to act as a mentor and guide to the younger students. Given the glimpse we've had of Snape's home life, it isn't hard to see why young Snape would be thrilled to find acceptance and friendship, and be willing to embrace whatever ideology his new family espoused. va32h From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 14:04:55 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:04:55 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175016 > va32h: > > I have a very different interpretation of that scene with young > Severus and Lily. When she asks if it makes a difference whether she > is Muggle born or not - there is a very telling pause on Snape's > part, during which he looks at her very longingly. My understanding > is that Snape knows full well that it *does* matter, but because he > has already come to love Lily, it doesn't matter *to him*. > > Now - would an 11 year old know that a Muggleborn couldn't get into > Slytherin? Well we don't even really know that ourselves. Snape seems > confident that he, a half-Muggle, will be in Slytherin. Alla: This is my interpretation as well. Moreover, I think that Snape only did not care about Lily being Muggle-born, I think he already had contempt towards the Muggles in general at that tender age, yes. Doesn't he call Petunia just a muggle? I only reread the book once, so may be wrong. I think this contempt, if existed, played a very important part as to why Snape ended up in Slytherin. I mean, he wanted too, but his views I think played a role IMO. Alla. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Aug 10 14:21:46 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:21:46 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175017 va32h: I have a very different interpretation of that scene with young Severus and Lily. When she asks if it makes a difference whether she is Muggle born or not - there is a very telling pause on Snape's part, during which he looks at her very longingly. My understanding is that Snape knows full well that it *does* matter, but because he has already come to love Lily, it doesn't matter *to him*. Magpie: That's exacty how I read it. This is the first sign of Snape's problem, that he wants to have it both ways. Lily ultimately tells him he can't have it both ways, going along with Pureblood Supremist thought but just saying it doesn't apply to her. The first time he's given the choice he winds up with the DEs, but he doesn't reject her intentionally. The second time, when Lily herself is threatened, he chooses Lily and he sticks with that choice. She's what matters to him. > > Pippin: > > We should take heart, > > JKR seems to be saying, from brief glimpses of how things could be: > > the chastened wizard, Fudge, led forward by the goblin and the house > > elf at the end of OOP. Or the moment in DH when "nobody was sitting > > according to House anymore." Including Draco Malfoy. > > > Magpie: > > I believe Draco Malfoy is huddled with his parents not being > > bothered, but not part of the celebration. > > Jen: I don't get why the state of the Malfoys matters there. They're > in the Great Hall and not fleeing to the hills, a huge change from > being in the forest with Voldemort only hours before. This is an > example of the weakness in the argument for the cast-off Slytherins. Magpie: I'm not sure which argument of mine this is supposed to counter. Pippin said that everyone was sitting together regardless of house, and I was compelled to say that the Malfoys--the ones who have basically been like the other Slytherins--are naturally sitting by themselves and not part of the celebration, they're merely not being bothered. I have not made any argument for "cast off" Slytherins or ignored that they are in the Great Hall at all (as JKR's said in an interview, they will weasel out of punishment through it). I've said that Slytherin house proved itself not too great in these books and unsurprisingly their behavior colors the way they fit in with the rest of the school. They're not cast off, they're tolerated as long as they're not being too bad. What I'm arguing against is the idea that there's some big change and coming together in the epilogue. Seems to me they're just in one of the probably many long periods where Slytherin's not a big problem, but is still the house with the reputation for the Dark Arts etc. I'm not giving the story a resolution I don't think it had or wanted to have. Jen: > When Slytherins are notable for contributing to the defeat of > Voldemort, it has no bearing on the story. When Pansy Parkinson and > all the Slytherins leave the Great Hall, that's deeply significant. > Examples are good except when they aren't, and it's a movable feast as > to which ones matter. Magpie: I think this is the way the narrative is set up. Like it or not, the Slytherins who help *are* special cases, and still start from a different place from other houses. As I said, this has nothing to do wtih Slytherin being "cast off." I just don't think I'm the one making a distinction between Slytherin and the other houses when the author herself has made it perfectly clear in every single book including the last one. For me to not say that Slytherin is unique among the houses--which does not mean they are all evil--is to deny a pretty consistent thing in the story. Again, I am not dismissing any of the Slytherins who aren't as bad as the rest. But I am sticking with what I see as who they are, and certain more positive readings about how they've come together at the end of the book and no longer have any stigma just seem completely uncanonical to me--and not to use an interview for canon, but JKR herself I thought confirmed the rather weak resolution herself, I thought, when she explained that Slytherin had been "diluted" so that it was no longer the bastion of Pureblood supremecy, but still had a reputation for dark magic, as we see in the epilogue. Just as you think I'm just rejecting Slytherins who are good, I think focusing on Harry's "I love you no matter what House you're in" answer to his son rather than the fact that it's a standard parental response to his son's unsurprising fear of being in *that house* is changing what's going on. I accept all the Slytherins who helped the cause. I also note that all of them have also been associated with some degree of Pureblood supremacy (unlike almost any of the people from other houses we've seen) and that they don't start off as people you can assume are with you. We don't have to look for Ravenclaws who did something to help--their banner was hanging in the RoR. Sorry, but I can't read the story any other way than the way it came across to me straightforwardly the first time, that Slytherin did not fight with the other houses, but that there were certain individual Slytherins for reasons we are given who do not go with their house. Slytherin *played* its part in the destruction of Voldemort absolutely. But I really can't say that Slytherin did its part very admirably. Given the way Slytherin is set up to begin with it actually does need something bigger to make a change. Brothergib: But that is what sets Harry apart from the rest of us mere mortals. As DD put it (can't remember the actual quote) the fact that Harry is able to love after everything that has happened to him is an amazing thing. Harry named his kid after Snape because he honoured and respected the love that Snape had shown towards his mother. Harry certainly is the 'better man'. Magpie: Obviously Harry does think that honoring Snape this way is appropriate, but I don't think it's because he's in any way better than "mere mortals" in being able to forgive and love people. (Qualifying it with "after everything that has happened to him" implies the same imo.) People have claimed that it would be "unrealistic" for Harry and Snape to really reconcile in a scene, and I think that's part of the reason for it. Harry honors a dead man for his brave deeds, done for Harry's mother and in protection of Harry himself, he doesn't love somebody who's just treated him badly. Hickengruendler: However, that's what I expected. JKR didn't give us any major "admirable" Slytherins (in the sense that they are perfect role models) in the first six books, and I didn't expect them to pop up suddenly in book 7. In fact, I think I would have found it a cop out. What I wanted to see were Slytherins, who overcame their flaws and worked for redemption. And I was satisfied with it thanks to the portrayal of Regulus, Slughorn and especially Snape. Magpie: I agree. I just do still think that the portrayal of these three still points to the same issues with Slytherin there has been throughout the book. I don't think the author was going for any sort of redemption of Slytherin and that's why I don't think she wrote it. I'm not trying to be overly negative about the way things ended up, just honest about what I read. I don't see this reading any more than I saw "Draco is secretly trying to help the Trio at the QWC by warning Hermione." Barbara: I found the fact that the first person to greet and welcome Severus into Slytherin was Lucius Malfoy. (Apparently, the hatred of half born wasn't in Slytherin yet.) I wonder if that was the reason he favored Draco so much. Magpie: Hatred of the half born wasn't ever in Slytherin in canon. They hate Muggle-borns, not Half-bloods, even if presumably they see Purebloods as the most superior. Jen: Magpie: > JKR once misquoted this line in an interview as DD saying > choices "make you" who you are, and that surprised me because > they're not the same thing. In canon it's consistently the former-- > choices show who you are, because there's not a lot of change. Jen: In GOF DD says 'it's not what someone is born, but what they grow to be.' I don't agree with the intepretation of his COS statement as a Calvinist thought. Choice isn't an inborn trait and abilities have at least *some* component of genetic predisposition. So if Dumbledore's saying choice is more important to show what a person truly is than abilites, he's making a statement consistent with the one in GOF (when he said choice was more important than blood). Magpie: Dumbledore has always made a distinction between what you are born meaning your bloodline, and the choices who show who you really are. The person you grow to be does not conflict with the way I see the characters working. Sirius was born into a Slytherin, Pureblood supremist family, but by 11 was already showing by his choices he was a different person. Draco, unlike Sirius, shared his family's weaknesses. Where you're born or who you're born to does not decide your character, but I do think your character does. You show who you are. I suspect this all may be seen as being just "choosing to have negative readings," but I'm just describing what I see. The more redemptive readings feel to me like more of a stretch, a "fixing" of canon to get in the stuff I thought should be there that doesn't hold up for me. I don't think I have an overly negative view of Slytherin--I've never claimed that there's an intense hatred at the end of the book, or that Slytherins are all evil. To me it just seems like describing the house as I see it ultimately in canon: it's the problem house and the author doesn't seem to be doing anything to counter that idea. It seems to me that she's certainly used the Slytherins in a certain way, and she's included ones who collude with the good side. But no, they just really don't seem any different from the way they were at the beginning of the series-- that's pretty much where the books end up in general for me, at the beginning of the series with a new generation. The difference being that the threat of Voldemort and Death Eaters has gone. -m From colwilrin at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 14:23:03 2007 From: colwilrin at yahoo.com (colwilrin) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:23:03 -0000 Subject: The picture of Lily and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175018 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > McJuels: > > <<>> > > When Snape asked Harry to "Look at me!" I choose to believe > > that Snape was finally forcing himself to look at Harry and see > > him for who Harry is and not who his mother and father were. > > > > Colwilrin: > <> > > I disagree, however that he had Harry look at him at the end to see > > Harry for himself. I think that throughout his entire life, Snape > was directed to act from his love for Lily. In his last moments, he > wanted to leave his life looking into the eyes of his beloved Lily. > It was his last comfort, and I'd like to think that in those eyes > some > > forgiveness and comfort was given to him by Harry. > <> > > ***Katie: > > Katie, hoping Snape wasn't all creepy, selfish, and obsessive in his > last moments of life. Colwilrin: I didn't see it as creepy or selfish. It reminded me of last confession (to stick with the religious themes of the series). Snape was asking for forgiveness from Lily before he died. He wanted to look into those eyes...apologize for his misdeeds and receive forgiveness from the one he loved completely and wronged. This also is supported by JK's comment that Harry having "Lily's eyes" is so important...this interpretation seems to be the one place where the importance of the "eyes" makes sense to me. JK stressed it, and this seems to be the only place where it fits. Though I agree that Snape was not a selfish person. I do believe that his loyalty was not to Dumbledore, or to Harry, but to Lily. As Snape himself stated of his doe patronus "always". Lily was his entire motivation. He spent the final 16 years of his life trying to make up for his betrayal of Lily. I like your point about coming to terms with Harry as his own person. When Snape did ask Harry to look at him, it was the first time Snape fully acknowledged the "Lily" part of Harry and saw more than "James' son". IMO this was part of the request, but secondary to his desire to be forgiven by the woman he loved. I guess the best interpretation for me is that Snape died in the comfort of Lily's forgiveness given to him through her son, who Snape finally realized was more like Lily that he could have ever imagined. Now, if you want to take that into a religious theme context. It is Snape accepting the Christ figure and his ability to convey the Father's forgiveness to him before he dies. Comparable to looking into the eyes of a priest and seeing God's forgiveness...you accept it is a priest, but feel God's presence and forgiveness at the same time. > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 14:40:55 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:40:55 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175019 > > Jen: I don't get why the state of the Malfoys matters there. > They're > > in the Great Hall and not fleeing to the hills, a huge change from > > being in the forest with Voldemort only hours before. This is an > > example of the weakness in the argument for the cast-off > Slytherins. > > Magpie: > I'm not sure which argument of mine this is supposed to counter. > Pippin said that everyone was sitting together regardless of house, > and I was compelled to say that the Malfoys--the ones who have > basically been like the other Slytherins--are naturally sitting by > themselves and not part of the celebration, they're merely not being > bothered. > > I have not made any argument for "cast off" Slytherins or ignored > that they are in the Great Hall at all (as JKR's said in an > interview, they will weasel out of punishment through it). I've said > that Slytherin house proved itself not too great in these books and > unsurprisingly their behavior colors the way they fit in with the > rest of the school. They're not cast off, they're tolerated as long > as they're not being too bad. What I'm arguing against is the idea > that there's some big change and coming together in the epilogue. > Seems to me they're just in one of the probably many long periods > where Slytherin's not a big problem, but is still the house with the > reputation for the Dark Arts etc. I'm not giving the story a > resolution I don't think it had or wanted to have. Alla: I cannot speak for Jen, but I guess what I would have argued with the examples of Malfoys sitting in the Hall is that there IS a change from the beginning of the narrative. The fact that they ARE there and not in Azkaban, Lucius I mean and Draco is not dead, etc. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that change is not substantial for you, no? What are the criterias that you are using to determine whether it was a substantial change or not? Slytherin's flag was not in R of R? Well, as you said like it or nto Slytherin *did** start from a different place than other houses, as the only house wholeheartedly supporting DE ideology, it makes total sense for me that for them baby steps of change is substantial change. IMO of course. I mean in the beginning Harry rejects Draco's hand of friendship. At the end Narcissa's hand pretty much saves Harry. To me it is a very substantial change. I mean, what would be to you a substantial change in Malfoys? Would anything less than Draco saving the day do? I am not assuming, I am asking it only because we are talking about Malfoys. It just while I understand totally what you are talking about Slytherin not being in the battle in general, I would also never assume that they were there, I just do not get how Malfoys being present in the Hall is not a substantial change IMO. Alla. From colwilrin at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 14:47:36 2007 From: colwilrin at yahoo.com (colwilrin) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:47:36 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175020 > > IMO Molly has been underestimated but I think she's a witch with > mad skills. In the interest of space I will not give my defense > of housewives, in general, whom I believe sometimes do not get > the respect they deserve. > > Phyllis > Colwilrin: I like how you mentioned the boys to illustrate Molly's talents. I would like to add that ALL of the Weasley children are talented Wizards and Witches. Even Fred and George (the dropouts) have mad skills that they use for their business. Curse-breaking and Dragon tending can't be "easy" professions. Ron, though not the smartest wizard, shows himself as strong under pressure...Percy did very well at Hogwart's and was competent in battle and Ginny appears to be a very talented witch with strong spell abilities (can you say bat boggey hex?). This can't all be (to use a McGonagall phrase) "just dumb luck". I'm sure some of it is genetic. Molly's brothers were members of the OOTP...as has Molly been for years. I'm sure you have to be able to hold your own against the DE to remain in the order for so long. Just because we haven't seen her in battle before, doesn't lessen her abilities. Also...like you...don't even get me started on the "just a housewife" thing! Some of the most brilliant and talented women I know are "just housewives". From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Aug 10 14:55:50 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:55:50 -0000 Subject: The picture of Lily and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175021 > McJuels again: > > Okay, I can have this conversation with myself. I think that > Snape looked at that picture of Lily with wee Harry zipping > in and out and he was forced to confront the unfairness of his > hatred for Harry. >snip< Potioncat: While other members have responded to the meat of your post, I'm stuck with this scene. I can't get the silly image out of my mind. Where do the little photo-people go when they walk out of a picture? I recall a photo of Lockhart with a very reluctant Harry who tried to stay out of sight. So, "what" does happen when a magical picture is torn? The portion Harry has shows baby Harry zooming in and out, while a pair of legs chases after him. The portion Snape keeps has Lily laughing. If baby Harry could zoom into Snape's half, so could James, and what would be the use of tearing it? So, I think only Lily shows up in Snape's portion of the photo. Potioncat, now recalling being a very young child and wondering how all those little people got into her TV-set and what happened to them when it was turned off. From tenne at redshift.bc.ca Fri Aug 10 15:01:25 2007 From: tenne at redshift.bc.ca (tenne at redshift.bc.ca) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:01:25 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1186758085.46bc7dc50fd49@members.uniserve.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175022 > > Alla: > I mean, what would be to you a substantial change in Malfoys? Would > anything less than Draco saving the day do? I am not assuming, I am > asking it only because we are talking about Malfoys. > > It just while I understand totally what you are talking about > Slytherin not being in the battle in general, I would also never > assume that they were there, I just do not get how Malfoys being > present in the Hall is not a substantial change IMO. I'm not sure why people think that Malfoys being in the Hall shows that they have changed. IMO, they simply choose the winners side again. They were out of favour with Voldemort and that, IMO again, is why they tried to help Harry. They are still as self serving as ever. Lucius did some very cruel and horrible things both times he went to the dark lord. One act does not a personality make. You need to look at the balance of their lives and in the balance, they are mean, selfserving and cruel. It is totally in their character to jump ship when it isn't going their way, not a change for the better. They do not have the courage of their convictions. Terri From mcjuels at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 14:38:29 2007 From: mcjuels at yahoo.com (mcjuels) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:38:29 -0000 Subject: The picture of Lily and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175023 More Snipping > Colwilrin: > > > I like your point about coming to terms with Harry as his own > person. When Snape did ask Harry to look at him, it was the first > time Snape fully acknowledged the "Lily" part of Harry and saw more > than "James' son". IMO this was part of the request, but secondary > to his desire to be forgiven by the woman he loved. I guess the best > interpretation for me is that Snape died in the comfort of Lily's > forgiveness given to him through her son, who Snape finally realized > was more like Lily that he could have ever imagined. McJuels: I like this bit about "the comfort of Lily's forgiveness given to him through her son." This sounds as if Harry forgave Snape before he saw the memories. Do you think that's true? From graynavarre at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 13:50:37 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 06:50:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Social Correlates of Hogwarts Houses In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0708091952r9c7b3cs88b840789f54f317@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <952283.52281.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175024 Debbie: It's no wonder that by the Snape > era, Slytherin has become > the equivalent of the Hitler Youth, or that the Hat > thought Snape, armed > with enough curses to defeat a seventh year, would > fit right into > Slytherin. The Hat obviously put Snape in Slytherin > because it thought > Snape would like it there. To be fair, Sirius, who said that Snape knew knew more curses than a seventh, isn't a reliable source for what Snape knew or didn't know. How could Sirius know what Severus had learned in childhood? >From the minute, James and Sirius met Severus on the train and overheard his comment about Slytherin House preferring brains, they disliked and bullied him. He didn't know curses before he came to Hogwarts, he certainly needed to learn some quickly in order to protect himself from the Gang of Four who apparently delighted in picking on anyone they like. Barbara From colwilrin at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 15:37:17 2007 From: colwilrin at yahoo.com (colwilrin) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:37:17 -0000 Subject: The picture of Lily and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175025 > McJuels: > > I like this bit about "the comfort of Lily's forgiveness given to him > through her son." This sounds as if Harry forgave Snape before he saw > the memories. Do you think that's true? > Colwilrin: This scene is very interesting. Knowing how Harry felt about Snape at the beginning of the book...Harry's reactions are unexpected. Harry did not rejoice that DD's killer was dying. He did not recoil. He came to Snape, and did what Snape was requesting without question or negative comment. Though I would like to think that Harry did forgive him at that point, it is less important than it being the moment that Snape was atoning to Lily through Harry. I think the scene is more about Snape asking for and receiving forgiveness from Lily...and pleading that he did his best to make up for his sins...than about Snape actually receiving forgiveness from Harry. I picture his forgiveness from Lily being part of his dying process, as he is dying he is begging the forgiveness and the process of him receiving it begins as he passes to the other side...he undoubtedly received it fully on the other side, from Lily...and later from Harry as witnessed by Harry' comments to Albus Severus in the Epilogue. It is very hard for me to describe this...the idea is one of a transfiguration as Snape passes from life to death to afterlife. He sees Harry...but sees Lily as well. I think it is a very complicated moment, which is made to be interpreted by each reader individually, based upon their own views of life, death and forgiveness. Just another thought...I also want to believe that part of this transfiguration was Snape finally forgiving himself...and hopefully in his last moments...he was no longer the tortured soul that so miserable roamed the halls of Hogwarts. Well...I think I just about reached my posting limits for the day. Thanks for encouraging this interesting discussion of what I consider one of the most profound moments of the book. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 10 15:57:26 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:57:26 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and spiders (was: Aberforth) In-Reply-To: <666307.1206.qm@web86207.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175027 Irene Mikhlin wrote: > I was just so incredibly annoyed by the > spiders moment. Here they are, killing > children, and all Hagrid cares about > is "don't hurt them"?! I was under the impression Hagrid was telling the spiders not to hurt the kids not the other way around. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Aug 10 15:57:21 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:57:21 -0000 Subject: The picture of Lily and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175028 McJuels again: > Okay, I can have this conversation with myself. I think > that Snape looked at that picture of Lily with wee Harry > zipping in and out and he was forced to confront the > unfairness of his hatred for Harry. I also believe that > Snape chose the memories for Harry to view in an effort > to make some amends, though a bit late. When Snape asked > Harry to "Look at me!" I choose to believe that Snape > was finally forcing himself to look at Harry and see > him for who Harry is and not who his mother and father were. houyhnhnm: I am with you on this. There was no actual need for Snape to include the early memories of himself and Lily in order to carry out his promise to Dumbledore. He really only needed to show the memories of himself with Dumbledore. It was a gift, though Snape may not have intended it as such. It may rather have been his need to justify himself to Harry, to make Harry understand him. This need of Snape's to be seen and understood by Harry strikes me as the other side of the coin from Harry's wish to be friends with the Half Boold Prince. I hadn't thought about the fact that when baby Harry zipped out of one half of the picture, he had to have been zipping into the other. This must have worked on Snape. Why else would he have included that memory along with the others. It was unnecessary to the message he had to deliver. That Snape's attitiude towards Harry is continuing to evolve in DH is shown by the success of his plan to deliver the Sword, though once again, as in HBP, he is able to teach Harry only because his identity remains unknown. The enmity between these two who should have been friends is one of the tragedies of the series. I agree that Snape's request to "Look at me" may not have been in order to see Lily's eyes but to see Harry in order that they might say "thou" to each other one time before it was too late. From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Aug 10 16:06:35 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:06:35 -0000 Subject: The picture of Lily and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175029 Katie: > However, I would hope that Lily and "Sev" would be > reunited in friendship and that Snape would finally > be able to have peace with James and Sirius and Lupin > in the afterlife. houyhnhnm: I am absolutely certain that it was Lily who met Snape at the "station". "You're so brave," she told him. "I'm so proud of you." Then she walked him to his train and saw him off as he went on, to his next great adventure. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 16:27:24 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:27:24 -0000 Subject: Good and Bad Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175030 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > What I am about to say, is not build on canon, but on > common sense and worldly experience. It seems > unreasonable to me to assume EVERY SINGLE person in > Slytherin becomes a Dark Wizard. That's not exactly > what Hagrid said, but the implication is the same. > > Take Lucius Malfoy, ignoring for the moment that he > became a New Death Eater; he seems a respected > citizen. He gives to worthy causes. To maintain his > fortune, he must conduct business as usual, and in the > process, he must interact normally with other citizens. > He must be able to function in the world. I'm sure he > is ruthless, cunning, and arrogant in how he does it, > but none the less, he functions in the normal wizard > world. > > > I have no logical reason to believe that there isn't > also some percentage of Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs, and > Ravenclaws that are also willing to skirt the edges. > > Again, that's not based on canon, that's based on > common sense, something that shouldn't be abandon > simply because we are in the wizard world. > > Just a thought. > > Steve/bboyminn > Prep0strus: But, as you say, that's not based on canon, that's based on common sense. Which is why, for all the books, I waited and waited to be shown a Slytherin I could respect. I had such high hopes for Slughorn. Ooh, look at this, a Slytherin Dumbledore is friends with! He seems nice! Sure, he's a little gluttonous, but all of our main characters have flaws! But, no. IMO, he's a selfish, sycophantic toad who creates his own hierarchy and treats 11 year olds as if they are nothing if they don't suit his purposes. Also, he is at heart, a coward. He is not evil, and he even overcomes some of his cowardice (the way Snape overcomes some of his evil, but it doesn't make him a nice guy). But I don't like Slughorn. That's what I've been saying at least - we all know that not all Slytherins are EVIL. But it's nearly impossible to LIKE any of them. Sure, in your common sense world, people from all houses live normal productive lives, interact with each other, and the house system almost fades away after school. But in the world of canon, in JKR's world, every single Death Eater that we know the house of, is Slytherin. We have Peter the betrayer, and the fellow from Durmstrung, but if JKR wanted to show the real fallibility of the other houses, she would occasionally have it mentioned that another DE was Hufflepuff, or Ravenclaw, or Griffindor. Instead of showing us Crabbe and Goyle and Avery and Malfoy and basically every Slytherin last name we meet is a DE. And, in the world of canon, JKR never mentioned a likable Slytherin. Working in the world is one thing - Slughorn works in the world, and even does some good. But disregarding common sense, which it seems JKR disregarded a long time ago when it comes to the house system, this isn't a fair world or an equal world. I can imagine lots of possibilities. But I can only believe them if JKR shows it to me. To all who mentioned Tonks' mom... I guess I'll have to take the one tiny example as someone who I barely met and knew, and still liked. It's on that tiny framework that I would have to build any hope that Slytherins aren't totally unpleasant people that I'd prefer didn't exist. As for Malfoy? Seriously? I don't think being able to function in the world is really a skill that suddenly makes Slytherins worthwhile. He doesn't need to have three heads and spout flame to be evil. Malfoy, even before Voldy's return keeps a house full of dark objects, one of which he passes on to an innocent 11 year old girl, and it almost kills her. Malfoy raises his son to hate Muggleborns. He participates in the Muggle torture at he beginning of GoF. Malfoy's 'respect' comes from his money and the fear of what he once was. And became again. ~Adam (Prep0strus) Alla: I cannot speak for Jen, but I guess what I would have argued with the examples of Malfoys sitting in the Hall is that there IS a change from the beginning of the narrative. The fact that they ARE there and not in Azkaban, Lucius I mean and Draco is not dead, etc. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that change is not substantial for you, no? ~Alla Prep0strus: This is not substantial for me, either. Someone else along the post mentioned that the Malfoys go wherever the best wind is flowing, and that is very true. Unlike Snape (I can't believe I'm defending Snape here), the Malfoys didn't turn against Voldemorte. What we see is that their family ties are ever so slightly stronger than their ties to Voldy. I feel that if in some circumstances Voldy had simply blasted Draco apart, they would've been devastated, but too afraid to leave Voldy. In the instance we see, Narcissa notes that Voldy has STILL not been able to kill Harry. This is a huge blow to the all powerful voldy she has believed in. She knows her son, who she does love, is in danger, when she finds out he is alive, she abandons the battle to find him. If voldemorte had still somehow won that last battle, and he had been sitting at the table gabbing with the death eaters, you can be the Malfoys would've been there. I wonder if the Malfoys have to go to Azkaban for their part in what happened. They didn't help the good guys, so I don't see why they would be given a reprieve. Simply for not taking place in the last 10 minutes of the battle? A fundamental change does seem to occur in Draco by the epilogue, but had Voldemorte won the big battle, I don't see him as in the small resistance in the WW, or even staying away. I see him still trying to curry favor with the Dark Lord. I feel for the Malfoys some, but not much. These were not nice people. And yet... their family survives unscathed. As everyone else grieves, basically, they come out of it basically fine. Perhaps the loss of Crabbe is enough to teach Draco a lesson. Not that there's much use crying over spilt evil. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From va32h at comcast.net Fri Aug 10 16:39:32 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:39:32 -0000 Subject: The Malfoys (was Re: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility) In-Reply-To: <1186758085.46bc7dc50fd49@members.uniserve.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175031 I've been having a variety of thoughts about the Malfoys latelys - this seems as good a jumping off point as any to discuss them. On another HP board I visit, a fellow poster suggested that Voldemort particularly enjoys torturing the Malfoys because they represent (to Voldy) all that he thought he should have been. Wealthy, well- connected, a pampered prince like Draco. In short - the Malfoys are the wizarding equivalent of the Riddle family that had so thoroughly rejected Voldemort. My addition to that was that while young Voldemort took a certain raw vengeance in slaughtering that family, the older Voldy sees that it's much more fun to torture the Malfoys slowly, rather than kill them outright. Their punishments weren't too dreadful - they lost their house, Voldemort allows his pet to eat off their table, Draco is forced to torture people, Lucius must relinquish his wand (and symbolically his manhood, is how I read that scene). But still - compared to other examples of Voldemort's wrath, they got off pretty easily. But they would know that too, and were probably driving themselves crazy wondering how and when the "real" punishment would take place. Which Voldemort would have found wildly entertaining. I have long suspected though, that the elder Malfoys were pretty happy that Voldemort had disappeared all those years ago. Lucius had done very well for himself in the interim, and really had nothing to gain and very much to lose if Voldemort returned. My suspicion was that Lucius knew the diary was *something* that could bring Voldemort back, and snuck it in to Hogwarts in at least subconscious hopes that it would quickly be found and destroyed. Terri said: > I'm not sure why people think that Malfoys being in the Hall shows that they have changed. IMO, they simply choose the winners side again. They were out of favour with Voldemort and that, IMO again, is why they tried to help Harry. They are still as self serving as ever. Lucius did some very cruel and horrible things both times he went to the dark lord. One act does not a personality make. You need to look at the balance of their lives and in the balance, they are mean, selfserving and cruel. It is totally in their character to jump ship when it isn't going their way, not a change for the better. They do not have the courage of their convictions. va32h: After Voldemort's return, Lucius would have to conclude that he's pretty well screwed. The diary is destroyed but Voldemort still came back - oh crap. Voldemort is even more powerful that Lucius thought *and* Lucius lost the diary. So he has two choices - go to the Ministry and hope they can protect him, or try to get back in Voldemort's good graces. Given what we know of Fudge, attempting to lie to Voldemort seems a safer option than hoping Fudge can protect him. Complicating matters, Draco has developed a hero-worship of Voldemort (much like Regulus did) and won't shut up about how powerful his family is in the DE. I would further guess that Lucius was relieved to be sent to Azkaban, where he is at least free from Voldemort. Narcissa then took up the cause of subtly defying Voldemort. She sneaks off to visit Snape, at great personal risk. Draco has also come to deeply regret any Malfoy involvement with Voldemort in HBP. His first to attempts to kill Dumbledore were pathetic, he's practically begging to be caught. Throughout DH, what we see of the Malfoys is that they are just trying to lay low and figure out a way out of their situation. And when they do see it - Narcissa jumps at it. There is no guarantee that Not!Dead!Harry is going to win his ultimate showdown with Voldemort, and if he does lose - Voldemort is not going to give Narcissa a big hug and say "you sure pulled a fast one on me, sweetie!". She's taken a very big risk in lying to LV. So it took 7 books for the Malfoys to summon up the nerve to flagrantly defy Voldemort. Well they don't have that Potter raw courage. But they still show growth IMO. Are they motivated by personal safety? Yes, they are but then again - Harry is extremely motivated by personal reasons as well. As per his discussion with Dumbledore in HBP, the primary reason that Harry will continue to pursue Voldemort is because Voldemort killed his parents. (oh and a bunch of other people too, which Harry acknowledges), but first and foremost its because Voldemort killed his parents. When Dumbledore points out that Harry has never been tempted by the dark side, Harry says "Of course not! Voldemort killed my parents!" Molly jumps in to duel Bellatrix why? Because Bellatrix is a baddie and Molly is a goodie of course, but Molly's stated reason is "NOT MY DAUGHTER..." Lupin and Sirius want to kill Pettigrew because he betrayed their friend, Harry wants to kill Snape because Snape killed Dumbledore, Ron wants to go kill Death Eaters because they killed his brother. But as Hermione wisely points out - you can achieve your personal revenge will simultaneously working toward a larger goal. Ron can kill Death Eaters on his way to finding the snake. Or in the case of the Malfoys - you can look out for your own family while working toward a larger goal of getting rid of the guy who is giving your family such a hard time. I doubt the Malfoys really had a grand plan to get rid of Voldemort - but I won't discount their contribution towards that end, just because their motives weren't entirely altruisic. va32h From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 16:46:40 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:46:40 -0000 Subject: The picture of Lily and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175032 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > ***Katie: > > Now, here's one of those circumstances where I think JKR intended one meaning, but I hope for another. I think JKR meant for us to think that Snape looking into Harry's eyes was supposed to be him wanting to look into Lily's eyes one last time. I prefer to believe that Snape *was* trying to look into Harry's, not Lily's, eyes, and tell Harry that he, Snape, was a good man. Of course, there is nothing in canon to support this, but I choose to believe that interpretation. > > I would be so disappointed in Snape if his dying moment was spent > trying to do something as selfish as see Lily's eyes one more time, after all his selfless behavior...it would just be odd. Also, they weren't Lily's eyes - they were the eyes of a 17 year old boy whom Snape had loathed and tormented for 6 years. I would find that more than a little bit creepy. And since I do not usually find Snape > creepy - I wouldn't like that. Tonks: I think that Snape projected his hatred for James onto Harry because Harry looks just like James, except for his eyes. Maybe Snape came to know Harry for Harry, I don't know. DD didn't seem to think that Snape ever got over his hatred for James enough to see Harry for who Harry was. The whole eye thing now explains why when Snape was teaching Harry Occlumency Snape used the pensive. Snape had to take the memory of Lily out of his mind so that when he looked into Harry???s eyes he would not be ???wearing his heart on his sleeve??? by remembering her. If Lily loved her son so much as to die for him, Snape was going to protect Harry for Lily???s sake. And that was his motive throughout. At the last, I thought that he was looking into Harry???s eyes to remind himself what he was dying for. For the love of Lily. Such a tragic scene. I don???t see it as creepy. It is just the tragic dramatic moment that we would expect from such a tragic character as Snape. He was misunderstood. Even in his greatest moment when he killed DD, even then Harry thought Snape a coward. He was the bravest of them all. And Harry realized that in the end. Tonks_op From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 10 16:53:56 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:53:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the slaughtered pig (was: Aberforth ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175033 "dumbledore11214" Wrote: > I am just wondering whether it was a > period in time, when Dumbledore coldly > decided that Harry must die for the > greater good and if he did, i wonder how long it lasted. Dumbledore must have thought Harry would die, that's what he told Snape and I can't think of any reason he'd lie to Snape about that and even scoff at him when he said he was horrified of the idea of leading Harry to slaughter like a pig. When Harry confronted Voldemort in the Forbidden forest both were injured, both were knocked out but Voldemort didn't die because the Snake still lived, and Harry didn't die because Voldemort still lived. Dumbledore did not expect this, he expected all the Horcruxes would be gone by then; as Harry says Dumbledore overestimated him. I think Dumbledore only realized Harry could live in the King's Cross chapter, assuming that really was Dumbledore and not Harry's mind working out the last parts of the puzzle. This reminds me a little of the "Is Snape Evil?" debate that went on in this group for years, but there are 2 important differences: 1) I do not think Dumbledore is evil, far from it! Dumbledore did what had to be done, any good war leader would have dome the same for the greater good. 2) This debate will never be definitively resolved because there will never be a book 8, so if you want to believe Dumbledore was incapable of being so cold blooded you are welcome to do so; but I think my interpretation is more consistent with the books and perhaps even more important, is vastly more interesting. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From va32h at comcast.net Fri Aug 10 16:53:36 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:53:36 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and spiders (was: Aberforth) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175034 Irene Mikhlin wrote: > > > I was just so incredibly annoyed by the > > spiders moment. Here they are, killing > > children, and all Hagrid cares about > > is "don't hurt them"?! Then Egglplant wrote: > I was under the impression Hagrid was telling the spiders not to hurt > the kids not the other way around. Now me: Oh I totally agree with Irene. Hagrid didn't want anyone killing his precious little spiders. Sadly, I think JKR intends us to see this as an amusing foible of Hagrid's; that he can't help but love all sorts of vicious, dangerous animals. That theme certainly crops up in every book: Norbert, Aragog, Buckbeak, Blast Ended Skrewts, Grawp...okay I guess he took a break in HBP. And on one level I do appreciate it as amusing. Just like I think Fred and George are very funny, on one level. But on another level, Hagrid's constant refusal to acknowledge the real danger of these creatures is very disturbing, as it routinely puts students at risk. Just as on another level Fred and George's pranks are often cruel. I think JKR expected the reader to feel comic relief at that moment in DH - "Oh that Hagrid! Still worried about his spiders!" Just like she expects us to think James Potter is a great guy, when he really comes off as sort of an a-hole, and she expects us to still hate Snape even though a lot of us ending up not hating Snape. va32h From pair_0_docks at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 16:59:43 2007 From: pair_0_docks at yahoo.com (pair_0_docks) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:59:43 -0000 Subject: Signs Snape seems to care about Harry was Re: The picture of Lily and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175035 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > There was no actual need for > Snape to include the early memories of himself and Lily > in order to carry out his promise to Dumbledore. He > really only needed to show the memories of himself with > Dumbledore. It was a gift, though Snape may not have > intended it as such. It may rather have been his need to > justify himself to Harry, to make Harry understand him. > This need of Snape's to be seen and understood by Harry > strikes me as the other side of the coin from Harry's > wish to be friends with the Half Boold Prince. > > I hadn't thought about the fact that when baby Harry > zipped out of one half of the picture, he had to have been > zipping into the other. This must have worked on Snape. > Why else would he have included that memory along with > the others. It was unnecessary to the message he had to > deliver. That Snape's attitiude towards Harry is continuing > to evolve in DH is shown by the success of his plan to > deliver the Sword, though once again, as in HBP, he is > able to teach Harry only because his identity remains unknown. > > The enmity between these two who should have been friends > is one of the tragedies of the series. I agree that > Snape's request to "Look at me" may not have been in > order to see Lily's eyes but to see Harry in order that > they might say "thou" to each other one time before it > was too late. pair_0_docks: I also interpreted this part as illustrating the fact that Snape actually "cares" about what Harry thinks of him. I can't quote the exact place, but I think this is shown to us again back in OOTP when Harry lets it slip to Snape about his "spying," stating to him something like "no that's your job" and Snape seems to respond with a kind of pride of being acknowledged for that from Harry. The other place that seems like caring to me is his response to DD when he finds out Harry must die. Even though he responses to DD's question: "So, have you grown fond of the boy?" by conjuring up his patronus and indicating his love of lily; I can't help but see this as a typical response of Snape's own philosophy "only fools wear their feelings out for everyone to see" and/or just another one of his snarky responses because he does not actually answer the questions just merely avoids it. pair_0_docks From juli17 at aol.com Fri Aug 10 16:56:44 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:56:44 -0400 Subject: 7 reasons why - The Glass is Half Empty. In-Reply-To: <1186729595.6509.82652.m48@yahoogroups.com> References: <1186729595.6509.82652.m48@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C9A98691152F62-8CC-91AA@WEBMAIL-MB16.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175036 Julie H.: his allegiances never are clear, imo. He appears to be DDM grudgingly, almost in spite of himself, through some idea that this is what he owes Lily -- not through any growing realization that DD's side is indeed morally superior to LV's side. He does not seem to have progressed from "I'm suffering because I lost Lily" to "I want to be DDM because i'd rather serve good than serve evil." He does not, really, appear to have transcended his fascination with the dark side, other than the choice he made that resulted in Lily's death. He is DDM solely because he loves Lily, not because he loves DD or hates LV. Julie (E): I think Snape's allegiance does become clear by the end of the Pensieve scenes. He does *become* DDM grudgingly, because of his love for Lily and his belief that he owes her. But there is a definite progression in his attitude as time progresses. Initially it's all Lily, but later he starts to save others for their own sake (he replies to Dumbledore's observation that he's seen others die by saying "Lately, only those I cannot save."). And indeed we see him later save Lupin for no other possible reason than that he thinks it's the right thing to do (he deliberately jeopardizes his position to save a man he at best dislikes and at worst loathes and believes is weak and relatively worthless). When he finds out Harry, the boy he's been so intent on protecting and saving all FOR LILY, is being set up to die for the good of the WW and the defeat of Voldemort/evil, he isn't happy about it, but he doesn't revert back to doing what would be best for Lily/Lily's son. Rather he proves to be more DDM!Snape here than Lily!Snape, indicating allegiance to a principle (betterment of the WW, defeating Voldemort) than to a single person (Lily). You many read it differently, but JKR did insert those few facts that show a Snape no longer solely devoted to only what serves Lily and his love/guilt over her, a Snape who through long association with Dumbledore has changed his thinking and adopted certain principles. (This doesn't change his basic unpleasant personality or his petty grudgeholding over past events though.) Julie (E) ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Aug 10 17:04:00 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:04:00 -0000 Subject: The picture of Lily and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175037 McJuels: > When Snape asked Harry to "Look at me!" I choose to believe > > that Snape was finally forcing himself to look at Harry and see > > him for who Harry is and not who his mother and father were. Colwilrin: > <> > > I disagree... In his last moments, he > wanted to leave his life looking into the eyes of his beloved Lily. > It was his last comfort, and I'd like to think that in those eyes > some > > forgiveness and comfort was given to him by Harry. ***Katie: > > I prefer to believe that > Snape *was* trying to look into Harry's, not Lily's, eyes, and tell > Harry that he, Snape, was a good man. Ceridwen: I thought he might be looking into Harry's eyes to see why he had given up most of his adult life, and to see who he was dying for. Maybe everything was growing dark. He may have been trying to send a message to Harry, or trying to Legilimens Harry to be assured that all of his sacrifices weren't for nothing. When someone says "Look at me", though, especially an adult to a child, the adult is usually either going to lecture or tell the child something, or is trying to read if the child is telling the truth. Ceridwen. From va32h at comcast.net Fri Aug 10 17:09:34 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:09:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the slaughtered pig (was: Aberforth ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175038 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" > >Dumbledore must have thought Harry would die, that's what he told > Snape and I can't think of any reason he'd lie to Snape about that and > even scoff at him when he said he was horrified of the idea of > leading Harry to slaughter like a pig. va32h: Well I can think of a very good reason for Dumbledore to lie to Snape. Dumbledore knows that Harry loathes Snape - why on earth would Harry just believe Snape if Snape merely told Harry what Dumbledore said? Is going to show up one day on the doorstep of 12 Grimmauld Place or pop into the trio's tent and announce: "Harry, Dumbledore wants you to let Voldemort kill you because you are an accidental Horcrux. Bye!" And Harry would just conclude "Okay, guess I'll go do it!" No, I don't think so. Snape is going to have to provide some kind of proof. Letters are no good, they could be faked. Dumbledore's portrait could confirm Snape's story, but there's no guarantee that Harry will be at Hogwarts (or that Harry would willingly go to the head's office with Snape). Showing Harry a memory seems the best way to prove that what Snape is saying is true. Now, having spent all that time in the Pensieve with Dumbledore in HBP, Harry knows what a falsified memory looks like - and Dumbledore knows that Harry knows this. So Dumbledore needs to make sure that whatever memory Snape has in his head is completely accurate as far as Snape is concerned, and yet exactly what Dumbledore wishes Harry to believe. And Dumbledore needs Harry to believe that Harry is making a genuine sacrfice, with no possibility of returning. va32h From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 17:17:30 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:17:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the slaughtered pig/ Malfoys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175039 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: I think Dumbledore only realized Harry > could live in the King's Cross chapter, assuming that really was > Dumbledore and not Harry's mind working out the last parts of the puzzle. >2) This debate will never be definitively resolved because there will > never be a book 8, so if you want to believe Dumbledore was incapable > of being so cold blooded you are welcome to do so; but I think my > interpretation is more consistent with the books and perhaps even more > important, is vastly more interesting. Alla: Yes, this is one of the agree to disagree moments, but I am just curious. Are you discounting Dumbledore's gleam in GoF? You do not think that he guessed what he told Harry in Kings cross at that time? Why? Am just curious as to your interpretation. Because I do think that this was when DD guessed and he did flat out lied to Snape IMO yes. IMO of course. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: > A fundamental change does seem to occur in Draco by the epilogue, but > had Voldemorte won the big battle, I don't see him as in the small > resistance in the WW, or even staying away. I see him still trying to > curry favor with the Dark Lord. > > I feel for the Malfoys some, but not much. These were not nice > people. And yet... their family survives unscathed. As everyone else > grieves, basically, they come out of it basically fine. Perhaps the > loss of Crabbe is enough to teach Draco a lesson. Not that there's > much use crying over spilt evil. Alla: I snipped rather arbitrarily, because I want to clarify something. I do **not** like Malfoys at all, I think Lucius belongs in Azkaban, I do not think it is fair in any way, shape or form that so many good guys fallen in the battle and Malfoys survived intact and I doubt they are going to be sent in Azkaban. I mean, war is not fair. But having said all that, no I do not think that if Voldemort won Draco would have been there. Or at least I hope so. I will be the first one to say that it is nowhere in Draco's character to show courage and openly defy Voldemort, BUT I sure hope that he tasted what it means for him and his family to be in Voldemort's employ and I do not think he would want HBP, round 2. Or again I hope so. As I said, I do not see him as courageous fighter at all, but I think he realized that Voldemort is not his cup of tea. Again, IMO. Va32h: Or in the case of the Malfoys - you can look out for your own family while working toward a larger goal of getting rid of the guy who is giving your family such a hard time. I doubt the Malfoys really had a grand plan to get rid of Voldemort - but I won't discount their contribution towards that end, just because their motives weren't entirely altruistic. Alla: I really like your post, whether I agree with everything you wrote or not, BUT what contribution did Lucius make? Like any? Sure, Narcissa did, but her boys? I did not see any. As I said above, I will be the first one to say that Draco learned that he does not want to be DE, but I do not see them contributing. > va32h: > > So Dumbledore needs to make > sure that whatever memory Snape has in his head is completely accurate > as far as Snape is concerned, and yet exactly what Dumbledore wishes > Harry to believe. And Dumbledore needs Harry to believe that Harry is > making a genuine sacrfice, with no possibility of returning. Alla: Me too :) From elfundeb at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 17:23:33 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:23:33 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Malfoys (was Re: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility) In-Reply-To: References: <1186758085.46bc7dc50fd49@members.uniserve.com> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708101023n12d62d4cq35954d183ecb7745@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175040 Instead of burying my comments about the Malfoys in my attempt to blame the Sorting Hat for everything, I decided to give them their own post. And since va32h has now given them their own well-deserved topic, I have attempted to tack this post onto that thread instead of the one with the quotes I'm replying to. > Pippin: > We should take heart, > JKR seems to be saying, from brief glimpses of how things could be: > the chastened wizard, Fudge, led forward by the goblin and the house > elf at the end of OOP. Or the moment in DH when "nobody was sitting > according to House anymore." Including Draco Malfoy. > Magpie: > I believe Draco Malfoy is huddled with his parents not being > bothered, but not part of the celebration. Jen: I don't get why the state of the Malfoys matters there. They're in the Great Hall and not fleeing to the hills, a huge change from being in the forest with Voldemort only hours before. Debbie: I suggested earlier that the fact that the Malfoys were in the Great Hall at all, and not being rounded up and carted off to Azkaban, is deeply significant. It's unrealistic to expect them to be welcomed and embraced by the others, given their complicity with Voldemort all this time. But they made a choice that threw their lot in with the Good Guys, and if they're a bit bewildered by their company, it's clear that nobody is rounding them up for Azkaban. And as the epilogue shows, Draco gets a normal life, too (and evidently not with the overtly anti-Potter Pansy). I agree with va32h that the books contain many clues that their break with Voldemort has been coming for a long time: 1. Lucius made no attempt to search for Voldy after Godric's Hollow. 2. If anyone "sent" the Lestranges after the Longbottoms, it was most likely Lucius (though I'm not convinced anyone sent them, since the source is a JKR interview.) If they were not sent, I'm sure Lucius was much happier with Bellatrix and her continued devotion out of the way. And while it's pure conjecture, Lucius might even have tipped off the Ministry to make sure they were captured. 3. Lucius uses the horcrux entrusted to him, the diary, for his own purposes rather than keeping it safe for Voldy's return. And though his disregard for the muggleborns at Hogwarts is despicable, it is notable that he did not get the diary into the school for Diary!Riddle's benefit but to create a situation that would enable him to sack Dumbledore. 4. Narcissa defies Voldemort to protect her son in HBP. Draco realizes that he is not a killer. 5. From the beginning of DH, Lucius and Narcissa appear to be reluctant hosts at Malfoy Manor, and Draco is horrified at the task assigned to him. Torture just isn't his bag. And later on, in the chapter entitled Malfoy Manor, it becomes clear that Bella is in control. 6. Draco chooses to stay at Hogwarts. He does not want to fight on Voldemort's side. He does not harm Harry, either, when he has the chance. It doesn't make them fully sympathetic, though. Like the Blacks, Lucius has an innate sense of pureblood superiority, and unfortunately he has been too willing to act on it (at the QWC, for example, and in slipping the diary to Ginny to open the Chamber). We don't ever learn whether any of the Malfoys have softened their stance on Muggleborns. There's also the peacock symbolism. Depending on the context and the culture, peacocks may represent many things, including immortality (an association Voldemort must have appreciated while using the manor as his headquarters), fidelity (for which the white peacocks were just a show, as none of the Malfoys remained faithful), and transformation (an association derived from alchemy). Although it is far from a sea change, the process of transforming the Malfoys from loyal DEs to Voldemort's betrayers has been going on for a long time. There is also an Eastern myth to the effect that Paradise was guarded by a peacock, which ate the devil, thereby allowing the devil to enter Paradise. So in his own home, guarded by white peacocks, Lucius sits watching the devil at the head of his own table. We should have known right then that the Malfoys would become agents of Voldemort's fall. Debbie noting that things really have changed if Ron can joke about Rose Weasley marrying Scorpius Malfoy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From missygallant2000 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 17:24:07 2007 From: missygallant2000 at yahoo.com (Missy) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:24:07 -0000 Subject: Unanswered In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175041 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "samaramims" wrote: > > I'm not sure if this has been answered or not. Has the identity of > the individual who was wearing a black veil at DD's funeral been > answered? > > samaramims > It could have been Snape. By this time, everyone thought Snape was a DE and since everyone who was anyone was at the funeral, that would have been Snape signing his own death warrant. "Hi, I just killed the guy in the coffin, but no problem, I'm here to mourn." No- that would not have gone over well. As was mentioned before, canon says the barman from the Hog's Head was there. It also could have been Mundungus. I can't completely remember if Dung was wanted at this point or not. But he is the one who was dressed in a black veil at the Hog's Head in OotP. So- there is precedence for it being Dung. From thaijasmine1 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 14:43:12 2007 From: thaijasmine1 at yahoo.com (jasmine) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:43:12 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175042 Phyllis: > I believe that there were hints to "the > real Molly" throughout the books and that the Molly that fought > Bellatrix was the real Molly. One more point I would like to add is that Gideon and Fabian Prewett are Molly's brothers. They were killed by no less than 5 death eaters in the 1st war with Voldy and died like Heroes. Another side note Ignatius Prewett married Lucretia Black, that makes Molly and Bella (and Sirius) cousins (not much here except it proves that pureblood families are often entertwined). So, my point here is that, (for those that under-estimated Molly)considering where she came from - it was her choice to be a "house-wife" and take care of her family, not her ability that defines who she is..(copied that line from Dumbledore to Harry - "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities") To me, Molly is more than a match for Bellatrix, and Bella should have tremble with fear when she saw death coming in a form of Molly "Prewett" Weasley. Jasmine From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Aug 10 17:44:46 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:44:46 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175043 > > Magpie: > > I'm not sure which argument of mine this is supposed to counter. > > Pippin said that everyone was sitting together regardless of house, > > and I was compelled to say that the Malfoys--the ones who have > > basically been like the other Slytherins--are naturally sitting by > > themselves and not part of the celebration, they're merely not > being > > bothered. > > > > I have not made any argument for "cast off" Slytherins or ignored > > that they are in the Great Hall at all (as JKR's said in an > > interview, they will weasel out of punishment through it). I've > said > > that Slytherin house proved itself not too great in these books and > > unsurprisingly their behavior colors the way they fit in with the > > rest of the school. They're not cast off, they're tolerated as long > > as they're not being too bad. What I'm arguing against is the idea > > that there's some big change and coming together in the epilogue. > > Seems to me they're just in one of the probably many long periods > > where Slytherin's not a big problem, but is still the house with > the > > reputation for the Dark Arts etc. I'm not giving the story a > > resolution I don't think it had or wanted to have. > > > > Alla: > > I cannot speak for Jen, but I guess what I would have argued with the > examples of Malfoys sitting in the Hall is that there IS a change > from the beginning of the narrative. Magpie: I'm acknowledging the change from the beginning of the narrative. I'm just saying what I think the change is. The Malfoys choose each other over allegience to the Dark Lord, and so are not DEs in the last moments. I've no doubt they're glad Voldemort is gone. JKR seems to sum up their position pretty well: they're sitting there looking around like they're not so sure they ought to be there, but no one is paying them any attention. Alla: > Slytherin's flag was not in R of R? Well, as you said like it or nto > Slytherin *did** start from a different place than other houses, as > the only house wholeheartedly supporting DE ideology, it makes total > sense for me that for them baby steps of change is substantial change. > > IMO of course. > > I mean in the beginning Harry rejects Draco's hand of friendship. > > At the end Narcissa's hand pretty much saves Harry. To me it is a > very substantial change. > > I mean, what would be to you a substantial change in Malfoys? Magpie: "Substantial" can be relative. It could be considered substantial that they see what really matters to them is each other. But that's what we end up with. Nobody in canon seems under any illusions that the Malfoys are like anybody else in that hall, nor should they be. They did what they did and their position reflects it. I don't deny Narcissa saves Harry. I also don't deny how Narcissa comes to save Harry, what she's doing etc. It's great for Harry that she sees her chance and takes it, but the baby steps don't seem like steps on the way to much else. It's not bad that she helps him for personal reasons, but I think anyone would know to be careful about considering her an ally. Alla: > It just while I understand totally what you are talking about > Slytherin not being in the battle in general, I would also never > assume that they were there, I just do not get how Malfoys being > present in the Hall is not a substantial change IMO. Magpie: It is a change. It's the change that it is. I was responding to the specific statement that nobody was sitting by house, including Draco Malfoy, which seemed to indicate them being one of the crowd, and it just seemed obvious to say what the seating arrangements of the Malfoy's are. I'm not saying there's not change in this family from what they were at the beginning, or even the beginning of the book. I'm just describing what it seems like the change actually is. Prep0sterous: I wonder if the Malfoys have to go to Azkaban for their part in what happened. They didn't help the good guys, so I don't see why they would be given a reprieve. Simply for not taking place in the last 10 minutes of the battle? Magpie: As per an interview, they don't go to Azkaban because they "colluded" with Harry in the end--the term she uses is "weaseled out." Iow, I think she is confirming this view. They luckily were not on the wrong side when it went down--which is not the same as being on the right side. And this even though one would think the Malfoys had every reason to see the error of their ways and have reason to act more decisively. Particularly Draco who hadn't ever seen the truth until later than his parents. He isn't going to grow into his father, true, but he still falls far short of what I think many normal people would have acheived in the same circumstances. The Malfoys have been clearly independent underneath it all throughout the series. They've never been Barty or Bellatrix. Lucius was of course happy to shed his allegiance when Voldemort went down-- he unfortunately also then thought he could hang onto the same beliefs and pass them on to his son, giving him a completely wrong idea of where those beliefs really led. They're punished throughout canon enough and wind up in a position where they don't need to go to Azkaban. I had mistakenly thought that Harry's awareness of the disillusionment in HBP would give him some leverage so that there might be a more conscious choice, particularly on Draco's part. Not Draco "saving the day" but not what we got. That didn't enter Harry's mind--I was wrong about lines at the end of HBP pointing towards Harry using that information to his advantage. What's funny is I'm not bothered by characters saving themselves at all. I love those kinds of characters. I thought Draco's, "I'm Draco Malfoy! I'm on your side!" was hilarious and not a bad thing to do at all--good for him, especially with the real grin he gives to his "savior" when it doesn't work. I'd love to read that kind of character in a story about that. But unfortunately for me while the Malfoys seem to have the survival luck of cockroaches they don't also seem to have a great sense for what's good for them, so I can't root for or admire them on that score either. (They actually fell down in my opinion on that score from where I started, back when I just imagined slippery Lucius pleading Imperius.) It's not just that they're not working for the higher reasons, it's that they don't really seem that good working for the reasons they're supposed to have either. This perhaps again goes back to my noticing that the very qualities Slytherins are supposed to be known for seem to show up in far more impressive ways in other people. -m From missygallant2000 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 17:44:21 2007 From: missygallant2000 at yahoo.com (Missy) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:44:21 -0000 Subject: The Virtues of Hagrid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175044 First of all, I need to say, that I love Hagrid. I have from the moment he pulled up to the Dursley's on the motorcycle. But I think a lot of people see him differently than I do. In fact, from reading the posts, I know this is true. Hagrid loves Harry deeply. That much is shown by the gifts he buys and by the hurt he feels when Harry et al do not take his class. It is partially because he thought they loved the class, but I think also a little bit because he misses them. Hagrid is alone in the world. He mentions several times to Harry that they are the same, that they have no family. But the one thing Hagrid never mentions is that aside from DD, until the trio came along, Hagrid didn't have much of anyone at all. At the beginning of SS McGonagall questions DD's decision to let Hagrid bring the baby. Hagrid was kicked out of school, but DD knew he was alone and allowed him to stay. As for the monsters, yes they are monsters. But so is Hagrid. Hagrid has lived his life among witches and wizards who constantly talk of how vicious giants are. All the while, Hagrid MUST be thinking to himself, "Well, I'm not so bad." So, in his mind, these magical creatures deserve the same chance to show they are not as vicious as people say they are. And sometimes, he is right. The thestrals and Buckbeak aren't vicious, once you know how to deal with them. I thought that Hagrid yelled, "Don't hurt them" at the spiders and meant the students. I don't have the book in front of me, and am ashamed to admit I've only read it once, so I missed the passage where people thing he meant to not hurt the spiders. After being kicked out of the spider's part of the forest, I would think he loves the kids more than the spiders. So, please point out what I missed because I will be reading it again. These are just my feelings, and I welcome all discussion. From guzuguzu at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 17:53:59 2007 From: guzuguzu at yahoo.com (guzuguzu) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:53:59 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175045 I'm going to make one more attempt to explain argument: My opinion is that the Molly-Bella duel scene was not well-written as it did not ring true in the context of the books, and was written like a show down in an action movie. In short: The scene is a retread of the Sirius-Bella duel scene in OotP-- Harry even has a deja vu moment of such in the text. In that duel, Sirius is arrogant, reckless and has nothing to lose, and Bella gets a lucky shot in to kill him because Sirius is too busy laughing at Bella. Molly, however, is not arrogant, not reckless, has much to lose, and yet we get the exact same scene-- Molly gets a lucky shot in while Bella is laughing at her. And the crowd goes wild. And no one seemed to even consider the possibility that she wouldn't be victorious. Go, go Gryffindor! ;-) The scene left me hollow and I expected better from Molly and from Rowling. I see that my big mistake in my original argument was using the word "housewife." Being a former full-time housewife, I didn't realize it was a loaded word though it apparently it is on this group. However, if you replace that word with "heart surgeon" I still stand by my exact statement: I would not assume that a heart surgeon has the same fighting skills and experience as a professional soldier. They very well might, but I would not logically assume it to be true. Lily was a mother who died protecting her child from DEs. The Albanian peasant woman was a mother who died protecting her children from DEs. Tonks was a mother who died protecting her child from DEs (in theory-- he wasn't there). There is nothing wrong with that. I am still at a loss to understand why it is offensive to even discuss the possibility and relative probability that Molly might have been in the above group instead of the surviving group. However, I apologize for ever questioning Molly's awesomeness out loud. Too bad for me, as I mentioned in another post, she is one of my favorite characters in the series and I enjoyed discussing her. I believe this might be my last post on the subject, as I am beginning to feel like I not only have a different set of books than most people here, but I am also from a different planet. Such is life-- we all bring our own experiences to the table when we read. However, we are all fans who care enough about the books to post our thoughts. guzu, who, if a psycho killer busted down her front door, would grab her kid, lock herself in the bedroom and call the police. From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Aug 10 18:11:51 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:11:51 -0000 Subject: Social Correlates of Hogwarts Houses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175046 Nita: > Same as above, but it's been taken to unreasonable > lengths right from the start thanks to Salazar's ageing, > slipping, paranoid mind. He was described as "ancient", > wasn't he? Hence the over-the-top Chamber of Secrets. houyhnhnm: I like the idea of an aging, slipping, paranoid Salazar rather than an intolerant, hating one. As the founder of the House of watery temperaments, paranoia *should* have been an affliction to which he was more suceptible than the other three. The dearth of watery virtues in the series does not disturb me so much. They are the virtues missing from the Wizarding World as a whole, because the House that should have supplied them has been corrupted by Voldemort (and possibly by crazy old Salazar himself). What bothers me is their lack altogether. We need to see some example of what Slytherin, purified of the influence of Voldemort, could become. I'm not sure they are really missing, though, just a little thin on the ground. We have to look hard to see them. And define them. Difficult to do because you can look at elemental archetypes as defined by various authorities on tarot or astrology, as well as Hippocrates and Galen, and they don't quite match up. Still there is kind of a common thread that runs through all the descriptions. I'm just going to use an arbitrary collection of words I found on two web sites. http://www.llewellyn.com/free/mpq.php?tab=elements http://www.asiya.org/watercorrespondences.html I don't know that they can all be made to work, but some of them can. courage to continue on a difficult path with no end in sight, compassion, tranquility, tenderness, forgiveness, modesty, fluidity in creativity, receptivity, influence, graciousness, sensitivity, empathy, kindness, sympathy, love, gentleness, sociability, nurturing, and intuition, We do see a hint of compassion in Regulus's sparing of Kreacher. In Snape, who is the best of the Slytherins IMO, we certainly see the courage to continue on a difficult path with no end in sight. Fluidity in creativity has shown itself all along, but especially in HBP. I believe there is latent, though stunted, capacity for nurturing as well. We have seen it all along in his treatment of Draco. We see it in DH in Snape's plan to lead Harry to the sword with his doe Patronus. Snape's gentleness with Lily was something that struck me on the first read of "The Prince's Tale". Snape is anything but gracious, though. There are very few examples of graciousness in the WW. DD had a veneer of graciousness, but it was covering up a lot of snarkiness underneath, it seemed to me. I think we have to look to the Delacours. Delacour. Of the court. Nature's nobility. Surely Fleur is meant to be taken as a character with Slytherin synpathies. I don't see how Rowling could have made it more obvious than to name her Phlegm. "An Excess of Phlegm" could have served as an alternative title for HBP awash as it was in Slytherin liquids. When I read the description of Madame Delacour, "a beautiful blonde woman in long leaf-green robes", I immediately thought of Narcissa Malfoy. She glides; she stoops. True, her husband does not look much like Lucius in his person, but like Lucius he is a dandy in his dress. Arthur is clearly ill at ease with them. His laughter is overloud, unusually high-pitched, even maniacal. Arthur is not a gauche person under normal circumstances, so surely these people are off-putting in some way, haughty, reserved. But then we find out that "The Delacours, it soon transpired, were helpful, pleasant guests. They were pleased with everything and keen to assist with the preparations for the wedding." They were gracious. I see the possibility of a future generation of Slytherins who may resemble the Delacours more than the Malfoys. I'm finding that I am less and less bothered by the "plot holes" in the Harry Potter series. I anticipate much future enjoyment filling them in with my own imagination. And nobody has to agree with me. From tenne at redshift.bc.ca Fri Aug 10 18:00:35 2007 From: tenne at redshift.bc.ca (tenne at redshift.bc.ca) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:00:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1186768835.46bca7c3a5a30@members.uniserve.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175047 > Magpie: >> The Malfoys have been clearly independent underneath it all > throughout the series. They've never been Barty or Bellatrix. Lucius > was of course happy to shed his allegiance when Voldemort went down-- > he unfortunately also then thought he could hang onto the same > beliefs and pass them on to his son, giving him a completely wrong > idea of where those beliefs really led. They're punished throughout > canon enough and wind up in a position where they don't need to go > to Azkaban. > I think that The Malfoys behaviour shows that they are true Slytheins, who know how to save their necks and run away when needed. Just because their butts are in a different place, does not mean their hearts are. Based on their behaviour in the past, the minute it was okay to torment muggles and try to murder them, the Malfoys would be on the new dark lords side in a second. I guess it really comes down to the decision if one good act wipes the slate clean. Yes, they helped Harry but to not go to Azkaban for all their other evil deeds strikes me as not very fair to the people they tormented. I guess in the WW, all it takes is one good thing to wipe out a life time of horrible. But then I've always been on the postion that tigers do not change their stripes, no matter how much make up they may use to conceal them. terri From prep0strus at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 18:27:30 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:27:30 -0000 Subject: The Virtues of Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175048 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Missy" wrote: > > First of all, I need to say, that I love Hagrid. I have from the > moment he pulled up to the Dursley's on the motorcycle. But I think > a lot of people see him differently than I do. In fact, from reading > the posts, I know this is true. > > Hagrid loves Harry deeply. That much is shown by the gifts he buys > and by the hurt he feels when Harry et al do not take his class. It > is partially because he thought they loved the class, but I think > also a little bit because he misses them. > > Hagrid is alone in the world. He mentions several times to Harry > that they are the same, that they have no family. But the one thing > Hagrid never mentions is that aside from DD, until the trio came > along, Hagrid didn't have much of anyone at all. At the beginning of > SS McGonagall questions DD's decision to let Hagrid bring the baby. > Hagrid was kicked out of school, but DD knew he was alone and allowed > him to stay. Prep0strus: I agree. I don't know if I have the same level of love for Hagrid as Missy does, but I certainly don't hold with the amount of cr*p he gets thrown his way on this site. It fits in with my defense of James and Sirius - these are characters JKR wants us to like, but has shown us many flaws in as well, and many people loathe them for it. While Snape, the Malfoys, etc, JKR wants us to dislike, but has given us a few things to keep them from being utterly irredeemable, and so some posters seem to idolize them. Hagrid is, as Missy points out, a monster. He is like Lupin. (But, with his half-giant-ness, I imagine there comes a real hit to the IQ.) I feel that if Hagrid and Lupin were ever evil, but became good, they would have many defenders, as Snape does. But because they have chosen to live their lives for good, despite being societal outcasts, when they make mistakes, they are somehow more culpable in the eyes of many readers. They don't get a chance at redemption because they haven't been truly dark, but they are too flawed to be admired, so they are dismissed. Hagrid can be infuriating. He does expose children to danger, and has a misplaced trust in 'evil' creatures that rivals the most foolish trust Harry assumed Dumbledore had in Snape. But people called Hagrid a monster. And he was one of the most kindhearted people in the world. And so, it makes sense, that to him, that all of these other 'monsters' were only misunderstood, and if they were shown kindness and love that they would turn out to be just like him. And when they don't... I don't know if we can blame that entirely on Hagrid. Arogog was a sentient being. It stands to reason that in some stage of their development, his children were as well. they are not simply beasts of the forest. Arogog was cared for and protected by hagrid, and understood enough not to turn on him when he had the power. he had some sense of thanks. That he could not extend that to those Hagrid's loved ones the way Hagrid did to his is not truly the fault of Hagrid. Many dangerous creatures Hagrid cared for were just that - creatures. But the acromantula have a higher order of intelligence, and I think they can take on culpability that other sentient species do. I also always felt bad for how the students treated Hagrid - they COULD have learned a lot from him, and I feel really badly that the trio dropped his class. He hadn't been teaching for years. he needed to learn and grow as much as the students. The hippogriff lesson was wonderful, and I wonder what kind of teacher Hagrid would have been had he not had Draco in that first class? I'm still miffed that JKR didn't have him get a new wand as soon as his innocence in the Chamber of Secrets fiasco was proven. Sure, the umbrella is amusing and a constant mini-foil, but Hagrid could've been taking night classes with McGonnegal. I hope we find out that he and the Madam get together, that his brother winds up marrying (mating?) and living in a clan of giants that exists in peace with wizards, and that Hagrid gets a real wand and becomes a respected magical creatures teacher. It's all well and good to feel for Snape, who had a hard life, made bad choices, and turned around. But can we hear it for the monsters who chose from the beginning not to be monstrous? ~Prep0strus (Adam) From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 18:39:21 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:39:21 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175049 guzuguzu: > > I'm going to make one more attempt to explain argument: My opinion is > that the Molly-Bella duel scene was not well-written as it did not > ring true in the context of the books, and was written like a show > down in an action movie. > Lisa: ::::breaking my self-imposed silence on this subject::::: Yes, we "get" what you're saying. You've said it often, and I don't consider anyone here dim. However, the majority here seem not to agree with you. You can continue to make your point over and over if you choose, but those who disagree aren't going to be persuaded, if that's your goal. I see the scene very differently than you, as do many others. guzuguzu: > > I see that my big mistake in my original argument was using the word > "housewife." Being a former full-time housewife, I didn't realize it > was a loaded word though it apparently it is on this group. However, > if you replace that word with "heart surgeon" I still stand by my > exact statement: I would not assume that a heart surgeon has the same fighting skills and experience as a professional soldier. They very > well might, but I would not logically assume it to be true. Lisa: I think if you'd've chosen the word "banker," "heart surgeon," "teacher," what have you, you'd've gotten the same reaction -- as has already been pointed out with the examples of Bill (the banker), Arthur (a ministry employee), etc. guzuguzu: > > Lily was a mother who died protecting her child from DEs. The Albanian > peasant woman was a mother who died protecting her children from DEs. > Tonks was a mother who died protecting her child from DEs (in theory-- > he wasn't there). There is nothing wrong with that. I am still at a > loss to understand why it is offensive to even discuss the possibility and relative probability that Molly might have been in the above group instead of the surviving group. Lisa: Well, certainly Molly "could" have died. Harry "could" have died, Ron "could" have died, Bill "could" have died, Kingsley "could" have died, Arthur "could" have died. But they didn't, either. Do you have an explanation for that? Kingsley was an auror (defined as a Dark Wizard hunter), but so was Mad-Eye, and HE died, so being a "trained soldier" doesn't wash as an explanation. guzuguzu: However, I apologize for ever questioning Molly's awesomeness out loud. Too bad for me, as I mentioned in another post, she is one of my favorite characters in the series and I enjoyed discussing her. > > I believe this might be my last post on the subject, as I am beginning > to feel like I not only have a different set of books than most people > here, but I am also from a different planet. Lisa: Well, I think our personal views color how we read the books, so your "different set of books" exists because of the way in which you read them -- your own personal beliefs and prejudices, such as they are. And really, I think my point about being purposely snide was just proved in your above "apology." guzuguzu: Such is life-- we all bring our own experiences to the table when we read. However, we are all fans who care enough about the books to post our thoughts. > > guzu, who, if a psycho killer busted down her front door, would grab > her kid, lock herself in the bedroom and call the police. Lisa, who would do the same, but in the meantime would pull out a gun if she had one and blow the S.O.B. away the second he was able to burst through the flimsy bedroom door lock and NOT presume that because I wasn't a trained soldier I couldn't do it. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 18:48:08 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:48:08 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175050 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "guzuguzu" wrote: <<>> I see that my big mistake in my original argument was using the word > "housewife." Being a former full-time housewife, I didn't realize it > was a loaded word though it apparently it is on this group. However, > if you replace that word with "heart surgeon" I still stand by my > exact statement: I would not assume that a heart surgeon has the same fighting skills and experience as a professional soldier. They very well might, but I would not logically assume it to be true. <<>> > guzu, who, if a psycho killer busted down her front door, would grab > her kid, lock herself in the bedroom and call the police. ***Katie replies: Your use of the word "housewife" was not a lightening rod for me. I am a full-time graduate student with two small children and I am home most of the time. I consider myself a semi=housewife, and I understood perfectly what you meant...*However* I still disagree with you! LOL. I disagree with you because you compare Molly to "professional soldiers". There are NO "professional soldiers" fighting in this fight. We have teenagers, elderly professors, half-giant imbeciles(sorry, Hagrid! I love ya, but...), mothers, fathers, teachers...the only professionals are Aurors - and they're more like bounty hunters or cops than like soldiers. Are ANY of these people specifically qualified to fight Dark wizards? No. But they're fighting for their world, fighting for their way of life, fighting for their mothers, fatherss, sisters, brothers, lovers, friends...they are doing the best they can, all of them. But none of them are "professional soldiers" or anything even comparable. On the other side - is there any such thing as a "professional" Dark wizard? Lucius doesn't make his profession being evil! :) I think Voldemort and Bellatrix are alone in that. Some of the DE's work at the Ministry, even! So all the people on the Dark side aren't professionals at combat either. What, you ask, is the point of this rambling??? That no one out there is "qualified" to fight a war, including Molly. None of them are "un- qualified", either. They're just doing what they feel is necessary to preserve themselves, their families, and their world. So, Molly is just as qualified as anyone else to be out there. Plus, as many have pointed out, she is obviously a quite talented witch long before that scene. Also, for those who believed other people should have stepped in...Two points: 1 - Molly told them not to, and I think it was pretty obvious that Molly would have been furious with, and maybe even hexed, anyone that got in the middle. 2 - There was a whole lot of other stuff going on!! In a combat situation, I would assume, there is so much chaos that you really don't often have time to worry about what other people are doing! Just my 2 knuts, Katie, who LOVES Molly generally, and loves this scene even more. From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Aug 10 19:18:44 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:18:44 -0000 Subject: Fly on the wall commentator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175051 Lisa: > I "enjoy" dancing, watching my children play, and singing > along with the radio in the car -- much like Bella enjoys > torturing her victims, I presume. > I "feel satisfaction" when I am proven right about > something, when something I predicted actually happens, > and when what goes around, comes around. A grim > satisfaction, possibly, but certainly satisfaction. > Much like Harry when he zapped Carrow for spitting on > McGonagall, I would think! houyhnhnm: You are saying that you imagine Bella's sensation when she is torturing someone into insanity is akin to what you feel when you watch your childrens play? Well, fan my brow! I'm speechless. The banality of evil indeed! I still don't see any sure way that "grim satisfaction" can be distinguished from Voldemort's "sense of purpose and power and rightness", so I still consider it Dark. From muellem at bc.edu Fri Aug 10 19:23:21 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:23:21 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175052 guzu wrote: > > I'm going to make one more attempt to explain argument: My opinion is > that the Molly-Bella duel scene was not well-written as it did not > ring true in the context of the books, and was written like a show > down in an action movie. > I believe this might be my last post on the subject, as I am beginning > to feel like I not only have a different set of books than most people > here, but I am also from a different planet. Such is life-- we all > bring our own experiences to the table when we read. However, we are > all fans who care enough about the books to post our thoughts. colebiancardi: I totally get what you are saying, guzu. I understood that your initial post was not a slam directed against Molly's given choice of being a housewife, but that it was OOC and a total suprise. We haven't seen Molly be this way, nor really given hints that she can blast away a crazed DE. Sure, she did some patrolling at the MoM and she does do stuff (we just don't know what) for the Order and her brothers were powerful (but they still died), but we are never given any hints that she is an expert at dueling. I would have expected Flitwich to be the one to take out Bella, quite frankly It isn't to say that those not trained in defense/offense cannot defend themselves, but what Molly did was beyond defense. She went into attack mode. The question arises for me is was she ever trained to do these types of spells? What *was* her mission for the Order? Unless we get something that states she was part of the police or Auror department, it is a stretch for me as well. I took no offense to your statement and would hope that all the other *snide* comments would die down, but alas, it seems that they have not, nor taken your apology for the misunderstanding. The Molly-Bella showdown? It was the "Molly-Bella LetDown" for me. Too much, too unexpected, too unrealistic for me. I am glad that others found it to be satistifing and I would never try to belittle them on it. Please extend the same courtesy to others who feel the opposite. This type of discussion, as there is no canon to back up what type of work Molly has done before or hints of her power, can only be an opinion discussion. There is no right or wrong side to it. Just how we felt about the outcome of it. colebiancardi (getting off my soapbox now) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 10 19:29:27 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:29:27 -0000 Subject: Unanswered In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175053 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Missy" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "samaramims" > wrote: > > > > I'm not sure if this has been answered or not. Has the identity of > > the individual who was wearing a black veil at DD's funeral been > > answered? > > > > samaramims > > > It could have been Snape. By this time, everyone thought Snape was a > DE and since everyone who was anyone was at the funeral, that would > have been Snape signing his own death warrant. "Hi, I just killed > the guy in the coffin, but no problem, I'm here to mourn." No- that > would not have gone over well. > > As was mentioned before, canon says the barman from the Hog's Head > was there. > > It also could have been Mundungus. I can't completely remember if > Dung was wanted at this point or not. But he is the one who was > dressed in a black veil at the Hog's Head in OotP. So- there is > precedence for it being Dung. Geoff: Folk are missing out on canon.... "He (Harry) had never seen Professor Sprout, Head of the Hufflepuffs, looking so clean; there was not a single patch on her hat and when they reached the Entrance Hall, they found Madam Pince standing beside Filch, she in a thick black veil that fell to her knees, he in an ancient suit and tie reeking of mothballs." (HBP "The White Tomb" p.597 UK edition) From sherryb at derry.lib.nh.us Fri Aug 10 19:23:02 2007 From: sherryb at derry.lib.nh.us (lytabunny) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:23:02 -0000 Subject: Good and Bad Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175054 I haven't had time to read the whole thread, so please forgive me if I duplicate. Slytherins. Never forget that HARRY almost got sorted to Slytherin! So HE would have been a "good Slytherin" if he hadn't been biased against that house by Ron on the train, and begged the Hat not to put him there. (Heck, maybe he'd have led a Slytherin reform movement!) What characteristics does the Sorting Hat use to determine to send one to Slytherin? Not everything is mentioned, of course, and I am straining to remember without looking them up, but bigotry (a preference for Pure Blood) seems to be one, a desire for personal power and the ability to use it efficiently seems to be another. The capacity for GREATNESS as a magic user is another. It seems to me that within the framework of the storyline, the "Type A" personalities who want power and have high level magical abilities (not counting Crabbe and Goyle, of course!) go to Slytherin and then often turn "bad" partly because JKR knows that a lot of REAL people who seek power do become ruthless and narcissistic in their pursuit of it. We are seeing the world from Harry's viewpoint. As a Griffyndor, Slytherins are the enemy (whether right or wrong.) Therefore Harry doesn't make friends with or know any except the aggressive ones like Draco or the sidekicks who do Draco's bidding. There are cliques like that in all schools. It's a skewed prspective, but a totally understandable one. Just because they aren't discussed does not mean that there aren't noble Slytherins. Or cowardly Griffyndors (Pettigrew!), or stupid Ravenclaws or mean Hufflepuffs... everybody has a variety of personal characteristics, and nobody knows exactly what the tipping point is for the Hat's decisions. Sherry Bailey From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 19:48:34 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:48:34 -0000 Subject: Fly on the wall commentator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175055 > houyhnhnm: > > You are saying that you imagine Bella's sensation when > she is torturing someone into insanity is akin to what > you feel when you watch your childrens play? Well, fan > my brow! I'm speechless. The banality of evil indeed! Lisa: Isn't that what you asked? Actually, I think Bella's enjoyment of tortuing her victims is a tad more euphoric than my enjoyment of watching my children play, but that's just a more extreme example of enjoyment - versus satisfaction, to keep things in context. Lisa From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 19:45:29 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:45:29 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175056 > colebiancardi: > > I took no offense to your statement and would hope that all the other > *snide* comments would die down, but alas, it seems that they have > not, nor taken your apology for the misunderstanding. Lisa: Personally, I would have graciously accepted one if there had been one. All I saw was a *snide "apology" for not proclaiming "Molly's awesomeness." Did I miss something? I didn't see any apology for offending so many -- but then, my past is behind me and I'm just a housewife now, so I'm thinking I could've missed it. colebiancardi: > > The Molly-Bella showdown? It was the "Molly-Bella LetDown" for me. > Too much, too unexpected, too unrealistic for me. I am glad that > others found it to be satistifing and I would never try to belittle > them on it. Please extend the same courtesy to others who feel the > opposite. Lisa: Exactly. It's always nice to be able to discuss anything without being belittled. I think it's wonderful that I see very little of that here, too, by the way, because such a thing is rampant elsewhere. colebiacardi: > > This type of discussion, as there is no canon to back up what type of work Molly has done before or hints of her power, can only be an > opinion discussion. There is no right or wrong side to it. Just how we felt about the outcome of it. Lisa: I agree! And it's my impression that, if you can only present your opinion by belittling others of any profession, the opinion will be summarily dismissed. Based on my own career experience, I have strong opinions of the majority of individuals I've come across in one particular profession, but I'm not about to use such an opinion in the company of such a wide variety of posters, because I'd be SURE to offend SOMEBODY ... and also because I know that there are exceptions to the rule, as well. Lisa From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 19:58:33 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:58:33 -0000 Subject: The spiders (Re: The Joke's on Me) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175057 Lynda wrote: > > > > I never considered this. Not even for a second. That Hagrid was > pleading for > > the spiders, that is... > > > > Lynda > > > > Doddie here: > > Of course, I never considered this either...but I always felt that after Hagrid had chased them out of the castle he would have came back...but he didn't--he was carried off..(probably a good thing in the end as they(acro-clan) probably went to the "base camp" or "rendevouz point" Voldie had chosen in the forest....aragog's old > den.. Carol responds: I *did* read it as Hagrid pleading with the staff and students not to hurt the spiders, just as he was more worried about Norbert than about Ron getting burned and more worried about the Blast-Ended Skrewts in the earlier books. And then when the spiders carried him off, I thought they were going to have a hearty meal. Instead, they carried him to Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Probably the hearty meal would have been their reward if Voldemort had won. Hagrid is still Hagrid and can't see evil in monsters, at least till they side with Voldemort. I may see it differently after another reading, but I've been concentrating on other parts of the book. It *was* nicely circular to have Hagrid carry the "dead" Harry out of the forest in his arms, but what a way to get him into Voldemort's camp! Carol, noting that the Forbidden Forest is now Acromantula-free, no thanks to Hagrid From CariadMel at aol.com Fri Aug 10 19:58:38 2007 From: CariadMel at aol.com (Annette) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:58:38 -0000 Subject: The Virtues of Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175058 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Missy" > wrote: > > > > First of all, I need to say, that I love Hagrid. I have from the > > moment he pulled up to the Dursley's on the motorcycle. But I think > > a lot of people see him differently than I do. In fact, from reading > > the posts, I know this is true. > > > > Hagrid loves Harry deeply. That much is shown by the gifts he buys > > and by the hurt he feels when Harry et al do not take his class. It > > is partially because he thought they loved the class, but I think > > also a little bit because he misses them. > > > > Hagrid is alone in the world. He mentions several times to Harry > > that they are the same, that they have no family. But the one thing > > Hagrid never mentions is that aside from DD, until the trio came > > along, Hagrid didn't have much of anyone at all. At the beginning of > > SS McGonagall questions DD's decision to let Hagrid bring the baby. > > Hagrid was kicked out of school, but DD knew he was alone and allowed > > him to stay. > > Prep0strus: > > > Hagrid is, as Missy points out, a monster. He is like Lupin. (But, > with his half-giant-ness, I imagine there comes a real hit to the IQ.) > I feel that if Hagrid and Lupin were ever evil, but became good, they > would have many defenders, as Snape does. But because they have > chosen to live their lives for good, despite being societal outcasts, > when they make mistakes, they are somehow more culpable in the eyes of > many readers. They don't get a chance at redemption because they > haven't been truly dark, but they are too flawed to be admired, so > they are dismissed. > > Hagrid can be infuriating. He does expose children to danger, and has > a misplaced trust in 'evil' creatures that rivals the most foolish > trust Harry assumed Dumbledore had in Snape. > > But people called Hagrid a monster. And he was one of the most > kindhearted people in the world. And so, it makes sense, that to him, > that all of these other 'monsters' were only misunderstood, and if > they were shown kindness and love that they would turn out to be just > like him. > < snip again> > > It's all well and good to feel for Snape, who had a hard life, made > bad choices, and turned around. But can we hear it for the monsters > who chose from the beginning not to be monstrous? > > ~Prep0strus (Adam) > ************ I agree with you both that Hagrid has been much maligned in the Fandom. I would like to think that although the young and dashing Sirius was named by James and Lily as godparent to little Harry, that Hagrid was really his Godfather in every sense. >From cradling him in his arms flying from GH to the Dursleys and his distress at having to leave him there. To charging down the door on the island and daring the Dursleys to question his motives,and giving Dudders his piggy tail. Being there for Harry on the first day, so better to go to a strange place where there is someone who knows you, watching out for him all the while. Cheering him on in his Quidditch. In all ways being there for HARRY, and in extension Ron and Hermione. Yep, before POA, Hagrid was Harry's Godfather; I think Harry should have appreciated him a bit more. cariad. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 20:08:08 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:08:08 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and spiders In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175059 --- "va32h" wrote: > > Irene Mikhlin wrote: > > > > > I was just so incredibly annoyed by the > > > spiders moment. Here they are, killing > > > children, and all Hagrid cares about > > > is "don't hurt them"?! > > Then Egglplant wrote: > > I was under the impression Hagrid was telling the > > spiders not to hurt the kids not the other way > > around. > > Now me: > > Oh I totally agree with Irene. Hagrid didn't want > anyone killing his precious little spiders. > > Sadly, I think JKR intends us to see this as an > amusing foible of Hagrid's; that he can't help but >love all sorts of vicious, dangerous animals. ... > > ... > > I think JKR expected the reader to feel comic relief > at that moment in DH - "Oh that Hagrid! Still > worried about his spiders!" ... > > va32h > bboyminn: As long as the subject has come up, let's have a look at those spiders. Do you think they were voluntarily working with Voldemort? Do you think a couple DE's showed up at the spiders lair, sat down for tea with them, and talked them into joining Voldemort's side? The Spider never struck me as creatures prone to logical discussion and being swayed to any opinion. I think despite the fact that they are capable of what seems to be intelligent human speech, they are at their core, animals driven by survival instinct. They eat, they stay warm, and they mate, but little else. So, while we have no canon on how the Spiders came to be working with Voldemort, I do have speculation on the matter. I suspect a group of Death Eaters invaded their lair and drove them out toward the castle. In a sense, it was more like cattle stampede. The Spiders weren't specifically attacking the castle, they we just doing what spiders do, but also being driven in a certain direction by the Death Eaters. So, when Hagrid confronts the spider in the Entrance Hall, we have to wonder why the spiders grabbed Hagrid and turned and ran off with him. Why didn't they kill him and continue to charge forward? My guess is that they saw Hagrid as a friendly human, rather than a hearty lunch; a human who would and could explain to them why they were being treated so viciously. So, they dragged Hagrid back to their lair to get some kind of explanation. Unfortunately, that just happens to be where Voldemort was hanging out. When they arrived, the DE's drove them back out; dropping Hagrid in the process. Now of course, the real reason is that JKR needed Hagrid to be in the forest with Voldemort so he could carry Harry's lifeless body back out. But, what was the in-story mechanism behind that? I think I have made a fair explanation. As to whether Hagrid was asking the spiders not to harm the students or the students not to harm the spiders is anyone's guess. I suspect Hagrid didn't really know himself. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From graynavarre at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 20:00:49 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (graynavarre) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:00:49 -0000 Subject: The spiders (Re: The Joke's on Me) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175060 Doddie: > ...remember > the thestrals and hippogriffs(who Hagger had trained) snip > I also thought that JKR may have purposely left Hagrid alive > because, how truly Hagrid forgives...(let's face it..the one safe > place Pettigrew could have hoped to survive in POA was in Hagrid's > hut, Buckbeak did attack Draco-yet Hagrid protected him Barbara here: I saw that more as a fact that Hagrid had warned the students what would happen to them if they insulted Buckbeak. Draco insulted Buckbeak and suffered an injury as a result. Why should he be angry at Buckbeak since it was Draco's fault? You live and learn or you don't live Long. (Robert Heinlein - Time Enough for Love). Barbara From prep0strus at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 20:14:57 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:14:57 -0000 Subject: Good and Bad Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175061 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lytabunny" wrote: > Slytherins. Never forget that HARRY almost got sorted to Slytherin! > So HE would have been a "good Slytherin" if he hadn't been biased > against that house by Ron on the train, and begged the Hat not to put > him there. (Heck, maybe he'd have led a Slytherin reform movement!) > Just because they aren't discussed > does not mean that there aren't noble Slytherins. Or cowardly > Griffyndors (Pettigrew!), or stupid Ravenclaws or mean Hufflepuffs... > everybody has a variety of personal characteristics, and nobody knows > exactly what the tipping point is for the Hat's decisions. > > Sherry Bailey > I've often wondered about the assertion that he almost got sorted to Slytherin. The hat didn't mention Slytherin UNTIL Harry said he didn't want to be there. I think, based on his talent, his 'thirst to prove himself', and maybe even the piece of voldy's soul, Harry could have done well in Slytherin... but the hat knew he didn't want it. If he hadn't met the Weaselys, I still doubt he would have been put there. And wound he found out what happened to his family, who the families of all the other Slytherin students were, and what they had done... I just don't see the hat putting him there. Besides which, Harry isn't really all that ambitious for his own selfish reasons, or, really, all that clever. I think the hat responded to his fear of Slytherin, not out of a true near-miss on being put into Slytherin. If Harry WAS in Slytherin... he would've been a very lonely boy. And the hat seems to respond mostly to genetics except in extraordinary circumstances. 'Just because they aren't discussed, doesn't mean there aren't noble Slytherins...' I think, actually... it does. I mean, it defies logic. And even the world JKR has tried to design for us. It's true, she has had these non evil Slytherins, and has had dumbledore trust them, and even Harry at the end. But she should have shown us a truly good and noble one. I don't care if it was Blaise Zabini. I wanted a good and noble Slytherin. A likeable Slytherin. A slytherin that I would be proud to call friend. And at a certain point we have to question the author's decision not to give us one. Not to have that true duality present in the houses. It seems to me, that in a children's book, JKR wrote herself into a corner, and the hat is what many have suggested it is - a way to weed out heroes and villains. It's not perfect, but it sure does a better job than pure chance would. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Aug 10 20:28:28 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:28:28 -0000 Subject: FILK: Deathly Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175062 Deathly (DH, Chap. 21) To the tune of Jerry Lee Lewis' 1958 hit Breathless http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DavIgtIaqN4 Dedicated to Jason LeBouef THE SCENE: The Lovegood residence. In his first-ever solo, XENOPHILIUS LOVEGOOD tells the Trio all about The Deathly Hallows. XENOPHILIUS LOVEGOOD: My name is Lovegood, This fine ol' sign You can see it on that Robe of mine Three bros a bridge would cross Show Death just who was boss They would be....ahhh....Deathly! Oh, the eldest one got an Elder wand He sure found out how He's been conned Second bro would raise the dead Drove him out of his head That is why they're....ahhh....Deathly! Oh, Harry! Mm-mm! Hermy! Beadle the Bard! He put Lovegood on guard! The youngest bloke took him a cloak He was Death's buddy When he croaked. Now, come on, Harry, I've confessed `Cause I'm a believer, I've joined the Quest Wand, stone, cloak, you know Each one of them is a Hallow That makes them....ahhh....Deathly! - CMC (who thinks that JL Lewis would make an excellent X. Lovegood in the movie version) HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 20:45:11 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:45:11 -0000 Subject: Good and Bad Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175063 bboyminn wrote: > How can anyone possibly think that Slytherins don't > leave Hogwarts and live perfectly normal lives. They > get jobs, they build careers, they establish > relationships, just like anyone else. They are just > cunning and ambitious about how they accomplish it. > > There is no reason to think that Slytherins don't > interact with other citizens of the wizard world > in a perfectly normal way. > > Take Lucius Malfoy, ignoring for the moment that he > became a New Death Eater; he seems a respected > citizen. He gives to worthy causes. To maintain his > fortune, he must conduct business as usual, and in the > process, he must interact normally with other citizens. > He must be able to function in the world. I'm sure he > is ruthless, cunning, and arrogant in how he does it, > but none the less, he functions in the normal wizard > world. > I do think there is probably a higher percentage of > Slytherins who are willing to skirt the boundaries > of ethics, morals, and laws to achieve their ends, but > only a /higher/ percentage. > > I have no logical reason to believe that there isn't > also some percentage of Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs, and > Ravenclaws that are also willing to skirt the edges. > > Again, that's not based on canon, that's based on > common sense, something that shouldn't be abandon > simply because we are in the wizard world. Carol responds: Okay, we're skating on thin ice here because there's so little canon to back us up, but I'm going to tentatively agree with you. If there had been no Voldemort, or if he had not returned, the WW would have seen occasional Muggle-baiting and continuing pureblood prejudice against Muggle-borns (the WW as we see it in early GoF), but nothing worse. (I think the WW of the epilogue is meant to contrast with this previously condition of "normalcy.") If it weren't for Tom Riddle, Slytherin could hardly have earned its reputation as the House that produced most of the Death Eaters because there would have been no Death Eaters. Lucius Malfoy might or might not have kept poisons and Dark artifacts in that room hidden beneath his drawing room (which finally shows up as the room where Ollivander and Luna are imprisoned--I knew that hint in CoS was there for a reason!), but he would have been a "respectable" citizen, manipulating people and using his money and influence for his own agenda exactly as he does in CoS and PoA. Slughorn, a pre-Riddle Slytherin, uses his influence to get his friends and protegees into suitable careers in return for favors. Imagine what he might have done for Severus Snape if there had been no Death Eaters to ruin Severus's life. And Snape himself, if he had not become a Death Eater, might never have become estranged from Lily or developed into the embittered, sarcastic (but brave) man he became. Even Mulciber and Avery might have gone in some less dangerous direction had they not been incipient Death Eaters. Maybe Dark magic would not have seemed so appealing to them if there had not been, so to speak, a market for it. Macnair, of course, would have kept on "executing" dangerous beasts for the MoM. Draco would have been a nasty little snob, but he would never have become a would-be murderer if it hadn't been for Voldemort (or received the nasty shocks to his worldview that he receives in the last two books). All we need to do is contrast the pre-HBP Draco with the Draco we see in HBP and DH to see what he would have been like, minus the statements of support for Voldemort which are based on his father's DE status and his absolute ignorance (paralleling Regulus Black's) of what being a DE really means. And Regulus Black, keeping a scrapbook of Voldemort's press clippings, might have had some worthier hero. I have a feeling that Barty Crouch Jr., whose father was so proud of his twelve OWLs, was a Slytherin. What might he have become, with all that intellect (shown again in his ability to sustain the personality of Mad-Eye Moody for ten months--I'm no Barty fan, BTW) if he hadn't rebelled against his father and joined the Death Eaters? All that talent gone to waste, worse by far than what happened to Severus Snape, who was at least able to redeem himself and do some good, however unrecognized until too late. Rita Skeeter is a Slytherin personality type and possibly one of Slughorn's protegees. Certainly, she uses the slytherins to find information about Harry. Unprincipled as she is and not above using Veritaserum on her interviewees, at least never became a Death Eater, and she notes the use of Dark Magic with disapproval. I've already stated my views on the "good Slytherin," Andromeda Tonks Black (and, yes, I know, I messed up that post!) and on Severus Snape and Regulus Black. (I also like Phineas Nigellus, a product of his era, who accepts Snape's correction after he calls Hermione a "Mudblood," but I realize that not everyone finds him entertaining.) On a sidenote, I always thought of Delores Umbridge as a Slytherin wannabe rather than a true Slytherin, just as she never becomes an actual Death Eater despite her prejudices, preferring to exercise power through legislation and pamphlets. (A real-world anaolgy for the DH version of Umbridge would be a Jewish or half-Jewish supporter of the Nazis, a turncoat who falsifies her family tree because she doesn't want her origins known.) Her cardigan and hair bows and Alice bands strike me as Muggle-ish. Maybe she's a Half-Blood who got into Slytherin based on cunning and ambition, or maybe she's a Muggle-born who altered her family tree and is lying about her connection with the Selwyns. Still, we twice see a Death Eater named Selwyn (prresumably a pure-blood or she wouldn't brag about the connection), so maybe she really is related to him. Maybe he procured Mad-Eye's magical eye for her at her request. Just tossing out thoughts and impressions here. Please don't flame me. Carol, who thinks that eliminating the DEs is the first step toward Slytherin's reformation, along with giving it some heroes on the "good" side, and rooting out the pure-blood supremacy ethic is the second step, already begun as of the epilogue but not complete From ckc at rochester.rr.com Fri Aug 10 17:38:57 2007 From: ckc at rochester.rr.com (CK Campbell) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:38:57 -0400 Subject: Sorting hat/houses Message-ID: <006b01c7db75$5461f170$6501a8c0@CKC> No: HPFGUIDX 175064 I've been wondering about the sorting hat and Dumbledore's comment to Snape that perhaps they sort too soon. I *think* what Dumbledore was saying was that Snape might have made a good Gryffindor as well -- just as the sorting hat thought that Harry would make a decent Slytherin but took his preference and put him in Gryffindor. Surely, there are many children sorted into one house when they could have done a fine job in other houses. What if they just don't work out in that house? Is it possible, do you think, for the student to change houses? Or are you stuck where the sorting hat has put you? I'd like to think that Dumbledore would recognize that people change, and that despite the hat's initial reading of that student, another house might be more suitable. And what of parental influence? What if Draco had been placed in Hufflepuff? Would his parents have been able to get him shifted over to Slytherin? And here's another question -- and because I can't find my first book I can't check this out for myself and have only the memory from that other medium -- does the sorting hat speak aloud? or does it speak only in the minds of the students who wear it? Carolyn From tenne at redshift.bc.ca Fri Aug 10 20:06:00 2007 From: tenne at redshift.bc.ca (Tenne) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:06:00 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Good and Bad Slytherins References: Message-ID: <000f01c7db89$df9ba330$797ba8c0@terrilaptop> No: HPFGUIDX 175065 Sherry Bailey says: > Slytherins. Never forget that HARRY almost got sorted to Slytherin! > So HE would have been a "good Slytherin" if he hadn't been biased > against that house by Ron on the train, and begged the Hat not to > put him there. (Heck, maybe he'd have led a Slytherin reform > movement!) Is it canon that Harry would have been sorted into Slytherin? I remember it that he said he didn't want to go to Slytherin before the hat said he was being sorted there. As well, Hermione said that the hat considered her for Ravenclaw before putting her into Gryffindor. DD told Harry he was a true heir to Gryffindor because he could pull the sword from the hat. Would the sorting hat put a true heir to Gryffindor into Slytherin? Terri From urghiggi at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 21:23:58 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:23:58 -0000 Subject: The picture of Lily and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175066 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > > Katie, hoping Snape wasn't all creepy, selfish, and obsessive in his > last moments of life. > Julie: Well, I hope that too. I'd like to read it like that, believe me. But (as you said) you can't make a case for it from canon. (I'd in fact argue that that incessant drumbeat about Harry having 'exactly' Lily's eyes argues against that interp, in that it leads the reader to believe Snape would look at Harry and SEE Lily.) Does Snape even really see Harry in his last moments? Or does he see (or is he trying to see) Lily? No way of knowing, so you're free to go where you'd like. For sure the former would be a lot less 'ick' than the latter. Whoever wrote that maybe he'd be Snape'd be hoping for/receiving comfort and/or forgiveness from Harry -- Snape might hope for that, but I don't think Harry could possibly have given it at that point. Hadn't seen the memories yet. As far as he knew, Snape was still DD's murderer, and public enemy #2... Juile H, chicago From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 21:20:58 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:20:58 -0000 Subject: Sorting hat/houses In-Reply-To: <006b01c7db75$5461f170$6501a8c0@CKC> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175067 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "CK Campbell" wrote: > > And here's another question -- and because I can't find my first book I > can't check this out for myself and have only the memory from that other > medium -- does the sorting hat speak aloud? or does it speak only in the > minds of the students who wear it? > > Carolyn > Lisa: If I recall correctly, the Sorting Hat only speaks the name of the House aloud (and sings its song as well). I understood that no one else could hear the Hat considering Slytherin for Harry; I figured it was heard only by Harry himself. And Hermione said that the Hat considered putting her in Ravenclaw -- and since Harry & Ron didn't know that, presumably only she heard it, as well. Lisa From ken.fruit at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 21:57:37 2007 From: ken.fruit at gmail.com (rt11guru) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:57:37 -0000 Subject: Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175068 > > guzu wrote: > It's not "any particular skill"-- it's battling a violently insane > murderer. I don't believe it is offensive to assume a housewife > does not have the skills of a trained warrior or assassin; nor > offensive to assume Molly in particular has no experience dueling or > using real violence at all. > guru: Don't forget, Molly was a member of the Order. They thought enough of her capabilities to put her in the rotation guarding the prophecy. guru From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 22:10:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:10:23 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175069 Alla wrote: > > This is my interpretation as well. Moreover, I think that Snape only did not care about Lily being Muggle-born, I think he already had contempt towards the Muggles in general at that tender age, yes. > > Doesn't he call Petunia just a muggle? I only reread the book once, so may be wrong. > > I think this contempt, if existed, played a very important part as to why Snape ended up in Slytherin. I mean, he wanted too, but his views I think played a role IMO. Carol responds: "Just a Muggle" is different from "just a Muggleborn." I won't repeat va32's arguments, which I agree with, but i think that Severus saw Lily as a witch (and a companion and friend, someone like him in his horrible Muggle neighborhood). He had good reason to hate Muggles given his experience with his father. (As for how he learned all those hexes, and perhaps developed an aptitude for Potions, it must have been when his father wasn't around. Almost certainly he's been taught at home like the Weasleys. I can't see him going to a Muggle school unless that's how he learned enough Latin to name his own spells.) I think that Lucius Malfoy's welcoming attitude toward him,which must have developed into something more when he realized what a prodigy the little boy was, is the basis for his lifelong friendship or affection for the Malfoys, his willingness to risk life and soul for Draco as a grown man, and for Sirius Black's sneer, "Lucius Malfoy's lapdog" in OoP, which can only refer to Prefect Lucius's fondness for a boy five years his junior. "Snivellus," too, turns out to be an unearned insult.) I agree with va32 that, never having had a loving home, that he adopted the values of his housemates (with the exception that he never applied them to Lily until his much-regretted moment of anguish and humiliation). Canon says that he thought a Muggle-born could get into Slytherin and that he thought it was a House for brains, not brawn. He cannot have acquired that view from his Muggle father. It must have been taught him by his mother, who was taught by Slughorn and was a classmate of the brilliant and charming Tom Riddle, judging by her Potions book. What else is little Severus, whose acquaintance with pure-blood wizards seems restricted to his mother (his grandparents having, apparently, written her off the family tree since there's no reference to them), supposed to think? He's a Half-Blood, his own mother married a Muggle. Why would he be prejudiced against Muggle-borns? Non-magical, brutal, nasty Muggles, whom his mother can't hex without being thrown into Azkaban like Percival Dumbledore, but why Muggle-borns? Prejudice is learned, and he hasn't been reared in Malfoy Manor (or even 12 GP) among snobs. Albus Dumbledore started out with a much greater prejudice against Muggles than Severus Snape did. They had permanently incapacitated his sister (not unlike the Lestranges Crucioing the Longbottoms into insanity, only this is an attack by children on a child) and his father had been sent to Azkaban for punishing them. Albus, Sorted into Gryffindor, came to believe that Wizards should rule Muggles for the greater good. (How he felt about Muggle-borns is unclear; possibly, like little Severus, he just distinguished between Muggles and Wizards--us and them.) At any rate, canon tells us that he thought that Lily could join him in Slytherin, which he doesn't seem to associate with prejudice or Dark magic or with brains. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think we should go with what we have. On another note, since we still have a quota, I want to bring in the reasons why I think that Harry identifies with young Severus, as shown by the "abandoned boys" reference. He, too, has been raised by unloving Muggles, one of them the "Tuney" of Harry's memory, whom he perhaps also learns to understand though it's far less important than his understanding and forgiveness of Snape. Tobias Snape appears to be even more brutal and unloving than Uncle Vernon, and at least Vernon and Petunia love each other and never fight. There's no love, or little love, in the Snape household that we can see. Harry, too, has had to wear ridiculous hand-me-down clothes which the other kids make fun of. Compare his overlarge jeans and sweatshirts to Severus's smock (where in the world did that come from? Another century?). The neglect and abuse Severus suffers is even worse than his own. Severus Snape, as someone astutely pointed out, is giving Harry his mother. Till now, he's only had glimpses of her, never known her as she was, and Severus did--and loved her till the end of his days. Not desired her but loved and valued her long before James Potter (who wants the attractive "Evans" to appreciate his Quidditch and hexing skills ever did). Harry sees that Snape was right about James, no hero even to Lily after the so-called Prank but still a bullying "toerag." (Poor James is even robbed of his moment of heroism in fighting Voldemort!) He and Sirius had no better reason to hate Severus thatn "because he exists"--or rather, because he expressed a desire to be in Slytherin. And then, of course, there's the remorse and the progress from only caring about Lily to protecting Harry without wanting Harry to know (does he understand now why Snape tried to prevent him from going to Hogsmead, for example?) to being horrified that DD would send Harry to his death and understanding that Snape tried to heal DD and didn't want to kill him. Harry has heard DD tell him that he was saved by Snape's "timely action," but here he sees it happening. The argument in the forest, hinted at and misinterpreted before, sheds new light on what happened on the tower. But it isn't just having his perception cleared. Here again he can identify with Snape. Snape's words about DD using him echo Harry's earlier in the book. Both of them feel like Dumbledore's puppets. And both of them choose to do Dumbledore's will. Snape could have walked away. He could have returned to the Death Eaters. Instead, he obeys DD's last request and continues to work with him even after his death. How can Harry *not* identify with this man who is so like him in so many ways? How can he not forgive the man who loved his mother and spent his life in suffering atonement for his role in her death? How can he not see the change from not caring about Harry to protecting Harry for Lily to protecting and helping him even after he "knows" that Harry has to die? How can he not be appalled at Snape's death and want to make his last act matter? Or rather, once he knows that he is not going to die himself, make Snape's love and loyalty publicly known as a means of compensating for that terrible death? I see nothing wrong, BTW, with Snape's wanting to see Lily's eyes before he leaves this life. If I could, I'd want to see the eyes of my dead daughter whom I loved above all else before I passed into the next world. I'd want her to meet me there, and maybe that's what Snape is hoping for, that Lily will meet him and extend the hand of forgiveness and eternal friendship. We don't know what was in his mind, only that his last request was to look into Harry's eyes, where, rightly or wrongly, he had never seen anything but lies and insolence and Jamesian arrogance, in HBP his own Potions book rising to the surface of Harry's mind as Harry lied to him, and, later, curses that Harry intended to cast against him, visible to Snape before he spoke them because Harry had never learned Occlumency. But I think we should also consider what Dumbledore told Snape regarding Harry when Snape says that Harry is "his father over again": "In looks, perhaps, but his deepest nature is much more like his mother's" (684). Harry (like sirius Black) has never seen Harry as himself, only as James. And he has never seen Lily in him despite the green eyes. Maybe, understanding that Harry would have to sacrifice himself as his mother had done, and seeing Harry catching the memories instead of gloating or finishing him off, Snape realized at last that Harry was not James. Maybe what he saw, and wanted to see, with his last sight was Harry's "deepest nature," his mother alive in him as she lived also in Snape, through his Patronus. Carol, wishing she had time to go through all the books for Harry/Snape parallels to show Snape representing the tragic vision while Harry represents the "comic" or optimistic worldview which triumphs in the end From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Aug 10 22:57:08 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:57:08 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175070 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "guzuguzu" wrote: > > I'm going to make one more attempt to explain argument: My opinion is > that the Molly-Bella duel scene was not well-written as it did not > ring true in the context of the books, and was written like a show > down in an action movie. Pippin: The showdown in the action movie traces back to the medieval jousts and trials by combat as romanticized in the stories of King Arthur -- and that's a tradition that we and the wizards share. Ron and Draco are both familiar with the custom of wizard duels from day one. It's no surprise to me that Ron's mum and Draco's aunt would structure their battle as a duel or that other wizards would respect it and stand aside. As Arthur said, when wizards get together, they just can't resist a chance to show off. (And I bet that tent with the peacocks belonged to the Malfoys, too.) One could argue that Bella, although trained to fight aurors, is defeated by Molly for the same reason that every so often a rank amateur at chess takes down a grand master: the amateur's tactics are so wildly unconventional that the master's experience isn't much use. But at the core of historic chivalry was the assumption that God would defend the right -- an assumption which may strike the atheist as nonsense and the agnostic as wildly arrogant, but one which JKR, as subcreator of her world, is in a position to illustrate with relish. Though no Gryffindor ever articulates this belief, it is kin to Dumbledore's description of love as the supreme power, and his assertion that Voldemort will be stopped provided there is someone willing to fight a losing battle. If Bella understood all this she might not have dared to attack Molly, but then she wouldn't have been a Death Eater either. Still, Bella's defeat is not a complete deus ex machina. I love it that Bella's undoing is the same weakness that felled Sirius. She underestimated her inferiors once too often. Pippin "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong -- but that's the way to bet" --Damon Runyon From guzuguzu at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 23:11:10 2007 From: guzuguzu at yahoo.com (guzuguzu) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:11:10 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175071 Lisa wrote: > Personally, I would have graciously accepted one if there had been > one. All I saw was a *snide "apology" for not proclaiming "Molly's > awesomeness." Did I miss something? I didn't see any apology for > offending so many -- but then, my past is behind me and I'm just a > housewife now, so I'm thinking I could've missed it. My apology is towards the end of message 174935 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174935). Here it is again: >guzu: >I am sorry that the way I wrote my argument led you to taking the >opposite meaning from my intention. As a former stay-at-home mother, >I think my current employers would also take issue with that. I apologized that my phrasing of my opinion caused problems. I am not going to apologize for having my opinion on Molly and DH, nor for expressing it. I stand by it. Your self-deprecating comment above, the one that starts off "but then, my past..." is exactly the type of sarcastic phrasing that you said was so offensive to you in my posts. and Lisa also wrote: > Based on my own career experience, I have strong > opinions of the majority of individuals I've come across in one > particular profession, but I'm not about to use such an opinion in > the company of such a wide variety of posters, because I'd be SURE > to offend SOMEBODY ... and also because I know that there are > exceptions to the rule, as well. guzu: No matter what or where, there is no way to be sure that you are not going to offend somebody. My comments were in relation to fictional characters and the way an author wrote a scene, so I did not foresee they would be taken so personally by some. guzu, writing from the planet Ork From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 23:20:43 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:20:43 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175072 Magpie wrote: Sirius was born into a Slytherin, Pureblood supremist family, but by 11 was already showing by his choices he was a different person. Carol responds: Sirius chose to be in Gryffindor to be with his new friend, James, who hated Slytherin. And both of them turned up their noses at Severus's choice to be in the house that he thought stood for "brains, not brawn," labeling him as "Snivelllus" for no other reason than that he saw Slytherin as a place that would accept a Muggleborn and honor intellect. (If James knew differently, perhaps he ought to have said so. And Sirius, who doesn't even know Severus, accuses him of having neither brains nor brawn, the pot calling the kettle Black.) We're looking at children's prejudices and mutural ignorance here, not a choice based on principle or a rejection of pure-blood superiority or the Dark Arts. Even James's choice is presumably based on his father's having been in Gryffindor, just as Severus's choice of Slytherin seems to be based on his mother's placement there. Had Sirius not met the less than loveable James Potter and wanted James to view him as "all right," he would probably have ended up in Slytherin like the rest of his family. there's nothing to indicate that he thinks it's a Dark or prejuciced House. And do we ever hear Sirius expressing his views on Muggle-borns vs. pure-bloods? I don't recall it. He certainly doesn't care about the rights of house-elves. Carol, who sees nothing relating to principle in Sirius's choice of Gryffindor and nothing to admire in the choice From va32h at comcast.net Fri Aug 10 23:30:03 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:30:03 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175073 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "guzuguzu" wrote: > > > > I'm going to make one more attempt to explain argument: My opinion is > > that the Molly-Bella duel scene was not well-written as it did not > > ring true in the context of the books, and was written like a show > > down in an action movie. va32h: guzu, I understand your argument. I just don't agree with it, and thus we are at an impasse. Your entire argument boils down to: "This scenario is not believable because I personally don't believe it." Well, several of us do find it believable, and your saying we shouldn't doesn't make a difference. It reminds me of a petty argument I often have with my spouse. I will turn down the thermostat because I am hot. He will turn it back up and say "it's not hot." We are both right. 79 degrees is just right for him and too hot for me. And we can fuss at each other all day, but his saying "it's not hot" doesn't make me feel one degree cooler. This scene doesn't ring true to you. We get it. It does ring true to me. And we can fuss at each other onlist all we want, but no matter how many times you say "it's not believable", I'm still going to find it believable. va32h From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 10 23:34:13 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:34:13 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Second Call for DH Chapter Discussion Leaders! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175074 Greetings once more from Hexquarters! We're back, with a second call for volunteers to lead chapter discussions of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows!! We're getting ready to get things started, with Ceridwen leading us off on August 20 with The Dark Lord Ascending, and we will try to do a new chapter summary every two weeks until we finish DH. We have volunteers who've snatched up 10 of the chapters so far. But there are 36 chapters and an epilogue in DH, so we're hoping many more of you will step up, Hermione-like, with hands a-waving, and say, "Me! Me! Pick me!" I've you're ready to volunteer (or want to ask some questions), please send a note to HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com (minus that extra space). If you know which chapter(s) you'd like, or what time frame would work best for you, please indicate that in your email. If you're not particular about any of that, we would of course welcome more general "Sign me up!" messages as well. If you would like to read a little more about how this works, you can go to: http://tinyurl.com/26d476 (and scroll to HP_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_Chapter_Discussion_Instructions) to read the instructions. If you are interested in seeing some examples of past chapter discussions for OotP or HBP, you can find the listings of relevant post numbers here: http://tinyurl.com/ysmxxj [OotP] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database and scroll to "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" [HBP] You can find the schedule for the DH chapter discussions (including whether a chapter is still unassigned) by going to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database and scrolling to "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions." Tip: you can view the entire schedule by clicking "Printable Report." Shorty Elf, for the HPfGU List Admin Team Reminder: Please do not post questions arising from this ADMIN onlist. Email the List Elves offlist at HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com (minus that extra space) instead. Thank you. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 23:41:03 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:41:03 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175075 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Magpie wrote: > Sirius was born into a Slytherin, Pureblood supremist family, > but by 11 was already showing by his choices he was a different > person. > > Carol responds: > Sirius chose to be in Gryffindor to be with his new friend, James, who > hated Slytherin. And both of them turned up their noses at Severus's > choice to be in the house that he thought stood for "brains, not > brawn," labeling him as "Snivelllus" for no other reason than that he > saw Slytherin as a place that would accept a Muggleborn and honor > intellect. (If James knew differently, perhaps he ought to have said > so. And Sirius, who doesn't even know Severus, accuses him of having > neither brains nor brawn, the pot calling the kettle Black.) We're > looking at children's prejudices and mutural ignorance here, not a > choice based on principle or a rejection of pure-blood superiority or > the Dark Arts. Even James's choice is presumably based on his father's > having been in Gryffindor, just as Severus's choice of Slytherin seems > to be based on his mother's placement there. > > Had Sirius not met the less than loveable James Potter and wanted > James to view him as "all right," he would probably have ended up in > Slytherin like the rest of his family. there's nothing to indicate > that he thinks it's a Dark or prejuciced House. And do we ever hear > Sirius expressing his views on Muggle-borns vs. pure-bloods? I don't > recall it. He certainly doesn't care about the rights of house-elves. > > Carol, who sees nothing relating to principle in Sirius's choice of > Gryffindor and nothing to admire in the choice > Prep0strus: It seems a lot to ask that if James knew differently, he say so... in the one of a very few scenes we see from Snape's perspective. Now, we know James became a bit of a bully, but it's absurd to think that that was all there was too it. In a few years, Lily would come to accuse Snape of wanting to join up with Voldemorte with his friends. Clearly, there were forces about in the world - Voldy might not have been at his height, but he was out there, spewing his filth, and his followers were Slytherins. There is no way that that pureblooded families wouldn't have known what was going on. That means that James, in a Griffendor family, would be coming into school with an anti-Slytherin mentality (as Snape was coming in with an anti-griffindor mentality, already thinking of them as dumb jocks) but also with the knowledge that there was evil in the world being done by Slytherins. And Sirius? Well, Sirius would be at home listening to his dark-supporting family probably PRAISING the actions of voldemorte and cronies, and certainly talking down muggleborns, muggles, and griffendors - a person who was the first in his family to buck a tradition of rivalry. In order to even be open to James as a friend, I think there has to be a lot more to him - a lot more good and righteousness. And Sirius was a member of the Order of the Phoenix. Before being framed, before years in Azkaban. He was on the side that fought against prejudice, against hatred. Before voldy came out as truly evil, his group would have been one of racial superiority. Of intense interest in the dark arts. And a Slytherin boys club. And Sirius DID revolt against that. Going against everything he would have heard in his family for 11 years, he chooses something different. And what's more, he sticks with it - he isn't tempted away by the dark arts and a distaste of muggleborns. He doesn't ignore the cause and do his own thing either. He takes up the good fight. Which was likely partially due to the influence of James and Lupin, but that only makes me respect James more. Whatever people may think of the Marauders as kids, they grew up to be good men who not only didn't stray towards evil, they actively fought it. I find it difficult to believe that Sirius going against generations of tradition and indoctrination by his family was 'whim' or that James would be utterly ignorant of what was going on in the world in regards to Voldy and his followers. In a few years those boys that James and Sirius disdained would be full fledged death eaters - killers, torturers. And he and Sirius would be dying and being imprisoned for their fight against them. JKR likes to show us a little of the good in evil people, and a little of the failings of good people, but I don't think we should forget who is who. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 00:27:45 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 00:27:45 -0000 Subject: Disappointment and Responsibility (was Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175076 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > lizzyben: > > > > I never read a Christian message into the text, and am not a > > practicing Christian. I don't care if the books have a Christian, > > pagan, atheist or Hindu theme, as long as there is some type of > > coherent theme in the novels. And that's what I find lacking. So, > > I'm not disappointed by the lack of a Christian theme, but the lack > > of any coherent theme. > > Pippin: > I think the theme is stated all over the place. It's choosing what to > believe, specifically, whether to believe, as Dumbledore did, that > one can " find something to value in anyone, however > apparently insignificant or wretched" (ch 2). Kingsley put it > another way in his broadcast: "Every human life is worth the > same, and worth saving." (ch 22) lizzyben: I actually thought about Kingley's statement, with a sigh, after finishing the novel. Because this is a clear case where the superficial message goes against the actual message of the novels. It's very clear that every life does *not* have the same worth in the Potterverse, and this is my main objection to the House sorting. JKR herself says that she hopes she would be "worthy" enough to be in Gryfindor, meaning that Gryfs are superior to people in other houses, w/Slytherins as the "unworthy." Are we really asked to find something to value in Pansy Parkinson, Crabbe, Yaxley, etc? No. People are trying really, really hard to find an admirable Slyth, but I think that's going against the canon as JKR has written it. You've stated earlier that Slytherin is supposed to represent the "less noble" human qualities - envy, cunning, etc. and Lupinlore basically says that Slyths are the "bad guys" of society. I agree that that's the message - I just totally disagree w/it because it does seem to value some lives as more worthy than others. It also carries with it the implicit contention that this worthy elect have a "right to rule" over everyone else because of their superior virtue. As another poster said, that's pretty much a prescription for dictatorship. Pippin: > Did Harry know this all along? I don't think so -- didn't he say, > back in PS/SS that Neville was worth ten of Malfoy because Neville > was a Gryffindor and Malfoy was in "stinking Slytherin" ? And yet > at the end of it all he says this "It doesn't matter to us. But if it > matters to you, you'll be able to choose Gryffindor over Slytherin." > > Sounds like rather a major shift in Harry's thinking. Of course > we're not told how it happened, um except for Harry getting to > walk a mile in Snape's black boots in HBP, masquerading as the > Halfblood Prince, trying to find proof that his classmates are > messing with something way over their heads, and nearly getting > expelled for it, being accused of messing with Dark Magic, > thinking his best friend will drop him if he finds out who Harry > fancies, etc. lizzyben: It's nice that Harry tells his child that it's OK to be in Slytherin, but even that message is subverted when he also tells (encourages?) his child to select a different house. Meanwhile, Ron taunts his kids about the House, and James Jr. teases Albus about ending up there. If anything, prejudice against the house is even stronger than when Harry went to school. Albus Severus's worst nightmare is being sorted there. Ending up in Slytherin house is like being damned, and maybe it is. > Lizzyben: > > > > No, what really broke the novel for me wasn't the lack of Snapey-poo > > or Draco, but the lack of any example of a good, or even decent > > Slytherin > > Pippin: > Must we define good and decent, or brave and trustworthy, > in Gryffindor terms? If good and decent means rushing headlong into > battle with no idea what you're going to do except hit the enemy with > everything you've got -- well, that's not the Slytherin way. > > > But as Harry discovered, there are other kinds of bravery. lizzyben: I don't, probably you don't, but the books do. "Gryfindor" traits *are better* than the traits of the other houses. Snape is viewed a small exception to the general rule of Slytherins solely because he exhibits a Gryfindor trait - bravery. He's not lauded for his cunning, ambition, etc. Or his intelligence or loyalty, for that matter. In this world, Gryfindor traits are the yardstick upon which everyone is measured. Pippin: > Now, I may be way off course here, but consider the facts. > The legend of the wand that must pass by conquest was widely known. > Voldemort and Snape seem to have discussed it. > Snape could, in other words, have tried to get Voldemort to spare him, > at the cost of setting Voldemort on a few more innocent lives. > > But he didn't. > > He may not have shown remorse for all his failings, but he did > show true repentance for one of them-- he faced the same temptation > he had faced when he gave the prophecy to Voldemort, and this time he > passed it by. > > Choose to believe, or not. lizzyben: Honestly, I can't even keep track of the Elder Wand thing enough to know or care if Snape made some sort of voluntary great sacrifice by not fighting back. The various wand-ownerships become so confusing that it's not even clear what DD's plan for the wand actually was. So, I'd say that if that (lack of) action is meant to show Snape's repentance, it was not clearly done. Pippin: > As to the other Slytherins... > > Voldemort claims that the Slytherins who left the school joined him. > > But he is a notorious liar. > > In fact, we don't see *any* of the Slytherin students doing his bidding > Draco is acting quite on his own. > We don't know whether the Slytherins left in order to > join him, or whether they left to keep their families from being used as > hostages, as Voldemort used Neville's grandmother. > > Some of them might even have had sneaky plans, ala Regulus. They > might have even come back with Slughorn, polyjuiced or in disguise. lizzyben: Well, you can get creative w/alternate scenarios, but JKR *never* presents us w/any evidence that any of this is true, and never presents anything that contradicts LV's statement. At the same time, she purposely draws attention to the empty Slyth table, & Pansy's betrayal. JKR makes the message pretty clear. Pippin: > JKR doesn't tell us. Once we had to choose whether to believe with no > certain evidence that Dumbledore was right to trust Snape, > Now we have to choose to believe that we can "find something to > value in anyone, no matter how *apparently* (emphasis mine) > insignificant or wretched." Or not. lizzyben: This is a bit off-topic, but what was with the crying child in the King's Cross station? I mean, I get it was supposed to be Voldemort, but still. The description is heart-breaking: "A small naked child curled on the ground, its skin rough & raw, lay shuddering on a seat where it had been left, unwanted, stuffed out of sight, shuddering for breath." Harry wants to comfort this wretched suffering child, but DD keeps telling him "you cannot help," and tells him to ignore the child's pain. The creature keeps whimpering & trembling, but as DD rambles on, eventually the creature's whimpers don't disturb Harry anymore. He's followed DD's orders and restrained his natural empathy for any suffering person. He's tuned out the pain. Now, what does this say about DD's ability to see value in *anyone*, no matter how wretched or insignificant? I can't get over that image of DD & Harry chatting conversationally while a wounded, suffering, unwanted child cries for help. And DD tells Harry that there's no way to help. Based on the description of this being, I first thought, not of LV, but of Snape - the whimpers sounded like the earlier description of Snape whimpering like a wounded animal. The "unwanted, unloved," sounded like Snape's childhood. "Struggling for breath" sounded like how Snape struggled to breathe in SWM, how he struggled to breathe after Lily's death. "Stuffed out of sight" sounded like the description of Snape as "a plant that has been kept too long in the dark." When they talk about Snape's death ("that bit didn't work out"), the creature jerks and moans. And DD ignores its agony. This broke my heart, for real. To me, it seemed like a damned soul, and DD telling Harry not to help is the Calvinist position that we *can't* help. Salvation or damnation has already been pre-destined. And that wretched creature also reminded me of Merope, and the elves, and the goblins, and all the beings that are "stuffed out of sight" in this horrid society. If the wizards are going to maintain their superiority and their comfort, they're going to have to learn to ignore the suffering they cause. DD does - and eventually Harry does as well. This allows him to return to his natural position in the elect of the Wizarding World, w/o needing to focus on these oppressed & unwanted beings anymore. Thus the saccharine empty happy ending. Pippin: > JKR doesn't make it easy for us, because in RL it's not easy. There are > always going to be occasions when people *apparently* fit the labels > and stereotypes. And there are genuine, deeply felt differences between > cultures that are not going to be wiped away by everybody standing > in a circle singing the WW equivalent of Kumbayah. lizzyben: No, she makes it very, very easy for us. Some people are worthy of our sympathy & admiration, and some are not. And we can easily distinguish them based on house. Readers have cheerfully subverted this message to adopt Snape, Draco & Slytherin House, but JKR was never very happy about that. Slytherins are meant to be the unworthy, the "other", possibly even the damned. Pippin: We should take heart, > JKR seems to be saying, from brief glimpses of how things could be: the > chastened wizard, Fudge, led forward by the goblin and the house elf at > the end of OOP. Or the moment in DH when "nobody was sitting according > to House anymore." Including Draco Malfoy. > > Pippin > lizzyben: No one was sitting according to House anymore because there weren't any Slytherins left! The only Slyths were the Malfoy family, who remained huddled in a corner. So, the message is that House unity is possible as long as Slyths are purged from the school - that's *not* a positive message about Slytherin. No, much as we try (and believe me, I've tried) JKR's message about Slytherin House is clear & unavoidable. They are the unworthy, the bad guys, the villains, who have been assigned every negative quality you can think of in order to fulfill that role. It does go against common sense to think that 25% of the population is just bad, horrible, & unredeemable, but that's the world we've been presented in canon. lizzyben From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 01:07:22 2007 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:07:22 -0000 Subject: Filk: "Fire and Pain " for Snape Fans Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175078 Here is a new filk for the Snape Fans in the list: Fire And Pain Words by Randy Estes To the tune of "Fire and Rain" by James Taylor Just yesterday morning they let me know he was gone Susanne the plans Jo made put an end to him I walked out this morning and I wrote down this song I just can't remember how the thing should end Snape cast fire and he's felt pain Those Death Eater days that he thought would never end He's seen lonely times when he could not find a friend But he always thought that he'd see her again Won't you look down upon him, Albus You've got to help him make a stand You've just got to see him through another year Your body's aching and what's gone wrong with your hand Don't tell the Order his patronus is a dear Oh, Snape cast fire and he's felt pain Those Death Eater days that he thought would never end He's seen lonely times when he could not find a friend But he always thought that he'd see her again Been blocking his mind from Voldemort's kind with his help turned towards her son Dark Lord knows when your mind he controls; he can turn your head around Well, there's so many times he saved Potter's behind cause Albus says he's the one Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground Oh, he's cast fire and he's felt pain Those Death Eater days that he thought would never end He's seen lonely times when he could not find a friend But we always thought that we'd see you, Snapey, one more time again, now Thought we'd see you one more time again There's just a few things JKR missed this time around, now Thought we'd see you, thought we'd see you fire and pain, now From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 01:14:36 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:14:36 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175079 guzuguzu: guzuguzu: My apology is towards the end of message 174935 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174935). Here it is again: >guzu: >I am sorry that the way I wrote my argument led you to taking the >opposite meaning from my intention. As a former stay-at-home mother, >I think my current employers would also take issue with that. I apologized that my phrasing of my opinion caused problems. Lisa: An apology that boils down to "sorry you misunderstood" is equal to no apology at all. Is it really that hard for you to simply say "Oh, I'm so sorry I offended anyone; I certainly never meant to do so?" You see, once you were informed that people were offended, instead of apologizing in any way, you began your next post with, "At the risk of offending you again ... ." You've really said nothing that makes me believe that you were sorry you offended anyone -- just that you were sorry we misunderstood your intentions. Do you really wonder why anyone continues to be offended by you? guzuguzu: Your self-deprecating comment above, the one that starts off "but then, my past..." is exactly the type of sarcastic phrasing that you said was so offensive to you in my posts. Lisa: Glad you caught that. Oh, and va32h -- 79 degrees indoors IS far too hot. You're right, hubby is wrong, end of petty argument! ;0) Lisa From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 01:28:06 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:28:06 -0000 Subject: Child at Kings Cross (was:Disappointment and Responsibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175080 > lizzyben: > > This is a bit off-topic, but what was with the crying child in the > King's Cross station? I mean, I get it was supposed to be Voldemort, > but still. marion11111: I didn't catch this until my second read-through, but when Harry wakes up in the Forest after the Kings Cross scene it appears that Voldemort has also been unconscious. He is getting up from the ground, his supporters hurrying around whispering except for Bella saying "my Lord" and offering assistance. (pg 724-725 US edition) It seems to me that with their blood connection or whatever they have, they have possibly both been to Kings Cross. Since Harry still has his entire soul, he's perfect with all wounds healed and 20/20 vision. Voldemort is down to two eighths of his soul and is a small sickly miserable child. >lizzyben: > > Now, what does this > say about DD's ability to see value in *anyone*, no matter how > wretched or insignificant? I can't get over that image of DD & Harry > chatting conversationally while a wounded, suffering, unwanted child > cries for help. And DD tells Harry that there's no way to help. > (SNIPPED) DD ignores its agony. marion11111: Well, agreed. We don't get a very pretty picture of Dumbledore in this book. Although, if Voldemort used up most of his own soul, perhaps there is nothing to be done. Of course, Harry does try in the final duel. (pg 741 US edition) He tells Voldemort that he's seen what he will become - I assume he means that miserable child - and suggests he try for a little remorse. I wonder, if that child was Voldemort in the afterlife, would he have just stayed under that bench in the train station for eternity? From ladymela99 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 01:53:04 2007 From: ladymela99 at yahoo.com (Melanie) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <953416.29224.qm@web30012.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175081 guru wrote:Don't forget, Molly was a member of the Order. They thought enough of her capabilities to put her in the rotation guarding the prophecy. Melanie: Oh come on you really think that is a logical answer? I mean the Order needed people very badily they were having trouble recruiting people especially before Voldemort came back. Do you really think they would have turned anyone down who wanted to help? I very seriously doubt it. However, I am not one who actually believes that Molly was not a talented witch. However, I do not believe that it was an Avada Kedavra that killed Bellatrix, it must have been another spell. ~Melanie --------------------------------- Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 02:03:22 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:03:22 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46BD18EA.9060803@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175082 Hoo, boy, I must be an absolute lunatic to jump into the middle of THIS conflagration. But what's life without a little adventure :-) First, I will note that I lack the proper -- umm -- "packaging" to ever be a housewife, so I'll not be touching THAT debate with a mile-long pole. Second, at risk of annoying BOTH sides in this little discussion, I'm going to go out on a limb and say everybody's got a point. I do note, for one thing, that initially a few students DID try to help, but Molly explicitly waved them off ("No, get back! Get BACK! She is mine!"), and the fact that she and Bella were hardly dancing a slow waltz certainly explains at the least a certain hesitancy of the onlookers to get involved. We're told Harry, wanting to help, was "unable to be sure he wouldn't hit the innocent" (though what happened to all those Shield Charms he had be throwing around, I'm at a loss to explain). As to our precipitous discovery of Molly's dueling skills, I guess that doesn't bother me too much. JKR indisputably -- and most pronouncedly in DH -- displays a penchant for ad hoc plot devices, so Molly's sudden discovery of dueling mastery where none had previously existed would be in character with the author's tendencies on the one hand. But on the other, this *particular* plot device (and I *do* think it was a plot device) doesn't strike me as too inorganic. Molly always seemed to me to be a bit of a bubbling cauldron on the verge of exploding -- the flash of anger in the eyes, papered over with a sweet motherly voice; you always knew you crossing her -- *particularly* where her mothering instincts were concerned -- was playing with proverbial death. So for me the sudden revelation of her fighting skills felt more like a pleasant surprise -- a secret waiting to be trotted out at the most dramatic moment -- than an OOC moment. On the other hand, that whole "hundreds of people lined the walls, watching the two fights" bit absolutely has that made-for-the-movie feel, as if somebody suddenly switched from The Action Channel to ESPN, with the two armies suddenly transmogrified from deadly enemies to circus audience, gawking and craning to see what's going on in the center ring. The whole unable-to-help rationalization would have made more sense if they were still pre-occupied with doing each other. But instead we find DEs and DAs obsessively intent on finishing each other off one second suddenly making nicey-nicey and shouting, "Hey, down in front!" the next. 'Scuse me, but I believe you're in my seat. Now, given that the whole scene was apprently written with one eye on the movie (that's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it works in the book, too), here's what I really would have liked to see: "Oh, bloody hell!", Molly muttered as she spotted Ginny in the midst of the fray. "NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!" Mrs. Weasley tossed aside her wand as she ran and, lowering her head, she charged straight at Bellatrix with all the force of a raging bull. Bellatrix spun on the spot, the laughter dying on her lips as she tried desparately to swing her wand arm around. But before she had time to do more than register a look of shock, Molly's cranium connected with her sternum. The impact sent Bellatrix's wand flying as the two combatants crashed to the floor. Now THAT'S a "You go, girl!" moment! Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From ddamian1 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 01:45:04 2007 From: ddamian1 at yahoo.com (ddamian1) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:45:04 -0000 Subject: Sorting hat/houses In-Reply-To: <006b01c7db75$5461f170$6501a8c0@CKC> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175083 Carolyn: > And here's another question -- and because I can't find my first book I > can't check this out for myself and have only the memory from that other > medium -- does the sorting hat speak aloud? or does it speak only in the > minds of the students who wear it? > I believe that the Sorting hat speaks out loud so everyone can hear it. When it pick the house for the student the rest of that house always cheered. ddamian1 From urghiggi at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 02:33:28 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:33:28 -0000 Subject: Child at Kings Cross (was:Disappointment and Responsibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175084 Marion wrote: Voldemort is down to two eighths of his soul and is a small > sickly miserable child. > snip: Although, if Voldemort used up most of his own soul, perhaps there is nothing to be done. Of course Harry does try in the final duel. (pg 741 US edition) He tells Voldemort that he's seen what he will become - I assume he means that miserable child - and suggests he try for a little remorse. > Julie added: Well, and this is interesting in light of the "Is the WW a Calvinist place" discussion. The treatment of the Slytherins as uniformly (OK, NEARLY uniformly) "bad" might bolster that idea. But this particular scene apparently does not. Because JKR implies that being stuck at the afterlife 'station' as a tortured, agonized, immobile, un-helpable child is a fate that LV could avoid, if only he could do some last-ditch soul-repair via the remorse remedy. This view of the afterlife clearly isn't Universalist (i.e. everybody gets to go on the train in the end, no matter what). But it does imply that even a guy who's the epitome of eeevvvviillll could turn things around extremely late in the game. Nevertheless, even if he believed that stuff, LV would likely prefer eternal pain on his own terms to an "out" that would require humility. Certainly after that forest knockout and Harry's miraculous resuscitation, he must've had more than an inkling that the Elder Wand wasn't gonna solve his problem, and the jig was definitely up. In fact, the whole last duel scene is a little odd, in that LV doesn't actually seem all that surprised when "dead" Harry comes alive once again, or that the Elder Wand had failed to knock him out. At the final point, with NO horcruxes left... it really almost defies belief that he'd try to kill Harry yet again, with the weapon & curse that had already miserably failed... But as has been discussed here, LV isn't written as such a smart guy.... Julie H, chicago From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Aug 11 02:30:53 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:30:53 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175085 Lisa: > guzuguzu: > > guzuguzu: > > My apology is towards the end of message 174935 > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174935). > > Here it is again: > > >guzu: > > >I am sorry that the way I wrote my argument led you to taking the > >opposite meaning from my intention. As a former stay-at-home mother, > >I think my current employers would also take issue with that. > > I apologized that my phrasing of my opinion caused problems. Lisa: > > An apology that boils down to "sorry you misunderstood" is equal to > no apology at all. Is it really that hard for you to simply say "Oh, > I'm so sorry I offended anyone; I certainly never meant to do so?" > You see, once you were informed that people were offended, instead of > apologizing in any way, you began your next post with, "At the risk > of offending you again ... ." You've really said nothing that makes > me believe that you were sorry you offended anyone -- just that you > were sorry we misunderstood your intentions. Do you really wonder > why anyone continues to be offended by you? Ceridwen: I wasn't offended the first time around. Nor the second. Nor the third. I thought the second and third apologies were unnecessary since there had been one. The thing about the internet is that it's hard to judge what a person means, because we can't see expressions and we can't hear tone of voice. The way some people express themselves in speech and in writing is often different than the way others do, and misunderstandings develop. Sometimes, it's just best to take that person's word that this is what they mean, because they know what they meant. For instance, you're coming off to me as being very rude. I'm sure you don't intend to be this way. It's just the way you phrase things, like snide asides with winks and nudges to onlookers. But, I can't take this as your meaning because I can't see your face or hear your voice. These are words on a group, and meaning may not be transmitted as intended. > guzuguzu: > > Your self-deprecating comment above, the > one that starts off "but then, my past..." is exactly the type of > sarcastic phrasing that you said was so offensive to you in my posts. > > Lisa: > > Glad you caught that. Ceridwen: I think we all did. On Molly Weasley's dueling abilities, I was surprised, not that she went after Bellatrix, given her protective nature, but that she was able to sustain a duel. The first blush of anger, fear, adrenalin rushing through the veins, is over relatively quickly in real life. This wasn't just a rush up to the DE and utter the spell, it was taking over for three younger witches in an ongoing duel. Maybe Bellatrix was reaching the end of her endurance by this point, but then, Molly had been fighting, too. I can't see her just leaning against the wall waiting for something else to happen to her brood. So, for me, Molly's reaction to the spell that nearly hit Ginny was in keeping with her personality and what we've been shown to expect. We haven't been shown anything about Molly's sustained duelling abilities, so it caught me off-guard. Ceridwen. From greatraven at hotmail.com Sat Aug 11 02:51:24 2007 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:51:24 -0000 Subject: Sorting hat/houses In-Reply-To: <006b01c7db75$5461f170$6501a8c0@CKC> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175086 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "CK Campbell" wrote: > > I've been wondering about the sorting hat and Dumbledore's comment to Snape > that perhaps they sort too soon. I *think* what Dumbledore was saying was > that Snape might have made a good Gryffindor as well -- just as the sorting > hat thought that Harry would make a decent Slytherin but took his preference > and put him in Gryffindor. > > Surely, there are many children sorted into one house when they could have > done a fine job in other houses. What if they just don't work out in that > house? Is it possible, do you think, for the student to change houses? Or > are you stuck where the sorting hat has put you? I'd like to think that > Dumbledore would recognize that people change, and that despite the hat's > initial reading of that student, another house might be more suitable. > > And what of parental influence? What if Draco had been placed in > Hufflepuff? Would his parents have been able to get him shifted over to > Slytherin? > > And here's another question -- and because I can't find my first book I > can't check this out for myself and have only the memory from that other > medium -- does the sorting hat speak aloud? or does it speak only in the > minds of the students who wear it? > > Carolyn Sue here: Very good post, Carolyn. I have just re-read the first book, and the sorting hat does take children's preferences into account. If you re- read the early scenes, Hermione says she's heard Gryffindor is the best one to be in and hopes that will be her house, though she wouldn't object to Ravenclaw as next best. Draco assumes he'll be in Slytherin and doesn't even consider any other house. And so on. It isn't just Harry. When we get to the last book, the young Snape, on the train to Hogwarts, is automatically assuming he'll be in Slytherin and hoping Lily will be sorted into the same house so they can be together. It never even occurs to him he might be in Gryffindor, though, as Dumbledore implies, he might have made a good one. (For that matter, Slughorn says several times in HBP that Lily would have made a good Slytherin due to her streak of mischief). We aren't told if anyone ever changed houses, but I suspect not, because they were put where they wanted to be. No doubt Sirius's parents were furious when he was in Gryffindor instead of Slytherin, but it was his preferences that counted, not theirs. :-) Cjeers! Sue > From greatraven at hotmail.com Sat Aug 11 02:59:30 2007 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:59:30 -0000 Subject: Sorting hat/houses In-Reply-To: <006b01c7db75$5461f170$6501a8c0@CKC> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175087 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "CK Campbell" wrote: > > I've been wondering about the sorting hat and Dumbledore's comment to Snape > that perhaps they sort too soon. I *think* what Dumbledore was saying was > that Snape might have made a good Gryffindor as well -- just as the sorting > hat thought that Harry would make a decent Slytherin but took his preference > and put him in Gryffindor. > > Surely, there are many children sorted into one house when they could have > done a fine job in other houses. What if they just don't work out in that > house? Is it possible, do you think, for the student to change houses? Or > are you stuck where the sorting hat has put you? I'd like to think that > Dumbledore would recognize that people change, and that despite the hat's > initial reading of that student, another house might be more suitable. > > And what of parental influence? What if Draco had been placed in > Hufflepuff? Would his parents have been able to get him shifted over to > Slytherin? > >> > Carolyn Sue here: Very good post, Carolyn! I have just re-read the first book and when you find yours, you will be able to confirm this: the Sorting Hat does take children's preferences into account, not just Harry's. Hermione says she hopes she'll be in Gryffindor, though she wouldn't object to Ravenclaw, so that's where she goes, despite her main trait being her brains. Sirius's parents are no doubt furious that he got sorted into Gryffindor instead of Slytherin, but it's his preferences that matter, not theirs, so parental influence probably isn't that important, otherwise they might have got him changed. (Not that they wouldn't have tried, but with Dumbledore as headmaster, it's unlikely they would have succeeded). Draco wants to be in Slytherin. The young Snape, in Book 7, automatically assumes he'll be in Slytherin, even though, as Dumbledore implies, he might have made a good Gryffindor (and been spared a lot of grief and pain, through not associating with the Death Eaters in his House). He hopes that Lily will also be sorted into Slytherin so that they can be together. For that matter, Slughorn can't understand why she wasn't in his House, with her streak of mischief! ;-) Cheers! Sue > From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 03:18:33 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:18:33 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: <46BD18EA.9060803@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175088 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > The whole unable-to-help rationalization would have made > more sense if they were still pre-occupied with doing each other. But > instead we find DEs and DAs obsessively intent on finishing each > other off one second suddenly making nicey-nicey I have an impression that all the DEs (most of them, anyway :-)) were already subdued by this time. They are described as "folding under sheer weight of numbers". We see Yaxley, Dolohov, Macnair, Greyback, Rookwood and Thicknesse being brought down. Bellatrix is even called LV's "last, best lieutenent". I may be wrong, of course :-). zanooda From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 04:11:50 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:11:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Aberforth (& and eyes/glasses) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <410215.55872.qm@web55015.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175089 Katie wrote: >One thing I wondered about was the constant description of >Aberforth's eyes and glasses as (I don't have the book on me) white >or opaque. I mean, we know JKR is obsessed with eyes, but I wondered >what the specific signifigance of his opaque eyes was. My immediate >thought when reading it was that he was blinded by his anger about >Albus's ability to change...but that might be a stretch. Any thoughts? It was Aberforth's glasses that appear opaque. I thought of white-hot anger, but I think your blinded by anger comment is right on the mark, and encompasses Aberforth's anger toward Albus over Ariana 's death, as well as Albus's secrecy and decisions for the Greater Good: "I knew my brother, Potter. He learned secrecy at our mother's knee. Secrets and lies, that's how we grew up, and Albus ... he was a natural. (p. 562 US) and "...if one young girl got neglected, what did that matter, when Albus was working for the greater good?" (p.566 US) and "How can you be sure, Potter, that my brother wasn't more interested in the greater good than in you? How can you be sure you aren't dispensable, just like my little sister?" (p.568 US) There are at least four passages regarding Aberforth's eyes and glasses that are interesting and revealing: One [Harry speaking]: "You don't understand. There isn't much time. We've got to get into the castle. Dumbledore -- I mean, your brother -- wanted us -- " The firelight made the grimy lenses of Aberforth's glasses momentarily opaque, a bright flat white, and Harry remembered the blind eyes of the giant spider, Aragog. (p.561 US) Two: [Harry] met Aberforth's gaze, which was so strikingly like his brother's: The bright blue eyes gave the same impression that they were X-raying the object of their scrutiny, and Harry thought Aberforth knew what he was thinking and despised him for it. (p. 563 US) Three: ...and [Aberforth's] eyes were briefly occluded by the firelight on the lenses of his glasses: They shone white and blind again. (p.566 US) Four: Aberforth remained fixed in his chair, gazing at Harry with the eyes that were so extraordinarily like his brother's. At last he cleared his throat, got to his feet, walked around the little table, and approached the portrait of Ariana.(p. 569) Aberforth apparently can read others better than he can read his own brother; his anger blinded him to Albus's pain and guilt over their sister's death -- pain and guilt he has either never contemplated or never acknowledged until Harry tells him of Dumbledore's reaction to the poison he drank in the cave. However, I think that that knowledge, coupled with Harry's determination to complete the task Dumbledore set for him despite the possibility he could die doing, it enables Aberforth to begin healing and gives him a new resolve to fight which we see in upcoming pages. Um...there's that concept of with knowledge comes forgiveness again... Good observation, Katie. Christy --------------------------------- Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Meliss9900 at aol.com Sat Aug 11 04:42:36 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 00:42:36 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] The spiders (Re: The Joke's on Me) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175090 In a message dated 8/10/2007 3:04:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time, justcarol67 at yahoo.com writes: <> I'm not so sure of that. In HPB he had a bit of a rude awakening to the spiders intentions when he was removing Aragog's body. He had was surprised that only Aragog's command had kept them from killing and eating him. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 11 04:44:50 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:44:50 -0000 Subject: Stephen King on Book 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175091 Stephen King wrote a very interesting review of Deathly Hallows at: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20044270_20044274_20050689,00.html Eggplant From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 04:58:44 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry enjoys causing pain? (was Re: Fly on the wall commentator) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <622568.36793.qm@web55004.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175092 Lisa: But that's just it -- it's NOT the writings of JKR. JKR had Hary unable to do the Unforgiveable Curses before because he didn't MEAN them ("You have to MEAN them, Potter!"), not because he "never had it in him." Once he MEANT them, he could do them. Some see that as an inconsistency in canon -- but not I. colebiancardi: >OotP US hardcover edition p 843 >DD speaking >"He did not know that you have 'power the Dark Lord knows not' --" >"But I don't!" said Harry in a strangled voice. "I haven't any >powers he hasn't got, I couldn't fight the way he did tonight, I can't >possess people or -- or kill them --" >earlier in the book: >p 810 >Bellatrix: >"Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy?" she yelled. >She had abandoned her baby voice now. "You need to mean them, >Potter! You need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy it - >righteous anger won't hurt me for long" >So, based on OotP, JKR's writings WERE pointing, imho, to the fact >that Harry would never, ever cast an Unforgivable Curse because *he >didn't have it in him* - he would *never* want to cause pain and enjoy >the pain on those that he inflicted it upon. >Of course, DH's changed all that. Obviously, Harry enjoys giving pain >something that is distressing. I take exception to the blanket comment that Harry enjoys giving pain. In Chapter 30, The Sacking of Severus Snape, when Snape confronts McGonagall in the corridor, and Harry and Luna are hidden under the Invisibility Cloak, "Hatred boiled up in Harry at the sight of him..." (p. 597) This occurs four pages after Harry used the Cruciatus Curse on Carrow. If Harry enjoys causing pain, I'm confident he would have raised his wand beneath his Invisibility Cloak and used the curse against this man who he hates so much. He doesn't do that though and he has the perfect opportunity...which proves to me that his earlier use of the curse was an isolated incident, a momentary lapse in judgment, an extreme reaction to the "straw that break the camel's back." Yes, he meant it when he used the curse on Carrow, and yes he meant it to punish; however, we do not see him use it again, even in a situation when we should expect him to if it were to become a habit, if he enjoyed causing pain. He knows he can successfully cast the spell, and chooses not to...In Harry's case, Its a far leap from meaning it to enjoying it. Christy --------------------------------- Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 05:30:18 2007 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 05:30:18 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175093 > Ceridwen: > On Molly Weasley's dueling abilities, I was surprised, not that she > went after Bellatrix, given her protective nature, but that she was > able to sustain a duel. The first blush of anger, fear, adrenalin > rushing through the veins, is over relatively quickly in real life. > This wasn't just a rush up to the DE and utter the spell, it was > taking over for three younger witches in an ongoing duel. > > Maybe Bellatrix was reaching the end of her endurance by this point, > but then, Molly had been fighting, too. I can't see her just leaning > against the wall waiting for something else to happen to her brood. > So, for me, Molly's reaction to the spell that nearly hit Ginny was > in keeping with her personality and what we've been shown to expect. > We haven't been shown anything about Molly's sustained duelling > abilities, so it caught me off-guard. Amiable Dorsai: We haven't, but we have been shown, as many others have pointed out, that Molly is an exceptionally handy Witch, doing nonverbals routinely. It's also been pointed out that the Weasley kids got pretty good magic genes (as well as sweaters) from somebody. Let me also point out that Molly's been a member of a paramilitary resistance group for three years now; for all that time she's known the she and her husband and her children were potential targets of a gang of ruthless killers... It's just possible that she may have snuck in a little bit of training in Magical fighting techniques, in between making onion soup and delousing Headquarters. Amiable Dorsai From CariadMel at aol.com Sat Aug 11 07:32:28 2007 From: CariadMel at aol.com (Annette) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 07:32:28 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175094 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: > > > > Ceridwen: > > > > > Maybe Bellatrix was reaching the end of her endurance by this point, > > but then, Molly had been fighting, too. I can't see her just leaning > > against the wall waiting for something else to happen to her brood. > > So, for me, Molly's reaction to the spell that nearly hit Ginny was > > in keeping with her personality and what we've been shown to expect. > > We haven't been shown anything about Molly's sustained duelling > > abilities, so it caught me off-guard. > > Amiable Dorsai: > We haven't, but we have been shown, as many others have pointed out, > that Molly is an exceptionally handy Witch, doing nonverbals > routinely. It's also been pointed out that the Weasley kids got > pretty good magic genes (as well as sweaters) from somebody. > > Let me also point out that Molly's been a member of a paramilitary > resistance group for three years now; for all that time she's known > the she and her husband and her children were potential targets of a > gang of ruthless killers... > > cariad now: As much as I like Molly and I can see the whole 'mother-love' thing going on here, what I would have paid top dollar for, is to see Granny Augusta Longbottom take out Bellatrix ! She had nothing to loose, Neville had proved himself and she must have been on a real high now, what better time for her to get her justice in for her son and daughter-in-law.Even if she had to die in the attempt, as long as the Longbottoms got their own back. I feel they had more to kill Bellatrix for than Molly did, Molly's anger was momentary when she thought her girl was threatened, Augusta has had to live a long time with the consequences of Bella's evil torture of her kin. It was time for a Longbottom killer punch, I feel. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 08:43:42 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:43:42 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46BD76BE.8070306@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175096 zanooda2 blessed us with this gem On 11/08/2007 11:18: LK> instead we find DEs and DAs obsessively intent on finishing each LK> other off one second suddenly making nicey-nicey > I have an impression that all the DEs (most of them, anyway :-)) were > already subdued by this time. Well, not ALL the DEs were subdued. There WAS still Bella, at least. You may be right (I've only read DH once), but then that leaves me wondering why they were all standing around spectating as three teenage girls went up against the Dark Side's most fiersome (sp?) DE, or why McGonagall, Flitwick and Shackley were left to finish off LV by themselves. Surely even LV would be no match against a couple hundred wizards. Yeah, I realize good story needs both a major battle and a final mano-a-mano between the hero and the baddie, so this really isn't that big an issue for me. I was more bothered by LV's plunging IQ. With Harry having survived TWO AKs, and Voldy nearly doing *himself* in with the second, you'd think maybe he'd realize YAAK was probably not the smartest idea. Methinks LV deserved to died just for sheer stupidity. And I STILL think instead of trying to confuse V to death, Harry should have just said, "Ya know why you can't kill me? Because I'm the Seventh Friggin' Horcrux you blithering idiot!" Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Aug 11 09:51:20 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 05:51:20 -0400 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) Message-ID: <002601c7dbfd$2bdf45d0$a0c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 175098 Guzu said: I'm going to make one more attempt to explain argument: My opinion is that the Molly-Bella duel scene was not well-written as it did not ring true in the context of the books, and was written like a show down in an action movie. CathyD now: Exactly! That was one of those "made for the movie" moments, IMO. Or, made for the video game. Guzu again: I believe this might be my last post on the subject, as I am beginning to feel like I not only have a different set of books than most people here, but I am also from a different planet. Such is life-- we all bring our own experiences to the table when we read. However, we are all fans who care enough about the books to post our thoughts. CathyD again: You and I must be reading the same edition, then. What bothers me most, is I thought, when I joined this list after OotP, that this was a group for adults, where we could discuss all differing sides of a subject. At the moment it seems like if you don't belong to the "JKR is the best writer in the world, never makes a mistake - you just read it wrong - and DH is the best piece of literature ever written" group then your opinions aren't welcome here. I certainly - CERTAINLY - don't belong to that group...and so take the time to post very little. colebiancardi said: >>I am glad thatothers found it to be satistifing and I would never try to belittle them on it. Please extend the same courtesy to others who feel the opposite. >>This type of discussion, as there is no canon to back up what type of work Molly has done before or hints of her power, can only be an opinion discussion. There is no right or wrong side to it. Just how we felt about the outcome of it. CathyD: Who, sorry list elves, couldn't agree more! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Aug 11 10:13:45 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 06:13:45 -0400 Subject: Good and Bad Slytherins Message-ID: <003501c7dc00$4d793bd0$a0c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 175099 Sherry Bailey said: "Slytherins. Never forget that HARRY almost got sorted to Slytherin! So HE would have been a "good Slytherin" if he hadn't been biased against that house by Ron on the train, and begged the Hat not to put him there. (Heck, maybe he'd have led a Slytherin reform movement!)" CathyD now: I never believed that for a moment. The Sorting Hat never mentioned Slytherin until after Harry said, repeatedly, "Not Slytherin, not Slytherin." Based on, of course, Hagrid's comment that "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin. You-Know-Who was one." and Ron wondering what his parents would say if, they and the family all being Gryffindors, he was sorted into Slytherin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Aug 11 10:14:51 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 06:14:51 -0400 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility Message-ID: <003901c7dc00$74de87c0$a0c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 175100 Barbara said: "Before entered into Slytherin House, Severus didn't have any trouble believing that Muggle-born or half blood were just as good of wizards as full blood. He told Lily that it didn't make any difference if you were muggle-born or wizard-born" > va32h: > > I have a very different interpretation of that scene with young > Severus and Lily. When she asks if it makes a difference whether she > is Muggle born or not - there is a very telling pause on Snape's > part, during which he looks at her very longingly. My understanding > is that Snape knows full well that it *does* matter, but because he > has already come to love Lily, it doesn't matter *to him*. >Alla said: >This is my interpretation as well. Moreover, I think that Snape only did not care about Lily being Muggle-born, I think he already had contempt towards the Muggles in general at that tender age, yes. CathyD now: That is my interpretation, too. That pause is *very* telling, IMO. "Does it make a difference, being Muggle-born? Snape hesitated. His black eyes, eager in the greenish gloom, moved over the pale face, the dark red hair. "No," he said, "It doesn't make any difference." >Doesn't he call Petunia just a muggle? I only reread the book once, so may be wrong. Yes, he did. "Haven't been spying," said Snape, hot and uncomfortable and dirty-haired in the bright sunlight. "Wouldn't spy on you, anyway, " he addes pitefully, "you're a Muggle." And then later, on the train: "Tuney h - hates me. Because we saw that letter from Dumbledore." "So what?" She [Lily] threw him a look of deep dislike. So, she's my sister!" "She's only a ---" He caught himself quickly; ... CathyD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Aug 11 11:33:05 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:33:05 -0000 Subject: Stephen King on Book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175101 >Eggplant: > Stephen King wrote a very interesting review of Deathly Hallows at: > http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20044270_20044274_20050689,00.html Potioncat: Thanks for that head's up. It's a very interesting review, and would be worth discussing in itself. King approaches the series from a different direction than we uber-fans do. Here's a quote from the review that particularly caught my attention: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20044270_20044274_20050689,00.html "If all those creative spells ? produced at the right moment like the stuff from Crusoe's ship ? were a sign of creative exhaustion, it's the only one I saw, and that's pretty amazing. Mostly Rowling is just having fun, knocking herself out, and when a good writer is having fun, the audience is almost always having fun too. You can take that one to the bank (and, Reader, she did)." From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Aug 11 13:05:49 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:05:49 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175102 Amiable Dorsai: > We haven't, but we have been shown, as many others have pointed out, > that Molly is an exceptionally handy Witch, doing nonverbals > routinely. It's also been pointed out that the Weasley kids got > pretty good magic genes (as well as sweaters) from somebody. Ceridwen: True. The Weasleys all seem to be fairly exceptional with their magic. The twins' inventiveness isn't strictly magic, but what they do with it certainly is. The thing is, duelling is a skill that has to be mastered, then reinforced by regular practice. It wasn't just Molly rushing up to Bellatrix and zapping her: she joined in a duel, a sustained activity. Molly has been described on the plump side, so she isn't in optimal physical shape. (Disclaimer: I'm somewhat over the plump phase myself, in case someone wonders) She has been fighting for hours. She has lost a child, and was just scared spitless that she might lose another. Being scared sends a rush of adrenalin, which was shown to have happened with the "daughter" comment. I completely accepted Molly as the avenging angel swooping in from the heat of battle to focus on Bellatrix just then. But adrenalin rushes run out, and Molly is still duelling. Molly may have been in a duelling club when she was at school. But she was at least twenty-seven years out of school by this time. Ignoring most things said about the Weasleys and their ages, I think Molly is in her mid-forties. She and Arthur got married fresh out of Hogwarts. Since her birthday is 31 October, she was eighteen when she got out. Since they got married in the fear of the times, I can buy them having a child immediately as well. Besides, thirty years ago, it was often the case that a young family had a child straight off. Add nine months, and Molly is a first-time mother at ninteen. The Weasley kids' ages are confusing above Percy, so I'll go with the version I have stuck in my head. I don't recall where I got it - probably one of many fan sites. Bill born when Molly is ninteen, then Charlie at Molly's twenty-one; Percy, with Molly at twenty-four, the twins with Molly at twenty-six, Ron with Molly at twenty-eight, Ginny with Molly at twenty-nine and a half. Ginny is sixteen here, and Molly's had her birthday for the year. I put Molly at about forty-six, with discrepancy of a year on either side. So, out of school and away from the duelling club, if she was a member, for twenty-seven years at least (twenty-eight in my timeline), giving birth six times to seven children, being described as plump, which can indicate not being "Hardbody" Weasley, Scourge of Death Eaters, and being in her mid-forties when many of the aches and pains and their causes begin to show up (I had arthritis already at Molly's projected age, and was learning that sciatica is not our friend), then she fights most of the afternoon, loses a child, which was emotionally and probably physically draining, yet she sustains a duel with a woman who is crzay and probably offers up any discomfort she feels to the glory of her lord, and yes, I'm surprised that she was successfully duelling at this point. Amiable Dorsai: > Let me also point out that Molly's been a member of a paramilitary > resistance group for three years now; for all that time she's known > the she and her husband and her children were potential targets of a > gang of ruthless killers... Ceridwen: I can buy her possibly going to the gym for thrice-weekly duelling work- outs, the way some people take martial arts courses. And as a member of a paramilitary organization, I can see more knowledgeable members of the OotP - Moody, Tonks, Snape, and Shacklebolt -offering duelling refreshers to other members. helping the older members who have left school some time ago, get back "into shape". It would make sense for the organization. The OotP doesn't have a limitless base from which to draw members. You mentioned a gang of ruthless killers potentially making her and her family into targets. Molly also lost two brothers in VWI. I would see this as another motivation to take up duelling techniques and self- defense classes. The Weasleys also have the distinction of being Harry Potter's closest friends in the WW. Ron is his best friend, and as of nearly the end of HBP, Ginny is his girlfriend. When Snape and Draco left Hogwarts, Harry and Ginny hadn't yet broken up. I get this. Amiable Dorsai: > It's just possible that she may have snuck in a little bit of training > in Magical fighting techniques, in between making onion soup and > delousing Headquarters. Ceridwen: But we haven't been shown this, and there has been no reference made. This is why it was surprising, to me, that she was able to fight all afternoon - because, as I said, I don't see her waiting around for the perfect opportunity - then suffer a devastating loss, then duel for at least several minutes. Any mention, in DH or before, about training sessions, would have been helpful in this case. Maybe there were references to classes held by Moody etc., but I don't remember reading them. Someone mentioned guarding the prophecy at the Ministry as a mission Molly did. But we saw what that mission entailed: sitting still under an Invisibility Cloak so as not to be detected, and watching who went into the Hall of Prophecies. We were shown Arthur performing this duty in OotP. He fell asleep. It was not demanding on the same physical level as duelling. It would have been nice to have mention of refresher courses in the Order, or Molly joining classes once Ginny was in school. As it stands, unless I'm not remembering some reference, the sustained duelling part was surprising. Ceridwen. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 14:06:20 2007 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:06:20 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175103 Pippin wrote: > One could argue that Bella, although trained to fight aurors, > is defeated by Molly for the same reason that every so often a > rank amateur at chess takes down a grand master: the amateur's > tactics are so wildly unconventional that the master's experience > isn't much use. Ginger: I found your whole post to be insightful, Pippin, but snipped all but this bit. Molly is certainly not trained as an auror might be, but she does have that mama-bear-protecting-the-cubs thing going for her. Maybe I've missed it in other threads, but it seems to be missing in this one: Bella couldn't have beaten Molly. She couldn't have beaten anyone. After Harry got back from his out-of-body journey, everyone on the good side was protected. Bella was only fighting others to a draw. Molly was the one with the power to finish her off. Does this take away from Molly, saying that Bella couldn't have defeated her? Not a bit. As you point out, Molly's tactics were probably not the ones that a trained pro would use. Bella was previously fighting people with training. Before Molly stepped in, Bella was fighting kids from the DA. Molly comes in all hell-bent-for-leather, and defeats Bella. I'd bet she pulled something Bella didn't expect, and, as you also pointed out, Bella does underestimate her as she underestimated Sirius. Ginger, who thinks the whole Molly-defeats-Bella was a great moment. From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 14:02:42 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:02:42 -0000 Subject: Child at Kings Cross (was:Disappointment and Responsibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175104 Julie said: > At the final point, with NO horcruxes left... it really almost > defies belief that he'd try to kill Harry yet again, with the weapon > & curse that had already miserably failed... > > But as has been discussed here, LV isn't written as such a smart > guy.... marion11111: I guess each time he split his soul, he also split his IQ. From bloggertracy at gmail.com Sat Aug 11 14:12:36 2007 From: bloggertracy at gmail.com (Tracy Woods) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:12:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19f52d580708110712y448b253fw96d20a4025c9b120@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175105 On 8/10/07, guzuguzu wrote: > > I see that my big mistake in my original argument was using the > word "housewife." Being a former full-time housewife, I didn't > realize it was a loaded word though it apparently it is on this > group. However, if you replace that word with "heart surgeon" I > still stand by my exact statement: I would not assume that a heart > surgeon has the same fighting skills and experience as a > professional soldier. They very well might, but I would not > logically assume it to be true. -- But is she not, really, a "soldier" as a member or the Order? That seems to me to be about as close as one gets to being a soldier in the wizarding world. The members of the Order are trained to fight Voldy and the DE, just as the DE are trained to torture and kill wizards. Tracy -Hopeless Harry Potter Fan, since Book 1 From va32h at comcast.net Sat Aug 11 14:17:07 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:17:07 -0000 Subject: Not Grown Up Enough For You? (was Re: In Defense of Molly Weasley In-Reply-To: <002601c7dbfd$2bdf45d0$a0c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175106 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > You and I must be reading the same edition, then. What bothers me >most, is I thought, when I joined this list after OotP, that this >was a group for adults, where we could discuss all differing sides >of a subject. At the moment it seems like if you don't belong to >the "JKR is the best writer in the world, never makes a mistake - >you just read it wrong - and DH is the best piece of literature >ever written" group then your opinions aren't welcome here. I >certainly - CERTAINLY - don't belong to that group...and so take >the time to post very little. va32h: Excuse me but what? You cannot be serious. Aside from being deeply condescending, you are simply incorrect. I must not be reading the same edition of this list that you are reading, because I have read and participated in numerous discussions that are sharply critical of many aspects of the book. Did you not notice the GINORMOUS thread involving Harry's use of "Crucio", or the equally massive one about Slytherin House being portrayed in a relentlessly negative light? Those threads are not so lengthy because we all agree with each other and are taking turns writing glowing posts about JKR being the best writer ever. They are so lengthy because we are discussing all differing sides of the subject. You have apparently never read a post by me, or lupinlore, hpaddict, sistermagpie, Lee Kaiwen, or a couple dozen other usernames that are frequent contributors to this forum. I know darn well that I don't think DH is the best piece of literature in the world, and I am struggling to come up with a single user name on this forum that has posted anything remotely close to that. va32h From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 11 14:48:38 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:48:38 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the slaughtered pig Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175107 "va32h" Wrote: > I can think of a very good reason for > Dumbledore to lie to Snape. Dumbledore > knows that Harry loathes Snape - why on > earth would Harry just believe Snape if > Snape merely told Harry what Dumbledore > said? [ ] Snape is going to have to > provide some kind of proof. To quote Niels Bohr "Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true". If what you say is correct and "Showing Harry a memory seems the best way to prove that what Snape is saying is true" then why on Earth show him a memory of Snape's, a memory of Dumbledore flapping him gums? Why didn't Dumbledore give Snape a bottle containing a memory of his own and tell him to give it to Harry when the time was right? And if Dumbledore had the slightest hint that Harry would some day see that little conversation with Snape I am quite certain he would have picked his words more carefully and not sneered at Snape when he expressed concern about leading Harry to slaughter like a pig. Harry agreed to die in spite of those cold remarks not because of them. dumbledore11214 Wrote: > Are you discounting Dumbledore's gleam in GoF? No I am not, but I think you are discounting the fact that the gleam of triumph only lasted a fraction of a second followed by renewed gloom. For the first time Dumbledore figured out a way to kill Dumbledore hence the triumph, but a fraction of a second later he realized it would involve Harry's death hence the gloom. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Aug 11 15:21:49 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:21:49 -0000 Subject: FILK: Only Make Him Leave Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175108 Only Make Him Leave To the tune of Conway Twitty's Only Make Believe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsZL10oxPwY Dedicated to Potioncat THE SCENE: The Malfoy Manor. The Death Eater Who Came to Dinner is wearing out his welcome with the Malfoys. LUCIUS: People sometimes may declare That I am Voldy's heir But the Dark Lord makes me heave If we could only make him leave He came to our estate, and makes us so irate Took over the master suite, won't put down the toilet seat Gives our Manor no respect, now it's all a total wreck Dotes all the time on Snape, gets mad over one escape If we could only make him leave. Toward Narcissa he gets mean, will not leave the kitchen clean Takes my wand away from me, treats Draco like a dummy Makes our other guests succumb as he throw AK tantrums He's even making mock of our beloved peacock If we could only make him leave. All night long he shrieks and yells, overcrowds our dungeon cells, Wakes each morning with a scowl, scorches Dark Marks on our towels Eats us out of house and home, lets that serpent freely roam He's truly not Dark Side, he's Sheridan Whiteside If only Harry makes him leave - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From guzuguzu at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 15:35:57 2007 From: guzuguzu at yahoo.com (guzuguzu) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:35:57 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175109 Pippin wrote: > The showdown in the action movie traces back to the medieval > jousts and trials by combat as romanticized in the stories of King > Arthur -- and that's a tradition that we and the wizards share. > Ron and Draco are both familiar with the custom of wizard duels > from day one. It's no surprise to me that Ron's mum and Draco's > aunt would structure their battle as a duel or that other wizards > would respect it and stand aside. I like your post and this idea of the honor duel and I wish we knew more about the Wizards' version of it. I guess it only is an honor duel if it is one-on-one, but when Draco, Harry and Ron discuss it in the first book it seems customary to choose a Second who will continue the duel if you die. I don't know if Molly and Bella perceived it as an honor duel (they obviously didn't arrange it in advance), but maybe there is such a thing as an impromptu honor duel. I was thinking about the concepts of the Second and teamwork and whether there was a deeper meaning to the students Molly sent away from the duel. Obviously she sent away Ginny, who was her own daughter and underage, but why send away Herminone and Luna-- they were of age and had been fighting all night? Maybe she considered them surrogate daughters. But then what is the meaning of the second three (unnamed) students she sends away? They weren't important enough for Rowling to note their gender, age or house, which she almost always does when describing the students-- they're usually "Ravenclaw boys" or "Slytherin first-years"-- something like that. So it's not as if they are real students, they are almost concepts of students. It's a weird moment. Molly rejected their help. Would she have rejected the idea of a Second? What if it wasn't a student but a teacher who ran to help? Ginger wrote: > Maybe I've missed it in other threads, but it seems to be missing in > this one: Bella couldn't have beaten Molly. She couldn't have > beaten anyone. After Harry got back from his out-of-body journey, > everyone on the good side was protected. guzu: This is a good point, and I don't think I saw it mentioned before. I took it that the power that Harry brought back made Voldemort's spells weaker, but you might be correct-- it might have made *Bella's* spells weaker as well. Not only that, perhaps his being in close proximity to the fight tipped the scales. That would make the duel make more sense to me. I need to read the chapter again and think about this theory more. guzu, who would like to thank the folks that brought the subject of this thread back to the Harry Potter books From va32h at comcast.net Sat Aug 11 15:40:58 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:40:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the slaughtered pig, also featuring logic, Snape, and camping In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175110 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > If what you say is correct and "Showing Harry a memory > seems the best way to prove that what Snape is saying is true" then > why on Earth show him a memory of Snape's, a memory of Dumbledore > flapping him gums? Why didn't Dumbledore give Snape a bottle > containing a memory of his own and tell him to give it to Harry when > the time was right? va32h: Fair enough. Why didn't Dumbledore do that, then? Why did Dumbledore require Snape to be the bearer of this particular message in the first place? It's the most important thing for Harry to know - ever! - and it's crucial that he believe the message and follow through on it. So Dumbledore gives this job to....the one person Harry actually hates *more* than Voldemort? I'm not asking rhetorically, either - I really don't know! I might have thought that Dumbledore wanted to teach Harry (and Snape) a lesson about forgiveness instead of vengeance. You know, force them to work together the way the camp counselors force the feuding twins in "A Parent Trap" to spend the night in the same cabin. (which creates an amusing mental picture at least). But that doesn't seem to be where JKR is going with Snape, based on her post-DH comments. And while your argument is certainly logical - when has JKR ever been shown to use logic in her plot twists? The whole premise of the 7 Potters is ridiculous, IMO, because it would have been much more logical to simply have Harry put on his invisibility cloak and get in the car with the Dursleys, and be dropped off at some secure location from which he could Floo or even walk to the Burrow. But of course that would be far less interesting than a deadly pursuit by a swarm of Death Eaters and a Sudden!Shocking!Death! That's one of my chief complaints with DH actually - that it's too obvious that things are being done for the sake of the book and not the sake of the story. Does that make sense? Take GoF - a common argument has been that Fake!Moody should have just made a book or a quill into portkey and used that to get Harry on the first or second day of class. The whole triwizard tournament is a contrivance. Which is certainly true *but* -- valid arguments can be made that it really is logical for Voldemort to wait all year to get his hands on Harry. I won't bother rehashing them, because I'm sure we've all read those discussions, yes? In Deathly Hallows, however, we have many situations that have no purpose other than to keep the book moving along, or to give us something more interesting to read than "Hermione put up the tent again. This time they were on a rainy hillside and oh by the way, it's now March." For example - Hermione accios a bunch of books on Horcruxes. That was such a wtf moment for me. JKR needed the trio to know how to destroy horcruxes so poof! they get a book all about horcruxes. That struck me as a cheap, lazy way to move the book along, and wasn't an explicable part of the story. Well I seem to have got off track a bit. Summing up: Dumbledore expecting Snape to show Harry Snape's own memories (including one that features a less-than-flattering speech of Dumbledore's) is no less logical than Dumbledore giving Snape the job of telling Harry all this in the first place which in turn is no less logical than pretty much anything else that happens in Deathly Hallows. va32h From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Aug 11 15:59:51 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:59:51 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore and the slaughtered pig In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40708110859p12d72c3ay1e82826eabc4ec9e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175111 > "va32h" Wrote: > > > I can think of a very good reason for > > Dumbledore to lie to Snape. Dumbledore > > knows that Harry loathes Snape - why on > > earth would Harry just believe Snape if > > Snape merely told Harry what Dumbledore > > said? [?] Snape is going to have to > > provide some kind of proof. > eggplant: > If what you say is correct and "Showing Harry a memory > seems the best way to prove that what Snape is saying is true" then > why on Earth show him a memory of Snape's, a memory of Dumbledore > flapping him gums? Why didn't Dumbledore give Snape a bottle > containing a memory of his own and tell him to give it to Harry when > the time was right? Kemper now: I think it would be unsafe to have Dumbledore's memories bottled up. It's a security risk. Kemper, feeling like he should write more but up for 27 hours and wants to sleep but neighbors are being noisy mowing lawns, cutting down trees, and other din From melindaleo at msn.com Sat Aug 11 16:31:24 2007 From: melindaleo at msn.com (melindaleo2000) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:31:24 -0000 Subject: Good and Bad Slytherins In-Reply-To: <003501c7dc00$4d793bd0$a0c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175112 > Sherry Bailey said: > "Slytherins. Never forget that HARRY almost got sorted to Slytherin! > So HE would have been a "good Slytherin" if he hadn't been biased > against that house by Ron on the train, and begged the Hat not to put > him there. (Heck, maybe he'd have led a Slytherin reform movement!)" > The Hat DIDN'T want Slytherin for Harry, though. The Hat commented on how Harry fit into ALL the houses, it was HARRY himself who focused on Slytherin. He begged not to go because Hagrid had told them that's where all the wizards who'd gone bad came, and then the Hat argued why it thought he would fit there, NOT that it thought he should go. The Hat chose Gryffindor, but I think it would have equally defended any of the other three houses if Harry had focused his thougts on them and then still sent Harry to Gryffindor. This was Harry's fixation with not wanting to go to Slytherin more than anything else, so the idea it really wanted him in Slytherin is not what actually happened. From guzuguzu at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 16:31:33 2007 From: guzuguzu at yahoo.com (guzuguzu) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:31:33 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175113 Katie wrote: > There are NO "professional soldiers" fighting in this fight. guzu: Thanks for your reply. The professional soldiers that I am talking about are the Aurors. I also referred to them as policemen because I really don't know what is the analogous profession in real life-- they seem to be a cross between a SWAT team, special forces and government assassins. Their sole function is to hunt down Dark Wizards and they did a woefully inadequate job of it. The 5th years in the DA Club seemed to be much more effective at fighting and defending themselves. The thing is, with the exception of Dawlish, Rowling writes the Aurors as overall positive characters, so I find their portrayal in the books confusing. Katie: > Also, for those who believed other people should have stepped in...Two points: > 1 - Molly told them not to, and I think it was pretty obvious that > Molly would have been furious with, and maybe even hexed, anyone that got in the middle. guzu: In my opinion, this is a strong statement-- do you think Molly would have attacked someone for trying to help her? Or do you mean accidentally? Katie: > 2 - There was a whole lot of other stuff going on!! In a combat > situation, I would assume, there is so much chaos that you really don't often have time to worry about what other people are doing! guzu: I disagree with this-- there are hundreds of people standing there doing nothing but watching the two duels. The scene would have made lots more sense to me if everyone *had* still been fighting while this was going on. guzu From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Aug 11 17:19:10 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:19:10 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175114 > Magpie: > Again, I am not dismissing any of the Slytherins who aren't as bad > as the rest. But I am sticking with what I see as who they are, and > certain more positive readings about how they've come together at > the end of the book and no longer have any stigma just seem > completely uncanonical to me--and not to use an interview for > canon, but JKR herself I thought confirmed the rather weak > resolution herself, I thought, when she explained that Slytherin > had been "diluted" so that it was no longer the bastion of > Pureblood supremecy, but still had a reputation for dark magic, as > we see in the epilogue. Just as you think I'm just rejecting > Slytherins who are good, I think focusing on Harry's "I love you no > matter what House you're in" answer to his son rather than the fact > that it's a standard parental response to his son's unsurprising > fear of being in *that house* is changing what's going on. Jen: No, I didn't say you were rejecting Slytherins who are good, I was countering the idea that no Slytherins *changed* over the course of the story. Now I understand you're saying some Slytherins did change, but only in the sense they 'aren't as bad as the rest.' Sort of a token effort IOW, if that's a fair statement to make? I may be misinterpreting your position but I see shades of token characters in the series. Or perhaps it's that JKR wanted representatives of so many different groups that at times the effort came across as mostly symbolic: There's one free elf, one found-the cause elf, one half-giant and his recruited brother, one progressive centaur, one sympathetic werewolf...all go to their own groups, mostly behind the scenes, and work toward change so that when it's time to choose their loyalty, members of those groups are ready to come forward. JKR cast her net very wide in an attempt to show the breadth of unity developing in the WW and in doing so, she didn't develop an avenue of depth open to her: the unifying of the houses. Although with the final installment in place, it's pretty clear the four houses uniting wasn't ever in the works. I'm still trying to guess why she didn't choose that route. > Magpie: > I accept all the Slytherins who helped the cause. I also note that > all of them have also been associated with some degree of Pureblood > supremacy (unlike almost any of the people from other houses we've > seen) and that they don't start off as people you can assume are > with you. We don't have to look for Ravenclaws who did something to > help--their banner was hanging in the RoR. Sorry, but I can't read > the story any other way than the way it came across to me > straightforwardly the first time, that Slytherin did not fight with > the other houses, but that there were certain individual Slytherins > for reasons we are given who do not go with their house. Slytherin > *played* its part in the destruction of Voldemort absolutely. But I > really can't say that Slytherin did its part very admirably. Given > the way Slytherin is set up to begin with it actually does need > something bigger to make a change. Jen: Because of the way JKR wrote her various beasts and beings aiding Harry and coming together at the end, it's difficult to think she would have written a Good Slytherin in a dissimilar way, as more than a human equivalent of an elf or centaur inciting his fellow Slytherins to arms. (Not saying you advocated the good-slyth plotline, just remarking myself). That concept would have been difficult to pull off with the central characters like it worked for peripheral ones, who are operating mostly in the background without much history or explanation. It worked for me that individual Slytherins - who *are* different from members of other houses due to history, sorting criteria and affiliation with Voldemort - opposed on their own terms and not Harry's or Dumbledore's. They were admirable by the criteria of Potterverse for taking action to oppose Voldemort doing so bravely. Whether they're admirable to a reader is very subjective of course. I ended up mostly on the side of admiration but maybe for a different reason than others: I thought Snape would be grey, not the whole of Potterverse! Once Rowling knocked down her moral compass a few notches, the whole world became a mass of conflicting desires, actions and ethical decision-making to me. This opened the door for interesting discoveries about what made people tick, what strengths elevated them and what flaws caused them to fall. > Magpie: > Dumbledore has always made a distinction between what you are born > meaning your bloodline, and the choices who show who you really > are. The person you grow to be does not conflict with the way I > see the characters working. Sirius was born into a Slytherin, > Pureblood supremist family, but by 11 was already showing by his > choices he was a different person. Draco, unlike Sirius, shared his > family's weaknesses. Where you're born or who you're born to does > not decide your character, but I do think your character does. You > show who you are. Jen: I don't understand how someone has a choice if his character is inborn as well as his blood? It's an oxymoron to me. I'm not arguing you see this operating in the story, that good characters stay good and bad characters stay bad or a little less bad, more questioning if that was the intent of the story. I'm wondering if it's more in the execution, that possibly JKR ended up with some static characters who were meant to be changing more than it came across? magpie: > I suspect this all may be seen as being just "choosing to have > negative readings," but I'm just describing what I see. Jen: I'm not much for the whole negative/positive labeling thing going on because it's applied to posts regardless of what the post is trying to accomplish. So it's not my opinion (FWIW). Magpie: > The more redemptive readings feel to me like more of a stretch, > a "fixing" of canon to get in the stuff I thought should be there > that doesn't hold up for me. I don't think I have an overly > negative view of Slytherin--I've never claimed that there's an > intense hatred at the end of the book, or that Slytherins are all > evil. To me it just seems like describing the house as I see it > ultimately in canon: it's the problem house and the author doesn't > seem to be doing anything to counter that idea. Jen: As you said earlier, JKR saw the change in Slytherin as a 'dilution' rather than complete resolution, mirroring the change in a WW at large where elves are still enslaved and other creatures presumably live on the fringes (although it cheered me to hear her say the MOM was reformed even if that wasn't in the book). After re-reading, it's clear the story I was reading and interested in ended after King's Cross. The rest of the story felt like tying up loose ends and the epilogue was pure, sentimental JKR imo, Harry finally part of a real family, waving off his own son to Hogwarts... So, er, if it's not clear where I'm going with this section, I don't know either! I saw more small changes in the WW than you but not a complete redemption. Jen From bloggertracy at gmail.com Sat Aug 11 15:43:25 2007 From: bloggertracy at gmail.com (Tracy Woods) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:43:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Stephen King on Book 7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19f52d580708110843g79bf6a0erdeb091f404c4987b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175115 Potioncat: > Thanks for that head's up. It's a very interesting review, > and would be worth discussing in itself. King approaches > the series from a different direction than we uber-fans do. -- Tracy: I loved that review....Thanks for sharing, eggplant! What I really found most interesting about it though, was his bit about kids and reading, in the third part of the review: "One last thing: The bighead academics seem to think that Harry's magic will not be strong enough to make a generation of nonreaders (especially the male half) into bookworms...but they wouldn't be the first to underestimate Harry's magic; just look at what happened to Lord Voldemort. And, of course, the bigheads would never have credited Harry's influence in the first place, if the evidence hadn't come in the form of best-seller lists. A literary hero as big as the Beatles? ''Never happen!'' the bigheads would have cried. ''The traditional novel is as dead as Jacob Marley! Ask anyone who knows! Ask us, in other words!'' I really enjoy his discussion of the literary aspect of the books as well. I find it refreshing that he able to, in a way that doesn't offend anyone, I think, criticize some aspects of the writing, but overall is still raving about the books, since it turns out that King is apparently as much a Potter fanatic as any of us. That was likely one of the best reviews I have seen, in a long time. I also thought that this piece by King was interesting (it was written before the release of the book) http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20044270_20044274_20044682,00.html -- Tracy -Hopeless Harry Potter Fan, since Book 1 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From funkeginger at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 15:27:18 2007 From: funkeginger at yahoo.com (funkeginger) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:27:18 -0000 Subject: Do you guys think there will be any more books now? In-Reply-To: <953416.29224.qm@web30012.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175116 I think there will be other books now that we know the prophecy was not fulfilled. I think there will be about ten books because it will take Harry some time to get his skills standard. What's you guys opinion? funkeginger From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Aug 11 18:45:47 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:45:47 -0000 Subject: Stephen King on Book 7 In-Reply-To: <19f52d580708110843g79bf6a0erdeb091f404c4987b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175117 > Tracy: >snip< > I really enjoy his discussion of the literary aspect of the books as well. > I find it refreshing that he able to, in a way that doesn't offend anyone, I > think, criticize some aspects of the writing, but overall is still raving > about the books, since it turns out that King is apparently as much a Potter > fanatic as any of us. That was likely one of the best reviews I have seen, > in a long time. > > I also thought that this piece by King was interesting (it was written > before the release of the book) > http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20044270_20044274_20044682,00.html Potioncat: You're right, that was a great essay too. This part jumped out at me, because it explains a lot of what we, as a group, are going through. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20044270_20044274_20044682,00.html "...but mostly on the fact that there is that sadness, that inevitable parting from characters who have been loved deeply by many. The Internet blog sites will be full of this was bad and that was wrong, but it's going to boil down to something that many will feel and few will come right out and state: No ending can be right, because it shouldn't be over at all. The magic is not supposed to go away." There's been a lot of negativity here--and I think in part because whether we liked DH or not, we're all sad to watch the HP experience come to a close. On a similar note, my oldest is getting ready to move out---sigh, my own Ron Weasley, (I have a Ginny, too.)(There's a Harry in the wings, but I like him more than she does.) At any rate another Mom and I have noticed that there is a lot of tension and quick tempers in our houses right now---from parents and kids, and siblings of kids. It's a part of the separation process. You know, Kneasy always said you could tell an awful lot about a person by what they write in their posts! I'd better quit on this one while I'm ahead! Potioncat From bdhale59 at frontiernet.net Sat Aug 11 18:27:12 2007 From: bdhale59 at frontiernet.net (Brett Hale) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:27:12 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Aberforth References: Message-ID: <009701c7dc45$3c9e2600$6c01a8c0@kayenta.k12.az.us> No: HPFGUIDX 175118 In reply to justcarol67... If any of us has had a sibling that outperformed us in academics, sports, music, or any one of a number of areas, then we might see what JKR may have been up to when she revealed Aberforth to us. I remember my sister was very smart, and accomplished many things in school, as well as riding to first place in the national championships in English riding competition back in 1978. While I was fairly smart and capable in my own way, I became a hippie, of sorts, because the comparisons were all around me and it was easier. We are talking 30 years ago, mind you, but I expect that for some people the attitude would stick with them for life. Aberforth is smart, 'streetwise', and is confident in himself. He has made a choice, a life style choice, if you will. I am glad this was in the book... Brett [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 19:17:05 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 03:17:05 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46BE0B31.7090607@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175119 quigonginger blessed us with this gem On 11/08/2007 22:06: > After Harry got back from his out-of-body journey, > everyone on the good side was protected. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I got the impression that the good guys were only protect from Voldemort. Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Aug 11 19:21:59 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:21:59 -0000 Subject: Disappointment and Responsibility (was Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175120 > > lizzyben: > > I actually thought about Kingley's statement, with a sigh, after > finishing the novel. Because this is a clear case where the > superficial message goes against the actual message of the novels. > It's very clear that every life does *not* have the same worth in the > Potterverse, and this is my main objection to the House sorting. JKR > herself says that she hopes she would be "worthy" enough to be in > Gryfindor, meaning that Gryfs are superior to people in other houses, > w/Slytherins as the "unworthy." Pippiin: When Harry's about to be sorted, he worries that he isn't worthy of *any* of the Houses. I'm not sure where this exclusivist take on Jo's words is coming from. She could just mean that she hopes her desire to be counted among the brave and chivalrous would be judged sincere. Besides, 'every life is worth saving' is hardly the same thing as 'every group is worth joining' or 'every belief is worth having.' Lizzyben: Are we really asked to find something > to value in Pansy Parkinson, Crabbe, Yaxley, etc? No. Pippin: Draco was ready to be burned alive with Goyle rather than abandon him. I'd be proud to have a friend like that, wouldn't you? We're given to understand that he'd have done as much for Crabbe if he could. So yeah, I think we're supposed to understand that those lives were valuable. Draco, that little crud, the kid Harry judged was the wrong sort and wouldn't shake hands with, was willing to lay down his life for his friend. That tells you something about Draco, and something about his friends too. But the most telling thing for me is that Voldemort didn't realize Narcissa was lying when she told him Harry was dead. And as there's no canon that Narcissa possesses Snape-ian powers of occlumency, one must guess that Harry's magical protection from Voldemort extended to her too. Lizzyben: People are trying really, really hard to find an admirable Slyth, but I think > that's going against the canon as JKR has written it. You've stated > earlier that Slytherin is supposed to represent the "less noble" human > qualities - envy, cunning, etc. and Lupinlore basically says that > Slyths are the "bad guys" of society. I agree that that's the message Pippin: That's *a* message. I'm not sure it's *the* message. I think Jo gave us some advice on how to interpret her novels with Beedle the Bard (whom I keep wanting to call Bard the Beatle.) It's like the Tale of the Three Brothers, IMO. The trio first reads it as a fairy tale with a simple moral. Two brothers were bad, one was good. That's not *wrong*, but Harry is pretty sure that it's not the reason Dumbledore wanted him to know the story. Harry has an idea that deeper thinking will be rewarded, despite Hermione's insistence that there's nothing there to think about. Eventually Harry comes up with a less obvious moral. The real reason the cloak is valuable is that you can use it to protect other people, not just yourself. But notice what that does to the story. The "good" brother left the others to their fate and never used the cloak to help anyone but himself. Like the others, he never realized the true value of his gift. Meanwhile, Dumbledore offers yet another interpretation, attempting to tease out a 'historical' meaning from the mythic one. In his version, the brothers are gifted, dangerous wizards whose three powerful inventions are, as he says, a lure to folly even in the hands of the best. So, Rowling seems to suggest, we are invited to interpret her work in multiple ways: as fairy tale, a novel of morals, and/or an imaginary history. But only in fairy tales is the world divided into good brothers and bad ones, and only in the fairy tale interpretation, IMO, are we meant to take this division literally. > > lizzyben: > > It's nice that Harry tells his child that it's OK to be in Slytherin, > but even that message is subverted when he also tells (encourages?) > his child to select a different house. Pippin: Where does he say this? He says Albus *can* select a different house. It's up to Albus to decide which house, or even if it matters. Harry says it doesn't matter to him and Ginny. There's no denying it's going to matter to other people. Harry's changed his opinion of Slytherin, but not everyone has. And there are still some things to be concerned about, though Harry seems to feel it won't be anything Albus Severus can't handle. It's the price of freedom, in a sense. If we give everyone the political and spiritual freedom to teach their beliefs to their children, then some children are going to be taught things that others find abhorrent. Even damnable. I was kind of hoping, and I think this is where a lot of disillusionment comes from, that JKR would try to finesse this inconvenient truth. Slytherin would be completely rehabilitated, or else the other houses would discover that it didn't need rehabilitation after all. Just like The Little White Horse. But JKR is too honest a writer for that, IMO. But as in the Tale of Three Brothers, it's left to the reader to discover, or decide, that identifying oneself with the 'good' side is problematic. > lizzyben: > > I don't, probably you don't, but the books do. "Gryfindor" traits *are > better* than the traits of the other houses. Snape is viewed a small > exception to the general rule of Slytherins solely because he exhibits > a Gryfindor trait - bravery. He's not lauded for his cunning, > ambition, etc. Or his intelligence or loyalty, for that matter. In > this world, Gryfindor traits are the yardstick upon which everyone is > measured. Pippin: I disagree. Bravery and love are the yardstick upon which everyone is measured and Gryffindors haven't got a patent on them. Gryffindors very often fail to recognize them, especially when they manifest in unfamiliar ways. > > lizzyben: > > This is a bit off-topic, but what was with the crying child in the > King's Cross station? I can't get over that image of DD & Harry > chatting conversationally while a wounded, suffering, unwanted child > cries for help. And DD tells Harry that there's no way to help. Pippin: DD says there's no way for him or Harry to help. But that's why Harry goes back, because he wants to keep more families from being torn apart, more souls from being maimed. He even tries to help Voldemort. Lizzyben: To me, it seemed like a damned soul, and DD > telling Harry not to help is the Calvinist position that we *can't* > help. Salvation or damnation has already been pre-destined. Pippin: I wondered about that too. But there's nothing in the book to suggest that the train station is where you stay forever. We're told a maimed soul can repair itself only by feeling what it's done -- so maybe Voldemort has to suffer because it's the only way he can be healed. Kind of like Skele-gro. Maybe Harry and Dumbledore can hear it because that's part of their penance, part of repairing *their* souls --for what help they could have been in life and failed (or will fail, if Harry chooses to "go on") to give. I think the message is pretty clear: Harry and Dumbledore can't do anything to help the abandoned and suffering children of this world, but you, dear reader, can. And to borrow a question from my own tradition, if not now, when? Lizzyben: > And that wretched creature also reminded me of Merope, and the elves, > and the goblins, and all the beings that are "stuffed out of sight" in > this horrid society. If the wizards are going to maintain their > superiority and their comfort, they're going to have to learn to > ignore the suffering they cause. DD does - and eventually Harry does > as well. This allows him to return to his natural position in the > elect of the Wizarding World, w/o needing to focus on these oppressed > & unwanted beings anymore. Thus the saccharine empty happy ending. Pippin: This again is taking the fairy tale convention and imposing it on the novel of morals and social commentary, where as you say it doesn't fit. Only fairy tales end with all being well in a literal sense. But even the very youngest children know that in real life nobody lives happily ever after. In the novel of morals and social commentary, we know there are problems for Albus Severus, James, Rose, Hugo and the rest to confront. But they have more chance of dealing with them than they would under Voldemort. "All's well," said the Gaffer in LOTR, "as ends better." > lizzyben: > > No one was sitting according to House anymore because there weren't > any Slytherins left! The only Slyths were the Malfoy family, who > remained huddled in a corner. Pippin: What corner? "Along the aisle between the tables he walked, and he spotted the three Malfoys, huddled together as though unsure whether or not they were supposed to be there, but nobody was paying them any attention. Oh, and where's Goyle? At least one Slytherin seems to be celebrating. Of course he's probably too dumb to realize his side lost And then, when Harry returns to Dumbledore's office, he confronts the stone Pensieve on the desk where he left it, and Phineas calls out that Slytherin House's contribution should not be forgotten. So there are two reminders, on a single page, that we shouldn't overlook the good in Slytherin. Pippin From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 19:26:40 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 03:26:40 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Stephen King on Book 7 In-Reply-To: <19f52d580708110843g79bf6a0erdeb091f404c4987b@mail.gmail.com> References: <19f52d580708110843g79bf6a0erdeb091f404c4987b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46BE0D70.8050203@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175121 Tracy Woods blessed us with this gem On 11/08/2007 23:43: > "One last thing: The bighead academics seem to think that > Harry's magic will not be strong enough to make ... nonreaders > ...into bookworms... OK, I'm just going to repeat something I heard somewhere, but I thought I recently read a bit of research that suggested the HP phenom hasn't, after all, had a measurable impact on youth reading rates. Kids who read, read HP; kids who don't just wait for the movie. Ring any bells with anyone? Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 19:50:13 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:50:13 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: <46BE0B31.7090607@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175122 >Lee said: > > Perhaps I'm wrong, but I got the impression that the good guys were > only protect from Voldemort. > marion11111 replies: When Harry comes back from Kings Cross and Hagrid puts him down, chaos breaks out and Harry puts on his invisibilty cloak. From under the cloak he is hexing people right and left and sends several Shield Charms up between his friends and Voldemort (the text specifically says Voldemort on pg 733-734 and 737 US edition). So *of course* Voldemort couldn't curse anyone. Then later Harry tells Voldemort that his curses aren't sticking because he, Harry, made a sacrifice. So did this protection just occur to Harry at that point or did he just say that to tick off Voldemort? Or was he throwing out shield charms "just in case?" From Schlobin at aol.com Sat Aug 11 20:18:00 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:18:00 -0000 Subject: Stephen King on Book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175123 I just loved the Stephen King review. I especially appreciated his critique of other reviews -- I certainly got tired of reading reviews that focused on who died, or how much money the book has made....or solely focused on unanswered questions or problems with consistency or continuity. I think there is a lot of room for discussion of problems with or critiques of the books. Like many other posters, I have been disheartened by personal criticisms of JKR -- I think she's a great woman, a great mother, a terrific author, and her books are dynamite. But of course with so many millions of people reading the books, there will be unhappy individuals who project their own anger and frustration in their lives on to her. I loved his comment about how the books stopped being children's books - I have been a little frustrated by comments about how people are not used to certain things happening in children's literature.....since I believe that HP transcends the manichean concept of children's literature/adult literature, meaning that it can't be forced into either category and made to stay there. I'm constantly seeing adults reading the books on airplanes, etc. Before I make any judgmments on whether children have started reading more due to Harry Potter, I'd have to take a careful look at the study that indicated that it has not. Was it a random sample? How big was the study? There is a lot of research that is very flawed. Does anyone have a link to the actual studies? I find it hard to believe that a significant number of children have not been drawn to reading through Harry Potter. One of my friends told me about a summer camp where the counselor found children awake at 3 a.m. with flashlights taking turns reading out loud from the Deathly Hallows. Reading books is a pleasure and experience that with its depth and texture is very different from the internet or from movies. I feel profoundly sorry for any individual who hasn't experienced the joy of reading. Susan McGee From elfundeb at gmail.com Sat Aug 11 20:37:40 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:37:40 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Disappointment and Responsibility (was Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708111337r44a5c72cub7c9874baa498158@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175124 lizzyben: > > It's nice that Harry tells his child that it's OK to be in Slytherin, > but even that message is subverted when he also tells (encourages?) > his child to select a different house. Pippin: Where does he say this? He says Albus *can* select a different house. It's up to Albus to decide which house, or even if it matters. Harry says it doesn't matter to him and Ginny. There's no denying it's going to matter to other people. Harry's changed his opinion of Slytherin, but not everyone has. And there are still some things to be concerned about, though Harry seems to feel it won't be anything Albus Severus can't handle. It's the price of freedom, in a sense. If we give everyone the political and spiritual freedom to teach their beliefs to their children, then some children are going to be taught things that others find abhorrent. Even damnable. Debbie: I agree with at least 90% of Pippin's post, but on this point, I think lizzyben is right. Too many children arrive at Hogwarts with stereotyped opinions of the houses and what each one stands for. For Harry, Slytherin was Voldemort's house and Draco's house. Snape thought it was the house of brains. Though it's not clear, Sirius appears to have thought it was the pureblood pride house. As long as the Sorting Hat allows children to plead "Slytherin!" or "Not Slytherin!" on the basis of such prejudices, the imbalance will be perpetuated. I once speculated that the Sorting Hat attempted an Ignation study of each child with the objective of placing them, not in the house that was an obvious match, but in the house that would enable them to develop a hidden talent. The prime example of this would be Hermione, who seemed an obvious candidate for Ravenclaw but would not have developed her bravery there. I still think this would be a much better system, one which would promote understanding -- and unity -- among the houses. Pippin: I was kind of hoping, and I think this is where a lot of disillusionment comes from, that JKR would try to finesse this inconvenient truth. Slytherin would be completely rehabilitated, or else the other houses would discover that it didn't need rehabilitation after all. Just like The Little White Horse. But JKR is too honest a writer for that, IMO. Debbie: I do agree here that the complete and immediate rehabilitation of Slytherin house would have been highly implausible and incredibly saccharine. It's a slow process that can be fully accomplished by building up a new generation that wasn't raised on the old prejudices, for while Harry intellectually understands this, so that he can endorse Slytherin house as an appropriate house for his son, his relationship with Slytherins of his own generation will never be more than formally cordial; there's too much water under the bridge. It's up to the Albus/Rose/Scorpius generation to do that, and the epilogue contains just enough hints to allow us to believe, if we choose, that this can be accomplished. But only if the Hat doesn't subvert the whole thing. Debbie who's starting to understand what's going on in that epilogue, but must save most of it for another post [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady1949 at comcast.net Sat Aug 11 20:26:19 2007 From: catlady1949 at comcast.net (Phyllis Stevens) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:26:19 -0400 Subject: James's age / Molly's Age References: Message-ID: <014d01c7dc55$e07b0d00$0e6d3644@user53796g88h2> No: HPFGUIDX 175125 Somewhere I think I read that Molly was at school at Hogwarts when Riddle was there, or am I just dreaming that? catlady1949 at comcast.net From valeriejeanne at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 20:33:58 2007 From: valeriejeanne at yahoo.com (Valerie ) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:33:58 -0000 Subject: Baby in King's Cross chapter of HP7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175126 I wondered if anyone had thoughts about that baby in the "King's Cross" chapter? The one that's crying, but Harry feels repulsed by it...Was that supposed to represent the Voldemort part of Harry that had been removed from him by Voldemort's attack on Harry? Valerie J. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 21:30:25 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:30:25 -0000 Subject: Reviewers, Fans, and the Reception of DH (was Re: Stephen King on Book 7) In-Reply-To: <46BE0D70.8050203@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175128 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > OK, I'm just going to repeat something I heard somewhere, but I thought > I recently read a bit of research that suggested the HP phenom hasn't, > after all, had a measurable impact on youth reading rates. Kids who > read, read HP; kids who don't just wait for the movie. > > Ring any bells with anyone? > > Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan > It certainly has been quoted in the Washington Post by the head of their Book Section. Of course, not having the raw data, I can't say whether he was correctly quoting the evidence or not. It was part of his comments about HP in general, which I thought very interesting. He has become progressively suspicious of the HP phenomenon over the years, but not because of JKR or the books. He said, and I'm paraphrasing, he thought they were an enjoyable set of children's novels, but he finds some of the beliefs percolating through the fandom to be, at the very least, questionable. Specifically, he said that he always gets a queasy feeling when asked to speak about the Potterverse, particularly when he's asked to do so in his professional role as a literary critic. When dealing with many Potter fans, he feels they are demanding he stand and swear an oath of allegiance to the idea of JKR's literary greatness and the incredible service she has done for the cause of children's literacy. Once again paraphrasing, "If I have the temerity to mention anything about the pedestrian writing style, the repetitive and derivative plots, or the characters that never seem to change or grow and are inserted and discarded whenever required by the plot's mechanics," he has to dodge flying cutlery. The comment about reading rates refers to something he found to be even more of a problem. According to the figures he referenced, the Potter phenomenon has had essentially no effect on reading rates (by which he means reading of fiction for pleasure and edification, non- fiction is a totally different ball of wax). When you control for population, etc., rates of reading both overall and as a function of age continue to decline at pretty much exactly the same pace as ten years ago before Potter came on the scene. What happened, he says, is that JKR managed to catch lightning in a bottle, capturing such a huge segment of the reading market that it created the illusion that the market was expanding when in fact it continues to contract. He futher pointed out that this is totally in keeping with the dynamics seen in the fiction market overall during the last decade or so, as a narrow group of authors monopolize a greater and greater proportion of a declining readership. In 2005 five authors accounted for over 70% of all fiction sales (JKR was one, King was another), and there is no reason to believe this has changed. This proportion looms even larger when you consider that much of the remaining 30% of fiction sales was probably accounted for by Harlequin romances and media tie-ins. But, he said, if he has the gall to mention this in front of a group of Potter fans, they scream "HERESY!!" and chase him down the road carrying wooden beams and crucifixion nails. Just his experience, but I have no trouble believing him. Lupinlore From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 21:49:46 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore and the slaughtered pig, also featuring logic, Snape, and camping In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <790184.25869.qm@web55012.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175129 va32h: [big snip] >... Summing up: Dumbledore expecting Snape to show Harry Snape's own >memories (including one that features a less-than-flatterin g speech of >Dumbledore's) is no less logical than Dumbledore giving Snape the job of telling >Harry all this in the first place which in turn is no less logical than pretty much >anything else that happens in Deathly Hallows. I doubt Snape planned to give Harry memories on his "deathbed." When Harry came to Snape as he lay dying, Snape (whose eyes widened I believe -- if I do remember correctly, perhaps they widened in surprise, astonishment, thankfulness) took advantage of the opportunity to get Harry the information he needed before he (Snape) took his last breath (thus he started bleeding memories). Snape doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who wouldn't have a plan; he didn't foresee Voldemort murdering him (his right-hand man) though. So for all we know, he has Dumbledore's memories or other proof stashed in his office or perhaps he was counting on Dumbledore's portrait to back him up. Who knows? In any case, this is one of those things that I can explain to myself to my own satisfaction and see no problem (like that darn letter...) Christy va32h wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > If what you say is correct and "Showing Harry a memory > seems the best way to prove that what Snape is saying is true" then > why on Earth show him a memory of Snape's, a memory of Dumbledore > flapping him gums? Why didn't Dumbledore give Snape a bottle > containing a memory of his own and tell him to give it to Harry when > the time was right? va32h: Fair enough. Why didn't Dumbledore do that, then? Why did Dumbledore require Snape to be the bearer of this particular message in the first place? It's the most important thing for Harry to know - ever! - and it's crucial that he believe the message and follow through on it. So Dumbledore gives this job to....the one person Harry actually hates *more* than Voldemort? I'm not asking rhetorically, either - I really don't know! I might have thought that Dumbledore wanted to teach Harry (and Snape) a lesson about forgiveness instead of vengeance. You know, force them to work together the way the camp counselors force the feuding twins in "A Parent Trap" to spend the night in the same cabin. (which creates an amusing mental picture at least). But that doesn't seem to be where JKR is going with Snape, based on her post-DH comments. And while your argument is certainly logical - when has JKR ever been shown to use logic in her plot twists? The whole premise of the 7 Potters is ridiculous, IMO, because it would have been much more logical to simply have Harry put on his invisibility cloak and get in the car with the Dursleys, and be dropped off at some secure location from which he could Floo or even walk to the Burrow. But of course that would be far less interesting than a deadly pursuit by a swarm of Death Eaters and a Sudden!Shocking!Death! That's one of my chief complaints with DH actually - that it's too obvious that things are being done for the sake of the book and not the sake of the story. Does that make sense? Take GoF - a common argument has been that Fake!Moody should have just made a book or a quill into portkey and used that to get Harry on the first or second day of class. The whole triwizard tournament is a contrivance. Which is certainly true *but* -- valid arguments can be made that it really is logical for Voldemort to wait all year to get his hands on Harry. I won't bother rehashing them, because I'm sure we've all read those discussions, yes? In Deathly Hallows, however, we have many situations that have no purpose other than to keep the book moving along, or to give us something more interesting to read than "Hermione put up the tent again. This time they were on a rainy hillside and oh by the way, it's now March." For example - Hermione accios a bunch of books on Horcruxes. That was such a wtf moment for me. JKR needed the trio to know how to destroy horcruxes so poof! they get a book all about horcruxes. That struck me as a cheap, lazy way to move the book along, and wasn't an explicable part of the story. Well I seem to have got off track a bit. Summing up: Dumbledore expecting Snape to show Harry Snape's own memories (including one that features a less-than-flattering speech of Dumbledore's) is no less logical than Dumbledore giving Snape the job of telling Harry all this in the first place which in turn is no less logical than pretty much anything else that happens in Deathly Hallows. va32h --------------------------------- Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Aug 11 21:55:48 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:55:48 -0000 Subject: Disappointment and Responsibility (was Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0708111337r44a5c72cub7c9874baa498158@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175130 Debbie: > It's a slow process that can be fully accomplished > by building up a new generation that wasn't raised > on the old prejudices, for while Harry intellectually > understands this, so that he can endorse Slytherin > house as an appropriate house for his son, his > relationship with Slytherins of his own generation > will never be more than formally cordial; there's > too much water under the bridge. It's up to the > Albus/Rose/Scorpius generation to do that, and the > epilogue contains just enough hints to allow us to > believe, if we choose, that this can be accomplished. houyhnhnm: We can choose, for instance, to imagine Albus Severus making a friend on the train who gets sorted into Slytherin and deciding that's where he wants to be, too. He has his father's blessing and promise of support. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 11 22:34:09 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:34:09 -0000 Subject: Baby in King's Cross chapter of HP7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175131 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Valerie " wrote: > > I wondered if anyone had thoughts about that baby in the "King's > Cross" chapter? The one that's crying, but Harry feels repulsed by > it...Was that supposed to represent the Voldemort part of Harry that > had been removed from him by Voldemort's attack on Harry? Geoff: Someone wrote quite recently that they thought that it was Voldemort going through a similar experience to Harry in King's Cross. It hadn't occurred to me at that point but there seems to be canon evidence that Voldemort also collapsed at the same time as Harry at the end of "The Forest Again". Look at the start of "The Flaw in the Plan": 'He (Harry) had expected to hear cheers of triumph and jubilation at his death but instead, hurried footsteps, whispers and solicitous murmurs filled the air. "My Lord... my Lord...." ...Desperate to see what was happening, and why, Harry opened his eyes by a millimetre. Voldemort appeared to be getting to his feet.... ...Harry closed his eyes again and considered what he had seen. The Death Eaters had been huddled round Voldemort, who seemed to have fallen to the ground. Something had happened whe he had hit Harry with the Killing Curse. Had Voldemort, too, collapsed? It seemd like it. And both of them had fallen briefly unconscious and both of them had now returned...' (DH "The Flaw in the Plan" from pp.580/81 UK edition) I now believe that the child is the form that Voldemort will take after death because of the damage he inflicted on himself by creating Horcruxes and when Harry asks "What is that, Professor?" Dumbledore replies "Something that is beyond eiher of our help" which seems to confirm this. (DH "King's Cross" p.567 UK edition) From dreadr at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 22:13:50 2007 From: dreadr at yahoo.com (dreadr) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:13:50 -0000 Subject: Another angle on Hermione's parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175133 I don't agree with those of you who think that Hermione was being insensitive when she modified her parent's memories. The book never discusses what happens if a "muggle-born" should not choose to go to Hogwarts. Obviously, the Ministry would not want a wizard child to be out in the muggle world even sans wand without supervision. Are they really allowed to choose. I know in COS that Justin Finch-Fletchley states that he was down for Eton and chose Hogwarts, but are they really given much of a choice? Also, one gets the obvious idea that once you enter the wizard world, there really is very little going back. I don't think the MOM would want a fully qualified wizard living in the muggle world. The temptations would be too great. I think Hermione's actions were always out of love. Her parent were not comfortable in the wizard world, so Hermione tried to protect them from the uglier side of it. I think that is far more compassionate than telling them and saying "oh, by the way you cannot protect me". By doing it the way she did, she not only ensured their safety but also protected them from the bitterness of grief it things did not go well. I don't think she really believed that she would come back. debbie From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 11 23:17:33 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:17:33 -0000 Subject: Disappointment and Responsibility (was Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175134 > Pippin: > I was kind of hoping, and I think this is where a lot of disillusionment > comes from, that JKR would try to finesse this inconvenient > truth. Slytherin would be completely rehabilitated, or else the other > houses would discover that it didn't need rehabilitation after all. Just > like The Little White Horse. But JKR is too honest a writer for that, > IMO. > Debbie: > I do agree here that the complete and immediate rehabilitation of Slytherin > house would have been highly implausible and incredibly saccharine. It's a > slow process that can be fully accomplished by building up a new generation > that wasn't raised on the old prejudices, for while Harry intellectually > understands this, so that he can endorse Slytherin house as an appropriate > house for his son, his relationship with Slytherins of his own generation > will never be more than formally cordial; there's too much water under the > bridge. It's up to the Albus/Rose/Scorpius generation to do that, and the > epilogue contains just enough hints to allow us to believe, if we choose, > that this can be accomplished. > > But only if the Hat doesn't subvert the whole thing. Magpie: Well, of course we could imagine that. People have been imagining something similar for Harry's generation in fanfic for years. But what I don't see is any reason to think that the end of the book is coded to say this is in any way what's about to happen. The epilogue just doesn't seem any more focused on that then the rest of the story to me. It seems like saying rehabilitation of Slytherin is unrealistic within the bounds of the story but after Slytherin isn't rehabilitated and our heroes aren't shown to have been mistaken (in even far less extreme ways than the idea that it was all a complete misunderstanding which never seemed a possibility to me)...19 years later we're on our way to Slytherin being rehabilitated and our heroes getting over their mistaken impression. But Harry Potter could have become friends with a Slytherin just as easily as his son could have. He didn't have to worry about his father not supporting him or loving him if he did that. It feels like a problem created retroactively to solve it in the epilogue. Harry and Ron aren't Blacks who blast people off their family trees. The series seems to indicate, in fact, that they weren't prejudice against the house at all, just seeing the people in it for what they were (they just had to learn that some overcame it or were not so bad)--so why should they be needing to intellectually understand this 19 years later? Harry's elder son teases the younger one with the fear of being in Slytherin, giving Albus something like Harry's own vague fear of it as the bad house (the one still associated with Dark Magic). Albus mentions it, and Harry replies: If you were in Slytherin, it would be great for Slytherin. Your mother and I don't care what house you're in. But if it really bothers you (as I know it does because that's what we're talking about), I can also assuage your fear by telling you you don't go into any house you really don't want to be in-- that's not how it works. A nice sentiment, and one I can very easily imagine Arthur Weasley giving to his own children years before. Harry's one addition is that he tells Albus that he was named for a Slytherin who was very brave-- which is significant, though of course is still the trait that Gryffindor Sorts for, so he's saying that hey, even if you're not in the brave house you can still be brave rather than praising what's great about Slytherin (which would be a lot harder). Of course, little Albus is also named for a Gryffindor. I see Harry being mature about Slytherin and praising Snape, and that's a change from the 11-year-old who probably would never be able to think of a kind thing to say about any Slytherin. I just don't see it as significant as it seems to be being made, especially when the story didn't seem so interested in this idea to begin with. It's like a contradiction even to talk about it, with it stressed how unrealistic it would be to show that Slytherin was misunderstood or to show a step towards rehabilitation and connection...but in the epilogue Slytherin's bad reputation is kind of misunderstood and they're moving towards rehabilitation and connection. If it's supposed to work like the equally unrealistic total overhaul of the MoM by a few teenagers, it's not presented as that either. To me it just seems a lot less Slytherin-centered at all--just like the rest of the story. Slytherin is still there, it still has its flaws, but people can still deal with those flaws. Iow, to me it seems like the world is very much back to the way Harry walked into it with the one change that the threat of Voldemort (a threat which spilled over into making things like Slytherin and Malfoys more dangerous and menacing) is gone. I also don't see why Elizabeth Goudge (iirc, the author of The Little White Horse) is labelled as less honest than JKR for writing about different people in her book where there actually was a misunderstanding. I don't even get how the way JKR's story is supposed to be working in this area makes so much more honest. Goudge made the split between the two groups a central issue and healing the split was earned in the story. Why is it more honest to just leave everything as is and then say that 19 years later it took care of itself? To me it seems like the two authors are the same in this--the improvement comes from the thing that was actually dealt within the story. In HP, that means Voldemort was taken care of, and the affect on Slytherin that that action would have. Harry did change in his feelings about Slytherin and certain Slytherins in particular--to a realistic degree given the real characters of those people. I find it hard to believe that any young reader reading the story would want to be a Slytherin any more at the end of the book than at the beginning. In fact, I think it's a bit silly to use "it's unrealistic" for just about any argument about what JKR can or can't do (like having a reconciliation with Slytherin that's too "Hallmark"), because she's not an author hemmed in by strict realism. This is the person who has the international sportstar comes to the school and dismiss hoards of girls to make bookish Hermione Cinderella at a ball, and has her 11- year-old protagonist become an overnight sports hero on a team of a sport he's never played where he's sharing the field with kids 13-17. I don't think we should confuse "stuff JKR was interested in" with "the only way to be honest about how things work in real life." -m From cottell at dublin.ie Sat Aug 11 23:16:30 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:16:30 -0000 Subject: Stephen King on Book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175135 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Stephen King wrote a very interesting review of Deathly Hallows at: > http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20044270_20044274_20050689,00.html > > Eggplant Thank you for posting that. I'd read his pre-DH piece and wondered what he thought afterwards. The wonder of the magic is true, but I raised an eyebrow at the following: "but by the time she penned the final line of Deathly Hallows ("All was well."), she had become one of the finer stylists in her native country ? not as good as Ian McEwan or Ruth Rendell (at least not yet), but easily the peer of Beryl Bainbridge or Martin Amis" Mus, who is too baffled to comment further. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 00:25:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 00:25:42 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175136 Carol earlier: > > Sirius chose to be in Gryffindor to be with his new friend, James, who hated Slytherin. And both of them turned up their noses at Severus's choice to be in the house that he thought stood for "brains, not brawn," labeling him as "Snivelllus" for no other reason than that he saw Slytherin as a place that would accept a Muggleborn and honor intellect. We're looking at children's prejudices and mutural ignorance here, not a choice based on principle or a rejection of pure-blood superiority or the Dark Arts. Even James's choice is presumably based on his father's having been in Gryffindor, just as Severus's choice of Slytherin seems to be based on his mother's placement there. > > > > Had Sirius not met the less than loveable James Potter and wanted James to view him as "all right," he would probably have ended up in Slytherin like the rest of his family. There's nothing to indicate that he thinks it's a Dark or prejudiced House. And do we ever hear Sirius expressing his views on Muggle-borns vs. pure-bloods? I don't recall it. He certainly doesn't care about the rights of house-elves. > > > > Carol, who sees nothing relating to principle in Sirius's choice of Gryffindor and nothing to admire in the choice Prep0strus responded: > > It seems a lot to ask that if James knew differently, he say so... in the one of a very few scenes we see from Snape's perspective. Carol again: It's not Snape's perspective. it's the Pensieve, which is objective. Neither James nor Sirius says anything about the Dark Arts or blood prejudice. All we have is James's expressed desire to be in his father's House, which he associates with bravery, Severus's desire to be in Slytherin, which he associates with brains, James's sneers at Slytherin for no specified reason, and Sirius's hesitation between his parents' House and his new friend and his choice of the new friend and his preferred House (no doubt detected by the Sorting Hat later). Prep0strus: Now, we know James became a bit of a bully, but it's absurd to think that that was all there was too it. Carol responds: I didn't say that was all there was to it. Please don't put words in my mouth. And it does not serve any purpose to label someone else's argument as absurd. James is already showing himself as "a bit of a bully" in this scene, tripping Severus and using language that echoes (or presages) Draco's about Hufflepuff. We see that Severus has done nothing to earn the nickname Snivellus and that James does indeed torment him in the SWM scene "because he exists." (I think that in a fair fight Severus would have given him a run for his money, but that's neither here nor there.) > Prep0strus: > In a few years, Lily would come to accuse Snape of wanting to join up > with Voldemorte with his friends. Carol responds: I'm not talking about "in a few years." Nor am I talking about their later (post-"toerag") choice to join the Order of the Phoenix). I'm talking about Sirius Black's reasons for wanting to be in Gryffindor, which have everything to do with James and nothing to do with principle that I can see, and I've quoted the entire scene except for a few bits relating to Harry. Prep0strus: > And Sirius? Well, Sirius would be at home listening to his dark-supporting family probably PRAISING the actions of voldemorte and cronies, and certainly talking down muggleborns, muggles, and griffendors - a person who was the first in his family to buck a tradition of rivalry. In order to even be open to James as a friend, I think there has to be a lot more to him - a lot more good and righteousness. > > And Sirius was a member of the Order of the Phoenix. Before being framed, before years in Azkaban. He was on the side that fought against prejudice, against hatred. Carol responds: We don't have any canon for Sorius' reasons for joining the Order of the Phoenix, only his Gryffindor banners an posters of Muggle artificat, which seem to represent adolescent rebellion, in contrast to the "good son's" Slytherin banners and artifacts. (Lots of irony going on in both portrayals, but I don't want to get into that here.) What we don't know is whether Sirius's principles ever changed. Perhaps he was indoctrinated in gryffindor values as Severus was indoctrinated in Gryffindor ones. All we have that I can recall is his statement about James's opposition to the Dark Arts (not in evidence in the scene in which they're all eleven-year-olds, as I'll show in a moment) and his telling his mother's portrait to shut up. We also see him pointing out to Harry that his favorite cousin, Andromeda, has been burned off the tapestry for marrying a Muggle-born, and his hatred of his cousin Bellatrix. But all of that is the adult Sirius, after the deaths of the Potters and Pettigrew's betrayal and his own imprisonment. What I don't see, in either the child Sirius in "The Prince's Tale" or the adolescent Sirius helping to ambush Severus Snape (who is reviewing the test questions after a DADA OWL), is any sign of principles. The closest we get is "toerag" James saying that *he* would never call Lily a Mudblood). But I'm not talking about the SWM. I'm talking about the first encounter between Sirius, James, and Severus on the Hogwarts Express. A little canon then (and I really am wondering why so few people are quoting it at this point). "'You'd better be in Slytherin,' said Snape, encouraged that she [Lily] had brightened a little. "'Slytherin?' One of the boys sharing the compartment, who had shown no interest in Snape or Lily at all until that point, looked around at the word, and Harry . . . saw his father, slight, black-haired like Snape, but with that indefinable air of being well cared for, even adored, that Snape so conspicuously lacked. "'Who wants to be in Slytherin? I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?' james asked the boy lounging on the seat opposite him. . . [BTW, James's words precisely echo Draco's sneer about Hufflepuff in SS/PS: "Imagine being Sorted into Hufflepuff. I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?" SS Am. ed. 77).] "Sirius did not smile. 'My whole family have been in Slytherin,' he said. "'Blimey,' said James. 'And I thought you seemed all right!'" "Sirius grinned. 'Maybe I'll break the tradition. Where are you heading, f you've got the choice?' "James held up an invisible sword. 'Gryffindor, where dwell the brave at heart. Like my dad"" (DH Am. ed. 671). Just as Severus appears to have been told by his witch mother that Slytherin (surely her old House) is a House for "brains, not brawn" (as Severus says on the next page), James has been told by his gryffindor father that Gryffindor is the House for "the brave at heart." Sirius, who has been brought up with Slytherin values, has a choice. Stay with his new friend, who sneers at Slytherin, or stay with family tradition and lose his new friend. He chooses James over his family, not because of any rejection of the Dark Arts or pure-blood prejudice but because he'd rather be friends with the "cool" James than the "little oddball" who thinks that Slytherin is for brains, not brawn. sirius makes his choice with his next remark, "Where're you going to go, seeing as you're neither?" And as Lily suggests to Severus that they find another compartment, James tries to trip Severus and Sirius [I think] calls out, "See ya, Snivellus!" (672). Not one of these eleven-year-olds is acting on principle. All are basing their views of the Houses on what they've been told (Lily, the sole Muggle-born, is the only one with no preconceptions) and Sirius, the only one making a choice, does so because James is "cooler" than Severus. (I'm remeinded of Harry's wish to be seen with someone "cool" rather than with Neville and Luna in OoP.) Sirius never loses his air of arrogant superiority, so like Bellatrix's. Even their deaths show a kinship (except that he's an Order member and she's a murderous DE). Both Dumbledore and hermione criticize his attitude toward house-elves, which in DH is unfavorably contrasted with his Slytherin brother's. The adult Sirius does state that James always opposed the Dark Arts, but, if so, that opposition plays no part in this scene. Nor does pure-blood supremacy. In fact, James and Sirius are the pure-bloods pitted against the Half-blood and his Muggle-born friend. Had Sirius not met James and liked him, perhaps appreciating his self-confidence bordering on arrogance or an air of mischievousness like that of the Weasley Twins, he would have had no more reason than his brother Regulus to question his family's view that he belonged in Slytherin. Carol, standing by her position that we are dealing here with the uninformed opinions of eleven-year-olds and not with principle From aceworker at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 01:02:53 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:02:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Do you guys think there will be any more books now? Message-ID: <202365.78438.qm@web30204.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175137 <> What do you mean prophecy not fulfilled. The prophecy was about Harry beating Voldemort, not about bringing peace to the world. The larger is perhaps an impossibility not only in real life, but in most fantasy fiction. Even C.S. Lewis only bought peace to Narnia by destorying Narnia. No, there will not be more books at least by JKR, though JKR was smart by keeping an opening for more. Hopefully there will be the Encyclopdia though; which will probably have some short stories in the same way that Fantastic Beast does. However there is the slim possibility that she might write something else in this universe but not as she has said in interviews for at least ten years, but it is interesting that DH ends in 2017; which is exactly ten years from now, which means if she released something it would be another book probably mostly about Al and Rose. But in the meantime there is some fantastic fan fiction out there, a small portion of it actually pubished on fansites by people who otherwise are professional writers and sometimes have actually published real novels.Or you can tell, have the talent to do so. I.m hoping that for charity some day she will have her publishers publish an anthology of these selected by her and perhaps the staff of the better fanfic sites. The only problem is that the best fan fiction tends to be even darker then the real Harry Potter and much more adult. The romance in the better fanfiction by rule is better then HP and much more 'mature' (and I'm talking about the clean stuff) But disregard me, I'm a prefect at www.harrypotterfanfiction and therefore a bit obsessed with fanfiction as well as writing my own. But there are fanfiction writers who are close to or better then JKR in writng ability if not quite storytelling ability. And yes there are many awful fics by teenagers, but you would be suprised by how many teenagers write fairly decently although you can tell that they are still learning. I won't list them here, since I don't think it is not part of the scope of the list. But if anyone is interesred e-mail me and I'll send you a list of some of the better ones. PS I wonder what really twisted fan fiction Steven King could write? Maybe Carrie was a witch after-all? LOL!. DA Jones A Hufflepuff prefect at HPFF --------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Aug 12 01:27:52 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:27:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Not Grown Up Enough For You? (was Re: In Defense of Molly Weasley In-Reply-To: References: <002601c7dbfd$2bdf45d0$a0c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <2795713f0708111827o34f7780ck1124278ad76ad931@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175138 va32h: I know darn well that I don't think DH is the best piece of literature in the world, and I am struggling to come up with a single user name on this forum that has posted anything remotely close to that. Lynda: I know for a fact that the poster replied to did not get that from me either, and I like the book, but its not the greatest literature ever written and JKR is not my favorite author. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 01:29:20 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:29:20 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175139 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > It's not Snape's perspective. it's the Pensieve, which is objective. > Neither James nor Sirius says anything about the Dark Arts or blood > prejudice. All we have is James's expressed desire to be in his > father's House, which he associates with bravery, Severus's desire to > be in Slytherin, which he associates with brains, James's sneers at > Slytherin for no specified reason, and Sirius's hesitation between his > parents' House and his new friend and his choice of the new friend and > his preferred House (no doubt detected by the Sorting Hat later). > Prep0strus: I do have to be careful with my word choices on here. Yes, it is not Snape's 'perspective'. However, it IS his memory. And his choice to show it to Harry. We don't see many memories of Snape and his Slytherin cohorts, practicing dark magic and most likely torturing younger Griffendors and talking of joining up with Voldemorte, do we? Much as we judge JKR by the scenes she chooses to show us, so while we WANT a nice Slytherin, the conspicuous absence of one in the stories means we have to invent one or accept that there isn't one, we can also note the editing that Snape is able to do. He is telling his story. And he would not be present for every conversation James had condemning dark magic. We do have, as you conveniently have brought up, the canon stating James always hated dark magic. What I meant, rather than perspective, is that it is in the presence of Snape, and a small clip at that. > Carol responds: > > We don't have any canon for Sorius' reasons for joining the Order of > the Phoenix, only his Gryffindor banners an posters of Muggle > artificat, which seem to represent adolescent rebellion, in contrast > to the "good son's" Slytherin banners and artifacts. (Lots of irony > going on in both portrayals, but I don't want to get into that here.) > What we don't know is whether Sirius's principles ever changed. Prep0strus: That's an interesting statement. We don't know whether his principles changed. That depends on how you look at it. If his principles were always to reject the dark arts, reject his family's pure-blood superiority mentality, and want to fight evil, well, then I think his principles didn't change. If, as a child, he accepted his family's hatred of muggleborns and seemingly comfort with the dark arts, then I think it's clear his principles DID change. Carol: > Perhaps he was indoctrinated in gryffindor values as Severus was > indoctrinated in Gryffindor ones. All we have that I can recall is his > statement about James's opposition to the Dark Arts (not in evidence > in the scene in which they're all eleven-year-olds, as I'll show in a > moment) and his telling his mother's portrait to shut up. We also see > him pointing out to Harry that his favorite cousin, Andromeda, has > been burned off the tapestry for marrying a Muggle-born, and his > hatred of his cousin Bellatrix. But all of that is the adult Sirius, > after the deaths of the Potters and Pettigrew's betrayal and his own > imprisonment. What I don't see, in either the child Sirius in "The > Prince's Tale" or the adolescent Sirius helping to ambush Severus > Snape (who is reviewing the test questions after a DADA OWL), is any > sign of principles. The closest we get is "toerag" James saying that > *he* would never call Lily a Mudblood). > Prep0strus: That really depends on your definition of principles, doesn't it? It seems Sirius would never use the term mudblood. His friends wouldn't accept it. I think that's a pretty strong principle. And he wouldn't use the dark arts. Another fairly strong principle. And he accepts and defends the societal outcast Lupin, another strong principle for a boy not brought up in the most principled family. What we see is his bullying of Severus Snape, and from what I see in the scenes including him, he is not an nice, innocent boy. If he could, he would do the same to the Griffindors. that doesn't make their bullying more acceptable, but Snape isn't an entirely innocent victim. He's a boy practicing dark arts and engaging in prejudice. And for Sirius to become the man we see at the end, he had to have joined the order and fought against Voldemorte before losing his friend or being locked up. He may be a rash and arrogant, but he was also quite principled. Carol: > But I'm not talking about the SWM. I'm talking about the first > encounter between Sirius, James, and Severus on the Hogwarts Express. > > A little canon then (and I really am wondering why so few people are > quoting it at this point). > > "'You'd better be in Slytherin,' said Snape, encouraged that she > [Lily] had brightened a little. > > "'Slytherin?' One of the boys sharing the compartment, who had shown > no interest in Snape or Lily at all until that point, looked around at > the word, and Harry . . . saw his father, slight, black-haired like > Snape, but with that indefinable air of being well cared for, even > adored, that Snape so conspicuously lacked. > > "'Who wants to be in Slytherin? I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?' > james asked the boy lounging on the seat opposite him. . . [BTW, > James's words precisely echo Draco's sneer about Hufflepuff in SS/PS: > "Imagine being Sorted into Hufflepuff. I think I'd leave, wouldn't > you?" SS Am. ed. 77).] > > "Sirius did not smile. 'My whole family have been in Slytherin,' he said. > > "'Blimey,' said James. 'And I thought you seemed all right!'" > > "Sirius grinned. 'Maybe I'll break the tradition. Where are you > heading, f you've got the choice?' > > "James held up an invisible sword. 'Gryffindor, where dwell the brave > at heart. Like my dad"" (DH Am. ed. 671). Prep0strus: But you cut off the scene before snape makes a disparaging noise and sneers at him, insulting their choice as well. Snape, we've seen, was not a pleasant child. He liked Lily a lot. But talked just as nastily about Petunia as James and Sirius did of him. And his disdain for the other boys is the same as theirs for him. He was smaller, and they had each other, but his instincts were the same. Carol: > > Just as Severus appears to have been told by his witch mother that > Slytherin (surely her old House) is a House for "brains, not brawn" > (as Severus says on the next page), James has been told by his > gryffindor father that Gryffindor is the House for "the brave at heart." Prep0strus: And, I maintain, though there is no canon to quote, that James (and Sirius, and possibly Snape - it doesn't seem like he was as clued into the WW as them, though more than Lily) also would know of the politics of the world. I find it very difficult to swallow that they would go to school not knowing what Slytherins were doing in the adult world. What beliefs they were espousing. The students in Harry's time knew what had happened 11 years before. they knew Harry. They knew Voldemorte. And they knew the names of the Death Eaters - and that they were Slytherins. They did not go into that choice blind, and thinking only of their friends. These kids have knowledge of the world. Carol: > Sirius, who has been brought up with Slytherin values, has a choice. > Stay with his new friend, who sneers at Slytherin, or stay with family > tradition and lose his new friend. > > He chooses James over his family, not because of any rejection of the > Dark Arts or pure-blood prejudice but because he'd rather be friends > with the "cool" James than the "little oddball" who thinks that > Slytherin is for brains, not brawn. sirius makes his choice with his > next remark, "Where're you going to go, seeing as you're neither?" > > And as Lily suggests to Severus that they find another compartment, > James tries to trip Severus and Sirius [I think] calls out, "See ya, > Snivellus!" (672). > > Not one of these eleven-year-olds is acting on principle. All are > basing their views of the Houses on what they've been told (Lily, the > sole Muggle-born, is the only one with no preconceptions) and Sirius, > the only one making a choice, does so because James is "cooler" than > Severus. (I'm remeinded of Harry's wish to be seen with someone "cool" > rather than with Neville and Luna in OoP.) > Prep0strus: On this, I think we simply disagree. I do not believe that the hat is so pointless that it simply accepts whatever house you 'want' to be in. There have to be some Hufflepuffs who want to be Griffindors when they arrive, but are simply not brave enough, or Griffindors who just aren't smart enough for Ravenclaw. But if it were simply about what you wanted, you could check a box, mail it in, and that would be that. No need for the magical hat. And while you believe that Sirius was open to the idea of Griffindor simply because James was 'cool', I think there has to be more than that. Coming from the family that he does, he should already have a predisposition to dislike and mistrust Griffindors. But maybe seeing a fun James and a strange Severus makes him question what he's been told. Maybe he starts hearing from the boys on the train more of the horrors attributed to dark magic, rather than the draws of it. And the hat sees someone who can be brave and strong rather than ambitious and self serving. Shoot, maybe he's not clever enough for Slytherin! (though I doubt that - we're told again and again how talented, which in the WW seems to equate to smarts, James and Sirius are) But he has the potential to be someone fighting for a cause he believes in. Carol: > Sirius never loses his air of arrogant superiority, so like > Bellatrix's. Even their deaths show a kinship (except that he's an > Order member and she's a murderous DE). Both Dumbledore and hermione > criticize his attitude toward house-elves, which in DH is unfavorably > contrasted with his Slytherin brother's. > Prep0strus: His attitude toward KREACHER, not house-elves in general. I think it's misleading to take his treatment of kreacher and expand that to how he would treat all elves. Kreacher was, throughout Sirius's experience, always spouting evil and hatred. But, having said that, Ron would be just as cruel to Kreacher, and just as dismissive of other house elves. Carol: > The adult Sirius does state that James always opposed the Dark Arts, > but, if so, that opposition plays no part in this scene. Nor does > pure-blood supremacy. In fact, James and Sirius are the pure-bloods > pitted against the Half-blood and his Muggle-born friend. > > Had Sirius not met James and liked him, perhaps appreciating his > self-confidence bordering on arrogance or an air of mischievousness > like that of the Weasley Twins, he would have had no more reason than > his brother Regulus to question his family's view that he belonged in > Slytherin. > > Carol, standing by her position that we are dealing here with the > uninformed opinions of eleven-year-olds and not with principle > Prep0strus: Maybe that is true. In which case, I have to respect James all the more, though you continue to preface his name with 'toe-rag', if by force of personality alone, he was able to take someone who, but for his influence, would have been a murderous Death Eater. But I think it's a little bit of both sides. Sirius, somehow, was predisposed to turn against the familial tradition of muggle hating and dark loving, and he managed to meet a Griffindor who he could get along with that would help him from straying to the evil side. Maybe his contact with his favorite cousin, who would have similar tendencies to stray from the family platform, helped make him who he was, ready to reject so much potential for evil. But he, like Snape, comes from a family predisposed for Slytherin and evil, and he doesn't go down that path. I don't believe that 11 year old whim governs that. And, I think we can compare to Snape. Snape had someone, even before school, who was a good influence on him. Lily, with no prejudices, no preconceived notions, is friends with Snape. and she remains his friend throughout school, throughout being in different houses. but her friendship, which extends even to defending him to members of her house, is not enough to keep him from practicing the dark arts, from falling in with a crowd that dislikes her based on her blood, and from pursuing evil. And I want to know if there is canon for the marauders being bullying jerks outside of their relationship with Snape. Now, there is no denying they were bullies. And that they were arrogant. But I can't recall anything to make me think they would pick on anyone simply for being smaller or weaker than them, or even being of a different house. I think they have a specific vendetta against snape, or perhaps slytherins. And while this doesn't excuse their bullying, I think maybe it can show them in a better light. I'd like to think of them as defending younger members of all houses from bullying near-death eater slytherins, and speaking up for the rights of muggleborns - not to mention werewolves. and half-giants. hagrid seems to have quite a good impression of James as well. ~Adam (~Prep0strus), who continues to believe that simply being who they were, James, Sirius, & Lupin showed more strength of character than Snape could ever hope of achieving. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 01:47:54 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:47:54 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175140 > > Carol: > > > > Just as Severus appears to have been told by his witch mother that > > Slytherin (surely her old House) is a House for "brains, not brawn" > > (as Severus says on the next page), James has been told by his > > gryffindor father that Gryffindor is the House for "the brave at heart." > > Prep0strus: > > And, I maintain, though there is no canon to quote, that James (and > Sirius, and possibly Snape - it doesn't seem like he was as clued into > the WW as them, though more than Lily) also would know of the politics > of the world. I find it very difficult to swallow that they would go > to school not knowing what Slytherins were doing in the adult world. > What beliefs they were espousing. The students in Harry's time knew > what had happened 11 years before. they knew Harry. They knew > Voldemorte. And they knew the names of the Death Eaters - and that > they were Slytherins. They did not go into that choice blind, and > thinking only of their friends. These kids have knowledge of the world. Alla: Loved your post, Prep0strus :). Loved. Now here is the funny thing I just thought of. I will be the first one to credit kids with the knowledge of the world. I totally think that many kids at that age DO know where they stand hence Hat's confident choice. Just look at Ron, who at the age of twelve is perfectly aware of word **mudblood* and that is the worst insult one can think of. I totally think that James while learning about it from his parents, able to think for himself as well hence I would never call you this to Lily. Sirius though makes a choice contrary to his family's views, for which I admire him a lot, but where do you think he can learn that? Since I am not buying Carol's assertion that Sirius makes his choice because James's cooler than Severus Snape, or at least not completely. Frankly, I think that this is again goes back to our choices **show** who we are. I think Sirius' choice showed what kind of person he is ( ALL personal flaws and all that, but willing to stand up against the dark), but was it indeed predetermined? Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 01:52:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:52:52 -0000 Subject: Of Snape and Dumbledore (Was: Disappointment and Responsibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175141 lizzyben wrote: "Gryfindor" traits *are better* than the traits of the other houses. Snape is viewed a small exception to the general rule of Slytherins solely because he exhibits a Gryfindor trait - bravery. He's not lauded for his cunning, ambition, etc. Or his intelligence or loyalty, for that matter. Carol responds: Yes, he's lauded for his courage (and taken aback by DD's comment about Sorting too early). But his courage is not the only trait DD values. Certainly, he knows, as even Lupin does, that Snape is "a superb Occlumens" (and we see just *how* good he is in DH when LV looks deeply into his eyes and doesn't see the lie there). Dumbledore praises Snape on more than one occasion in "The Prince's Tale" (after he has shown himself to be "no more a Death Eater than I am" by "spying for our side at great personal risk," GoF). When Snape (shown as a Healer with a wand in one hand and a potion in the other) talks about trapping the curse for the time being, DD tells him that he's done "very well" and follows Snape's argument that DD may live for about a year and the curse will strengthen over time with a smile and words of genuine gratitude, "I am fortunate, very fortunate, that I have you, Severus" (DH Am. ed. 681). No one else, certainly not Madam Pomfrey, who know nothing about Dark magic, could have bought Dumbledore a year of life. When Snape protests that he spends time with Voldemort on DD's orders, DD says, "And you do it extremely well. Do not think that I underestimate the constant danger in which you place yourself, Severus. To give Voldemort what appears to be valuable information while withholding the essentials is a job that I would entrust only to you" (684). True, no one else on DD's staff has a Dark Mark, and no other Death Eater (or former Death Eater) can be trusted. But DD is implying that he trusts Snape completely (as he repeatedly tells Harry in HBP), not only to be loyal to him but to do a job that only a superb Occlumens who can feign both loyalty to LV and calm indifference to the fate of LV's victims can do. Snape is cunning and intelligent; he can think and plan for himself; and he is a superb actor as well as a superb Occlumens. He is quite literally irreplaceable and indispensable. Snape and only Snape can be trusted to kill Dumbledore, to protect the students after LV takes over Hogwarts, to deliver the Sword of Gryffindor to Harry. Snape is not praised for his ambition, but perhaps only because that trait died with Lily. "Dumbledore trusts me." snape tells Fake!Moody in GoF. And that trust is based not merely on courage and loyalty but on Snape's many gifts. From CoS forward, he counts on Snape's potion-making skills. In HBP, he counts on his abilities as a healer of Dark curses. And from GoF forward, he counts on his Occlumency and his cunning. That he is grateful for these skills is clear from the passages that I quoted. Carol, noting that both DD and Headmaster Snape rely on another Slytherin, Portrait!Phineas, for intelligence and cunning and, I would argue, loyalty From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 02:16:30 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 02:16:30 -0000 Subject: Sirius' choice WAS:Re: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175142 Alla: > Sirius though makes a choice contrary to his family's views, for > which I admire him a lot, but where do you think he can learn that? > > Since I am not buying Carol's assertion that Sirius makes his choice > because James's cooler than Severus Snape, or at least not > completely. > > Frankly, I think that this is again goes back to our choices > **show** who we are. > > I think Sirius' choice showed what kind of person he is ( ALL > personal flaws and all that, but willing to stand up against the > dark), but was it indeed predetermined? Alla: In a totally obnoxious way I am replying to myself :).Somebody smarter than me ( claim a credit if would like ;)), just gave me an answer which I like better than total predetermination. YAYAYAYAY. Sirius probably made a choice against everything his family stood for. He chose to go into the house his family probably hated the most. I think he could have chosen it before he ever left his house. And while I am sure he liked James a lot, I think at that particular moment Sirius knew pretty well what he is choosing against. IMO of course. Thank you my lovely correspondent :) While it was always clear for me that Sirius could not stand his family, for some reason it never occurred to me that his choice may have been a negative one, in a sense of choosing AGAINST something, not necessarily for. Maybe just as Harry did, Sirius already chose **not Slytherin**, but meeting James helped him to be sure that he wants Gryffindor and not say Ravenclaw? JMO, Alla From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 02:25:22 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 02:25:22 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: <46B7CF74.9000208@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175143 I had intended on posting this last week, but RL got in the way, sorry for the delay. Although I am sorely tempted to point to Steve's post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174969 say "me too" and be done with this topic, I'm just going to be anal and float one more response post. So here's my, hopefully, last post on the Crucio/UC debate, a week late, with my apologies. -Legal vs Moral- In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174663 > Ceridwen: > > I'm not interested in the Ministry making moral distinctions, > actually. The Ministry is presented in the books as either weak or > corrupt on some level. They still have the duty to enact laws and > see to the execution of those laws, but to me, government is not > there to make a moral distinction, even if it was a wonderful > government. Mike: And I agree with you Ceridwen. I don't think anyone gives a damn for the Ministry's official or unofficial position on morals. The point I was always making was that the UCs got their name as a legal determination from the Ministry, by my read of canon. *After* they were so named, were they then assigned a moral component by the WW at large? In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174577 Lee, everything you quoted from Barty Jr as Moody spoke to the legal position of the UCs, as I averred myself. " mulitiple references to their legality: "illegal Dark Arts curses", "most heavily punished by wizarding law", "earn a life sentence in Azkhaban", and so forth. " Yet somehow the lack of moral discussion has implied this moral distinction? The fact that the students are scared of these scary spells does not show me anything about their moral rectitude. And I don't understand why you brought up Hermione in OotP, since you admit she also doesn't speak to the moral implications of Crucio. > Ceridwen: > I agree with (I think it was) Mike saying that it's odd the > curses are made illegal separately from their effects. Murder, is > wrong, so I would expect the AK to fall under a law against murder, > for instance. This is not how these laws are presented. They are > presented as illegal, and Unforgivable, in and of themselves. Mike: Yep, it was me. I also postulated that wizards make their laws based on magic instead of crimes. i.e. the spells and not the act are made illegal. Bass ackwards, imo, but there you are. It's still just a name (unforgivable) not a quality (immoral). It's still up to us to decide upon the morality. -Sirius' Assessment from GoF- Many have brought up Sirius, what he thought of the UCs. But Sirius brought up the UCs as one of several things he had against Crouch. And let's not forget the passage that sent Sirius down the road to discuss Crouch. "Sirius face darkened. He suddenly looked as menacing as he had the night when Harry had first met him, the night when Harry still believed Sirius to be a murderer. 'Oh I know Crouch all right,' he said quietly.'He was the one who gave the order for me to be sent to Azkaban -- without a trial.'" This is obviously personal to Sirius. This sets the stage for his comments about Crouch. Later Sirius enumerates Crouch's shortcomings - authorized the aurors powers to kill, handing people over to the dementors without a trial and authorized the UCs. Yes, Sirius' assessment of Crouch was spot on. But does that speak to his hatred of Crouch rather than his moral assessment of the UCs? And didn't he include more than the UCs as a basis for his expression of revulsion, particularly including how others had received the same treatment that he got vis-a-vis Azkaban? The thing that caused him to become quite repulsive a page earlier? Certainly Sirius doesn't approve of the UCs, that's why he included them in his list of Crouch's detractions. But the list also included the power to kill for the aurors and him issuing the 'go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.' IOW, Lee, "ruthless" and "cruel" were not based solely on the UCs and arguably, coming from Sirius, may easily been based more on the Azkaban angle. Sirius is the only example in canon I've found that speaks of the UCs in a moral context. So we must catalog him as the character in the series that directly promotes the Unforgivables as immoral. -The Crucio manifested- In In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174577 > > Mike previously: > > I will also add that Crucio seems to be an efficient and > > effective way to stun. > Lee: > When the WW already has an effective Stunning Spell? C'mon, Mike, > you're reaching. Mike now: No, Lee, I wasn't reaching, I was merely noting the effect of the Crucio that Harry used on Carrow. It flung him up in the air, crashed him down and knocked him silly, i.e. it *stunned* him (with the added benefit of a magical punch in the face). I never claimed that it was the only nor the best spell to use to stun, only that it worked. I have put myself into the rather difficult position of claiming that the spell caster's intent (along with his magical ability) is germaine to the spell's manifestation. That is, if Harry wants to stun Carrow with his Crucio, he can cast it to do that. My only canon is the different outcomes of the various Crucios we've seen. Admittedly not an infallible conclusion to reach. However, the one example that noone has explained to my satisfaction is the Crucios that Voldemort uses on the supposedly dead body of Harry. Setting aside the lack of pain (Elder Wand dichotomy infuses itself here), why does Voldemort even use a Crucio in the first place? If Crucio is only for torture, what's the point of using it on a dead body? Unless, the spell caster can effect the spell's manifestation with his intent. IOW, Voldemort can use this same spell, Crucio, as a molestation curse to throw around Harry's body because that is his intent of the curse, this time. > Lee: > You're also, apparently, forgetting your Latin: "crucio" (from > "cruciare" (v.)) -- "I torture"; "cruciatus" (n.) -- "torture, > torment". Mike: Well, I never took Latin and I don't know Arabic. But JKR gave many spells names with origins in these two languages and at the same time told us that she was using her *own* bastardized interpretations. So I don't hold with your non-canonical "I torture" in place of "Crucio". Although I understand it is your interpretation. I have still not been convinced that what Harry did was "torture". What Bella did to the Longbottoms, that was torture. Carol explained to me that "Sectumsempra" means "cut ever". So if you don't have Snape's specific countercurse you are not going to stopper this cut. Yet Molly staunched the blood flow for George in DH, and I feel confident that she never asked Snape for the countercurse. So it seems the fanciful Latin name was not strictly translated. In any case, there seems to be several possible translations, of which torture is only one. -In the Ravenclaw Tower- In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174663 > Ceridwen: > Another moral issue, which is tied up with the law, is that these > are illegal curses with a mandatory sentence to Azkaban for using > them. Given that, and the horror which these curses have struck > throughout the books, I think it was out of character for Harry (or > any Good Guys) to use them and not at least reflect on them later. Mike: Although it would have been nice to have seen this type of reflection, JKR didn't seem to want to extend the last chapter, nor write a another chapter before the epilogue. And there really wasn't any place to fit it in logically before the end of "The Flaw in the Plan". I admit to having a fist pumping moment when Harry hit Carrow with the Crucio. And upon entering this discussion, I was really intent upon exploring whether we had missed a few things before we condemned Harry for using the UCs. I would say that I took the same position as Steve in his post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174969 Steve: I would never say Harry's actions were right, only that in context, they were understandable and forgivable...but none the less still wrong. Mike now: And that's the way I looked at it, except I was not ready to concede that Harry's use was wrong. But, never close one's mind to alternate interpretations. Because, this one swung it for me: > Ceridwen: > I should be appalled at the use of these curses. > Voldemort uses them. Bellatrix revels in them. Crouch Jr. > uses them to psychologically torture his students. These are > shocking things, by the tone of the narration, until DH. > > > Whether Harry meant to inflict lasting torture to the point of > insanity, or to just give Amycus a heads-up, the Unforgivables have > been presented as beneath the Good Guys, period, full stop. Mike: And you are right Ceridwen (and you too, Magpie). And I've changed my mind. It is like seeing a bone-crunching hit in American Football. I've cheered when it happened, but when the guy didn't get up and the replay showed the other guy speared him with his helmut, you stop thinking it was such a good play after all. Harry didn't need to spear Carrow, he could have played fair, put a descent hit on him and knocked him silly with a good guy spell, and there wouldn't have been anything to regret. ************************************************* On a personal note, part of the reason I felt compelled to finish this post was to bow to Ceridwen's superior postition. But another part was to respond to Lee and in particular this comment from 174577: "I think this discussion has run its course. It's been several days at least since anything substantive has been added to the debate, and nor is there likely to be in the future. So before it devolves into endless rehashings of the same points, I'm going to make a few general comments, then bow out." I thought it was quite rude for Lee to dismiss the immediate preceding posts as not having "anything substantive" and equally arrogant to proclaim that there would be none in the future. But most appalling was his declaration that he would bless us with one of his gems then bow out before the discussion devolved into endless rehashing. I thought about Lee's paragraph this past week and decided that I would not let sleeping dogs lie, because some things deserve a response, even if it comes late. Mike From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 02:27:08 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:27:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Baby in King's Cross chapter of HP7 -- please can we stop it a baby! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <258689.18646.qm@web55013.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175144 Valerie: > I wondered if anyone had thoughts about that baby in the "King's > Cross" chapter? The one that's crying, but Harry feels repulsed by > it...Was that supposed to represent the Voldemort part of Harry that > had been removed from him by Voldemort's attack on Harry? Geoff: >Someone wrote quite recently that they thought that it was Voldemort going >through a similar experience to Harry in King's Cross. >It hadn't occurred to me at that point but there seems to be canon evidence >that Voldemort also collapsed at the same time as Harry at the end of "The >Forest Again" ... [snip] >I now believe that the child is the form that Voldemort will take after death >because of the damage he inflicted on himself by creating Horcruxes and >when Harry asks "What is that, Professor?" Dumbledore replies "Something >that is beyond eiher of our help" which seems to confirm this. >(DH "King's Cross" p.567 UK edition) I'm starting to get the creeps referring to the "creature" under the chair in chapter 35, King's Cross as "the baby" -- it brings to mind a helpless infant left abandoned by his mother -- well, that did happen to Tom Riddle, so in that regard the form and placement is interesting -- but, "the stunted creature under the chair" (p. 709 US) is not a baby (its physical appearance first is described as having the "form of a small, naked child" (p. 706) and thereafter once or twice referred to simply as a child, but it is more often referred to as a "creature" -- it is not a child -- its form is that of a child. It is, in my opinion, the damaged soul of Voldemort -- actually one eighth of Voldemort's soul (or less -- did he split his soul committing murders that he didn't use to make Horcruxes?) Descriptions of the "creature" and Harry's reactions to it are very interesting. As are how he and Dumbledore refer to the "creature" -- as an it, not a him or a her, but an it. I've quoted some pertinent passages from chapter 35 at the very end of this message for anyone who is interested in having them handy. I also find the physical description of the creature interesting in light of the descriptions of Harry and Dumbledore. Harry's "body appeared unscathed...He was not wearing glasses anymore." (p. 706) Dumbledore's walk was "sprightly" and his hands "were both whole and white and undamaged." (p. 707) Does that mean that Voldemort's form is the best he can hope for? Let's not forget Hermione's instruction on Horcruxes in Chapter 6, The Ghoul in Pajamas (p. 103): "And the more I've read about them," said Hermione, "the more horrible they seem, and the less I can believe that he actually made six. It warns in this book how unstable you make the rest of your soul by ripping it, and that's just by making one Horcrux!" Harry remembered what Dumbledore had said about Voldemort moving beyond "usual evil." "Isn't there any way of putting yourself back together?" Ron asked. "Yes," said Hermione with a hollow smile, "but it would be excruciatingly painful." "Why?" How do you do it?" asked Harry. "Remorse," said Hermione. "You've got to really feel what you've done. There's a footnote. Apparently the pain of it can destroy you. I can't see Voldemort attempting somehow, can you?" I know I'm not saying anything new and sorry to be so long-winded saying it, but I do get creeped out referring to the "creature" as a baby; doing so implies that the "creature" is a sweet, innocent infant and it is far from that. I'm not even a mom (just an aunt) and it creeps me out... Christy, who loves the chapter art for chapter 35, which portrays Harry the young man, not Harry the boy. Passages from Chapter 35 that described the creature under the chair: p. 706 - 707 Then a noise reached [Harry] through the unformed nothingness that surrounded him: the small soft thumpings of the something that flapped, flailed, and struggles. It was a pitiful noise, yet also slightly indecent. He had the uncomfortable feeling that he was eavesdropping on something furtive, shameful. For the first time, he wished he were clothed... ...All was hushed and still, except for those odd thumping and whimpering noises coming from somewhere close by in the mist... ...[Harry] was the only person there, except for-- He recoiled. He had spotted the thing that was making the noises. It had the form of a small, naked child, curled on the ground, its skin raw and rough, flayed-looking, and it lay shuddering under a seat where it had been left, unwanted, stuffed out of sight, struggling for breath. He was afraid of it. Small and fragile and wounded though it was, he did not want to approach it. Nevertheless, he drew slowly nearer, ready to jump back at any moment. Soon he stood near enough to touch it, yet he could not bring himself to do it. He felt like a coward. He ought to comfort it, but it repulsed him. p. 708 Harry glanced over his shoulder to where the small, maimed creature trembled under the chair. "What is that, Professor." "Something that is beyond either of our help," said Dumbledore. p. 709 He was distracted by the whimpering and thumping of the agonized creature behind them... p. 722 "...But I know this, Harry, that you have less to fear from returning here than he does." Harry glanced again at the raw-looking thing that trembled and choked in the shadow beneath the distant chair. "Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living, and, above all, those who live without love. By returning, you may ensure that fewer souls are maimed, few families are torn apart..." --------------------------------- Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 02:41:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 02:41:09 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175145 Preposterus wrote: > And I want to know if there is canon for the marauders being bullying jerks outside of their relationship with Snape. Now, there is no denying they were bullies. And that they were arrogant. But I can't recall anything to make me think they would pick on anyone simply for being smaller or weaker than them, or even being of a different house. > I think they have a specific vendetta against snape, or perhaps > slytherins. Carol responds: Their "vendetta" against Snape begins with the scene that I just cited and consists solely of his wanting to be in Slytherin, a house that James has been taught for unspecified reasons to scorn. (Voldemort has been away from England for many years and is barely beginning his return to power at this time. He does not come into the conversation on the Hogwarts Express, which is entirely on a childish level, even more so that Harry's with Draco in SS/PS.) The only other reason we are given for the "vendetta" is James's "because he exists" in Snape's Worst Memory" in OoP. As for canon regarding their bullying others besides Severus Snape, have you forgotten the detention that they received for giving another student a swollen head in HBP (one of the old cards Harry has to recopy during his post-Sectumsempra detention) or Lily's remarks about James hexing people in the hallways because they annoy him? "Toerag" is Lily's term, and her judgement seems to represent JKR's own view of James at this time. At any rate, we get no counterevidence that I can discover. You can use the adult Sirius Black's term, "arrogant little berks" if you prefer. Unfortunately, I see nothing in DH to contradict Lily's view. Poor James doesn't even die fighting Voldemort as we've been led to believe. Carol, who has already supported her argument with canon and thinks it's your turn now From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sun Aug 12 02:43:39 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:43:39 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Virtues of Hagrid References: Message-ID: <008f01c7dc8a$97678550$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> No: HPFGUIDX 175146 > Prep0strus: > I'm still miffed that JKR didn't have him get a new wand as soon as > his innocence in the Chamber of Secrets fiasco was proven. Sure, the > umbrella is amusing and a constant mini-foil, but Hagrid could've been > taking night classes with McGonnegal. > > I hope we find out that he and the Madam get together, that his > brother winds up marrying (mating?) and living in a clan of giants > that exists in peace with wizards, and that Hagrid gets a real wand > and becomes a respected magical creatures teacher. JKR could have shown Harry repairing Hagrid's wand the very same way that he repaired his own- with a touch of the Elder Wand. Hagrid need not have known that Harry had done it, and Hargrid just would have thought he had gained some confidence now that Voldemort was dead, or that his death had changed something significant about the wizarding world itself. I would have loved to see more of Hagrid after the battle. Shelley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sun Aug 12 02:33:08 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:33:08 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid and spiders (was: Aberforth) References: Message-ID: <007401c7dc89$1ef76af0$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> No: HPFGUIDX 175147 > Irene Mikhlin wrote: > >> I was just so incredibly annoyed by the >> spiders moment. Here they are, killing >> children, and all Hagrid cares about >> is "don't hurt them"?! > > I was under the impression Hagrid was telling the spiders not to hurt > the kids not the other way around. > > Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald Shelley: I just did a quick survey in my own home: I read the line as Hagrid saying "don't hurt the spiders"- My darling daughter (dd) read the line as Hagrid saying it to the death eaters "don't hurt the spiders"- And my dh (darling husband) read the line as both- don't hurt the spiders, and to the spiders "don't hurt the kids". Interesting how we read the book each with our own perspectives! From juli17 at aol.com Sun Aug 12 02:56:25 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:56:25 EDT Subject: Disappointment and Responsibility Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175148 Debbie: I agree with at least 90% of Pippin's post, but on this point, I think lizzyben is right. Too many children arrive at Hogwarts with stereotyped opinions of the houses and what each one stands for. For Harry, Slytherin was Voldemort's house and Draco's house. Snape thought it was the house of brains. Though it's not clear, Sirius appears to have thought it was the pureblood pride house. As long as the Sorting Hat allows children to plead "Slytherin!" or "Not Slytherin!" on the basis of such prejudices, the imbalance will be perpetuated. I once speculated that the Sorting Hat attempted an Ignation study of each child with the objective of placing them, not in the house that was an obvious match, but in the house that would enable them to develop a hidden talent. The prime example of this would be Hermione, who seemed an obvious candidate for Ravenclaw but would not have developed her bravery there. I still think this would be a much better system, one which would promote understanding -- and unity -- among the houses. Julie: I agree 100%, Debbie! I've come to the conclusion that the Sorting Hat puts students in particular houses based on the child's *desire.* Harry, Hermione and Ron wanted to be in Gryffindor House, so they were put there, even if Hermione initially fit better in Ravenclaw. This also explains why Percy was in Gryffindor, even though he would seem to fit better in Ravenclaw or even Hufflepuff (his unswerving loyalty to authority). And why Snape was in Slytherin despite traits that could have put in comfortably in other Houses, notably Ravenclaw and Gryffindor. And also why Peter, who didn't possess a single apparent Gryffindor trait at all, ended up in Gryffindor (he must have requested it, perhaps because it was a family tradition, or because he wanted to be in the same House as James--presuming he'd met James before the Sorting). It's certainly true in the last case that Gryffindor should have brought out the traits in short supply in Peter, like courage and a willingness to take risks for your friends. But I suppose if those traits didn't exist at all in Peter, they couldn't be brought out? In any case, it seems children are almost always making the choice rather than the Hat. The only unclear case is Neville, where it is implied that the Hat suggested Gryffindor while Neville though he belonged in Hufflepuff. This may be because Neville was truly undecided, wanting Gryffindor but thinking he was only "good enough" for Hufflepuff, so the Hat decided for him. And no one else in the series experienced the growth of character that Neville did. If the Sorting Hat always made the decision, based on what House served the *child* best, as it apparently did so successfully with Neville, then how much better off would these children be? It might have put Sirius in Ravenclaw so he could learn to make intelligent thought-based decisions, and James in Hufflepuff so he could learn a little humility, and Snape in Gryffindor so he could temper his isolationist tendencies by the bonding of real friendship with those around him (though being in Gryffindor didn't seem to do much for Dumbledore in that area!). The main thing though is taking this decision out of the hands of children, who will so naturally reflect their parents loyalties and prejudices, and cling to the comfort of the known over taking the more character-building leap into the unknown. Until that is done, and the chains of multi-generational loyalties to certain Houses are broken, then it's hard to see how the WW will ever get past the ingrained and prejudicial attitudes that so define their society. IMO, Julie (E) ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 04:03:21 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 04:03:21 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175149 Carol responds: As for canon regarding their bullying others besides Severus Snape, have you forgotten the detention that they received for giving another student a swollen head in HBP (one of the old cards Harry has to recopy during his post-Sectumsempra detention) or Lily's remarks about James hexing people in the hallways because they annoy him? "Toerag" is Lily's term, and her judgement seems to represent JKR's own view of James at this time. At any rate, we get no counterevidence that I can discover. You can use the adult Sirius Black's term, "arrogant little berks" if you prefer. Unfortunately, I see nothing in DH to contradict Lily's view. Poor James doesn't even die fighting Voldemort as we've been led to believe. Carol, who has already supported her argument with canon and thinks it's your turn now Prep0strus: Unfortunately, other than DH, my Harry Potter books are in storage at the moment. So I'm unable to respond with canon. I am glad to be reminded of James hexing people who annoyed him and the like ? he really was a bully. But who was the student? A slytherin? And, looking deeper into it, I have to wonder, coming from Lily? Could she just be talking about Snape here? Surely, he would hex Snape for no reason at all. I'm not saying it isn't likely he was a bit of a bully all around, just that what we're hearing isn't the whole story. I can't quote canon, but I can list the reasons why, over the books, my feelings towards the characters have developed the way they have. I think a lot comes down to personal opinion, and what we're willing to read between the lines. For instance, I refuse to accept that there simply has to be a nice and admirable slytherin I would be friends with because JKR does not show us even one, and even though it seems to make sense that in the world there must be such a person, I find it so notable that she hasn't shown us one, that it keeps me from having that belief. On the other hand, I fully admit I see much more in Sirius, James, and Lupin than is shown on the page. Perhaps the it is the passages I choose to take note of. But I think I can present my argument without page numbers ? if there is something someone believes to be simply opinion, or factually wrong, I will cheerfully recant it. And I apologize for what surely will be a lengthy post. First, I have to admit my prejudice for Griffindors and against Slytherins. I waited 7 books to be shown a Slytherin I could really respect, and wasn't given one. I grudgingly respect some aspects of Snape, of Slughorn, of Regalus. And, of course, of Momma Tonks. But, as much as I wanted equality in the houses, I don't believe it was presented that way. Therefore, I believe my opinions are colored by that, but I think that coloring was mostly done by JKR herself. There has been some discussion of the Sorting Hat. I do not believe it is entirely choice. I believe sorting is done by a mixture of familial ties, ability, personality tendencies, and choice. Obviously, that is something no one can know for sure. I believe that the children do not exist in a vacuum. That they come to school with the knowledge of what the houses stand for (if they are from wizarding families), as taught to them by their families, but also how society views them. This is all conjecture, but I think realistic conjecture based on conversations the children have on the train, in school, and also on RL kids. They know history. They know of dark magic. They know the names of the villains in society and what houses they came from. They know the names of heroes and what houses they came from. They know of the prejudice that exists in society against certain members of society ? including muggleborns, the cursed (werewolves), half-breeds (like hagrid), and about problems with other species like elves and goblins. I believe they bring all of this with them as part of their personality, as they make their choice, and as the sorting hat evaluates them. So, what of our characters? James is the only one we don't see alive. We know of him through the statements of other characters, and through the Pensieve. Which, I was reminded, is not based on perspective, but on reality. But, as I pointed out, those memories still have to have the owner present, and the owner makes the choice of what to show. And of James, we see Snape's memories. Now, perhaps this is a choice of JKR's ? that as she has only shown us James through Snape, maybe she wants us to see all the bad in him. But I think it's not that simple. I believe she hopes she has made the case of his goodness, and is now showing the other side. And we only see the Pensieve memories of 3 characters, because they are important to the plotline. I would've liked to see a Pensieve memory of Lupin's. But again, we have to choose what we believe. We can chose that JKR deliberately showed us these, and only these memories, and it is based on them that we should make our opinion of James. I choose to believe that there was much to James that we did not see in the presence of Snape. That both early on in school, and later on, there was a very different boy present in the Griffindor common room, and helping Peter become an animagus, and accepting his werewolf friend. So, from Snape, we learn that James is a bully in school. He is arrogant. He is prejudiced against Slytherins, and likes to harass Snape. We also learn he knows when too far is too far. We know there was a time when Lily thought he was a bullying toe-rag. We know also that he did not use discriminatory slurs. He did not use dark magic. He was a great athlete, and a talented wizard. He's from a rich (comfortable?) wizarding family, a griffindor family. Of the characters we have met: He is well thought of by Hagrid, a half-giant, societal outcast. Hagrid also tells us how well liked both he and lily were by the ww. He is well thought of by Sirius, his arrogant best friend from a Slytherin family. He is well thought of by Dumbledore, flawed champion against evil. He is well thought of by Lupin, a werewolf societal outcast. Lily, who thought he was once a toe-rag, whose best friend he tortured, who thinks he's arrogant, and a bully . She MARRIES him. This has got to mean something regarding the amount of growing up he did. He joins the Order of the Phoenix out of school. Whatever bullying arrogance toe rag berkiness we may have been shown repeatedly in the memories of snape this is not all he was. He was brave, and fought against evil. I don't' know why people seem so gleeful or superior in learning he didn't actually fight Voldemorte. It's not like he holds Harry up and hides behind him! He tries to give his wife and son time to escape from the most evil powerful wizard in the world. That he wasn't successful doesn't say anything worse of him than the thousands of others voldy killed. James was a bully as a kid. But I choose to believe the testimonials of the characters we've come to know when they say he was a good man. He appeared to be a good husband, and a good father. He didn't use dark magic, fought against evil, and defended the rights of those society dismissed. And, it may be reading into the world a little more, but I also believe that there was more to him as a child ? his arrogance was that of a snotty kid. But his dislike of Slytherin was based on real world events. Wow. I can't spend that much time on all of these characters, can I? Um. How can I abridge it? Sirius comes with a different background than James. I believe he was more arrogant, and more reckless. I also believe he was inclined to turn towards the dark side. He so easily could be a Malfoy or a Snape. A family full of hatred and prejudice and love of the dark arts on one side. A cousin and some Griffindor friends on the other. And a view of the world surely twisted and seen through the lens of the Black family, a view that must have broadened significantly when he got to school. Never took away that arrogant gleam, however. But Sirius also grows up. And fights for the Order. And goes against his family, which I believe shows great character. And suffers many years for his loyalty (and, yes, his impetuousness). But, again, what I choose to see in him is his bravery, his loyalty, his bucking of tradition to fight for his friends and what he believes is right. It is certainly a possibility that the hat could have put Sirius into Griffindor just based on the whim of an 11 year old who wanted to be a bully or thumb his nose at his parents. But I think that the hat of Griffindor, from which the Sword of Griffindor can be pulled, is a little more nuanced than that. And that Sirius was put into Griffindor and became a man of principles. Lupin, I've described as a societal outcast before, and yet, instead of becoming vengeful, he's a wonderful student, a wonderful teacher, and a wonderful friend. And well on the way to becoming a wonderful father. His stumbles and flaws and redemptions belong in another post, but as a child, he was lucky to find James and Sirius, such loyal friends. And snape. What can be said of Severus that hasn't been said? I don't need canon to show that he was mean. That he was petty. That he was cruel to children without provocation. And as an adult. I've said before how frustrated I am that we can jump on James for his actions as a child. Actions against Snape. The only views we have of James as an adult show him as a model citizen ? one of his biggest detractors becomes the love of his life. But we see Snape all too clearly as an adult. He made adult choices to become a Death Eater. And when he turned away from voldemorte, he still made adult choices to treat children the way he did. Compare how he would take points from the houses vs. how McGonnegal did. Sure, she wanted her team to win the cup, and bent a few rules. But Snape day after day took many points from Griffindor for little reason and pretended not to see what Slytherins did. He preyed on the weak, and mocked them for things they had no control over (Neville, and Hermione's teeth). And, as a child, his choices well, maybe he was sorted too soon. Maybe it was his nogoodnik friends that got him into dark magic. Maybe if he had been a griffindor or a ravenclaw none of this would've happened. But if that's the case, I sure hope Albus Severus Potter DOESN'T wind up in Slytherin. Snape had a good and loyal friend in Lily. Who crossed house lines, who ignored bad hygiene (a thing pretty hard for middle school girls to do!), who treated him with respect and defended him against bullies from her own house. And that wasn't enough to keep Snape from wanting to know the dark arts. From teaching himself cruel spells, from him planning to join the death eaters. From using racial epithets. I know I'm not quoting specific canon here, but is anything I'm saying deniable? Most of it isn't opinion, just facts on who Snape was. It's hard, because while JKR wants us to believe characters make choices, much more often I see characters turning out exactly how we think they're going to. Maybe that's why harry's parents generation is so much more interesting. A slytherin family boy becomes a griffindor. A bully becomes a noble man, husband, father. A griffindor becomes a traitor. A werewolf is the levelheaded one. And a slytherin death eater revolts and redeems himself. Much more interesting than the younger generation. But I do try to see the choices the characters have made. And I find it easier to forgive the flaws of a man like James, who was a bully as a child, but grew into the James we hear about from Dumbledore and Hagrid, who was married by Lily, than I do Snape, who we acclaim because he forsake his evil ways. I think I would respect Snape more if he simply had never become a death eater or a spy for the good guys ? just lived his life. Would be less interesting that way, of course. But I'll still throw my arms around Sirius the arrogant, foolhardy loyal friend than I will against Snape, the bitter, mean, reluctant hero. ~Adam (Prep0strus), who apologizes for the lack of canon, but hopes he made valid points regardless, and who realizes he either has to stop rehashing the same points, or at least learn to do so in a more succinct manner From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 04:11:17 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 04:11:17 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175150 Mike wrote: > > -Sirius' Assessment from GoF- > > Many have brought up Sirius, what he thought of the UCs. But Sirius brought up the UCs as one of several things he had against Crouch. And let's not forget the passage that sent Sirius down the road to discuss Crouch. > > "Sirius face darkened. He suddenly looked as menacing as he had the night when Harry had first met him, the night when Harry still believed Sirius to be a murderer. > > 'Oh I know Crouch all right,' he said quietly.'He was the one who gave the order for me to be sent to Azkaban -- without a trial.'" > > This is obviously personal to Sirius. This sets the stage for his comments about Crouch. > > Later Sirius enumerates Crouch's shortcomings - authorized the Aurors powers to kill, handing people over to the dementors without a trial and authorized the UCs. > > Yes, Sirius' assessment of Crouch was spot on. But does that speak to his hatred of Crouch rather than his moral assessment of the UCs? And didn't he include more than the UCs as a basis for his expression of revulsion, particularly including how others had received the same treatment that he got vis-a-vis Azkaban? The thing that caused him to become quite repulsive a page earlier? > > Certainly Sirius doesn't approve of the UCs, that's why he included them in his list of Crouch's detractions. Carol responds: Thank you, Mike, for quoting canon. I feel as if I'm back at HPfGu instead of in the middle of a namecalling match, with each side hurling unsupported generalizations at the other in so many different threads. I don't want to take a stand on the Crucio argument because I agree with you on some points and with Lee on others (notably the etymology of the curse). I do want to say, though, that Sirius Black is mistaken on at least one key point regarding Mr. Crouch, so he's not just (understandably) prejudiced against Crouch for sending him to Azkaban without a trial, he's not seeing him clearly because of his limited perspective. (Unlike Harry and the reader, he doesn't see him in the the forest or hear the full story from the Veritaserumed Barty Jr.) Black, who knows only part of the story and thinks that Barty Jr. died in Azkaban (and thinks that Barty Sr. is sneaking into Snape's office), uses Mr. Crouch's sending his own son to Azkaban with only a show trial as evidence of his ruthlessness: "Crouch let his son off? I thought you had the measure of him, Hermione Crouch's fatherly affection stretched just far enough to give him a trial, and by all accounts, it wasn't much more than an excuse to show how much he hated the boy. . . . then he sent him straight to Azkaban" (GoF am. ed. 528). He tells HRH that the boy died in Azkaban and that Crouch never came for his body (really his wife's) and that the result was a "big drop in [Crouch's] popularity. Once the boy had died, people started feeling more sympathetic toward the son and started asking how a nice young lad from a good family had gone so badly astray. The conclusion was that his father never cared much for him" (529-30). But Black (and the "people" he cites as his authorities) is mistaken. As shown by "The Madness of Mr. Crouch," Mr. Crouch did love his son and was proud of him. Addressing the tree he thinks is Percy, the mad Mr. Crouch says, "Yes, my son has recently gained twelve O.W.L.s, most satisfactory, yes, thank you, very proud indeed" (556). He seems to be bringing up an old memory (not lying or inventing something that didn't happen). And even his attempt to keep his Death Eater son (who clearly *was* guilty of helping the Lestranges Crucio the Longbottoms into insanity, as his conduct toward Neville reveals) under the Imperius Curse appears to be a misguided act of love. The repentant Crouch Sr. and his unrepentant Death Eater son make an interesting contrast, and it's clear to me at least which is the more ruthless. One more point regarding Sirius Black and Unforgiveable Curses: he doesn't seem to condemn the real Mad-Eye Moody for (presumably) using the Killing Curse to kill Evan Rosier, Wilkes, and whoever else he couldn't bring in alive. He praises him for only killing when he had to (532). In short, I agree with Mike that what appears to be Sirius Black's blanket condemnation of the Unforgiveable Curses on moral grounds is actually a partially mistaken judgment of Barty Crouch Sr. as ruthless, power-hungry, and willing to turn his own son over to the Dementors to cement his bid for power. But the son, pleading tearfully for mercy from his father, turns out to be much more ruthless than his father ever was. > Mike: > Well, I never took Latin and I don't know Arabic. But JKR gave many spells names with origins in these two languages and at the same time told us that she was using her *own* bastardized interpretations. Carol: Only one from Arabic that I know of. the rest are "dog Latin" but recognizable to anyone with a knowledge of latin roots. I *wouldn't* disregard the etymologies. Crucio is the torture curse, both in its etymology and in the uses to which it is put in the books. Read the descriptions when Harry is suffering from it or Mr. Ollivander's and Wormtails' pleas to excuse them for giving information as the result of it or hermione's screams as Bellatrix tortures her in DH. So on this point I agree with Lee. Mike: I don't hold with your non-canonical "I torture" in place of "Crucio". Although I understand it is your interpretation. I have still not been convinced that what Harry did was "torture". What Bella did to the Longbottoms, that was torture. Carol: It may be noncanonical, but it's certainly correct Latin and JKR chose it for that reason, just as "imperius" comes from "imperius" (command). What Carrow does to Harry in HBP and LV to Harry in GoF and Bella to Neville in OoP and LV to Avery in OoP and Bella to Hermione in DH is also torture even though it isn't sufficiently prolonged to drive them to insanity. Mike: > > Carol explained to me that "Sectumsempra" means "cut ever". So if you don't have Snape's specific countercurse you are not going to stopper this cut. Yet Molly staunched the blood flow for George in DH, and I feel confident that she never asked Snape for the countercurse. So it seems the fanciful Latin name was not strictly translated. In any case, there seems to be several possible translations, of which torture is only one. Carol: Actually, it means "cut always," but "cut ever" will do. (Compare "Semper fidelis," "always faithful," which leads me to the Fidelius Charm, breached when Pettigrew *broke faith* by betraying the secret to LV and not when the Potters were killed. And, yes, I can support this reading with canon.) At any rate, I don't think we can safely ignore etymology in the HP books. As for Sectumsempra, it doesn't mean "*bleed* always," so Molly can stop the bleeding. What she can't do is replace the ear that was sliced off ('cut always") through Dark magic. (Had Snape's target DE not swerved at the sound of the spell, it's likely he would have lost his hand.) Since Snape, and only Snape, appears to know the countercurse to Sectumsempra (as you say, it's unlikely he'd have taught it to Molly, and she certainly isn't almost singing to George as Snape is to Draco in HBP), it's possible--just possible--that he, unlike Molly, could have restored George's ear. If anyone could, it would be the paradoxical Severus Snape. An aside: Does anyone think that Harry's lament in the second chapter of DH that he's never learned to heal cuts magically relates to Snape's death wounds? If not, what does it foreshadow? Carol, who agrees with Mike that we seem to have misread JKR's moral stance on the Unforgiveables but with Lee that Crucio is, indeed, the torture curse and nothing else From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 04:20:46 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 04:20:46 -0000 Subject: Lily's Words Was Re: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175151 > > ~Adam (Prep0strus), who apologizes for the lack of canon, but hopes he > made valid points regardless, and who realizes he either has to stop > rehashing the same points, or at least learn to do so in a more > succinct manner > Though it may be silly to respond to myself, I wanted to write a much shorter response for those who would eschew reading my insanely longer post. Lily has been portrayed as almost never wrong. Good, kind, no prejudices, and so I wanted to make a point through who she was and what she said. Lily's only experience the house of Griffindor was James and Sirius treating Sirius badly. Her only experience with Slytherin was what her friend Severus told her. But the hat put her in Griffindor. I think this shows there is likely more to it than simple choice, but I welcome other thoughts. And, a lot of my point has been how these young men grew up. Lily, as young girl, looked as Sirius with dislike on the train, and as an adult wrote him a letter she signed lots of love, and addressed to Padfoot. As a girl, Lily called James, as a boy, toerag. As a woman, Lily called James, as a man, husband. As a girl, Lily called Snape, as a boy, friend. As a girl, Lily called Snape, as a man, Death Eater. Just points to ponder. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From va32h at comcast.net Sun Aug 12 04:29:34 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 04:29:34 -0000 Subject: Sirius (Was Re: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175152 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: > > Sirius, who has been brought up with Slytherin values, has a choice. > > Stay with his new friend, who sneers at Slytherin, or stay with family > > tradition and lose his new friend. > > > > He chooses James over his family, not because of any rejection of the > > Dark Arts or pure-blood prejudice but because he'd rather be friends > > with the "cool" James than the "little oddball" who thinks that > > Slytherin is for brains, not brawn. sirius makes his choice with his > > next remark, "Where're you going to go, seeing as you're neither?" va32h: Sorry Carol, I think you are letting your dislike of Sirius color your perception here. And I don't blame you, since I have a character or two that I simply cannot stand (cough*TONKS*cough) and tend to intrepret that characters actions through a particular prism. There is simply no evidence that Sirius chose Gryffindor *only* for James, or even *for* James at all. Here are some of the things Sirius says about his family, in OoTP: "Because I hated the whole lot of them: my parents with their pure- blood mania, convinced that to be a Black made you practically royal...my idiot brother soft enough to believe them..." "He was younger than me, and a much better son, as I was constantly reminded." He describes his relatives: "...Araminta Meliflua...tried to force through a Ministry bill to make Muggle-hunting legal...and dear Aunt Elladora...she started the family tradition of beheading house-elves when they got too old to carry tea trays." Do you think that *all* that hostility came *only* because Sirius wanted to impress James Potter? That Sirius was only "constantly" reminded of what a better son Regulus was *after* he met James? That Sirius only considered Muggle-hunting and pure-blood mania a bad thing because he met James Potter? While Sirius does talk about James - about spending the holidays with James' family, always being welcome at Mrs. Potter's on a Sunday, he doesn't say anything close to: "Thanks to James I saw the error of my pure blood ways." If anything, Sirius' bitterness when talking about his family to Harry shows me that Sirius came to Hogwarts ready and willing to reject anything his much-hated family stood for. Young Sirius is actually a lot like young Harry. They both hate their families (with good reason), and are despised by their families because they are different. Both had to live with a sibling who was heavily favored, and both spent school holidays with a good friend because they couldn't bear to go home (and weren't wanted at home either). Sirius hates being back in 12GP, and Harry completely understands - he would hate being stuck at 4 Privet Drive. And my interpretation is that also like Harry, Sirius told the Sorting Hat only "not Slytherin." va32h From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 04:32:58 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 04:32:58 -0000 Subject: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175153 Carol earlier: > It may be noncanonical, but it's certainly correct Latin and JKR chose > it for that reason, just as "imperius" comes from "imperius" > (command). Carol again: Make that: "Imperius Curse" comes from "imperium" (command)." Can't believe I'm wasting a post on this, but I wanted the Latin to be correct. Carol, using up her quota for the day, sigh! From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 05:29:19 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 05:29:19 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175154 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol earlier: > > > Sirius chose to be in Gryffindor to be with his new friend, James, > who hated Slytherin. And both of them turned up their noses at > Severus's choice to be in the house that he thought stood for "brains, > not brawn," labeling him as "Snivelllus" for no other reason than that > he saw Slytherin as a place that would accept a Muggleborn and honor > intellect. Lanval: Small addition here: while James certainly speaks in a disparaging way about Slytherin (though strictly speaking, one could see Snape's comment to Lily, "You'd better be in Slytherin" as disdain for any other house), Sirius only admits to James in a rather glum way that his whole family has been in Slytherin. No turning up his nose at anyone. Then it's *Snape* who gets contemptuous and turns up is nose (he sneers, in fact) at James for wanting to be in SLytherin. He essentially calls Gryffindor the house of brainless jocks. Only then does Sirius feel it necessary to throw a jab at Severus. The Snivellus comment -- well, JKR leaves it open who said it. Where do you get the idea that James and Sirius attacked Severus for believing that Slytherin would accept a Muggleborn? They didn't even know Lily. Nor did they appear to have picked up on the unspoken details of Snape and Lily's conversation. James and Sirius were talking to each other, and there's some indication that it was loud in the compartment, and that some other kids were present ("a group of rowdy boys"). Carol: > > > Had Sirius not met the less than loveable James Potter and wanted > James to view him as "all right," he would probably have ended up in > Slytherin like the rest of his family. Lanval: While Sirius did take to James immediately, I don't see why that *must* be the reason why he ended up in Slytherin. The distance to his family and their traditions seems to be present in Sirius' mind already. And please, just because James gets on Severus, and appears to be a bit of a spoiled brat, in no way means that he was less-than- loveable to the rest of the world. Carol: There's nothing to indicate > that he thinks it's a Dark or prejudiced House. And do we ever hear > Sirius expressing his views on Muggle-borns vs. pure-bloods? I don't > recall it. He certainly doesn't care about the rights of house- elves. > > > > > > Carol, who sees nothing relating to principle in Sirius's choice > of Gryffindor and nothing to admire in the choice Lanval: Show me an eleven year old boy who lives entirely according to "principles". There's however no contradiction in canon either that Sirius did NOT already view some of his family's (and therefore Slytherin) beliefs as questionable. > Carol again: > > It's not Snape's perspective. it's the Pensieve, which is objective. > Neither James nor Sirius says anything about the Dark Arts or blood > prejudice. All we have is James's expressed desire to be in his > father's House, which he associates with bravery, Severus's desire to > be in Slytherin, which he associates with brains, Lanval: Makes me wonder, why would he think that? Clearly Ravenclaw is the Brainy House. Maybe Mrs Snape had a problem with "brawny kids"? Carol: James is already showing himself as "a bit of a > bully" in this scene, tripping Severus and using language that echoes > (or presages) Draco's about Hufflepuff. We see that Severus has done > nothing to earn the nickname Snivellus and that James does indeed > torment him in the SWM scene "because he exists." (I think that in a > fair fight Severus would have given him a run for his money, but > that's neither here nor there.) Lanval: Of course he's done nothing to earn the name. That's the way kids are. And how do we "see", based on this scene, that James torments Severus "because he exists"? We see two boys -- not just one -- full of prejudice for each others family traditions, and one boy already doubtful about his. That's it. > Carol: > I'm not talking about "in a few years." Nor am I talking about their > later (post-"toerag") choice to join the Order of the Phoenix). I'm > talking about Sirius Black's reasons for wanting to be in Gryffindor, > which have everything to do with James and nothing to do with > principle that I can see, and I've quoted the entire scene except for > a few bits relating to Harry. Lanval: I'm not convinced. Rather the opposite. No eleven year old child, IMO, would throw off centuries of tradition, eleven years of indoctrination, on a whim like that, IF he were in absolute agreement with his family. Note that Snape gets sorted into Slytherin *after* Lily gets sorted into Gryffindor. Clearly his loyalty to Slytherin is stronger than several years of friendship with the girl he'd already come to love. No, i'm fairly certain that Sirius had long been toying with the idea that he may have a choice. He does at the very least appear to have an idea that the Sorting can be influenced by one's wishes. The budding friendship with James might have helped with the decision, of course. Snape fans have always loved to dwell on Snape's loneliness. Has it occurred to anyone that Sirius might have been just as lonely, maybe even more so? Just as starved for affection and looking desperately for a kindred spirit? We don't know how relations were with his brother. And we see that even when two sisters love one another, like Petunia and Lily, it is possible for both of them to feel sometimes alone, misunderstood, and jealous. To wave away Sirius's sorting into Gryffindor as the mere on-the- spot-rebellion of some arrogant brat looking for the coolest friends is hardly doing him justice. And not terriby fair either. > > Carol responds: > > We don't have any canon for Sorius' reasons for joining the Order of > the Phoenix, only his Gryffindor banners an posters of Muggle > artificat, which seem to represent adolescent rebellion, in contrast > to the "good son's" Slytherin banners and artifacts. (Lots of irony > going on in both portrayals, but I don't want to get into that here.) > What we don't know is whether Sirius's principles ever changed. > Perhaps he was indoctrinated in gryffindor values as Severus was > indoctrinated in Gryffindor ones. All we have that I can recall is his > statement about James's opposition to the Dark Arts (not in evidence > in the scene in which they're all eleven-year-olds, as I'll show in a > moment) and his telling his mother's portrait to shut up. We also see > him pointing out to Harry that his favorite cousin, Andromeda, has > been burned off the tapestry for marrying a Muggle-born, and his > hatred of his cousin Bellatrix. But all of that is the adult Sirius, > after the deaths of the Potters and Pettigrew's betrayal and his own > imprisonment. What I don't see, in either the child Sirius in "The > Prince's Tale" or the adolescent Sirius helping to ambush Severus > Snape (who is reviewing the test questions after a DADA OWL), is any > sign of principles. The closest we get is "toerag" James saying that > *he* would never call Lily a Mudblood). Lanval: Sirius has no principles? His fighting for the Order (twice!) counts for nothing, because he only did it because a)he liked to be rebellious, and b)he did it for James? Let's just for a moment assume that Sirius Black really is, as you seem to assume, a man without principles. Which is a pretty damning statement. But let's assume it *was* all about James. Sirius changed his ways early in life because of James. He joined the Order because James did. It was all about James, all of his life (and later, about Harry). What loyalty. Remind you of anyone? Carol: > But I'm not talking about the SWM. I'm talking about the first > encounter between Sirius, James, and Severus on the Hogwarts Express. > > A little canon then (and I really am wondering why so few people are > quoting it at this point). > > "'You'd better be in Slytherin,' said Snape, encouraged that she > [Lily] had brightened a little. > > "'Slytherin?' One of the boys sharing the compartment, who had shown > no interest in Snape or Lily at all until that point, looked around at > the word, and Harry . . . saw his father, slight, black-haired like > Snape, but with that indefinable air of being well cared for, even > adored, that Snape so conspicuously lacked. > > "'Who wants to be in Slytherin? I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?' > james asked the boy lounging on the seat opposite him. . . [BTW, > James's words precisely echo Draco's sneer about Hufflepuff in SS/PS: > "Imagine being Sorted into Hufflepuff. I think I'd leave, wouldn't > you?" SS Am. ed. 77).] > > "Sirius did not smile. 'My whole family have been in Slytherin,' he said. > > "'Blimey,' said James. 'And I thought you seemed all right!'" > > "Sirius grinned. 'Maybe I'll break the tradition. Where are you > heading, f you've got the choice?' > > "James held up an invisible sword. 'Gryffindor, where dwell the brave > at heart. Like my dad"" (DH Am. ed. 671). Lanval: And that's when Snape sneers at James, and insults his choice of house. Let's not omit that, if we're talking canon. Carol: > > Sirius, who has been brought up with Slytherin values, has a choice. > Stay with his new friend, who sneers at Slytherin, or stay with family > tradition and lose his new friend. > > He chooses James over his family, not because of any rejection of the > Dark Arts or pure-blood prejudice but because he'd rather be friends > with the "cool" James than the "little oddball" who thinks that > Slytherin is for brains, not brawn. sirius makes his choice with his > next remark, "Where're you going to go, seeing as you're neither?" > > And as Lily suggests to Severus that they find another compartment, > James tries to trip Severus and Sirius [I think] calls out, "See ya, > Snivellus!" (672). > Lanval: Please show me proof that Sirius took to James because he thinks that James is a "cool kid" and that he thinks of Snape at this point as a little oddball. That's your interpretation only. Nor does this scene prove that Sirius chose Gryffindor only because of James. Again, personal interpretation. "..seeing as you're neither" also hardly confirms that Sirius made a choice. It's simply a reaction to Snape insulting James with his contemptuous remark. Carol: > Not one of these eleven-year-olds is acting on principle. All are > basing their views of the Houses on what they've been told (Lily, the > sole Muggle-born, is the only one with no preconceptions) and Sirius, > the only one making a choice, does so because James is "cooler" than > Severus. (I'm remeinded of Harry's wish to be seen with someone "cool" > rather than with Neville and Luna in OoP.) > Lanval: Again, where do you get this idea? Where does it say that Sirius finds James cool? Couldn't he just find him likeable? Couldn't he just be happy James talked to him? Couldn't he be just be as anxious and worried and excited as the other kids, and feeling glad he found someone to talk to? Kind of like Harry felt about Ron, which would be a far more comparable situation, both featuring a first journey to Hogwarts. What is it that draws kids to each other? What was it that drew Snape to Lily? He was watching her "greedily", so would it be fair to say he *only* became her friend because she was pretty (though there is certainly more canon for that than for Sirius being eager to hang with the cool kids)? Carol: > The adult Sirius does state that James always opposed the Dark Arts, > but, if so, that opposition plays no part in this scene. Nor does > pure-blood supremacy. In fact, James and Sirius are the pure-bloods > pitted against the Half-blood and his Muggle-born friend. > Had Sirius not met James and liked him, perhaps appreciating his > self-confidence bordering on arrogance or an air of mischievousness > like that of the Weasley Twins, he would have had no more reason than > his brother Regulus to question his family's view that he belonged in > Slytherin. > > Carol, standing by her position that we are dealing here with the > uninformed opinions of eleven-year-olds and not with principle > Lanval: Agreed, about the principles. But ideas and independent thought can develop at a young age. None of us know what Sirius was thinking when he boarded the Hogwarts train for the first time. Also: if we're talking arrogance, we might take a look at young Snape. Who obviously has a bit of a superiority thing going. I'm glad DH finally cleaned up with some fanon misconceptions about Snape. He was no innocent abused lamb, ganged up on from all sides for no reason. He spies, he snipes, he lies, he helps to drive a wedge between two sisters, and shows some pretty worrisome character traits. (That JKR still somehow manages to make Little Snape heartbreakingly, pathetically touching, is quite an accomplishment, I think). When sorted into Slytherin, there is applause. Lucius Malfoy, prefect, pats him on the back and lets him sit by his side. I don't see a single line in DH that supports the idea that Snape was an outcast at Hogwarts because of the way he looked, or dressed, or because he was generally considered a "little oddball". He is welcomed into his house with no more or less of an advantage than anyone else. Come his fifth year, he *still* has friends. Not only in his own house, but also one from another house, which is somewhat unusual. So much for lonely, despised, persecuted-by-all Severus Snape. There's more, but that's for another post. From abha_j at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 05:28:34 2007 From: abha_j at yahoo.com (Abha Jain) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 05:28:34 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175155 > Leah: > We don't of course know for sure, but: > > (iii) No parent IMO would agree to such a thing. Abha: I agree completely. No human being would want their memories to be wiped out, no matter what. But - at the same time - this behavior is something that the wizarding world indulges in all the time. From book I itself, we read about wizards wiping out memories of muggles, as a matter of course, in order to keep their own existence a secret. So, I believe, the wizards are very used to doing things which would create ethical dilemmas in our muggle minds. They are different, they have the power to do lots of things (like apparating or erasing memories), and their ethical standards are corrrespondingly different. Hermione probably wouldnt think twice about this (as long as she is not hurting her folks), because this is happening around her all the time. Ethics are debatable, since they always change over time. A century back, there were things that were de rigueur (like absence of women's suffrage), which would be considered impossible nowadays. Just my 2 cents. Dont know whether it has come up before in this thread, cos couldnt read all the posts. The way I interpret the final book is - it is full of a lot of darkness, and shows the good side in the bad light, yes. But this is because it has moved from being a children's story to being an adults' one. It shows that there are no blacks or whites - just lots of gray. And you still got to chose your sides - cos' in a war, there are no neutrals. - Abha From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 06:34:43 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 06:34:43 -0000 Subject: Disappointment and Responsibility - Calvinism & the Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0708111337r44a5c72cub7c9874baa498158@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175156 > Debbie: > I agree with at least 90% of Pippin's post, but on this point, I think > lizzyben is right. Too many children arrive at Hogwarts with stereotyped > opinions of the houses and what each one stands for. For Harry, Slytherin > was Voldemort's house and Draco's house. Snape thought it was the house of > brains. Though it's not clear, Sirius appears to have thought it was the > pureblood pride house. As long as the Sorting Hat allows children to plead > "Slytherin!" or "Not Slytherin!" on the basis of such prejudices, the > imbalance will be perpetuated. > > I once speculated that the Sorting Hat attempted an Ignation study of each > child with the objective of placing them, not in the house that was an > obvious match, but in the house that would enable them to develop a hidden > talent. The prime example of this would be Hermione, who seemed an obvious > candidate for Ravenclaw but would not have developed her bravery there. I > still think this would be a much better system, one which would promote > understanding -- and unity -- among the houses. lizzyben: The sorting hat is just messed up, & is responsible for a lot of the deep-set problems in the WW. I really liked your characterization of the hat as "Undesirable Number One". Throwing out that Hat would be one of the best, quickest ways of actually reforming this horrid system. Like you say, children at age eleven have no idea what they want or what the Houses are all about, yet they are sorted for life. The tribalism & stereotypes each House has about the other are only strengthened by House rivalries, and the insularity is only strengthened by the lack of exposure to people who are different. And Slytherin House, especially, is a hot-bed of bigotry & dark arts that's guaranteed to churn out more Dark Lords. And each year, a new crop of children are sent there to be indoctrinated. Snape is a good example of the dangers of this system. Riddle was born evil, Harry was apparently born good, but Snape was somewhere in between. He had an unloved childhood, and a desperate need for acceptance & approval. As a child, he didn't have any prejudice against Muggle-borns, and thinks Slytherin house is for "brains." So he wants to be in Slytherin House, and is thereafter DOOMED. Because Snape is totally vulnerable to the negative influences of that House - that's his new home, his new family, and he quickly begins to adopt their beliefs in order to get the acceptance he needs. His housemates are almost all Death Eater wanna-bes, and use racist language that Snape also picks up. Peer pressure is an incredibly strong force, especially when the students live in that environment apart from other influences. Slytherin house effectively turns kids into Death Eaters. If Snape had been in a different house, his whole life might have been different. I accept the contention that Slytherin is evil, negative, bigoted, a bad influence, etc. So, at the end of the novels, WHY is it still there? This is where it starts to seem like this is less about reconciliation & reform, and more about predestination. Some people are destined to enter Slytherin, and some are destined to enter Gryffindor, because of their intrinsic natures. Just as Calvinism contends that some people (the elect) are predestined & selected for salvation, and some are destined from birth for damnation. Calvinism states that no one can know until they die which group they are in - if God has selected them to be in the divine elect or the reprobate. But what if the Sorting Hat is meant to be a symbol of this divine sorting? What if the hat does what a Calvinist God does - it looks in your soul & shouts out your predestined place in the elect or the damned. If this is true, Slytherin house is there because it represents the counterweight to the Gryffindor elect. You can't have a "divine elect" of saved without also having a house for the reprobate unsaved. Calvinism has five central tenets (from Wikipedia - please correct me, anyone, if this is wrong). "1. Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin) - this point means that every person is corrupt and sinful throughout in all of his or her faculties, including the mind and will. As a result of this corruption, man is enslaved to sin, rebellious and hostile toward God, blind to truth, and unable to save himself or even prepare himself for salvation." "2. Unconditional Election - Before God created the world, he chose to save some people according to his own purposes and apart from any conditions related to those persons. In Protestant theology, election is considered to be one aspect of predestination in which God selects certain individuals to be saved. Those elected receive mercy, while those not elected, the reprobate, receive justice." 3.Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)- The doctrine states that Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited in scope to those who are predestined unto salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humankind but rather just believers. 4.Irresistible Grace - the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel. 5. Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved) - God successfully preserves in faith all of the elect so that they are never lost. It maintains that none who are truly saved can be condemned for their sins or finally fall away from the faith." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_points_of_Calvinism IMO, the sorting hat ceremony seems like a perfect metaphor for this sort of divine selection. The Sorting Hat looks into people's souls & sees their predetermined destiny, and sorts them accordingly - the "divine elect" are sorted into Gryffindor, while the reprobate go to Slytherin. And if Harry & co are in the elect, they will always maintain that position, even if they use Unforgivable Curses. Harry might resist the call of his destiny to save the wizarding world, but because he is in the elect, he will eventually do the right thing through divine grace. And this also explains why destroying the Sorting Hat is a bad thing. I personally think they should get rid of it, & it seems like many people think that the Sorting Hat's criteria should be changed or reformed, but that's not what happens in the book. Instead, *Voldemort* is the one who tries to destroy the hat, and Harry, the hero, preserves it. This is presented as a major climactic moment - like preserving the Sorting Hat is a vital mission. Why? When LV tries to destroy it, he says "there will be no more Sorting, there will be no more Houses," and that the emblems of "Slytherin will suffice for everyone". Under Calvinism, man is naturally "totally depraved" & unworthy of salvation - only God's selection of a chosen divine elect allows some to avoid this fate. So if the Sorting Hat truly represents the selection of the saved "elect", by destroying the Hat, LV is essentially condemning everyone to damnation. THAT'S why it's so bad. Julie added: Well, and this is interesting in light of the "Is the WW a Calvinist place" discussion. The treatment of the Slytherins as uniformly (OK, NEARLY uniformly) "bad" might bolster that idea. But this particular scene apparently does not. Because JKR implies that being stuck at the afterlife 'station' as a tortured, agonized, immobile, un-helpable child is a fate that LV could avoid, if only he could do some last-ditch soul-repair via the remorse remedy... But it does imply that even a guy who's the epitome of eeevvvviillll could turn things around extremely late in the game. lizzyben: Ah, but can he? Voldemort is portrayed as a psychopath, evil from birth, unable to feel real emotion or empathy. Asking LV to feel remorse is like asking pigs to fly - can't be done. LV is destined to become that agonized creature because he is totally incapable of remorse - which seems to reinforce DD's message that the creature cannot be helped. This also seems to support the Calvinist notion of salvation & damnation - LV's soul can't be helped, because he was predestined for damnation. There really weren't a whole lot of choices for Voldemort, being born a evil psychopath and all. So, if anything, I'd say that the characterization of LV actually reinforces the message of predetermination. And I think it is possible to interpret King's Cross as a sort of general metaphor for Calvinism - DD & Harry, as part of the Divine Elect, proceed to heaven with undamaged souls, while the reprobate are damned to agony & suffering. Because the selection of the "elect" & "reprobate" has been predetermined, there is no way possible to help the reprobates or change that destiny. I guess you could argue that readers are supposed to take the message that DD or Harry should've helped that soul - but they don't, & IMO the text doesn't suggest that they should. DD is the mentor, who tells Harry not to help. Harry, the hero, listens to DD & learns to ignore the creature. If anything, IMO the message is that it truly isn't possible to help. > Debbie: > I do agree here that the complete and immediate rehabilitation of Slytherin > house would have been highly implausible and incredibly saccharine. It's a > slow process that can be fully accomplished by building up a new generation > that wasn't raised on the old prejudices, for while Harry intellectually > understands this, so that he can endorse Slytherin house as an appropriate > house for his son, his relationship with Slytherins of his own generation > will never be more than formally cordial; there's too much water under the > bridge. It's up to the Albus/Rose/Scorpius generation to do that, and the > epilogue contains just enough hints to allow us to believe, if we choose, > that this can be accomplished. > > But only if the Hat doesn't subvert the whole thing. lizzyben: It's interesting that we're all still trying to form a hopeful reconciliation narrative for the next generation of students. I understand it, cause it's really, really, hard to accept that we're just supposed to dismiss Slytherins as "bad guys", but IMO it seems like that's what the text is portraying. It would have been very easy to give hints of reconciliation in the next generation - Albus & Scorpius sit in the same compartment together; Ron telling Rose it's OK to have Slytherin friends, etc. We're speculating about signs like that, but it isn't in the epilogue. JKR made the choice *not* to show reconciliation in the next generation, just as there wasn't reconciliation in Harry's generation. It's basically set back to zero. And that's because Slytherin House really is filled w/horrible awful people that they probably won't be friends with, and probably should avoid. I don't think anyone expected a Hallmark ending & total redemption of the House, but many readers did expect some type of reconciliation. But that wasn't what the book gave, and I think we have to conclude that that's because reconciliation & co-existence wasn't the intended message of the book. It really does seem like the Houses were meant to represent a type of Calvinist divine sorting. lizzyben From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 06:48:49 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 06:48:49 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175157 > Carol: > > But I'm not talking about the SWM. I'm talking about the first > > encounter between Sirius, James, and Severus on the Hogwarts > Express. > > > > A little canon then (and I really am wondering why so few people > are > > quoting it at this point). > > > > "'You'd better be in Slytherin,' said Snape, encouraged that she > > [Lily] had brightened a little. > > > > "'Slytherin?' One of the boys sharing the compartment, who had > shown > > no interest in Snape or Lily at all until that point, looked > around at > > the word, and Harry . . . saw his father, slight, black-haired > like > > Snape, but with that indefinable air of being well cared for, even > > adored, that Snape so conspicuously lacked. > > > > "'Who wants to be in Slytherin? I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?' > > james asked the boy lounging on the seat opposite him. . . [BTW, > > James's words precisely echo Draco's sneer about Hufflepuff in > SS/PS: > > "Imagine being Sorted into Hufflepuff. I think I'd leave, wouldn't > > you?" SS Am. ed. 77).] > > > > "Sirius did not smile. 'My whole family have been in Slytherin,' > he said. > > > > "'Blimey,' said James. 'And I thought you seemed all right!'" > > > > "Sirius grinned. 'Maybe I'll break the tradition. Where are you > > heading, f you've got the choice?' > > > > "James held up an invisible sword. 'Gryffindor, where dwell the > brave > > at heart. Like my dad"" (DH Am. ed. 671). > > > > Lanval: > And that's when Snape sneers at James, and insults his choice of > house. Let's not omit that, if we're talking canon. lizzyben: Just wanted to add one thing. When James said "just like my Dad" and waves an invisible sword, I'm convinced that Snape interpreted that as "I want to be a bully, just like my Dad." Hence his "small, disparaging noise" and later comment about "brawn." James sees his father as someone to emulate, but Snape sees his as an abusive bully. So while James sees his desire to be like his father as something noble, it provokes a negative reaction from Snape. Just another example of the (many) misconceptions & misunderstandings from that scene. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Aug 12 08:40:11 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 08:40:11 -0000 Subject: Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175158 > Julie: > I agree 100%, Debbie! I've come to the conclusion that the Sorting Hat puts > students in particular houses based on the child's *desire.* Hickengruendler: Than why didn't Lily end up a Slytherin? She had prior to the Sorting only Snape as a source (who saw Slytherin as the best house, and likely would have influences Lilys thinking as well), and there was the little scene with James and Sirius, were neither of them were at their most likable (James even having pretty similar dialogue as Draco Malfoy in Philosopher's Stone). Even if she wasn't fitted for Slytherin, because she was a Muggleborn, wouldn't she have possibly thought "not Gryffindor, which is the house of the brawny instead of the brainy" and the Hat could have put her into Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw. I think it's a mixture of both. Choice certainly plays a part, but so do the characteristics the Sorting Hat sees in these kids. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 08:59:53 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 08:59:53 -0000 Subject: Surprise or another Joke on me? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175159 Something that truly struck me..to stop and take pause was how Fenrir could wear DE Robes, but not be branded by a dark mark.. (This may have more implications regarding said barrier than wouldn't enable OOP folks to get to the tower in HBP.) Harry kind of "took it in stride" after the trio's capture..However, this says a great deal about Voldemort making empty promises to half- bloods and sentient beings(or even perhaps all magical creatures) in his world. Which simply makes Voldemort all the more pathetic, but upon a re-read it makes all the non-human magical creatures that join "Harry's" side all that more poignant. Also, even though I never enjoyed it..I always felt some sense of smug satisfaction regarding the Malfoys experience in DH until now. However, looking at this...I think Voldemort may have told a great deal many more lies, and perhaps tortured the Malfoys even more than what we saw on the page...I suppose it's a "you've dug your hole, now lie in it" thing on one hand, but something to have Voldie dig a hole himself, proclaim it yours, and then order you to lie in it is a whole other thing... I expect that Voldemort in all likelihood did brand Draco with the dark mark in the hopes that Draco would not only suffer in trying to kill DD to ensure his parents' safety(or even his father's escape/release from Azkaban) but also brag and boast about it (hence recruit young followers in the house that shall become Hogwarts under Voldie's rule)..Yet another reason why only Sluggy in his PJ's represented slytherin in the battle scenes(did malfoy tell them to go, those that chose to stay and join the fight?). Basically, I wonder if Voldemort felt he sent a "potter of his own" into the Slytherin house. After Draco spouted off at the mouth. Of course, it didn't work out...Voldie has no clue about human nature of course Malfoy-who couldn't committ murder even to save his own or his parents lives wouldn't recruit any but his steadfast cronies whom he probably thought would understand the position he was in.(of course crabbe and goyle wouldn't...a pair of trolls if there ever was and if his closest friends don't get it who else would?) Poor Draco, thought he was getting a tatoo, but got a dark mark instead w/o knowledge of what that meant other than aunt bella's ravings. Doddiemoe From theincredibles13 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Aug 12 09:07:46 2007 From: theincredibles13 at yahoo.co.uk (theincredibles13) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 09:07:46 -0000 Subject: Another angle on Hermione's parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175160 > debbie > I don't agree with those of you who think that Hermione was being > insensitive when she modified her parent's memories. > I think Hermione's actions were always out of love. Her parents > were not comfortable in the wizard world, so Hermione tried to > protect them from the uglier side of it. I have to say I agree with you as well, when I first read that Hermione had modified her parents' memories and sent them to Australia I saw it as a very powerful act of love and protection for them. It must have been heartbreaking for her to do this to them but as you say it stopped the grief for them if she didn't return. It never entered my mind that it was a terrible thing to do and only made me think of it when I read the posts here. IMO what Hermione did to her parents just shows how much she loved them and wanted to protect them. Chris From judy at judyshapiro.com Sun Aug 12 10:50:08 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:50:08 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175161 Ah, the end of the series doesn't mean the end of the debate between Snape's supporters and detractors! Prep0strus (in post #175139) says, of James & Sirius bullying Snape: > Snape isn't an entirely innocent victim. He's a boy practicing > dark arts Well, Snape is certainly not an innocent by his late teens or so, since he's joined the Death Eaters. However, you are making some statements here that are not based in canon. You say that Snape is "practicing the Dark Arts" and imply that he does so even as a boy, even during the time when Lily is friends with him. The fact is, though, that we hardly ever see Snape practicing the Dark Arts in canon at all, and certainly not as a boy (unless you want to count killing flies, which we see him doing once.) We see him cast Sectumsempra once as an adult, but here he is actually trying to save Lupin from a Death Eater. That is the extent of the Dark Arts that we actually see Snape USE. In fact, we don't really even hear *about* Snape using the Dark Arts. For example, in the Pensieve trial scene in GoF, Karkaroff accuses various Death Eaters of horrible things ? torturing muggles, murdering wizards, using the Imperius Curse. But, when he gets to accusing Snape, all he says is that Snape was a Death Eater. Even when Crouch Sr. doesn't believe that Snape is a Death Eater, Karkaroff doesn't back it up with an examples of what Snape has done. He just says, "I tell you, Snape is a Death Eater!" Moody, watching the proceedings, whispers to Dumbledore about various things other Death Eaters have done, but all he does when Snape is mentioned is look skeptical about Snape's being on Dumbledore's side. Lupin does mention that Sectumsempra was a specialty of Snape's, but we don't know if that means Snape used it a lot, or if it means instead that Lupin is aware that Snape invented the spell. That's about it in canon for Snape using the Dark Arts. Compare that to, say, how much Dark Arts we see Voldemort or Bellatrix performing. Now, what we do see in canon is that Snape is knowledgeable about the Dark Arts -- fascinated by them, in fact. But, knowing the Dark Arts is not the same as using them. In fact, long before we know of Dumbledore's friendship with Grindelwald, we see two professors (McGonagall and Binns) stating (or at least implying) that Dumbledore is quite knowledgeable in the Dark Arts. I think this is where some of the divergent views of Snape come in. Snape is clearly described, by Sirius at least, as being fascinated by the Dark Arts even as an eleven-year old. Some readers take that to mean that Snape was always a Dark Wizard, even as a child. I don't see it that way. Snape has always struck me as someone motivated by a love of knowledge, as someone whose ambition is to LEARN about magic, especially the mysterious, enigmatic, forbidden Dark Arts. In other words, Professor Snape, with his sitting room walls (even the doors) covered completely with books, strikes me as an intellectual, as a "magic nerd" (analogous to, say, a math nerd) if you will. This is quite different from Voldemort, whose purpose in learning the Dark Arts is to rule people (and conquer death), or Bellatrix, whose purpose in learning the Dark Arts is to cause pain. Now, I know at this point some of you will say that Snape does cause pain, that he bullies Neville and insults Hermione's teeth, but regardless of how hurtful you see this behavior as being, Snape certainly doesn't use Dark Magic to do it. Snape can insult people quite well without using magic at all. So, that can't be his goal in learning the Dark Arts. As for the debate on Sorting, I would like to remind people that canon repeatedly states that students are Sorted based on personality traits (and in the case of Slytherin House, perhaps pureness of blood.) I know that Harry tells his son that the Hat will take preference into account, but I certainly don't see a student's preference as the sole consideration. As some have said here, the Hat wouldn't be needed at all if students could just state which House they wanted to be in. And, even if the Hat gave Harry a real choice, Harry had a piece of Voldemort in him, so his experience may not have been typical. I see Snape as being sorted into Slytherin because of his intense ambition to learn, his relentless pursuit of knowledge, especially forbidden knowledge. I imagine that he did, indeed, have a desire to be a very powerful wizard, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he hoped to use that power to hurt others. I don't see him as being given the choice to go into Gryffindor; perhaps he asked the Hat to be put in Gryffindor (because Lily had been put there), but the Hat said no. (In fact, wouldn't trying to be in a certain House just to be near someone you like be a sort of ambitious, cunning, Slytherin thing to do?) But once Snape was sorted into Slytherin, I expect that colored other students' views of him (not to mention the readers' views.) If he had been in Ravenclaw, I'd bet his interest in the Dark Arts would have been interpreted very differently, as a desire to gain knowledge rather than a desire to do evil. I see Snape's being Sorted into Slytherin as a fateful event that determined much of his future. As others here have said, being put into Slytherin is like being damned. Which brings me to my next point. Prep0strus (in post #175139) says that Lily's friendship with Snape: > which extends even to defending him to members of her > house, is not enough to keep him from practicing the dark arts, from > falling in with a crowd that dislikes her based on her blood, and > from pursuing evil. I've already discussed the fact that we don't see Snape "practicing the Dark Arts", so let's look at Snape's "falling in with a crowd that dislikes" Lily for her ancestry. How could Snape NOT fall in with that crowd? Who else is there for him to "fall in with"? His whole house is like that! As many here have noted, we don't see any good Slytherins for Snape to be friends with. As for being friends with Gryffindors, we know that Snape is bullied by a bunch of them. In the "Snape's Worst Memory" scene, it says that Snape was clearly unpopular, so that presumably rules out most of the Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaw as well. Snape didn't "fall in" with a group that dislikes Muggleborns, that Sorting Hat put him there, and he couldn't make any other friends at Hogwarts. (Lily wasn't a friend he made at Hogwarts; she was a someone whose friendship he LOST while at Hogwarts.) I know a lot of people were confused by the scene in "The Prince's Tale" where Snape looks "stricken" when Dumbledore tells him that he is brave and that maybe the school sorts too soon. I wasn't confused by this at all. I read this as Dumbledore saying that Snape should have been in Gryffindor. Snape looks "stricken" because he feels that being put in Slytherin ruined his life. How telling is it that when he wants to apologize to Lily, the door to Gryffindor house stands between them? She turns her back on him as he "struggles on the verge of speech," and closes the Gryffindor door in his face. I also believe that this is the reason that Snape can't stand being called a coward. To him, being denied entrance to Gryffindor House is what removed Lily from his life, so he sees being called a coward as being tantamount to being told that he is unworthy of Lily. However, I don't necessarily think that Snape ever lacked bravery. I just think that, with Snape's burning desire to learn about the Dark Arts, the Hat thought he was more suited for Slytherin, even if he also had traits that would have "qualified" him for Gryffindor and/or Ravenclaw. To digress a moment, this (mistaken, I'd say) belief that he wasn't brave enough for Gryffindor may also be one of the reasons that Snape gets so angry at Neville. I think it really pushes Snape's buttons to think that Neville ? who initially seems so timid ? was considered "brave enough" for Gryffindor, but Snape wasn't. Snape may be thinking, "You're supposed to be so brave, let's see you stand up to me!" Would that justify how Snape treats Neville? No. But it may help *explain* it. (Neville's incompetence in class also obviously drives Snape nuts.) My belief is that if Snape was really as bad as many people here seem to think he was, he would never have worked for Dumbledore, particularly not after Lily was dead and he had no chance of getting her in his life. I think the storyline of Dumbledore's friendship with Grindelwald is intended to show that even good people can do bad things when they are put in situations that encourage evil -- and it certainly looks like Slytherin House, especially during the reign of Voldemort, encourages evil. When I got to the scene where the Sorting Hat is set on fire, I thought, "Finally! No more dividing the Wizarding World! No more intentionally setting children against each other!" Alas, that was not how JKR meant it to be. -- JudySerenity, permanent Snapefan, posting here for the first time in years From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Aug 12 13:02:53 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:02:53 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175162 Alla: > Sirius though makes a choice contrary to his family's views, for > which I admire him a lot, but where do you think he can learn that? > > Since I am not buying Carol's assertion that Sirius makes his choice > because James's cooler than Severus Snape, or at least not > completely. > > Frankly, I think that this is again goes back to our choices > **show** who we are. > > I think Sirius' choice showed what kind of person he is ( ALL > personal flaws and all that, but willing to stand up against the > dark), but was it indeed predetermined? Ceridwen: One thing that stood out for me in "The Prince's Tale", which I haven't seen mentioned (I haven't read everything from the opening of the list, though, so it may have been) is this part of the Hogwarts Express scene: "Who wants to be in Slytherin? I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?" James asked the boy lounging on the seats opposite him, and with a jolt, Harry realized that it was Sirius. Sirius did not smile. "My whole family have been in Slytherin," he said. "Blimey," said James, "and I thought you seemed all right!" Sirius grinned. "Maybe I'll break tradition. Where are you heading, if you've got the choice?" James lifted an invisible sword. "'Gryffindor, where dwells the brave at heart.' Like my dad." ~HBP, Scholastic hardcover, pg. 671. In this scene, James exerts schoolboy pressure on Sirius: "I thought you seemed all right." It seems that, if he'd known all the Blacks went to Slytherin, he wouldn't have wasted his time with Sirius. Sirius grins back at him, which can be seen as showing he's harmless. He then asks where James is heading. A few hours later, Sirius becomes the first Black he knows of to be Sorted into Gryffindor. It seems to me that Sirius wants to be with James, who he also thought was all right. This is the sort of pressure kids do. I like it, why don't you? I would do that, why won't you? It implies that there's something wrong with the other kid if they don't comply. Peer pressure, either overt as in bullying, or more subtle like this, can influence kids profoundly. I think Sirius would have been in Slytherin if he hadn't met James and liked him. Your mileage may vary. Ceridwen. From elfundeb at gmail.com Sun Aug 12 13:30:57 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 09:30:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708120630p14e596c5j84135c5c3913e045@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175163 Carol: Had Sirius not met James and liked him, perhaps appreciating his self-confidence bordering on arrogance or an air of mischievousness like that of the Weasley Twins, he would have had no more reason than his brother Regulus to question his family's view that he belonged in Slytherin. Carol, standing by her position that we are dealing here with the uninformed opinions of eleven-year-olds and not with principle Debbie: Admittedly, I am not and have never been a Sirius fan (though my husband claims Sirius is his favorite character). Over two years ago (before HBP was published) I argued that Sirius did not reject Slytherin because it supported his family's pureblood ideology but because he was a rebel at heart. Needless to say, I didn't get much support for this hypothesis, and I didn't expect we'd ever see more canon to support one view over the other, so I let it drop. But we did get new canon, and it seems to support my position, which is for the most part the same one Carol is taking. Alla: Maybe just as Harry did, Sirius already chose **not Slytherin**, but meeting James helped him to be sure that he wants Gryffindor and not say Ravenclaw? Debbie: I infer something very different from the text. "'Who wants to be in Slytherin? I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?' James asked the boy lounging on the seats opposite him, and with a jolt, Harry realized that it was Sirius. Sirius did not smile. 'My whole family have been in Slytherin,' he said." I think Sirius *expected* to be sorted into Slytherin and until James' remark, had no intention of fighting it, and perhaps no appreciation of how Slytherin was viewed elsewhere in the WW. However, at this point he's already seen that Snape, who wants to be in Slytherin, has upset Lily. Lanval: While Sirius did take to James immediately, I don't see why that *must* be the reason why he ended up in Slytherin. The distance to his family and their traditions seems to be present in Sirius' mind already. Debbie: Based on the exchange between James and Sirius about Slytherin, Sirius doesn't seem to have known anything about James before meeting him (either on the train or at King's Cross). va32h: Sorry Carol, I think you are letting your dislike of Sirius color your perception here. And I don't blame you, since I have a character or two that I simply cannot stand (cough*TONKS*cough) and tend to intrepret that characters actions through a particular prism. There is simply no evidence that Sirius chose Gryffindor *only* for James, or even *for* James at all. Debbie: We are all drawing inferences from the text. There is no direct evidence either way. However, there's nothing to indicate that Sirius *was* motivated by principle in his rejection of Slytherin. va32h: Here are some of the things Sirius says about his family, in OoTP: "Because I hated the whole lot of them: my parents with their pure- blood mania, convinced that to be a Black made you practically royal...my idiot brother soft enough to believe them..." Debbie: Sirius was not speaking of why he chose Gryffindor over Slytherin. He was speaking of why he left home at 16. This was five years later, and therefore the passage (and the others that I snipped) don't provide any indication of his thinking when he was eleven. We don't really even know whether the outward conflict with his parents didn't erupt as a result of his being sorted into Gryffindor (and probably throwing that in his mother's face whenever he had the chance). Prep0strus: It seems Sirius would never use the term mudblood. Debbie: I'm sure that later on Sirius did not use that term. However, we don't know what terms are in Sirius' common vocabulary at age 11. Lily's muggleborn status is not mentioned in the scene, (Snape stops before mentioning that Petunia was a muggle and since they'd mentioned a letter from Dumbledore to Petunia, the exchange does not infer that Lily is muggleborn). Since this seems to be Lily's first encounter with James and Sirius, they don't know that Lily is a muggleborn, so there's no reason for Sirius to use the term at all. Prep0strus: His friends wouldn't accept it. I think that's a pretty strong principle. And he wouldn't use the dark arts. Another fairly strong principle. And he accepts and defends the societal outcast Lupin, another strong principle for a boy not brought up in the most principled family. What we see is his bullying of Severus Snape, and from what I see in the scenes including him, he is not an nice, innocent boy. Do you mean Snape or Sirius? I think you mean Snape, but Sirius isn't so nice or innocent, either. Lanval: And please, just because James gets on Severus, and appears to be a bit of a spoiled brat, in no way means that he was less-than- loveable to the rest of the world. Debbie: Actually, this is part of my problem. I don't find either one to be loveable, as 11-year-olds, as 15-year-olds, or as 21-year-olds. The Lily who wrote the letter to Sirius from Godric's Hollow sounds as though she's been corrupted by James and Sirius (with its airy tone and unnecessary dig at Petunia). James seems just as cocky as ever. This is a bit off the topic of Sirius, but JKR has completely failed to convince me that after Lily's principled rejection of Snape she would substitute his tormentors (and Sirius remained Snape's tormentor until his death, so this was not an adolescent thing) as her best male friends, and in the case of James, her lover and husband. Prop0strus: If he could, he would do the same to the Griffindors. that doesn't make their bullying more acceptable, but Snape isn't an entirely innocent victim. He's a boy practicing dark arts and engaging in prejudice. And for Sirius to become the man we see at the end, he had to have joined the order and fought against Voldemorte before losing his friend or being locked up. He may be a rash and arrogant, but he was also quite principled. Debbie: If, as it's suggested in Snape's memories, that Snape's first encounter with James and Sirius occurred in the compartment on the Hogwarts Express, then James and Sirius have no idea whether Snape is a Dark Arts practitioner. Significantly, Sirius does not state that he's sick of his family, or that they're a bunch of filthy purebloods. The only thing we learn is tht Sirius decides to cast his lot, if possible, with the jaunty boy who shows promise as a partner in (school) crime. It suits his rebellious nature to do so. We know that later Sirius espouses the politically correct mantras, which he may have learned through his association with James (there's a good chance he only associated with other pureblood fanatics before going to Hogwarts), but he doesn't fully internalize them. He tells Harry in OOP, with some disgust, that the Blacks believe that being pureblood is akin to being royalty. However, James and Sirius act like royalty themselves. He thinks house elves are servants beneath his notice. JKR herself has said in an interview that Sirius is fond of espousing principles, but that he doesn't really live up to them. We learn a lot about Sirius from how he treats his inferiors: with utter contempt. Sirius was in the Order, but Dumbledore takes a lot of backsliders onto his team, so a failure to live up to his principles would hardly have disqualified him from the Order. However, I continue to believe -- and have found no canon to refute it -- that the higher principles Sirius espoused didn't manifest in his acts because he didn't come to them on his own. He learned them from the Potters. I'll bet that Sirius had clashed with his family before he went to Hogwarts, and if he was offended by their principles, it was because of the way his wacko mother pushed them on him. Sirius' loyalty to James allowed him to reject everything his family represented: their offensive ideology, the Dark Arts. However, Sirius' best quality is his fierce, dog-like loyalty to his friends. He would not hesitate to lay down his life for his friends, but I still think it's not too much of a stretch to conclude that his principles are his friends' principles. And that's not meant as an insult or an indictment of Sirius. He was a better person for his friendship with James and his decision to choose Gryffindor over Slytherin. Just look at what Snape's opposite choice (because he clearly had the bravery to be a Gryffindor) did to him. Lanval: Also: if we're talking arrogance, we might take a look at young Snape. Who obviously has a bit of a superiority thing going. I'm glad DH finally cleaned up with some fanon misconceptions about Snape. He was no innocent abused lamb, ganged up on from all sides for no reason. He spies, he snipes, he lies, he helps to drive a wedge between two sisters, and shows some pretty worrisome character traits. (That JKR still somehow manages to make Little Snape heartbreakingly, pathetically touching, is quite an accomplishment, I think). Debbie: In fairness to Snape, the deck was always stacked against him. He was from a bad neighborhood, wore funny clothes, had a bad home life and must have felt like a misfit. And when he dared to reveal himself to Lily and Petunia, Petunia threw all of it in his face. So, yes, Snape was a bit defensive on the train. But arrogant bullies thrive on taking advantage of misfits, which only sets off an endless cycle of antagonism. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 14:10:03 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:10:03 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0708120630p14e596c5j84135c5c3913e045@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175164 > Debbie: > We are all drawing inferences from the text. There is no direct evidence > either way. However, there's nothing to indicate that Sirius *was* > motivated by principle in his rejection of Slytherin. Alla: Hi Debbie. You know how much I enjoy your posts and very often even if not convinced I appreciated the beauty of your arguments and always will be. This post is a little bit too different and I disagree with it too much, so I just wanted to reply to couple points. I think everything in what we know screams that Sirius hated his family ( his poster in his room even), I do not see how his hatred could only develop in sixteen, speculating of course, but it just seems that sixteen was the breaking point, not the start. Therefore it seems to ne that he would chose the House his family hates the most. But that is just me obviously. > Lanval: > And please, just because James gets on Severus, and appears to be a > bit of a spoiled brat, in no way means that he was less-than- > loveable to the rest of the world. > > Debbie: > Actually, this is part of my problem. I don't find either one to be > loveable, as 11-year-olds, as 15-year-olds, or as 21-year-olds. The Lily > who wrote the letter to Sirius from Godric's Hollow sounds as though she's > been corrupted by James and Sirius (with its airy tone and unnecessary dig > at Petunia). Alla: This is the point I wanted to ask you about. Lily, **corrupted** by James and Sirius? Could Lily be corrupted by anybody? I mean, obviously we cannot debate perceptions and I am not trying to. You do not find them loveable, I do ( with many flaws of course). But do we have any evidence that Lily can fall under anybody's influence without thinking for herself? I mean, this is Lily who would not go out with James till he deflated his head and it was in seventh year only. This is Lily who would break many years childhood friendship, because she is sick of him calling everybody of her birth mudblood. IMO, if Lily did not find person to be worthy, she would not love or like him as lover or friend. Maybe she just started genuinely love Sirius as friend? JMO, Alla From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 12 14:15:13 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:15:13 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175165 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > > Ah, the end of the series doesn't mean the end of the debate between > Snape's supporters and detractors! > > Prep0strus (in post #175139) says, of James & Sirius bullying Snape: > > Snape isn't an entirely innocent victim. He's a boy practicing > > dark arts > > Well, Snape is certainly not an innocent by his late teens or so, > since he's joined the Death Eaters. However, you are making some > statements here that are not based in canon. You say that Snape > is "practicing the Dark Arts" and imply that he does so even as a > boy, even during the time when Lily is friends with him. The fact is, > though, that we hardly ever see Snape practicing the Dark Arts in > canon at all, and certainly not as a boy (unless you want to count > killing flies, which we see him doing once.) We see him cast > Sectumsempra once as an adult, but here he is actually trying to save > Lupin from a Death Eater. That is the extent of the Dark Arts that we > actually see Snape USE. > > In fact, we don't really even hear *about* Snape using the Dark Arts. > For example, in the Pensieve trial scene in GoF, Karkaroff accuses > various Death Eaters of horrible things ? torturing muggles, > murdering wizards, using the Imperius Curse. But, when he gets to > accusing Snape, all he says is that Snape was a Death Eater. Even > when Crouch Sr. doesn't believe that Snape is a Death Eater, > Karkaroff doesn't back it up with an examples of what Snape has done. > He just says, "I tell you, Snape is a Death Eater!" Moody, watching > the proceedings, whispers to Dumbledore about various things other > Death Eaters have done, but all he does when Snape is mentioned is > look skeptical about Snape's being on Dumbledore's side. Lupin does > mention that Sectumsempra was a specialty of Snape's, but we don't > know if that means Snape used it a lot, or if it means instead that > Lupin is aware that Snape invented the spell. That's about it in > canon for Snape using the Dark Arts. Compare that to, say, how much > Dark Arts we see Voldemort or Bellatrix performing. > > Now, what we do see in canon is that Snape is knowledgeable about the > Dark Arts -- fascinated by them, in fact. But, knowing the Dark Arts > is not the same as using them. In fact, long before we know of > Dumbledore's friendship with Grindelwald, we see two professors > (McGonagall and Binns) stating (or at least implying) that Dumbledore > is quite knowledgeable in the Dark Arts. > > I think this is where some of the divergent views of Snape come in. > Snape is clearly described, by Sirius at least, as being fascinated > by the Dark Arts even as an eleven-year old. Some readers take that > to mean that Snape was always a Dark Wizard, even as a child. Geoff: It's interesting to note what Sirius says to Harry at one point: '"Ever since I found out Snape was teaching here, I've wondered why Dumbledore hired him. Snape's always been fascinated by the Dark Arts, he was famous for it at school. Simy, oily, greasy-haired kid, he was," Sirius added and Harry and Ron grinned at each other. "Snape knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in seventh year and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters."' (GOF "Padfoot returns" pp.460/61 UK edition) Now this partly echoes what you have said, but the interesting thing is, how did the other students know about his curse knowledge if he didn't show it off? And I would have thought that he would need to practise them in order to convince himself that he knew them.... From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Aug 12 14:49:48 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:49:48 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0708120630p14e596c5j84135c5c3913e045@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175166 Prep0strus: > > > His friends wouldn't accept it. I think that's a pretty strong principle. And he wouldn't use the dark arts. Another fairly strong principle. And he accepts and defends the societal outcast Lupin, another strong principle for a boy not brought up in the most principled family. *(snip)* Lanval: > > And please, just because James gets on Severus, and appears to be a bit of a spoiled brat, in no way means that he was less-than- loveable to the rest of the world. Debbie: > Actually, this is part of my problem. I don't find either one to be loveable, as 11-year-olds, as 15-year-olds, or as 21-year-olds. The Lily who wrote the letter to Sirius from Godric's Hollow sounds as though she's been corrupted by James and Sirius (with its airy tone and unnecessary dig at Petunia). James seems just as cocky as ever. This is a bit off the topic of Sirius, but JKR has completely failed to convince me that after Lily's principled rejection of Snape she would substitute his tormentors (and Sirius remained Snape's tormentor until his death, so this was not an adolescent thing) as her best male friends, and in the case of James, her lover and husband. Ceridwen: Snape doesn't seem to use 'Mudblood' before going off to Hogwarts. He seems to have fallen in with a bad crowd by being Sorted into Slytherin. He's a bit arrogant about being a Wizard when Petunia is just a Muggle, but she started the disparagement at the playground by loftily pointing out his shortcomings - that Snape boy who lives at Spinner's End. Petunia doesn't like Snape from the beginning. He gets back at her by pointing out *her* shortcomings. James was an arrogant snob. He doesn't like Slytherin, he laughs at Snape for wanting to be Sorted into it, and drags Sirius along. Not that Sirius needed much dragging. He already liked James, and wanted his approval. So he says that maybe he'll buck family tradition - by the way, where are you going again? And, wonder of wonders, he's Sorted into Gryffindor. Just as James wanted to be. Some people have speculated that Snape was corrupted by being Sorted into Slytherin. Prefect Lucius Malfoy greets him at the Slytherin table, and we hear him using the word 'Mudblood' in SWM. Lily also implies that he uses it a lot, against others, not against her. He's all right with the unnamed awful things his housemates do to other students. He's heading down a dark and futile road. This, by some, is laid at Slytherin House's door. So, why not Sirius, and even Lily, being corrupted to Gryffindor values and prejudices? They go to all classes with their housemates, while they only have certain classes with other houses. They eat with them. They sleep in the same dorms. They spend time in the same common room. Quidditch and House Points competitions encourage an 'us against them' mentality. They're thrown together with housemates more than with students from any other house. When the housemates are arrogant take-charge types, charismatic people like James, they learn to agree with their stated principles. Who wants to be ostracized from their residence? We see Sirius backing down on the train when James doesn't flinch. Sirius states that his entire family has been Sorted into Slytherin. Instead of James saying something like, "I shouldn't have said that about Slytherin", or, "I didn't mean to insult your family", he says he *thought* Sirius was all right. Sirius, who obviously liked James's company, says he may buck tradition, then asks where James thinks he'll be Sorted. To this point, he's been in a family that admires Slytherin traits. He's lived with Pureblood ideology. At eleven, he may want to get around his parents, assert his independence, but not on ideological grounds. Sirius is a rebel against what he knows. James's so-far unexplored grass is greener, in his eyes. Why not Lily? She had no idea about the WW, except for what Snape told her. She was ripe for induction into principles of her house and housemates. The books show Muggleborns slowly assimilating into the WW, leaving their Muggle families behind them. Why not Lily? Since kids see things in stark contrast, without mitigating shades of gray, the values she learns in Gryffindor, including contempt of Slytherin House, become hers wholeheartedly. She's surrounded by this all day, every day, for ten months of the year. The little time spent with Snape at home, even before school, was nothing compared to the total imersion of Hogwarts. She was not only enticed away from her Muggle family, but from her friends outside of her school house. In the end, we get a Lily who makes fun of a gift her sister gave her. If house exerts an influence, then all houses, not just Slytherin, exert an influence, in my opinion. Ceridwen. From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 14:57:01 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:57:01 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175167 > > > > > > "Sirius did not smile. 'My whole family have been in Slytherin,' > > he said. > > > > > > "'Blimey,' said James. 'And I thought you seemed all right!'" > > > > > > "Sirius grinned. 'Maybe I'll break the tradition. Where are you > > > heading, f you've got the choice?' > > > > > > "James held up an invisible sword. 'Gryffindor, where dwell the > > brave > > > at heart. Like my dad"" (DH Am. ed. 671). > > > > > > > > Lanval: > > And that's when Snape sneers at James, and insults his choice of > > house. Let's not omit that, if we're talking canon. > > > lizzyben: > > Just wanted to add one thing. When James said "just like my Dad" and > waves an invisible sword, I'm convinced that Snape interpreted that as > "I want to be a bully, just like my Dad." Hence his "small, > disparaging noise" and later comment about "brawn." James sees his > father as someone to emulate, but Snape sees his as an abusive bully. > So while James sees his desire to be like his father as something > noble, it provokes a negative reaction from Snape. Just another > example of the (many) misconceptions & misunderstandings from that scene. > Lanval: Ah, so Snape must, once again, be excused? He can't help insulting James'choice, because James innocently waving an imaginary sword and mentioning his dad immediately sends Severus into inner tremblings? In other words, every time another kid mentions his/her dad, Snape could be excused for getting snippy? You have every right to interpret the scene that way, but I find it a real stretch. Frankly, I don't see any misconceptions and misunderstandings in the scene. Both James and Snape are quite clear and straightforward on what they want, expect, and prefer. Tobias, an abusive bully? Maybe. We see him shouting at his wife once, but DH makes it quite clear that the Snapes were arguing with each other. I don't think there's enough canon to make Mrs Snape the perpetual victim here, and there certainly is none that Severus was in any way abused by his father (another fandom myth down the drain...). I would go as far and suggest that Harry's early childhood was in fact far worse than Snape's. Not only was all the abuse in the Dursley household heaped upon Harry, canonically, by three family members, but he also lacked what young Severus had: a mother who probably did love him, the prospect of a brighter future, and, at least for a few years, a real friend. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 15:33:56 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:33:56 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175169 > Ceridwen: > Snape doesn't seem to use 'Mudblood' before going off to Hogwarts. > He seems to have fallen in with a bad crowd by being Sorted into > Slytherin. He's a bit arrogant about being a Wizard when Petunia is > just a Muggle, but she started the disparagement at the playground by > loftily pointing out his shortcomings - that Snape boy who lives at > Spinner's End. Petunia doesn't like Snape from the beginning. He > gets back at her by pointing out *her* shortcomings. Alla: I do not really care about Petunia's shortcomings for the purpose of this argument :) I do not like her at all, but my point is that at the age of eleven, Snape seems to know quite clearly IMO that those who are muggleborns have lesser rights than purebloods in WW.( pause when he answers Lily and what he wants to call petunia IMO show that). If Snape did not know that, how would he know to throw **this** at Petunia that she is just a Muggle? And not, say find something wrong with her looks for example - eleven year old girl certainly would be sensitive about that as well. It seems to me that Snape knows really well where muggleborns and muggles stay in WW based on this. Speculation of course, but I believe based on canon inference, I think word Muddblood rolled off his tongue at that age. > Ceridwen: >> So, why not Sirius, and even Lily, being corrupted to Gryffindor > values and prejudices? ,SNIP BIG ONE> If house exerts an influence, then all houses, not just Slytherin, > exert an influence, in my opinion. Alla: Of course all Houses exert influence. I would argue that per books Slytherin's influence is the most damaging one, but that is not my point. I read Debbie's point that Lily was corrupted into loving Sirius. And I do think that person with such strong personality as Lily cannot be corrupted into loving a person, house influence or not. IMO of course. > Lanval: > Ah, so Snape must, once again, be excused? He can't help insulting > James'choice, because James innocently waving an imaginary sword and > mentioning his dad immediately sends Severus into inner tremblings? > > In other words, every time another kid mentions his/her dad, Snape > could be excused for getting snippy? Alla: Agreed. From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 15:48:27 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 08:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <394374.99272.qm@web55013.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175170 Judy: > Ah, the end of the series doesn't mean the end of the debate between > Snape's supporters and detractors! > >> Prep0strus (in post #175139) says, of James & Sirius bullying Snape: > > Snape isn't an entirely innocent victim. He's a boy practicing > > dark arts > > Well, Snape is certainly not an innocent by his late teens or so, > since he's joined the Death Eaters. However, you are making some > statements here that are not based in canon. You say that Snape > is "practicing the Dark Arts" and imply that he does so even as a > boy, even during the time when Lily is friends with him. The fact is, > though, that we hardly ever see Snape practicing the Dark Arts in > canon at all, and certainly not as a boy (unless you want to count > killing flies, which we see him doing once.) We see him cast > Sectumsempra once as an adult, but here he is actually trying to save > Lupin from a Death Eater. That is the extent of the Dark Arts that we > actually see Snape USE. > > In fact, we don't really even hear *about* Snape using the Dark Arts. > For example, in the Pensieve trial scene in GoF, Karkaroff accuses > various Death Eaters of horrible things ? torturing muggles, > murdering wizards, using the Imperius Curse. But, when he gets to > accusing Snape, all he says is that Snape was a Death Eater. Even > when Crouch Sr. doesn't believe that Snape is a Death Eater, > Karkaroff doesn't back it up with an examples of what Snape has done. > He just says, "I tell you, Snape is a Death Eater!" Moody, watching > the proceedings, whispers to Dumbledore about various things other > Death Eaters have done, but all he does when Snape is mentioned is > look skeptical about Snape's being on Dumbledore's side. Lupin does > mention that Sectumsempra was a specialty of Snape's, but we don't > know if that means Snape used it a lot, or if it means instead that > Lupin is aware that Snape invented the spell. That's about it in > canon for Snape using the Dark Arts. Compare that to, say, how much > Dark Arts we see Voldemort or Bellatrix performing. > > Now, what we do see in canon is that Snape is knowledgeable about the > Dark Arts -- fascinated by them, in fact. But, knowing the Dark Arts > is not the same as using them. In fact, long before we know of > Dumbledore's friendship with Grindelwald, we see two professors > (McGonagall and Binns) stating (or at least implying) that Dumbledore > is quite knowledgeable in the Dark Arts. > > I think this is where some of the divergent views of Snape come in. > Snape is clearly described, by Sirius at least, as being fascinated > by the Dark Arts even as an eleven-year old. Some readers take that > to mean that Snape was always a Dark Wizard, even as a child. Geoff: >It's interesting to note what Sirius says to Harry at one point: >'"Ever since I found out Snape was teaching here, I've wondered why >Dumbledore hired him. Snape's always been fascinated by the Dark >Arts, he was famous for it at school. Simy, oily, greasy-haired kid, >he was," Sirius added and Harry and Ron grinned at each other. "Snape >knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in >seventh year and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all >turned out to be Death Eaters."' >(GOF "Padfoot returns" pp.460/61 UK edition) >Now this partly echoes what you have said, but the interesting thing is, >how did the other students know about his curse knowledge if he didn't >show it off? And I would have thought that he would need to practise >them in order to convince himself that he knew them.... I enjoyed reading Judy's argument and thought she made a good deal of sense. I'm responding to neither agree nor disagree with you, Geoff (because I think this is one of those discussions that comes down to honest individual interpretation); but simply to say that, in my opinion, Sirius (a character I do like despite his faults) isn't an objective source of information about Snape. He hates Snape, so anything Sirius says about him must be taken with a grain of salt (and vice versa). Saying "Snape knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in seventh year" is not the same as saying "Snape cursed kids every chance he got as soon as he got to Hogwarts." And the fact that he slips in a personal insult ("Slimy, oily, greasy-haired kid") does nothing to support his opinion in my mind -- in fact it distracts from it and proves his lack of objectivity. Snape could have been a "know-it-all" in the same vein as Hermione -- answering all the questions in class, lecturing his classmates on what he knows, quoting books he has read. Now that she has read Secrets of the Darkest Arts, Hermione now knows how to make, as well as destroy, a Horcrux; that doesn't mean she will make one though. No doubt Snape invented at least one very nasty curse (Sectumsempra) among others (e.g., Levicorpus, which can be used in a nasty way) and must have practiced them to know whether or not they worked; but we don't know under what circumstances he practiced his inventions (on spiders, on those flies we saw him kill, who knows) or whether or not he invented them with the intent to use them defensively, offensively, or both. And Judy, if I remember correctly (I don't have my OOTP book), Snape did use Sectumsempra at least once at school -- against James in SWM. Christy, who is surprised that she has become an apologist for Snape but like Harry has forgiven him now that she knows the truth and is trying to be more objective about him as a result --------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Aug 12 15:58:12 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:58:12 -0000 Subject: Another angle on Hermione's parents/Good and Bad Slytherins/Snape and Sortin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175171 > > debbie > > > I don't agree with those of you who think that Hermione was being > > insensitive when she modified her parent's memories. > > > I think Hermione's actions were always out of love. Her parents > > were not comfortable in the wizard world, so Hermione tried to > > protect them from the uglier side of it. > Chris: > I have to say I agree with you as well, when I first read that > Hermione had modified her parents' memories and sent them to > Australia I saw it as a very powerful act of love and protection > for them. It must have been heartbreaking for her to do this to > them but as you say it stopped the grief for them if she didn't > return. It never entered my mind that it was a terrible thing to > do and only made me think of it when I read the posts here. > > IMO what Hermione did to her parents just shows how much she > loved them and wanted to protect them. Magpie: That's not the point! It's compassionate and loving to put your cat to sleep when it's sick. That doesn't make it okay to do it to people. With people you have to respect their ability to make their own choices over the ending of their own lives. Hermione's parents are intelligent people and parents. Would any person agree to just have their life entirely taken away just because they won't remember it? Far more importantly, would any parent agree to forget they ever had a child because that way they wouldn't worry about the child being in danger? This is exactly what's so creepy about the whole thing for me, that it's all about how sad it is for Hermione because she's making this sacrifice, which just reiterates the impression that her parents are some lower form of life who can't understand things so she can make decisions for their own good. I'd be less creeped out if it was seen as merely cold! Maybe I'm just particularly sensitive about the idea of having my free will taken away from me, but this will always be chilling for me, even though I realize it's really just a funny way of getting rid of an inconvenient blip in the plot. Wizards do this all the time to Muggles, and that Hermione has grown to see this as okay is, imo, a bad thing. And I think it reflects the many reasons that the books, to me, just don't argue a convincing case for respect between cultures. (And why I object whenever somebody says the books make things "hard" for us in ways they actually seem to make things really easy.) Debbie: Actually, this is part of my problem. I don't find either one to be loveable, as 11-year-olds, as 15-year-olds, or as 21-year-olds. The Lily who wrote the letter to Sirius from Godric's Hollow sounds as though she's been corrupted by James and Sirius (with its airy tone and unnecessary dig at Petunia). James seems just as cocky as ever. This is a bit off the topic of Sirius, but JKR has completely failed to convince me that after Lily's principled rejection of Snape she would substitute his tormentors (and Sirius remained Snape's tormentor until his death, so this was not an adolescent thing) as her best male friends, and in the case of James, he lover and husband. Magpie: Lily seems perfectly suited to them already, for me. In the SWM isn't she already trying hard not to laugh at James' jokes about Snape-- even before he calls her a Mudblood? She clearly already likes James in that scene. I don't think she had that much trouble with it. JKR doesn't seem to consider this sort of thing always a bad thing. I think Lily genuinely did think that James and Sirius both had the qualities she most admired in men--they just also had bad qualities too. Iow, while I do think all the houses influence their members, they're also already being Sorted for certain qualities and probably have certain things they're more likely to go for to begin with. I would also note that to me the problems in the Snape/Lily relationship seem clear pretty early, naturally all from Snape's side. He's not able to get out of his own needs and desires to really see things from her pov. As far as Sirius is concerned, I always saw him as rebelling against his family and that's why he went the other way--and DH didn't change that impression for me. Sirius is pretty arrogant, I don't know if he'd just change what he really thinks just because some kid across the way said he didn't like Slytherin. He didn't seem that angry at James' remark, he just didn't smile, but grinned when he said he'd be different. He could have said just "I am all right." I still read the scene as Sirius already primed to be different from his family, with James just an added prize. Because JKR doesn't show Sirius coming in with one idea and changing to another that I can see, and I think she would have shown that if Sirius was really supposed to have come to Hogwarts set for Slytherin and suddenly realized this might lose him his friend. Sirius may never have lost his Black arrogance, but the man certainly seems like a Gryffindor through and through to me in terms of his personality. He never slipped up on Purebloods being superior, obviously, but more importantly, he was a danger junkie and died in the most Gryffindor way imaginable. I also don't think the Sorting Hat just works on where you want to go. That's important because your choices "show" who you are. If you're someone who values Intelligence the most you'd be "choosing" Ravenclaw naturally. JKR has said the Hat is never wrong, and I think that's based somewhat on what you're choosing. You can't really choose to go into a house because your friend's there, imo. But if you genuinely value the qualities of that house--even if you aren't familiar with the houses as such--you're choosing to go there. Harry doesn't choose Gryffindor, iirc. He says not Slytherin and the Hat chooses Gryffindor, and chooses correctly. If you really don't want a certain house that, too, is going to indicate you're natural values. For instance, somebody who really cringes at the idea of being a Hufflepuff doesn't appreciate what Hufflepuff stands for, so wouldn't be a natural Hufflepuff. I think that's part of the reason everyone's so proud of their house-they do all kind of believe their house Sorts for the most important thing. Hermione *did not* belong in Ravenclaw. Even leaving aside exactly how her intelligence manifests itself, she herself dismisses it as "books and cleverness." She values courage more and uses her intelligence to those ends. Likewise I would say that Snape was not in Ravenclaw because he, too, saw learning as a means to something else rather than just knowledge for knowledge's sake. (Knowledge is power perhaps?) Or at least, he valued something else more. We know that Snape did want to be in Slytherin at that time, at least. He may have continued to favor that house his whole life. Alla: It seems to me that Snape knows really well where muggleborns and muggles stay in WW based on this. Speculation of course, but I believe based on canon inference, I think word Muddblood rolled off his tongue at that age. Magpie: A me too here. I took that scene between Snape and Lily as an early sign of Snape wanting to have it both ways and already believing in the superiority of some over others. lizzyben: Just wanted to add one thing. When James said "just like my Dad" and waves an invisible sword, I'm convinced that Snape interpreted that as "I want to be a bully, just like my Dad." Hence his "small, disparaging noise" and later comment about "brawn." James sees his father as someone to emulate, but Snape sees his as an abusive bully. So while James sees his desire to be like his father as something noble, it provokes a negative reaction from Snape. Just another example of the (many) misconceptions & misunderstandings from that scene. Magpie: Of course, Snape *does* emulate his dad the bully, if that's what his dad was. Snape becomes a bully. I would say seems to associate being the bully with being the winner. James probably means he wants to be the hero who protects people from bullies--though in this universe, at least for me, those two things (bully and protector from bullies) often bleed together into one. lizzyben: I don't think anyone expected a Hallmark ending & total redemption of the House, but many readers did expect some type of reconciliation. But that wasn't what the book gave, and I think we have to conclude that that's because reconciliation & co-existence wasn't the intended message of the book. Magpie: That's how it reads to me too--it just wasn't the intended message of the book. I think JKR wrote a happy ending, and that a reconciliation and coming together with Slytherin just isn't something she thinks is necessary for that. It's not surprising that in interviews she's asked why Slytherin is even kept around, and her answer is that it's because the better people have this "Dumbledorian" dream of the utopia that would happen if they all came together, but it's not something the book is going for. There's a clear limit for how much of a connection there can be even with the Slytherins who change or aren't that bad. It's more like this story just describes and on-going battle and we're hearing about one of those places where the dark side gained too much power and had to be wrestled back into its less threatening place imo. Readers may focus more on it being integrated and write fanfics to that effect because they can see it happening, but the end of the book seems to confirm for me what the focus of canon has always been, which is Harry and his circle being unthreatened. Judy: The fact is,though, that we hardly ever see Snape practicing the Dark Arts in canon at all, and certainly not as a boy (unless you want to count killing flies, which we see him doing once.) We see him cast Sectumsempra once as an adult, but here he is actually trying to save Lupin from a Death Eater. That is the extent of the Dark Arts that we actually see Snape USE. Magpie: True, but I would also just throw in that this area is always fuzzy in canon. Harry hates Draco for his "obsession" with the Dark Arts as well, and when have we seen Draco using them? Not much at all. But I think nevertheless that Harry is supposed to be telling us the truth there. There's a certain kind of kid that's "obsessed with the Dark Arts" but it doesn't get shown in canon by them always doing Dark spells. It's the obsession that's important, and Snape did seem to have that given the little canon we have. At least he seems to have had that from what I read. -m From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 12 16:24:54 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:24:54 -0000 Subject: Romance ( Was: Do you guys think there will be any more books now?) In-Reply-To: <202365.78438.qm@web30204.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175172 Career advisor wrote: > The romance in the better fanfiction > by rule is better then HP I disagree. In even the best fanfiction the characters have an unfortunate tendency to engage in 10 page soliloquies describing exactly why they love their partner; I think they could make good use of PowerPoint. Yes it's sweet, it's very very sweet, but so is the smell of a decaying corpse. JKR's characters are much less gabby, they don't say why they love another person, they show why. > and much more 'mature' More graphic yes, more mature no. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From bloggertracy at gmail.com Sun Aug 12 15:46:23 2007 From: bloggertracy at gmail.com (Tracy Woods) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:46:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another angle on Hermione's parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19f52d580708120846s74bf1112wea0e9ca6a41f1731@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175173 Debbie: I think Hermione's actions were always out of love. Her parent were not comfortable in the wizard world, so Hermione tried to protect them from the uglier side of it. I think that is far more compassionate than telling them and saying "oh, by the way you cannot protect me". By doing it the way she did, she not only ensured their safety but also protected them from the bitterness of grief it things did not go well. I don't think she really believed that she would come back. ---- bloggertracy: I agree with you as well, Debbie. I think I recall (and I don't have the book handy to check right now) that it mentions Hermione tearing up (or showing some sort of sadness) when explaining what she did to her parents...I don't believe it was at the beginning, I think it was later in to the book. There's no insensitivity about it. Being so close to Harry, and a muggle born witch as well, she was always in danger. I can't imagine that there is anything more painful in the world than losing a child, and she was protecting them from that. Worse than losing a child, her parents could have lost a child, and would have to live with the knowledge all their lives that they were unable to protect her, even though as parents, that's their duty, and what every parent wants to do more than anything. Would you (general "you" not you specifically Debbie lol) want to lose a child and be tortured, every day, with the knowledge that you, her parent, could not protect your child? I wondered though, when i was done, if Hermione had gone back and "fixed" her parents' memories when everything was over? From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Aug 12 16:58:02 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 12 Aug 2007 16:58:02 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 8/12/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1186937882.17.86947.m50@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175174 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday August 12, 2007 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From leahstill at hotmail.com Sun Aug 12 16:56:31 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:56:31 -0000 Subject: Another angle on Hermione's parents In-Reply-To: <19f52d580708120846s74bf1112wea0e9ca6a41f1731@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175175 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tracy Woods" wrote: > bloggertracy: > I can't imagine > that there is anything more painful in the world than losing a child, and > she was protecting them from that. Worse than losing a child, her parents > could have lost a child, and would have to live with the knowledge all their > lives that they were unable to protect her, even though as parents, that's > their duty, and what every parent wants to do more than anything. Would you > (general "you" not you specifically Debbie lol) want to lose a child and be > tortured, every day, with the knowledge that you, her parent, could not > protect your child? > > I wondered though, when i was done, if Hermione had gone back and "fixed" > her parents' memories when everything was over? Chris: > I have to say I agree with you as well, when I first read that > Hermione had modified her parents' memories and sent them to > Australia I saw it as a very powerful act of love and protection > for them. It must have been heartbreaking for her to do this to > them but as you say it stopped the grief for them if she didn't > return. It never entered my mind that it was a terrible thing to > do and only made me think of it when I read the posts here. > > IMO what Hermione did to her parents just shows how much she > loved them and wanted to protect them. Leah: It not only stopped the grief for them, it stopped their feelings of love and pride in Hermione, which yes, is a loss for her, but far more of a loss for them. It stopped them being the people they had become over say fifty or so years of living, and having and loving a child. Do you think Harry would have consented to have all memory of Sirius removed from his mind even if it gave him the benefit of no longer grieving? There are sadly a number of people who can do nothing to protect their children, for example because the child has an incurable disease, or is on active service, or is simply just out driving. If those parents lost their child, I can't believe they would want to forget him/her completely. Hermione has a power which her parents do not have and she uses it over them without their knowledge or consent. This does not sit well with the girl who wished to liberate house-elves from being lorded over by wizards. I don't think, by the way, that we are intended to view Hermione actions in the way I do. I think they are meant to be praiseworthy, and when I first read them, I interpreted them exactly as you do, and was moved by her loss, and so was my daughter, with whom I discussed this. It was only on reflection that I thought, what does this actually mean, what has she actually done to her parents? I do think she loves and wants to protect her parents, she just has no right to abuse her powers in the way she did. I don't know if this is because JKR has not thought it through, or she has thought it through and continues to think the behaviour ok. Magpie: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175176 "sistermagpie" wrote: > this makes Hermione's dealings with her > parents unsurprising, it doesn't make it right. Yet another example of "Eggplant's Third Law of Unequal Moral Responsibility": Among fans Snape and Ron get 10 miles of slack, Harry and Hermione don't get one inch of it. Hermione intended to restore her parents memories if she survived, and if she didn't they could still have a happy life in Australia; the only alternative was to watch her parents get tortured to death for information. And in my book that DOES make it right! Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From va32h at comcast.net Sun Aug 12 17:00:09 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:00:09 -0000 Subject: Blame Fryffindor for everything (wasRe: good and bad slytherins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175177 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > She was not only enticed away from > her Muggle family, but from her friends outside of her school house. > In the end, we get a Lily who makes fun of a gift her sister gave her. > > If house exerts an influence, then all houses, not just Slytherin, > exert an influence, in my opinion. va32h: Okay, now I think you are stretching things too far. Lily developed her aesthetic appreciation of vases in Gryffindor house too? She didn't like Petunia's Christmas gift because Gryffindors poisoned her mind with thoughts about what an attractive vase ought to look like? Because it's completely impossible that a woman could dislike a gift given to her by a relative just because it's not her taste or she finds it ugly. You've never been given a gift you didn't like? I would think that the very fact that Petunia and Lily exchange Christmas gifts is evidence that Lily has not been "enticed" away from her family. Petunia knows how to communicate with her sister, knows who her sister is married to, knows that she has a nephew and this nephews age and name. Lily's parents both died sometime between Lily's first year (when they are at King's Cross with her) and Lily's own death (since Petunia is Harry's only living relative at that time.) If Lily is closer to James and Sirius than she is to her own family, perhaps it is because her parents (who found her magical abilities delightful) are dead and she has only a sister who calls her a freak. But wait, let me guess - Sirius and James murdered the Evanses, right? So they could further entice Lily down the path of evil Gryffindorness. va32h From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 17:03:18 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:03:18 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175178 > Lanval: > Ah, so Snape must, once again, be excused? He can't help insulting > James'choice, because James innocently waving an imaginary sword and > mentioning his dad immediately sends Severus into inner tremblings? > > In other words, every time another kid mentions his/her dad, Snape > could be excused for getting snippy? > > You have every right to interpret the scene that way, but I find it > a real stretch. Frankly, I don't see any misconceptions and > misunderstandings in the scene. Both James and Snape are quite clear > and straightforward on what they want, expect, and prefer. > > Tobias, an abusive bully? Maybe. We see him shouting at his wife > once, but DH makes it quite clear that the Snapes were arguing with > each other. I don't think there's enough canon to make Mrs Snape the > perpetual victim here, and there certainly is none that Severus was > in any way abused by his father (another fandom myth down the > drain...). > > I would go as far and suggest that Harry's early childhood was in > fact far worse than Snape's. Not only was all the abuse in the > Dursley household heaped upon Harry, canonically, by three family > members, but he also lacked what young Severus had: a mother who > probably did love him, the prospect of a brighter future, and, at > least for a few years, a real friend. > lizzyben: Nope, no excuses for Snape. JKR makes it clear that he was a nasty little boy who became a nasty teenager who became a nasty adult. In every scene, Snape is portrayed doing *something* bad. He was a bad kid, which is why he was sorted into Slytherin, home of bad guys. Snape was emotionally damaged by his dysfunctional childhood, while Harry somehow still manages to become a well-adjusted, normal, heroic person despite his abusive childhood. This is because, as a Gryffindor, Harry was simply a *better* person, a naturally good person, so the outer environment can't change this essential essence. Similarly, Sirius Black was a *better* person than the rest of his family from an earlier age, which is why he became a Gryffindor instead of a Slytherin. W/the Marauders & Lily, the Sorting Hat recognized their innate moral superiority and place among the elect. It also recognized Snape's inherent inferiority & bad essence, which is why he gets Slytherin house. This is because Slytherin is where the inferior, the bad, the morally suspect children are sorted so that they can't corrupt the rest of us. As I've said, it seems pretty clear that Slytherin children are the damned souls of the Potterverse. This sends a rather horrifying message, especially w/regard to abused or damaged children. There are four examples of children who grow up in neglected or abusive situations - Harry, Snape, Riddle and Merope. Harry, the superior Gryffindor, isn't severely damaged by these abusive circumstances, while the Slytherins *are*. Snape & Merope are totally desperate for love & acceptance, which makes them turn to sketchy means or people in order to get that acceptance. As natural Slytherins, they were simply unable to "rise above" their circumstances and be normal as Harry could. So, if you turn out bad, it's because you were BORN bad, regardless of the trauma you might have suffered. A better person would have gotten over it. Combine this w/DD & Harry ignoring the form of an abused, agonized child who simply *can't* be helped, because the soul is already doomed. Just like Merope, Riddle, and Snape simply *can't* be helped, and probably shouldn't be helped. If they had a horrible childhood, if they are psychologically damaged by abuse, that's their own fault. A superior person would not have been damaged, no matter how bad the abuse is. I'm just following the Calvinist sorting to its natural conclusion here. lizzyben From va32h at comcast.net Sun Aug 12 17:11:34 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:11:34 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175179 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > Combine this w/DD & Harry ignoring the form of an abused, agonized > child who simply *can't* be helped, because the soul is already > doomed. va32h: Sorry about the massive snippage, but this is the only part I wanted to address. The agonized child at King's Cross is Voldemort's soul, and it got that way because Voldemort performed many, many evil acts and harbored many, many evil thoughts, and doesn't feel a whit of remorse for any of them. Even Jesus!Harry can't make another soul repent for its own sins. All Jesus!Harry can do is make salvation possible, if one asks for it. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 12 17:29:32 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:29:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the slaughtered pig, also featuring logic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175181 va32h: Wrote: > Take GoF - a common argument has been that > Fake!Moody should have just made a book or > a quill into portkey and used that to get > Harry on the first or second day of class. > The whole triwizard tournament is a contrivance. I've always felt Rowling should have had Voldemort say something like this to his death eaters in the graveyard: "There is a powerful spell preventing port keys from working at Hogwarts but during the Tri Wizard Tournament people would be arriving from all over the world so I knew the spell would have to be temporarily removed, if not in the castle itself at least on the grounds. It also amused me to have Harry Potter whisked away to his doom at the very instant he thinks he's going to attain his greatest triumph. And I did it right under Dumbledore's nose with the entire world watching, people can now see with their own eyes which one of us is more powerful." Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 17:49:41 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:49:41 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0708120630p14e596c5j84135c5c3913e045@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175182 > Debbie: > Admittedly, I am not and have never been a Sirius fan (though my husband > claims Sirius is his favorite character). Over two years ago (before HBP > was published) I argued that Sirius did not reject Slytherin because it > supported his family's pureblood ideology but because he was a rebel at > heart. Needless to say, I didn't get much support for this hypothesis, and > I didn't expect we'd ever see more canon to support one view over the other, > so I let it drop. But we did get new canon, and it seems to support my > position, which is for the most part the same one Carol is taking. Lanval: Well, we must disagree on this; I don't see it at all. I'll explain it farther down. > Alla: > Maybe just as Harry did, Sirius already chose **not Slytherin**, but > meeting James helped him to be sure that he wants Gryffindor and not > say Ravenclaw? > > Debbie: > I infer something very different from the text. > > "'Who wants to be in Slytherin? I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?' James > asked the boy lounging on the seats opposite him, and with a jolt, Harry > realized that it was Sirius. Sirius did not smile. > 'My whole family have been in Slytherin,' he said." > > I think Sirius *expected* to be sorted into Slytherin and until James' > remark, had no intention of fighting it, and perhaps no appreciation of how > Slytherin was viewed elsewhere in the WW. However, at this point he's > already seen that Snape, who wants to be in Slytherin, has upset Lily. > Lanval: Sirius knows that the Sorting *can* be influenced already. That's important. The fact that he does not smile can be interpreted in many ways; mine would be that he already agrees somewhat that Slytherin isn't all that his family holds it to be, and James' undisguised scorn for Slytherin only confirms it. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are suggesting that Sirius just didn't want to spoil it with his new buddy, and therefore caved and asked for Gryffindor because he didn't want to lose Jame's approval? Sorry, but I can't buy that. Had it been Peter or Remus in this scene, yes. But Sirius, for all his James-worship, is not that insecure. Which is precisely why I think that, had Sirius still been completely supportive of the Slytherin/Black ideology at that point, he would have bristled at James' remark. After all James just insulted his entire family. Kids usually take offense at that, unless relations with their family are at an exceptionally low point. > va32h: > Sorry Carol, I think you are letting your dislike of Sirius color your > perception here. And I don't blame you, since I have a character or two > that I simply cannot stand (cough*TONKS*cough) and tend to intrepret > that characters actions through a particular prism. > > There is simply no evidence that Sirius chose Gryffindor *only* for > James, or even *for* James at all. > > Debbie: > We are all drawing inferences from the text. There is no direct evidence > either way. However, there's nothing to indicate that Sirius *was* > motivated by principle in his rejection of Slytherin. > Lanval: I don't think any of us here are arguing that we're dealing with fixed principles in this scene; I know I'm not. More likely disillusion, perhaps fostered by a childhood as unhappy as Snape's. We don't know when Sirius' parents began to disapprove of their son and favor their second-born. > va32h: > Here are some of the things Sirius says about his family, in OoTP: > > "Because I hated the whole lot of them: my parents with their pure- > blood mania, convinced that to be a Black made you practically > royal...my idiot brother soft enough to believe them..." > > Debbie: > Sirius was not speaking of why he chose Gryffindor over Slytherin. He was > speaking of why he left home at 16. This was five years later, and > therefore the passage (and the others that I snipped) don't provide any > indication of his thinking when he was eleven. We don't really even know > whether the outward conflict with his parents didn't erupt as a result of > his being sorted into Gryffindor (and probably throwing that in his mother's > face whenever he had the chance). > Lanval: As I stated above, no, we don't know when it began. Your version carries no less or more weight than mine, or anyone else's. Perhaps JKR will give us some clues in the encyclopedia she's planning. > Prep0strus: > It seems Sirius would never use the term mudblood. > > Debbie: > I'm sure that later on Sirius did not use that term. However, we don't know > what terms are in Sirius' common vocabulary at age 11. Lily's muggleborn > status is not mentioned in the scene, (Snape stops before mentioning that > Petunia was a muggle and since they'd mentioned a letter from Dumbledore to > Petunia, the exchange does not infer that Lily is muggleborn). Since this > seems to be Lily's first encounter with James and Sirius, they don't know > that Lily is a muggleborn, so there's no reason for Sirius to use the term > at all. > Lanval: However, we *never* witness Sirius using the term, while we do know that by the time he was an adult, he *had* rejected the pureblood beliefs, and says so in very strong terms. That's important too. > > Lanval: > And please, just because James gets on Severus, and appears to be a > bit of a spoiled brat, in no way means that he was less-than- > loveable to the rest of the world. > > Debbie: > Actually, this is part of my problem. I don't find either one to be > loveable, as 11-year-olds, as 15-year-olds, or as 21-year-olds. Lanval: And see, that's my problem also. I'm no Snape fan whatsoever, but I have no difficulty feeling for young Snape, even finding him likeable in a rather pathetically touching way, and I can certainly forgive his shortcomings as a child. Why is it that so many people who dislike Sirius see everthing he does, even as a young child, in the most negative way possible? It really puzzles me. Debbie: The Lily > who wrote the letter to Sirius from Godric's Hollow sounds as though she's > been corrupted by James and Sirius (with its airy tone and unnecessary dig > at Petunia). James seems just as cocky as ever. This is a bit off the > topic of Sirius, but JKR has completely failed to convince me that after > Lily's principled rejection of Snape she would substitute his tormentors > (and Sirius remained Snape's tormentor until his death, so this was not an > adolescent thing) as her best male friends, and in the case of James, her > lover and husband. > > Lanval: "Corrupted"?? Corrupted how? We might as well say then that she was corrupted by Snape, who gave her *his* view of the WW as a child, and made more than a few digs at Petunia. And please, James and Sirius Snape's "tormentors"? There is no proof of this sort of one- sidedness in the books. Lily clearly has made up her mind by fifth year, and rightly so, that Dark Arts and budding DE's are bad news. Sev did not. I absolutely loved that letter. It proves once and for all that Lily did not merely tolerate that nasty Sirius Black because he was her husband's best friend, but loved him as a friend, as a fellow Order member and fighter against LV, and as godfather to her son. If you want to belittle the meaning of this letter by suggesting "corruption", that's your right of course. > Debbie: > If, as it's suggested in Snape's memories, that Snape's first encounter > with James and Sirius occurred in the compartment on the Hogwarts Express, > then James and Sirius have no idea whether Snape is a Dark Arts > practitioner. > > Significantly, Sirius does not state that he's sick of his family, or that > they're a bunch of filthy purebloods. The only thing we learn is tht Sirius > decides to cast his lot, if possible, with the jaunty boy who shows promise > as a partner in (school) crime. It suits his rebellious nature to do so. > Lanval: Conjecture. And if Sirius later speaks to Harry of Snape as knowing dark curses by the time he started school, or being into the Dark Arts, that would of course not have manifested itself the moment the kids set sight on each other on the train. But it probably showed in the weeks to come. Debbie: > We know that later Sirius espouses the politically correct mantras, which he > may have learned through his association with James (there's a good chance > he only associated with other pureblood fanatics before going to > Hogwarts), but he doesn't fully internalize them. He tells Harry in OOP, > with some disgust, that the Blacks believe that being pureblood is akin to > being royalty. However, James and Sirius act like royalty themselves. He > thinks house elves are servants beneath his notice. Lanval: More conjecture. Sirius dislikes KREACHER. Not house-elves in general. Nor do I get the royalty part. When do Sirius and James act like *royalty*? And why is it that house-elves treatment in the WW is a major point of disapproval among readers, but when Sirius speaks out against mistreatment of house-elves, it suddenly gets degraded to a Politically Correct Mantra? Debbie: > JKR herself has said in an interview that Sirius is fond of espousing > principles, but that he doesn't really live up to them. We learn a lot > about Sirius from how he treats his inferiors: with utter contempt. Lanval: I thought what JKR says in interviews was not to be taken into serious account? Where are all those inferiors that Sirius treats with utter contempt? There's Kreacher, that's it. No, IMO it does not include Peter, or anyone Sirius might have felt superior to. The conversation with Hermione centered around Barty Crouch and the way he treated *his* inferiors, which I take to mean people and elves who find themselves in a work-related, hierarchic, dependent relationship with him. Debbie: Sirius > was in the Order, but Dumbledore takes a lot of backsliders onto his team, > so a failure to live up to his principles would hardly have disqualified him > from the Order. However, I continue to believe -- and have found no canon > to refute it -- that the higher principles Sirius espoused didn't manifest > in his acts because he didn't come to them on his own. He learned them from > the Potters. I'll bet that Sirius had clashed with his family before he > went to Hogwarts, and if he was offended by their principles, it > was because of the way his wacko mother pushed them on him. > Lanval: Mother Black certainly did nothing to endear herself or her views to her son. But neither is there any canon that Sirius did not come to any moral decisions by himself, and depended completely upon others to tell him what to think. He has repeatedly been called *bright* in canon. Bright people tend to be independent thinkers. IMO Sirius is not that weak a character. Debbie: > Sirius' loyalty to James allowed him to reject everything his family > represented: their offensive ideology, the Dark Arts. However, Sirius' > best quality is his fierce, dog-like loyalty to his friends. He would not > hesitate to lay down his life for his friends, but I still think it's not > too much of a stretch to conclude that his principles are his friends' > principles. And that's not meant as an insult or an indictment of Sirius. > He was a better person for his friendship with James and his decision to > choose Gryffindor over Slytherin. Just look at what Snape's opposite choice > (because he clearly had the bravery to be a Gryffindor) did to him. > Lanval: But isn't that stating that neither Sirius nor Snape were capable of independent thought? Nor was James for that matter then, because he just spouted off what his parents believed. What about them? Where does independent, critical thinking start, and how much of it is just groupthink, peer pressure, parroting of familiar beliefs? > Lanval: > Also: if we're talking arrogance, we might take a look at young > Snape. Who obviously has a bit of a superiority thing going. > > I'm glad DH finally cleaned up with some fanon misconceptions about > Snape. He was no innocent abused lamb, ganged up on from all sides > for no reason. He spies, he snipes, he lies, he helps to drive a > wedge between two sisters, and shows some pretty worrisome character > traits. (That JKR still somehow manages to make Little Snape > heartbreakingly, pathetically touching, is quite an accomplishment, > I think). > > Debbie: > In fairness to Snape, the deck was always stacked against him. He was from > a bad neighborhood, wore funny clothes, had a bad home life and must have > felt like a misfit. And when he dared to reveal himself to Lily and > Petunia, Petunia threw all of it in his face. So, yes, Snape was a bit > defensive on the train. But arrogant bullies thrive on taking advantage of > misfits, which only sets off an endless cycle of antagonism. > Lanval: Funny clothes, bad home life, misfit? Sounds like the deck was awfully stacked against Harry too. But I don't remember young Harry spying, lying, dropping branches on kids, etc. I feel for Snape in that scene where things go so wrong for him. Petunia jumps on him for spying on them, and mentions his family in a somewhat derogatory tone, but Snape snaps right back, no? 'Wouldn't spy on *you* anyway,' he added spitefully, '*You're* a muggle.' He repeats it later on the train, but stops himself just in time because he doesn't want to spoil it any further with Lily. His feeling vastly superior comes through loud and clear though. Ceridwen: Snape doesn't seem to use 'Mudblood' before going off to Hogwarts. He seems to have fallen in with a bad crowd by being Sorted into Slytherin. He's a bit arrogant about being a Wizard when Petunia is just a Muggle, but she started the disparagement at the playground by loftily pointing out his shortcomings - that Snape boy who lives at Spinner's End. Petunia doesn't like Snape from the beginning. He gets back at her by pointing out *her* shortcomings. Lanval: Not really. He points out that her entire existence isn't really worth his attention. Ceridwen: James was an arrogant snob. He doesn't like Slytherin, he laughs at Snape for wanting to be Sorted into it, and drags Sirius along. Not that Sirius needed much dragging. He already liked James, and wanted his approval. So he says that maybe he'll buck family tradition - by the way, where are you going again? And, wonder of wonders, he's Sorted into Gryffindor. Just as James wanted to be. Lanval: First of all, Snape comes across as no less arrogant to me in the train scene. About the Sorting of Sirius, until JKR tells us there's no way of knowing how much James influenced Sirius, or how much Sirius was able to influence the Sorting Hat. Ceridwen: Some people have speculated that Snape was corrupted by being Sorted into Slytherin. Prefect Lucius Malfoy greets him at the Slytherin table, and we hear him using the word 'Mudblood' in SWM. Lily also implies that he uses it a lot, against others, not against her. He's all right with the unnamed awful things his housemates do to other students. He's heading down a dark and futile road. This, by some, is laid at Slytherin House's door. Lanval: He's heading down that road filled with hearty approval. The sole fact that he was able to maintain a strong friendship with a Gryffindor girl, possibly against strong opposition/disapproval from his own house proves, IMO, that Snape was strong-willed enough to decide for himself what to believe, and when to set his beliefs aside. He liked Slytherin and approved of its mindset before he even entered it (that he was aware of the pureblood thing is IMO hinted at by his hesitation, when Lily asks him about whether being muggle- born makes a difference). Nothing much changes. He takes to it willingly, like a fish to water, he may be influenced at times, but I don't see him as ever being "corrupted". Again, brilliant minds tend to be independent thinkers and not sheep. And Snape has a brilliant mind, just like Sirius does. If Snape had ever had deep moral objections to Slytherin Ways, and later DE Ways, he would have acted on them. Ceridwen: So, why not Sirius, and even Lily, being corrupted to Gryffindor values and prejudices? They go to all classes with their housemates, while they only have certain classes with other houses. They eat with them. They sleep in the same dorms. They spend time in the same common room. Quidditch and House Points competitions encourage an 'us against them' mentality. They're thrown together with housemates more than with students from any other house. When the housemates are arrogant take-charge types, charismatic people like James, they learn to agree with their stated principles. Who wants to be ostracized from their residence? We see Sirius backing down on the train when James doesn't flinch. Sirius states that his entire family has been Sorted into Slytherin. Instead of James saying something like, "I shouldn't have said that about Slytherin", or, "I didn't mean to insult your family", he says he *thought* Sirius was all right. Sirius, who obviously liked James's company, says he may buck tradition, then asks where James thinks he'll be Sorted. To this point, he's been in a family that admires Slytherin traits. He's lived with Pureblood ideology. At eleven, he may want to get around his parents, assert his independence, but not on ideological grounds. Sirius is a rebel against what he knows. James's so-far unexplored grass is greener, in his eyes. Lanval: I don't see Sirius here as "backing down", merely acknowledging that his whole family has been in Slytherin. If Sirius were so weak- willed and eager to please James, would he have mentioned his family allegiance to Slytherin? Ceridwen: Why not Lily? She had no idea about the WW, except for what Snape told her. She was ripe for induction into principles of her house and housemates. The books show Muggleborns slowly assimilating into the WW, leaving their Muggle families behind them. Why not Lily? Since kids see things in stark contrast, without mitigating shades of gray, the values she learns in Gryffindor, including contempt of Slytherin House, become hers wholeheartedly. She's surrounded by this all day, every day, for ten months of the year. The little time spent with Snape at home, even before school, was nothing compared to the total imersion of Hogwarts. She was not only enticed away from her Muggle family, but from her friends outside of her school house. In the end, we get a Lily who makes fun of a gift her sister gave her. Lanval: Not to get too deep into the Lily/Petunia relationship here, but I think that by the time Lily wrote that letter, a LOT of things have been said, mostly by Petunia, which were not exactly beneficial for the survival of sisterly affection. To lay all that at the feet of some vague, malignant "Gryffindor indoctrination" is in no way supported by canon. I'm not denying House influence on individual students entirely, heck, that's the nature of boarding schools. But I see no reason to use it either as an excuse (in Snape's case), or view it as Total Indoctrination (in Lily's and Sirius's case, where there seems to be a tendency to belittle their life choces as nothing more than sheepishly following suit. Ceridwen: If house exerts an influence, then all houses, not just Slytherin, exert an influence, in my opinion. Lanval: I agree. From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Aug 12 17:59:04 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:59:04 -0000 Subject: Sirius (Was Re: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175183 va32h: > If anything, Sirius' bitterness when talking about > his family to Harry shows me that Sirius came to Hogwarts > ready and willing to reject anything his much-hated > family stood for. houyhnhnm: The Sirius of OotP is in his thirties, has spent seven years at Hogwarts, lived through all of VWI, endured twelve years in Azkzban falsely accused of betraying one friend to his death and murdering another, and he is back in the house he hated, a virtual prisoner again. I'm not sure his words at that age tell us very much about his attitudes at the age of eleven or twelve. We see Sirius's room in the house at 12 GP as it must have appeared in his later teenage years. There are several large Gryffindor banners, many pictures of Muggle motorcycles, several pictures of bikini-clad Muggle girls. The only Wizarding photograph on the walls is a picture of the four Marauders. All of these artifacts date from after his entering Hogwarts, probably from the last year or two before he left home, as evidenced by the bikini-clad Muggle girls. (Wizards seem to have a long latency period, especially the boys if Harry and Ron are anything to go by.) There is nothing in the room to give a clue to what the child Sirius was like before he went to school. We don't know what Sirius's relationship with Regulus was like while he still lived at home. He says, "I bet my parents thought Regulus was a right little hero for joining up at first." Regulus joined up after Sirius severed ties with his family. Regulus's room, with its emerald and silver drapings, family crest and newspaper clippings about Voldemort likewise gives us little insight into Regulus as a little boy. The decorations in his room may possibly date from his later years at Hogwarts as well. Both of the Black boys made pivotal, fateful decisions in their sixteenth year it seems. Sirius left home; Regulus became a Death Eater. Thirty-something Sirius gives us a lot of condemnatory information about his family, but that doesn't show us anything about what he felt towards them at age eleven. Yes, we know they are horrible. We also know that Regulus was kind to Kreacher and Sirius wasn't. The only information we have about eleven-year-old Sirius come from Snape's memory of the first trip to Hogwarts. Sirius bristles slighty at James's put-down of Slytherin. "Who wants to be in Slytherin?" James asks. "I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?" *Sirius did not smile* "*Maybe*, I'll break the tradition," he says. [emphasis added] I would not go so far as to claim that Sirius's sole reason for choosing (if the Hat really does base its decision on the studen't choice, spoken or unspoken) Gryffindor is his wish to be friends with "cool" James and avoid the little oddball Severus. What the scene does show is an ambivalent Sirius. He's a little ruffled at James's dig at his family's House. He doesn't defend it, though. He even goes so far as to suggest that he may break with tradition. But he doesn't condemn Slytherin, either. It seems quite possible to me, even likely, that Sirius already felt himself to be different from his family in an unthoughtout sort of way by the time he took his first ride on the Hogwart's Express. Perhaps meeting James was not the reason he was sorted into Gryffindor, but rather the catalyst. He might even have been sorted into Gryffindor if he had never met James. What he doesn't do in this scene is condemn Slytherin House on any kind of ideological basis or show that he has thought about either his family or the Houses of Hogwarts in these terms. Therefore, I have to agree with Carol that the enmity between Severus and Sirius did not arise out of a difference in ideology, but only out of simple childish antagonism. The adult Sirius's justification for his hatred of Snape based on Snape's supposed love of Dark Arts was something applied in retrospect, IMO. We have no evidence to the contrary. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 18:04:41 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:04:41 -0000 Subject: good/bad slyth/Disappointment/Responsibility/Sorting/Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175184 JudySerenity: Well, Snape is certainly not an innocent by his late teens or so, since he's joined the Death Eaters. However, you are making some statements here that are not based in canon. You say that Snape is "practicing the Dark Arts" and imply that he does so even as a boy, even during the time when Lily is friends with him. The fact is, though, that we hardly ever see Snape practicing the Dark Arts in canon at all, and certainly not as a boy (unless you want to count killing flies, which we see him doing once.) We see him cast Sectumsempra once as an adult, but here he is actually trying to save Lupin from a Death Eater. That is the extent of the Dark Arts that we actually see Snape USE. Prep0strus: True, but as he invented Sectumsempra as a student, it stands to reason he was investigating and practicing the dark arts then. My understanding is it would be difficult to invent a working spell without having tested it. And I believe it is na?ve to think that Snape never performed dark arts as a death eater simply because we didn't hear about it. I don't believe Voldemorte would allow his followers to join up for a lark ? he would expect to see their commitment, and I think part of that would be showing willingness to use the dark arts. And do evil deeds ? during the time Snape was with the Death Eaters, I'm sure he didn't sit around and twiddle his thumbs. He may never have approached the depravity of some of the other Death Eaters, but Snape had to have done evil. And I don't think it's possible for him not to have worked dark magic in order to learn dark magic. JudySerenity: Now, I know at this point some of you will say that Snape does cause pain, that he bullies Neville and insults Hermione's teeth, but regardless of how hurtful you see this behavior as being, Snape certainly doesn't use Dark Magic to do it. Snape can insult people quite well without using magic at all. So, that can't be his goal in learning the Dark Arts. My point with this is not that he is using Dark Arts during his time as a teacher ? I definitely believe that he is NOT, that he has tried to change that part of himself. However, I believe he continues to be a cruel and nasty person, even to children, and this is what makes him irredeemable as a likeable character to me. He could have performed truly terrifying deeds, recanted, fought on the side of good, and changed his outlook on life, and I could potentially like him. But what I see is someone who has partially recanted. He still allows the racial slurs. He's still biased in class. He's still mean. JudySerenity: I've already discussed the fact that we don't see Snape "practicing the Dark Arts", so let's look at Snape's "falling in with a crowd that dislikes" Lily for her ancestry. How could Snape NOT fall in with that crowd? Who else is there for him to "fall in with"? His whole house is like that! Prep0strus: And I maintain that if his `whole house is like that!', there's a reason for it ? including a reason why HE'S there ? because HE is like that. He does not HAVE to fall in with them. In the current Slytherin house, Draco has 2 lackies, not 4. We don't know all that much about those other students, but they do seem to go it alone. Snape could have done that. And he could have avoided the dark arts. But he didn't, and the choices are because he was drawn to evil, or because he was weak. I think it's a little bit of both. Neither makes me that impressed by him. Lanval: I'm glad DH finally cleaned up with some fanon misconceptions about Snape. He was no innocent abused lamb, ganged up on from all sides for no reason. He spies, he snipes, he lies, he helps to drive a wedge between two sisters, and shows some pretty worrisome character traits. (That JKR still somehow manages to make Little Snape heartbreakingly, pathetically touching, is quite an accomplishment, I think). When sorted into Slytherin, there is applause. Lucius Malfoy, prefect, pats him on the back and lets him sit by his side. I don't see a single line in DH that supports the idea that Snape was an outcast at Hogwarts because of the way he looked, or dressed, or because he was generally considered a "little oddball". He is welcomed into his house with no more or less of an advantage than anyone else. Come his fifth year, he *still* has friends. Not only in his own house, but also one from another house, which is somewhat unusual. So much for lonely, despised, persecuted-by-all Severus Snape. Prep0strus: I loved this post! I don't know why it never really clicked with me before, but it's so true! Snape, who had a hard childhood, did have a friend in it ? the good influence, Lily, and his relationship with his mother appears to have a least some positive aspects. Compare to Harry, who had no one who showed him love, even if it doesn't appear he was physically abused. Then, he gets to school, and is immediately welcomed by his house. In addition, he keeps his cross-house-borders friend Lily for years, while remaining a tight part of his Slytherin team. He winds up losing her friendship, but keeping theirs into adulthood. It does speak a little for Snape ? his relationship with her, even after she failed to forgive him, means so much to him that harm done to her causes him to reject the social group he's had since he was 11, to work against them. That is pretty powerful. But it doesn't excuse him from joining that social group to begin w/ - and he DID have a choice. If anyone maintains he didn't, that simply means they believe he was too weak to avoid influence, and I refuse to let that weakness be something I admire in Snape. But what this post does more (and I wonder if I should put this into a different post), is make me wonder about the social dynamic at the school in this time period. Harry goes to school in a weird time ? the school is always partially shut down for some reason. The Chamber of Secrets is open, the Triwizard Tournament is going on, psycho umbrage is there, Voldemorte's in charge of the Ministry These kids don't get normal childhoods. Who are the influences we see? Maybe at the beginning, the Quiddich teams and prefects there's Harry's trio, Malfoy's trio, and the twins and Lee stirring the pot. But check out the world of harry's parents! Lucius and the group of YDE (Young Death Eaters) surely have influence, the Marauders are 4-strong, and time for real influence to build up. James is an athlete and talented student; he's got three tight friends. You've got the Slytherins not being able to wait until they can get out and do evil in the world ? I can see them practically passing out support buttons: `Punch a Mudblood Today!', `Dark Power', and `We hold court with Voldemorte!'. The social dynamic has to be fascinating. And, I'd like to add a little canon in (I know, shocking, coming from me, but the people have been begging for it ;)) I've been trying and trying to read in that James wasn't as horrible as many people seem to think he is. That he couldn't have grown into the man he was without having redeeming qualities as a boy. That there is something missing when we only see James in Snape's memories. And then I found this statement, made by Snape: "I'm just trying to show you they're not as wonderful as everyone seems to think they are" pg 674 Take that however you want, but I don't think this supports the idea that James and Sirius were big bullies torturing everyone in school. Yes, I can see an interpretation that to Snape `everyone' thinks they're great, because `everyone' doesn't like Snape. But Snape has friends. I think the correct interpretation is that James is a bully to the Slytherins. But perhaps a hero, not only to Griffindors (to whom I can see him being a bully in any sense, not if he'd take Peter into his crowd), but perhaps the Ravenclaws and Hufflepuff's too. A lot happens between the years when they meet ? and James was a jerk to Snape right off the bat. But the students know who is aiming to be death eaters in the world. There may have been the popular jocks in griffindor and the outcasts in slytherin, but please let's remember the outcasts were practicing evil and the jocks were simply being tools. A few more statement from Lily: "I know james potter's an arrogant toerag But Mulciber's and Avery's idea of humor is just evil.." Evil, Sev. I don't understand how you can be friends with them." "you and your precious little death eater friends ? you see, you don't even deny it! You don't' even deny that's what you're all aiming to be! You can't wait to join you-know-who,can you?" "but you call everyone of my birth Mudblood, Severus. Why should I be any different?" Oh, that scallywag Snape. Evil. Death Eater. Mudblood. And yet, many see James as a young man to despise. I confess, I will never be able to understand it. ~Adam (Prep0strus), who is still irritated that he made a typo and repeated the word `girl' in his Lily's Words post instead of changing it to `woman' when Snape was a Death Eater From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 18:06:17 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:06:17 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175185 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: <<>> > This is because, as a Gryffindor, Harry was simply a *better* person, a naturally good person, so the outer environment can't change this essential essence. Similarly, Sirius Black was a *better* person than the rest of his family from an earlier age, which is why he became a Gryffindor instead of a Slytherin. W/the Marauders & Lily, the Sorting Hat recognized their innate moral superiority and place among the elect. It also recognized Snape's inherent inferiority & bad essence, which is why he gets Slytherin house. This is because Slytherin is where the inferior, the bad, the morally suspect children are sorted so that they can't corrupt the rest of us. As I've said, it seems pretty clear that Slytherin children are the damned souls of the Potterverse. ****Katie: Damned souls? I think that's a little extreme. First of all, I think it is perfectly clear that while the Slytherins may not care much about other people, other people do care about them. I never see the Slytherins being exempted from things at Hogwarts, until the final battle, which they pretty much chose for themselves when Parkinson wanted to turn Harry over to Voldemort. It was only AFTER this that McGonagall asked them to leave. They are not damned - in fact, one of the most prescient themes throughout the books is that every single life is worth saving, if possible. There is no arbitrary killing by the good guys. Even Draco Malfoy has a redemption, we can ssume, by his presence in the Epilogue and his and Harry's acknowledgement of each other, no matter how brief. As other people have already mentioned, Slughorn turned out to be a pretty darned good guy, and he was Head of Slytherin House! So, while I certainly see that the Slytherins overwhelmingly have more corrupt people come out of there than do the other Houses, it is by no means a lock that you will be a bad guy if you are a Slytherin. >>lizzyben: > > This sends a rather horrifying message, especially w/regard to abused or damaged children. There are four examples of children who grow up in neglected or abusive situations - Harry, Snape, Riddle and Merope. Harry, the superior Gryffindor, isn't severely damaged by these abusive circumstances, while the Slytherins *are*. Snape & Merope are totally desperate for love & acceptance, which makes them turn to sketchy means or people in order to get that acceptance. As natural Slytherins, they were simply unable to "rise above" their circumstances and be normal as Harry could. So, if you turn out bad, it's because you were BORN bad, regardless of the trauma you might have suffered. A better person would have gotten over it. <> ****Katie: I think Harry is tremendously damaged! He sees himself as one with Voldemort and Snape - "The Abandoned Boys" - and he always feels inadequate and stupid. He is completely lacking in self-confidence outside of Quidditch and DADA, and he's always sure he's about to get someone killed. He is terribly insecure in his friendships - always sure he's being abandoned or that people don't *really* like him. In CoS, he is sure that the reason he hasn't gotten any letters all summer is because no one likes him. By OotP, he *still* thinks that, even though these friends have, by that point, been with him through thick and thin. And the thing with his parents...I mean, he would have wasted away in front of the Mirror of Erised, just staring at them. He DESPERATELY wants a family and a feeling of home, exactly what he never got from the Dursleys. I think Harry's just as damaged as Snape and Voldemort. And I think that's why the three of them are such intriguing characters, and so interconnected. They're "effed" up, as Ron would say! LOL. :) Katie From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Aug 12 18:34:22 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:34:22 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175186 > "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > this makes Hermione's dealings with her > > parents unsurprising, it doesn't make it right. > > Yet another example of "Eggplant's Third Law of Unequal Moral > Responsibility": Among fans Snape and Ron get 10 miles of slack, Harry > and Hermione don't get one inch of it. > > Hermione intended to restore her parents memories if she survived, and > if she didn't they could still have a happy life in Australia; the > only alternative was to watch her parents get tortured to death for > information. And in my book that DOES make it right! Magpie: I find your law confusing, then. What do Snape or Ron (whom I take it you have problems with?) have to do with anything? If either of them did this I'd say the same thing. I realize that in your book what Hermione does is simply right--I don't agree with your book. Your book glosses over the free will of other people and just concentrates on what Hermione needs or wants--even to the point of creating a completely false binary, as if it's either do what she did or she watches her parents gets tortured to death for information, so that disagreement = saying you want the Grangers tortured. That's a dishonest choice you've created. There are many more than just those two--and her parents being tortured for information doesn't even turn out to ever be an issue. Sometimes doing a "wrong" thing is still the right thing to do for a greater good. I don't even think teh story is reaches that level. You haven't actually argued against my own issue, which is that grown adults are not house cats where the only thing that matters is what's convenient for their owner and what their owner decides will spare them pain. If as a Muggle you will happily hand over your free will to Wizards because they know best that's your choice. I would lean more towards the Muggle Liberation Army, myself. Does this make things more difficult for the good guys? Sure it does. Morals are a lot easier if you're Hermione in canon, and generally the way to be a good person is to line up with the right leaders, and a happy ending is having the right people in charge of everyone. But it's still important, imo. (Even if, as I said, I really just view this as a throwaway way of getting rid of Hermione's parents so that we don't have to hear about them again. She has essentially just put her pets in a kennel for the rest of the book so we don't have to be told who's feeding them and know they won't be involved from now on.) -m From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Aug 12 19:00:44 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:00:44 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0708120630p14e596c5j84135c5c3913e045@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175187 Debbie: > The Lily who wrote the letter to Sirius from Godric's > Hollow sounds as though she's been corrupted by James > and Sirius (with its airy tone and unnecessary dig at > Petunia). James seems just as cocky as ever. This is > a bit off the topic of Sirius, but JKR has completely > failed to convince me that after Lily's principled > rejection of Snape she would substitute his tormentors > (and Sirius remained Snape's tormentor until his death, > so this was not an adolescent thing) as her best male > friends, and in the case of James, her lover and husband. houyhnhnm: I had the same reaction to the letter. I find Lily's marriage to James mystifying as well. My admittedly non-canon based (because there is no canon) explanation to myself is that James was the lover and Lily the beloved. He pursued her. He was rich, handsome, and charming and she allowed herself to be won because she wanted marriage and a family in small inbred society in which there weren't a lot of options. I even get a little bit of a whiff of some kind of rebound thing going on. Rowling has said that Lily might have come to love Snape romantically if he hadn't chosen a path she could not follow. It is a literary cliche after all, the woman who must finally give up on the outcast who has her heart and marry the respectable "good marriage prospect" whom she doesn't really love, but for whom she strives to make good on her vows. From felicialso at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 17:38:15 2007 From: felicialso at yahoo.com (Felicia) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:38:15 -0000 Subject: Do you guys think there will be any more books now? In-Reply-To: <202365.78438.qm@web30204.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175188 > DA Jones wrote: > > > No, there will not be more books at least by JKR, though JKR was > smart by keeping an opening for more. Hopefully there will be the > Encyclopdia though; which will probably have some short stories in > the same way that Fantastic Beast does. > > > > PS I wonder what really twisted fan fiction Steven King could > write? Maybe Carrie was a witch after-all? LOL!. I think she is finished except for the encyclopedia sometime in the future. But I would love to have a book with Snape's point of view. That is a great thought....Mr. King getting involved and taking on Snape's view. Felicia From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Aug 12 19:05:57 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:05:57 -0000 Subject: Romance ( Was: Do you guys think there will be any more books now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175189 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Career advisor wrote: > > > The romance in the better fanfiction > > by rule is better then HP Eggplant wrote: > > I disagree. In even the best fanfiction the characters have an > unfortunate tendency to engage in 10 page soliloquies describing > exactly why they love their partner; I think they could make good use > of PowerPoint. Yes it's sweet, it's very very sweet, but so is the > smell of a decaying corpse. Potioncat: Ohhhh, what we need is a new sister-group! HPfGU fan-fiction review board. (It would be a good idea.) And because I know I'll have to iron my hands for a non-canon related post, to avoid the sin of writing a one-liner, I'll add a bit more. Fan fiction is another approach to examining the events and characters of the HP series. It is as valid as discussion is. Granted, there is some horrible fanfiction out there. There are some pretty awful discussion posts too. Potion(Severus tossed his long silky hair out of his eyes, as the muscles on his chest rippled visibly under the folds of his robes)cat :p From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 19:33:47 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:33:47 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175190 Alla wrote: > > I do not really care about Petunia's shortcomings for the purpose of > this argument :) I do not like her at all, but my point is that at > the > age of eleven, Snape seems to know quite clearly IMO that those who > are muggleborns have lesser rights than purebloods in WW.( pause when > he answers Lily and what he wants to call petunia IMO show that). > > If Snape did not know that, how would he know to throw **this** at > Petunia that she is just a Muggle? And not, say find something wrong > with her looks for example - eleven year old girl certainly would be > sensitive about that as well. > > It seems to me that Snape knows really well where muggleborns and > muggles stay in WW based on this. Speculation of course, but I > believe > based on canon inference, I think word Muddblood rolled off his > tongue > at that age. carol responds: As I said in an earlier post, contempt for Muggles and contempt for Muggleborns are two different things. All we need to do to see the distinction, us vs. them, Magic vs. Muggles, is to look at the young *Dumbledore's* plans to rule Muggles for "the greater good." I doubt that Severus's mother, who married a Muggle, went around using the term "Mudblood" for Muggleborns. Nor do we ever see it "rolling off [Severus's] tongue" at that age or any other. He uses it once in all of canon, under great duress. We have Lily's word that he uses it for others than herself but we don't actually hear him use it. He certainly has never used it to refer to her until the SWM. She is his first friend, and he knows from the outset that she's a Muggle-born. Had he been raised to scorn "Mudbloods," I can't see that happening. We never hear him use the term as an adult, and we hear him reprimanding Phineas Nigellus for using it. Somehow, I can't see the "greasy little oddball" sitting next to the Muggleborn and naively hoping that she'll be sorted into Slytherin "tossing that word around." It's not in canon. What we have in canon is James and Severus sneering at each other's chosen Houses because of misconceptions. Severus sees Gryffindor as a House representing 'brawn"; James sees it as a House of Chivalric heroes. Severus sees Slytherin as the House of "brains." James sees it as something else, something antithetical to Gryffindor, but we don't no what. No mention is made of Dark Arts of blood prejudice. And Sirius, who has not yet put up Gryffindor banners or posters of Muggle girls in bikinis on his walls to show his rebellion against his family, is surprised by James's prejudice against his family's House. He doesn't smile at James's words, and when he says that all his family have been in Slytherin, James says with surprise that he thought Sirius was "all right." Sirius, who has just found a new friend who, in contrast to Severus, is not "a little oddball" but well-groomed and obviously well-cared for, wants to stay on his new friend's good side. His asking James what House *he* wants to be in suggests that unlike James, whose attitude toward Slytherin *exactly parallels* Draco's toward Hufflepuff (I have already pointed out the nearly identical wording), he seems to have no set idea of which House he wants to be in. He had, I am almost certain, expected to be Sorted into Slytherin based on family tradition. Now he questions it, not on principle, not through any visible opposition to his family tradition on this early age, but because James scorns it. James and Sirius don't know Severus at this point. They pay no attention to him until he states that he wants to be in Slytherin. They don't know how many hexes he knows or what his view on blood prejudice are (he's sitting with a Muggle-born; they're both pure-bloods). As for an interest in the Dark Arts, we see all of one Dark Curse invented by him much later. There's nothing Dark about Muffliato or Langlock or the toemail hex. And in this conversation, there's no mention of the Dark arts at all, only Severus's contention that Slytherin is the House of "brains" (presumably taught him by his mother) and his belief that Muggle-born Lily might be Sorted into that House. James knows, based on what his father has told him, that he wants to be in Gryffindor, which he associates with heroic battles (the imaginary sword). Severus knows, based on what his mother has (perhaps not accurately) told him, that he wants to be in Slytherin, which he associates with brains (which he, and the reader, knows that he has). Sirius knows that his family have all been in Slytherin but is willing to buck tradition *to be with James*. At the end of the scene, these chivalrous, would-be Gryffindor boys trip Severus and give him the unearned nickname "Snivellus" based solely on James's prejudice against Slytherin House. There is no mention of Voldemort, who is just starting to come to power, no mention of political or philosophical convictions of any kind, just uninformed little boys insulting each other and becoming enemies solely based on House rivalry. As for the actual Sorting, perhaps the Hat was torn between Slytherin and Gryffindor for the arrogant little pure-blood with a reckless streak and gave him the choice: Gryffindor vs. Slytherin, friend vs. family. And, whether he chose Gryffindor or was place there based on his reckless streak, we can be sure that his family was not happy with that placement. And naturally, when Regulus did not buck tradition and was placed in Slytherin, they would have considered him the good and dutiful son in contrast to his Gryffindor brother. I see no canon, however, to indicate a split between Sirius and his family before he went to school. If James and Severus in that scene and Ron and Draco in SS/PS are any indication, he would most likely have gone along with his family. In fact, the only example of members of the same family Sorted into different Houses that I can think of other than Sirius and the rest of the Black clan is Padma and Parvati Patil, and even they aren't Sorted into rival Houses. Carol, who thinks that had James stated that he wanted to be in Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw, Sirius would probably have gone along with him just to be considered "all right" by his self-confident and judgmental new friend From jferer at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 19:35:15 2007 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:35:15 -0000 Subject: Another angle on Hermione's parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175191 Debbie: "I don't agree with those of you who think that Hermione was being insensitive when she modified her parent's memories. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175192 > > Debbie: > > We are all drawing inferences from the text. There is no direct > evidence > > either way. However, there's nothing to indicate that Sirius *was* > > motivated by principle in his rejection of Slytherin. > > > > Lanval: > I don't think any of us here are arguing that we're dealing with > fixed principles in this scene; I know I'm not. More likely > disillusion, perhaps fostered by a childhood as unhappy as Snape's. > We don't know when Sirius' parents began to disapprove of their son > and favor their second-born. Alla: Right, I think may be a good place to clarify what I am arguing for. Apologies to those for whom I will sound as a parrot, but as I realised from offlist I may not be as clear as I hoped. NO, I doubt that Sirius wanted to go to Gryffindor based on principle at that point as well. What I think he chose by that time is **Not Slytherin**, not *Slytherin*, based on his lovely family loving Slytherin and his values and his lovely relationship with his family. As Lanval says, we do not know when it started and based on Sirius' mom portrait and yes, what Sirius told us about his family, I believe it started pretty early. So, of course I do not know if Sirius already chose Gryffindor - he may, he may not - NOT because say like Ron his whole family was there and he knows that Mudblood is a horrible insult (Godric after all was champion for Muggleborns rights). Sirius may have chose Gryffindor if his family hated this house specifically OR he may have just hoping to go into any house but Slytherin IMO. Add to this as Magpie said that Sirius to me as well scteams Gryffindor through and through, and here you go - voula. IMO of course. OR he absolutely could have made a final determination based on him liking James, except this still in my head would be secondary one, since I think that NOT Slytherin was in his mind already. > > Lanval: >> I absolutely loved that letter. It proves once and for all that Lily > did not merely tolerate that nasty Sirius Black because he was her > husband's best friend, but loved him as a friend, as a fellow Order > member and fighter against LV, and as godfather to her son. Alla: I was very happy when I read that letter too. > carol responds: > As I said in an earlier post, contempt for Muggles and contempt for > Muggleborns are two different things. All we need to do to see the > distinction, us vs. them, Magic vs. Muggles, is to look at the young > *Dumbledore's* plans to rule Muggles for "the greater good." < BIG SNIP> Alla: Yes, and I believe that Snape had plenty of both. Him stopping himself when he answers Lily's question to me is an evidence of his comtempt for Muggleborns, just not for Lily. My view obviously. Carol: > I doubt that Severus's mother, who married a Muggle, went around using > the term "Mudblood" for Muggleborns. Nor do we ever see it "rolling > off [Severus's] tongue" at that age or any other. He uses it once in > all of canon, under great duress. We have Lily's word that he uses it > for others than herself but we don't actually hear him use it. Alla: Lily's word is good enough for me to be convinced that he used it many times. JMO, Alla From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Aug 12 19:50:46 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:50:46 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175193 Prep0strus: > I do have to be careful with my word choices on here. > Yes, it is not Snape's 'perspective'. However, it IS his > memory. And his choice to show it to Harry. We don't see > many memories of Snape and his Slytherin cohorts, > practicing dark magic and most likely torturing younger > Griffendors and talking of joining up with Voldemorte, > do we? Much as we judge JKR by the scenes she chooses > to show us, so while we WANT a nice Slytherin, the > conspicuous absence of one in the stories means we > have to invent one or accept that there isn't one, > we can also note the editing that Snape is able to > do. He is telling his story. houyhnhnm: Severus and Lily were friends for no less than a year and as much as three year years before they went to Hogwarts. Snape had his mother, but Lily had no contact with the magical world other than Snape. He was her mentor and guide for all that time, yet she shows no interest in or knowledge of the Dark Arts. How could that be if Snape was so obsessed with dark magic before he came to Hogwarts? I find that very telling. I also note that none of her reproachs to him after they come to Hogwarts are about things that Snape has done. Rather they are about the people he chooses to associate with and the language he has picked up from them. If Snape chose memories to make himself look good (as if he had time to give thought to such a thing in his death throes*), he did a poor job of it. All of the memories in the Pensieve show Snape offending Lily, making her angry. Yet there must have been good times, too, that we didn't see. Why else would they have remained friends into their fifth year? *I hadn't thought of this before, but the memories Snape gives Harry actually amount to a deathbed confession. We have no choice but to accept their truth and neither did Harry. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 19:50:46 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:50:46 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175194 > Prep0strus: > > Unfortunately, other than DH, my Harry Potter books are in storage at > the moment. So I'm unable to respond with canon. I am glad to be > reminded of James hexing people who annoyed him and the like ? he > really was a bully. But who was the student? A slytherin? And, > looking deeper into it, I have to wonder, coming from Lily? Could she > just be talking about Snape here? Surely, he would hex Snape for no > reason at all. I'm not saying it isn't likely he was a bit of a bully > all around, just that what we're hearing isn't the whole story. Montavilla47: We don't get anyone's full story, except perhaps for Harry. So, with any character, we have to make do with what we get. But it's not just what Lily says about James being a bully. This is the quote from the detention slips that Harry is required to recopy: "James Potter and Sirius Black. Apprehended using an illegal hex upon Betram Aubrey. Aubrey's head twice normal size. Double detention." HBP US. Ed. p. 532. As Harry continues to copy the old slips, he gets "regular jolts" as he recognizes James and Sirius's names for various "petty misdeeds." I find it interesting (maybe it's just me), that Harry never seems to read Snape's name on the cards, either as a victim or a perpetrator. Given how angry he is at Snape during this, you'd think he'd notice if a) Snape was going around hexing people, too, or b) Snape was the only or one of the main victims. It seems like both Snape and the Marauders were careful to keep their feud away from the eyes of the authorities. > Prep0strus: > So, from Snape, we learn that James is a bully in school. He is > arrogant. He is prejudiced against Slytherins, and likes to harass > Snape. We also learn he knows when too far is too far. We know there > was a time when Lily thought he was a bullying toe-rag. > > We know also that he did not use discriminatory slurs. He did not use > dark magic. Montavilla47: Not that I think James was a bad person at all, but not using discriminatory slurs doesn't necessarily make him a great person. Zacharias Smith doesn't use discriminatory slurs, either. As for not using Dark magic, that's a distinction that doesn't tell me much, since "Dark magic" is never defined more than something bad. I mean, does it matter that whether Scourify is light or dark magic when it's causing someone to choke? Water isn't poison, but if you hold someone's head under water, it's still malicious. > Prep0strus: > He was a great athlete, and a talented wizard. He's from a rich > (comfortable?) wizarding family, a griffindor family. > > Of the characters we have met: > He is well thought of by Hagrid, a half-giant, societal outcast. > Hagrid also tells us how well liked both he and lily were by the ww. > He is well thought of by Sirius, his arrogant best friend from a > Slytherin family. > He is well thought of by Dumbledore, flawed champion against evil. > He is well thought of by Lupin, a werewolf societal outcast. > Lily, who thought he was once a toe-rag, whose best friend he > tortured, who thinks he's arrogant, and a bully . She MARRIES him. > This has got to mean something regarding the amount of growing up he did. Montavilla47: Hagrid also likes giant spiders that eat people. Sirius rejected his Slytherin family, so I don't think that his liking James is any more significant than, say, Seamus liking Dean. Dumbledore also likes a lot of people, including the unpleasant Professor Snape. As for Lily, well, I'm hard put to see what she saw in James (after seeing Snape's memories). Perhaps James changed. Perhaps she did as well. > Prep0strus: > He joins the Order of the Phoenix out of school. Whatever bullying > arrogance toe rag berkiness we may have been shown repeatedly in the > memories of snape this is not all he was. He was brave, and fought > against evil. I don't' know why people seem so gleeful or superior in > learning he didn't actually fight Voldemorte. It's not like he holds > Harry up and hides behind him! He tries to give his wife and son time > to escape from the most evil powerful wizard in the world. That he > wasn't successful doesn't say anything worse of him than the thousands > of others voldy killed. Montavilla47: I agree with you. Snape's memories and the detention slips do not present the full James Potter. Frankly, I think that bullying is something that even "good" people do to various degrees. I'm willing to take it on faith that James matured and became a better person than we see. It was easier, however, when we thought the Prank took place before SWM, simply because that was an event that could plausibly cause someone to re-think their actions and attitudes. Now, we're presented two different images of James. We're told he was a great guy and we're shown memories that reveal an arrogant, bullying, privileged kid. It's very hard to put those two things together into a coherent picture of an individual. For me, what I'm *shown* is more vivid and convincing than what I'm told. As for Voldemort's memory of James, it really didn't seem a change from what we knew before. The new thing is that we get to see James playing with his baby. But I never doubted that James was a loving father or a good husband. > Prep0strus: > Sirius comes with a different background than James. > But, again, what I choose to see in him is his bravery, his loyalty, > his bucking of tradition to fight for his friends and what he believes > is right. Montavilla47: I think it's fine to want to see the best in people. What I find a bit hypocritical, though (and I'm not directing this at you, but at the general trend) is for either side to ignore the faults of their favorite characters, or to insist that these faults are meaningless, while insisting that the faults of the characters they disliked define their characters. Of course, I'm as guilty of that as anybody. If I insist that Snape is commendable because he is brave, while ignoring that he treats young children badly, I'm being just as bad as someone who insists that James was a hero because he died to protect his family while ignoring that he also cruelly bullied a boy merely because the kid "existed.' > Prep0strus: > And snape. What can be said of Severus that hasn't been said? I > don't need canon to show that he was mean. That he was petty. That > he was cruel to children without provocation. And as an adult. I've > said before how frustrated I am that we can jump on James for his > actions as a child. Actions against Snape. The only views we have of > James as an adult show him as a model citizen ? one of his biggest > detractors becomes the love of his life. But we see Snape all too > clearly as an adult. He made adult choices to become a Death Eater. > And when he turned away from voldemorte, he still made adult choices > to treat children the way he did. Compare how he would take points > from the houses vs. how McGonnegal did. Sure, she wanted her team to > win the cup, and bent a few rules. But Snape day after day took many > points from Griffindor for little reason and pretended not to see what > Slytherins did. He preyed on the weak, and mocked them for things > they had no control over (Neville, and Hermione's teeth). Montavilla47: Okay, I'm not going to dispute that adult Snape bullied children, but I am going to dispute the points thing. Because we're taking that solely on Harry's word. We don't have any basis to compare how Snape and McGonagall took or gave house points. On occasion we see Snape deduct points from Harry and his friends. The only time it's uncalled-for is in first year when Snape deducts 1 point from Harry because Neville melted a cauldron. Unless you want to count Snape deducting points from Harry for being out of uniform at the beginning of HBP. > Prep0strus: > It's hard, because while JKR wants us to believe characters make > choices, much more often I see characters turning out exactly how we > think they're going to. Montavilla47: That's pretty funny when you think about it. We are told that it's choice that's important. But most of the characters are pretty much the same at 11 as they'll be for the rest of their lives. Maybe that's why I like Snape so much. He really did make choices--all the way. He *wanted* to be in Slytherin, he wasn't just sort of put into his house, the way that Lily was with her apologetic half-smile. He chose to be a Death Eater, and then he chose to do "anything" to protect his friend--even after she had cut him out of her life. And then he chose to protect her son, even when he found out he couldn't stand the brat. He *chose* to go back to Voldemort, knowing that he was facing death and torture. He chose to kill Dumbledore, even though he hated it. He chose to spend the the last year of his life trying to protect people who hated him. In his last moments of life, he chose to release his most private memories to that brat he couldn't stand to honor the promise he'd given Dumbledore. I guess what I really don't understand in all this discussion is why we insist on following the Marauder/Snape feud. Why can't we like Snape AND James and Sirius? I know I like them all. Montavill47 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 19:55:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:55:04 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: <394374.99272.qm@web55013.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175195 Christy wrote: > > No doubt Snape invented at least one very nasty curse (Sectumsempra) among others (e.g., Levicorpus, which can be used in a nasty way) and must have practiced them to know whether or not they worked; but we don't know under what circumstances he practiced his inventions (on spiders, on those flies we saw him kill, who knows) or whether or not he invented them with the intent to use them defensively, offensively, or both. > > And Judy, if I remember correctly (I don't have my OOTP book), Snape did use Sectumsempra at least once at school -- against James in SWM. > Carol responds: If it *was* Sectumsempra, which is labeled "for enemies" and could well have been invented after rather than before the SWM, which would certainly give him cause to hate James and Sirius, who had caused him to lose control and insult Lily in his anger and humiliation. (And, like Harry blaming Snape for Sirius Black's death, he would, I think, have projected his own guilt and anger onto the boys he already hated.) Certainly, having been dismissed by Lily as having already made his choice to take up with would-be Death Eaters and practitioners of Dark magic, he had more incentive before than after the incident to invent a Dark spell designed for revenge. No one pays any heed to the little cut on James's cheek in the SWM nor is there any suggestion in the scene that it's Dark Magic, in marked contrast to Harry's use of Sectumsempra on Draco in HBP, where it requires a complicated sung or chanted healing spell. presumably invented by Snape as the inventor of the curse itself, to close the wounds. No simple nonverbal spell like the one used by DD to heal his knife wound in the cave scene will save Draco from such a Dark spell. Note that George's ear can't be replaced though his bleeding can be stopped. He is "cut always" (unless Snape had had the chance to heal him, which of course does not happen). James, in contrast, is not "cut always." Neither the narrator nor Black and Lupin, who discuss the incident with Harry later, refer to a permanent gaping wound or even a scar on James's cheek from Severus's cutting hex (which, IMO, is just a precursor or preliminary form of the Dark curse Sectumsempra, not Sectumsempra itself). Or we could be dealing with yet another continuity error on JKR's part, but I won't go there. Carol, who thinks that if Severus had gone around using Sectumsempra on his fellow students, he'd have been expelled by Headmaster Dumbledore as surely as Gellert Grindelwald was expelled from Durmstrang From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Aug 12 20:07:50 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:07:50 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175196 Alla: > I do not really care about Petunia's shortcomings for the purpose of this argument :) I do not like her at all, but my point is that at the age of eleven, Snape seems to know quite clearly IMO that those who are muggleborns have lesser rights than purebloods in WW.( pause when he answers Lily and what he wants to call petunia IMO show that). Ceridwen: Petunia's shortcoming, as far as Snape is concerned, is the same thing you cite, that she is a Muggle. I do think the altercations between Snape and Petunia began when she said, "I know who *you* are. You're that Snape boy." And tells Lily, in case Lily missed the implication, where he lives. To Harry, this sounds like a "poor recommendation."(US, 665) Petunia brings class into it, and Snape, as a normal child, retaliates. I'm reading the part where he hesitates. It seems, to me, that he might want to explain a lot more, but doesn't, hence the hesitation. Lily has just asked if the Hogwarts letter will really come by owl. Snape says that, since she's Muggle-born, someone from Hogwarts will talk to her parents. This is when she asks if being Muggle-born makes a difference. For a child under eleven, who hasn't been to Hogwarts yet, he had to have gotten that information from someone older who understands how this works. Probably his mother. If so, she told him how the Evanses will be contacted, and maybe more. Maybe a lot more, like about Muggle prejudice. I see this pause not as him deciding to hide his own prejudices, but weighing whether he ought to tell her what he heard from whoever told him about Muggles and Hogwarts, then deciding against it. (Page 666). See, to me, this mixes in with the thread about Hermione creating new identities for her parents. Of course Snape, as a child raised by a witch, sees Muggles as inferior. This isn't just a Slytherin thing, it's WW-wide. Muggles, to wizards and witches, are inferior. It's WW policy to wipe inconvenient memories from Muggles' heads, without permission. So, yeah, Snape does see Petunia as a Muggle, his inferior. I don't see where anyone in the WW sees them any differently. Even Arthur, who is the most Muggle-friendly person we've been shown, acts like Muggles are inventive children, not equals. At least, that's how he reads to me. Not prejudiced, but not magic-blind, either. Alla: If Snape did not know that, how would he know to throw **this** at Petunia that she is just a Muggle? And not, say find something wrong with her looks for example - eleven year old girl certainly would be sensitive about that as well. It seems to me that Snape knows really well where muggleborns and muggles stay in WW based on this. Speculation of course, but I believe based on canon inference, I think word Muddblood rolled off his tongue at that age. Ceridwen: Petunia being a Muggle is a class thing. The WW sees Muggles as inferior. Petunia brought class into it in the beginning, and Snape retaliated with what he has been taught is the truth: he may live in a bad part of town, but he's a wizard, and Petunia's just a Muggle. So there for Spinner's End and the river. And, what if he thought Petunia looked just fine? Why would he bring in her looks if so? It isn't as if he had a lot of time, that first time, to decide which tack to take. He's poor, Petunia's a Muggle. It's actually an even comparison, given the prejudices of the WW. I don't know if Mudblood rolled off his tongue easily at that age. He certainly seemed to like Lily. He hung out with her, and I think he enjoyed having more information than she did. I think he did his research, finding out how a Muggle-born would be contacted, in order to impress her with his knowledge. He doesn't treat her with contempt, even as children, when he enjoys getting his own back at Petunia. His parents fought. Lily asks about this. Still fighting. It could be that one of the things his mother throws at his father is that he's a Muggle. Snape may be half magical, but he's half Muggle, too. I imagine that this caused some emotional reactions in a young child. But his mother, or his grandparents, whoever he went to for his information, don't seem to treat him as any less for being a half- blood. And, he doesn't treat Lily like an idiot for not knowing things about the WW, which a lot of kids this age might do. I think he might have gotten his first explanation about how Muggle-borns are viewed in the WW when he asked if Lily would get her letter by owl. To this point, he was just looking at Lily's magical power and seeing everything admirable in them. Alla: Of course all Houses exert influence. I would argue that per books Slytherin's influence is the most damaging one, but that is not my point. I read Debbie's point that Lily was corrupted into loving Sirius. And I do think that person with such strong personality as Lily cannot be corrupted into loving a person, house influence or not. IMO of course. Ceridwen: Any person can be "corrupted" into seeing things, or even people, in a different way, if they live a lifestyle that encourages such attitudes. I think Snape was corrupted to think it was okay, even right, to look down on Muggle-borns. I think Lily was corrupted to look down on Slytherins. Neither showed any such leanings, in my opinion, before starting Hogwarts. A child's training is critical. Attitudes are passed on through house-mates and teachers, in a boarding school setting moreso than by parents. She might not be threatened or humiliated into holding her house's opinions, but she can be persuaded through constant reinforcement. Just my opinion, of course, based on how I'm reading DH right now. Ceridwen. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 20:34:17 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:34:17 -0000 Subject: Good and Bad Slytherins In-Reply-To: <003501c7dc00$4d793bd0$a0c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175197 --- "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > > Sherry Bailey said: > "Slytherins. Never forget that HARRY almost got > sorted to Slytherin! So HE would have been a "good > Slytherin" if he hadn't been biased > against that house ... > > CathyD now: > I never believed that for a moment. The Sorting Hat > never mentioned Slytherin until after Harry said, > repeatedly, "Not Slytherin, not Slytherin." ... > bboyminn: Let us not forget that Harry had a second conversation with the Sorting Hat in, I believe, CoS, in which the Sorting Hat confirms that it felt that Harry would have done well in Slytherin. To extend this point, I'm not convinced that Slytherin should be vilified to the degree that it is. I'm reminded of College Fraternities. I can very easily see the same exchange between Sirius/James/Snape taking place on the train ride to college. "I'm going to be in Sigma Ki, just like my dad." "Tuh...that's fine if you value brawn over brains." "My family have all been in Lamda Phi, maybe I'll break the tradition." Fraternities, as well as Houses, naturally take on a long range personality. You have the Jock Frat, the Nerd Frat, the Party Frat, and as those here who have experienced real-life House systems have said, they do have a logical sorting. They do try to place kids in Houses where they think they will be able to get along. For example, you don't sort a scrawny little brainiac into a House full of brawny jock, you might as well throw him to the sharks as do that. Certain Fraternity Houses have a reputation as being continual trouble makers. But should we vilify that fraternity for raising a little hell? Or, should we look at it as 'boys being boys'? And, do you think that Fraternity has the same view of itself, that other seem to hold of it? Also, to the individual Houses and Fraternities, they are absolutely convince that their House/ Fraternity is King of the Cool, and the other House/Fraternities are a bunch of lame prats. All that is natural. I think it is instinct to separate ourselves into US vs THEM. I happens naturally in every High School in the country. Student separate themselves out into nerds, geeks, jock, punks, EMO, preppy, Krell Boys (brainy), saggers, etc...etc... etc.... More importantly, we seek to find our place in the world. We seek to find where we fit in as a mean of exploring and discovering ourselves. I suspect, amoung some, Slytherin has a bad reputation, but I suspect that amoung others, Slytherins are seen in a very positive light, and I'm not referring to strictly amoung Death Eaters. I also suspect that there are those who acknowledge the 'bad' reputation of Slytherin, but also see the advantages to Slytherin personality. There are likely (legal) jobs that they are particularly well suited for. I too am disappointed that we didn't get our 'Good Slytherin'. In fact, when the 'Good Slytherin' thread was active, I was one of the ones who argue most favorably to the likelihood that we would get our 'Good Slytherin'. But the fact that we, the reader, didn't get him, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. It is possible that JKR considered this sub-plot but simply couldn't work it in without creating a distraction. Likely if JKR had a 'Good Slytherin', she had a specific story line involving him (or her), and it wasn't so much that she was unable to include a good Slytherin, but that she simply couldn't work in the specific story line. So, she dropped the whole idea and we are left with Snape, Slughorn, and Phineus. I think one place to have inserted a token good Slytherin was when the re-enforcements came rushing back in. Harry could have simply noted that he, much to his surprise, saw good Slytherin students amoung them. Still if she had a 'good Slytherin' subplot, when she dropped it, she probably drop it completely, and didn't look for new places to insert a token. To some extent, I, once again, am relying on common sense more that canon. But there's nothing wrong with Common Sense. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 20:45:47 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:45:47 -0000 Subject: Another angle on Hermione's parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175198 Leah wrote: > It not only stopped the grief for them, it stopped their feelings of love and pride in Hermione, which yes, is a loss for > her, but far more of a loss for them. If those parents lost their child, I can't believe they would want to forget him/her completely. Hermione has a power which her parents do not have and she uses it over them without their knowledge or consent. This does not sit well with the girl who wished to liberate house-elves from being lorded over by wizards. > I don't think, by the way, that we are intended to view Hermione actions in the way I do. I think they are meant to be praiseworthy, and when I first read them, I interpreted them exactly as you do, and was moved by her loss, and so was my daughter, with whom I discussed this. It was only on reflection that I thought, what does this actually mean, what has she actually done to her parents? I do think she loves and wants to protect her parents, she just has no right to abuse her powers in the way she did. I don't know if this is because JKR has not thought it through, or she has thought it through and continues to think the behaviour ok. Carol responds; Hermione's problem throughout the books is that she always thinks that she has the right answer and she takes things into her own hands, whether it's trying to free the house-elves, get revenge on Rita Skeeter, "protect" the DA from a traitor, or protect her parents from DEs. Whatever her method, her motive for the last can't be questioned, but once again she's taking things into her own hands without asking the people involved in her plans whether they want or require her help. My question, not yet answered because I haven't explored it to my own satisfaction, is whether our "insufferable know-it-all" learns, as part of her growing up in this last book of the series, that Hermione doesn't always know best. It's like a "saving people thing" involving intellect, her own, rather than action (a la Harry). Even after Hermione gets a lesson in house-elf psychology from Kreacher, she still wants to free the house-elves. It's hard for her to accept that anyone else might be right and she might be wrong (a common failing among intelligent adolescents). Hermione does learn at least one lesson in DH when her skepticism regarding the Deathly Hallows is shown to be mistaken and the ludicrously eccentric and rather cowardly Xenophilius Lovegood is proven to be right. Xenophilus calls her "not unintelligent but painfully limited. Narrow. Close-minded" (DH Am. ed. 410). Certainly, he and Luna represent the opposite extreme, willing to believe anything, but there's some justice in this characterization. I think it's good that she goes along with *Ron's* plan to destroy the cup Horcrux and realizes that she's not the only one who can think creatively. And certainly, she sees that intellect alone can't save her and her friends from Fiendfyre. So has she changed or would end-of-the-book Hermione still take charge of her helpless Muggle parents without giving them any say in the matter? (We can't know how her parents feel about the matter; would they feel that her action was "gallant" or inexcusably manipulative? Hermione at this stage sees herself (with reason) as a member of a persecuted minority like house-elves and goblins. But she also sees herself (like the young Dumbledore and the young Severus Snape) as a member of a powerful group possessed of the ability to do magic and therefore superior to the Muggles she's striving to protect. Their lives are as valuable as her own, but their rights, perhaps, are not. By protecting them against death and torture, she deprives them of the right to choose. It's a variation on Magic Is Might with magic to be used "for the greater good"." Unlike the young DD, Hermione has no grudge against Muggles, but she certainly underestimates and undervalues their ability to think for themselves.We don't get to see her rescuing "Wendell and Monica Wilkins," restoring their identities and explaining why they've missed a year of their lives (as for a year of life with their daughter, that's par for the course when you send your kid to Hogwarts). Carol, arriving at no conclusions, just exploring the topic of what, if anything, Hermione learns in DH From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Aug 12 21:00:22 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:00:22 -0000 Subject: Blame Fryffindor for everything (wasRe: good and bad slytherins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175199 va32h: Okay, now I think you are stretching things too far. Lily developed her aesthetic appreciation of vases in Gryffindor house too? She didn't like Petunia's Christmas gift because Gryffindors poisoned her mind with thoughts about what an attractive vase ought to look like? Ceridwen: The comment was unnecessary. "...he smashed a horrible vase Petunia sent me for Christmas (no complaint there)." Page 180. She could just have said Harry had smashed a vase, or even a vase Petunia had sent. To me, the "horrible" and "(no complaint there)" smacked of attitude, a wink and a nudge to Sirius against Petunia. She might have hated the vase. Petunia might have bought it because it was Christmas and she thought she ought to send a gift, without putting any thought into what Lily might like. It may have been the most hideous vase on earth, and I've seen plenty of hideous vases. There is a world of undercurrent in the adjective and parenthetical comment. We've seen a lot of it in "The Prince's Tale". Lily didn't have much to do with Petunia's disappointment and shifting to think of witches as "freaks" since she couldn't be one. But Lily could react negatively to being called a freak, at the same time adopting her new world's attitude toward the inferior, magicless Muggles. Petunia's belittling wouldn't help matters. Lily's a nice girl, it seems, but she is not immune to influences all around her. The vase, its looks, a personal matter. But why make the wink and nudge to Sirius about it? va32h: Because it's completely impossible that a woman could dislike a gift given to her by a relative just because it's not her taste or she finds it ugly. You've never been given a gift you didn't like? Ceridwen: Plenty of them. My sister thinks less of me than Petunia ever hoped to think of Lily. I haven't made fun of the ugly gifts, the inappropriate gifts, I've gotten, though. I haven't complained about the gifts I haven't gotten at all, either, which is my sister's more recent habit. I haven't heard from my sister since 1989. Maybe one of these days she'll return the messages I left on her machine. I will admit to rolling my eyes at some presents from other relations who bought something just because it was time to give gifts. I still don't make fun of them and elbow my friends with droll remarks. In the end, though, the fact that someone went out of their way to give me a gift matters more than how ugly it is. va32h: I would think that the very fact that Petunia and Lily exchange Christmas gifts is evidence that Lily has not been "enticed" away from her family. Petunia knows how to communicate with her sister, knows who her sister is married to, knows that she has a nephew and this nephews age and name. Ceridwen: We know that Petunia sent Lily a gift. We assume that Lily sent her one, based on what is shown and said about her in canon. To me, she obviously sees Petunia as being outside of her group. The "hideous" statement, and implication that she's glad the vase was broken, implies to me that she thinks very little of Petunia's taste. She may think little of Petunia, too. Again, baggage from childhood, the effects of being this different from each other. va32h: Lily's parents both died sometime between Lily's first year (when they are at King's Cross with her) and Lily's own death (since Petunia is Harry's only living relative at that time.) If Lily is closer to James and Sirius than she is to her own family, perhaps it is because her parents (who found her magical abilities delightful) are dead and she has only a sister who calls her a freak. Ceridwen: I don't doubt that Lily and Petunia are estranged. Lily has a new world, a new life. Petunia has her bitterness born of disappointment. I was surprised that Petunia sent her a vase in the first place. I'm surprised Lily displayed it, since she thought it was ugly. This whole thing goes back to the Elect and... unelect, I guess, with Petunia "begging" to go to Hogwarts, then, understanding that she never can, becoming bitter. And, had this whole idea of certain people being better from conception than others not been implied in canon, I probably wouldn't have looked at the vase remark as anything other than sibling rivalry. But it bothers me on that level, the same as Harry zooming around the house and breaking objects and nearly killing the cat bothers me on that level, too. The Elect can do anything and get away with it. That's my basic problem with the outcome of the series. Good can do whatever it wants, without repercussion. Bad can do all sorts of good and maybe, just maybe, scrape an honorable mention. The vase, as a vase, is just a vase. As part of the greater series, it's just another symbol that bothers me. ********************************************************************** va32h: But wait, let me guess - Sirius and James murdered the Evanses, right? So they could further entice Lily down the path of evil Gryffindorness. Ceridwen: ZOMG! I think you're right! Call the Aurors! Notify the Daily Prophet! We've got the goods on those Gryffindors at last! Rita Skeeter might pen a new expose about all of this, once we're finished! Think she'll dedicate the book to us? ;) (You do know I'm just kidding here, right? Playing along, not being sarcastic? I think too serious a post should have something funny in it.) Ceridwen, pressing the button with the joke still attached and waiting for fallout. From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Aug 12 21:29:19 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:29:19 -0000 Subject: Another angle on Hermione's parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175200 Carol: > So has she changed or would end-of-the-book Hermione > still take charge of her helpless Muggle parents without > giving them any say in the matter? (We can't know how > her parents feel about the matter; would they feel that > her action was "gallant" or inexcusably manipulative? houyhnhnm: I don't think I'll ever like Hermione. I'm not at all sure that she changed, but I thought it was kind of interesting that Ron had taken a Muggle driving test right before seeing his daughter off on the Hogwarts Express. Why would a wizard need a driver's license? It kind of suggested that Ron and Hermione might be living half in the Muggle world, half in the WW. It's a small leap of the imagination to picture a Hermione guilty about the cavalier treatment of her parents over the years and determined to make it up to them. Or it could just be, now that the Minister of Magic is someone who has worked for the Other Minister, that wizards are required by the MoM to obey Muggle traffic laws. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Aug 12 22:11:39 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:11:39 EDT Subject: good/bad slyth/Disappointment/Responsibility/Sorting/Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175201 Prep0strus: Snape, who had a hard childhood, did have a friend in it ? the good influence, Lily, and his relationship with his mother appears to have a least some positive aspects. Compare to Harry, who had no one who showed him love, even if it doesn't appear he was physically abused. Then, he gets to school, and is immediately welcomed by his house. In addition, he keeps his cross-house-borders friend Lily for years, while remaining a tight part of his Slytherin team. He winds up losing her friendship, but keeping theirs into adulthood. It does speak a little for Snape ? his relationship with her, even after she failed to forgive him, means so much to him that harm done to her causes him to reject the social group he's had since he was 11, to work against them. That is pretty powerful. But it doesn't excuse him from joining that social group to begin w/ - and he DID have a choice. If anyone maintains he didn't, that simply means they believe he was too weak to avoid influence, and I refuse to let that weakness be something I admire in Snape. Julie: OF COURSE he was too weak to avoid influence, because he was an 11 YEAR OLD child! All children are easily influenced, and we see that evidence from both James and Snape on the train. They've already learned certain "ideals" from their parents which has made each determined to be chosen by their particular houses. BTW, we also saw it with Harry, when he meets Draco on the train and forms a negative impression of Slytherin after their exchange, which is reinforced by Ron almost immediately (along with giving Harry a glowing picture of Gryffindor and a marked preference to be sorted into that house). Yes, technically all these 11 year olds have a "choice"--or they don't, if the arguments that the Sorting Hat at least partly makes the decision and it is "never wrong" according to JKR. (If the Sorting Hat does play an actual part, rather than just parroting the child's desire, then we have a matter of the hat deciding Snape belonged in a house that brought out his very worst tendencies, rather than his very best--and there's a horrifying concept). In any case, however much the child's choice decides his or her house, I still don't believe any child can really make an *well-informed* choice at the age of eleven, when their only source of information has been their family. Yet here they *are* making that choice, one that will only further narrow these views they've learned from their families, rather than broadening them. And while Sirius made a choice against his family, at the age of eleven I have to believe it was made based far more on his personal agenda--rejecting a family who perhaps has already shown a marked preference for Regulus based on whatever likenesses or behaviors parents can and do use to favor one child over another--than based on any general principles, i.e., how his family treated *him* indicated the value of "Purebloods" rather than any general outlook they espoused toward non-Purebloods. (It's also ironic that 11 year old Snape made his decision on the same personal basis, as 11 year olds are wont to do, because the Muggle in *his* life treated him and his mother very badly, while his mother the witch from Slytherin, apparently instilled in him that his opportunity to access his own wizard ancestry by joining Hogwarts and the WW would be his escape from a demonstrably horrible childhood. Add in Petunia, the only other Muggle with whom we know he had some regular contact, and it's not a real wonder that as an eleven year old child he would immediately be attracted to the concept of Wizards being superior in every way to Muggles.) There is no doubt that there are many influences pressing for dominance at every stage of our life, but we are by far the most vulnerable to those influences, good or bad, when we are children. And for the Sorting Hat to basically *use* that vulnerability by taking into account, to whatever degree, the child's heavily baised preferences, makes it a very suspect tool. If you add that it also uses the child's "personality" against the child, by placing him/her with like children who will only reinforce the growth of one set of traits that are already present in abundance, rather than encouraging the growth of lesser or more subdued traits that will make the child a *well-rounded* adult rather than one with an uncontestedly narrow view of life and thus limit his/her potential, then you have something that is a horrible tool that should be discarded. That generations of teachers and Headmasters haven't recognized that fact. or if they have, have refused to do anything about it, probably explains why the WW is shown as such a divided and problem-riddled society, IMO. Julie ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 22:31:48 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:31:48 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility/Sirius' choice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175202 Alla wrote: > > > NO, I doubt that Sirius wanted to go to Gryffindor based on principle at that point as well. Carol responds: Good. That was my main point. I'm glad we agree that principle played no part in that childish conversation. Alla: > Sirius may have chose Gryffindor if his family hated this house specifically OR he may have just hoping to go into any house but Slytherin IMO. > > OR he absolutely could have made a final determination based on him liking James, except this still in my head would be secondary one, since I think that NOT Slytherin was in his mind already. > Carol: Can you cite some canon to support this view of Sirius at age eleven (not as a teenager whose bedroom is decorated to emphasize his differences with his family)? I don't see anything except his surprise at James's antipathy to the House that his family has always been Sorted into, his curiosity regarding the House James would prefer, his desire for James to think he's "all right," and his joining with James to ridicule Severus (who admittedly treats them with equal disdain). It's James who trips Severus, but my impression (not provable, I realize) is that it's Sirius who coins the nasty and undeserved nickname "Snivellus," which he persists in using into his thirties. And why would he do that, except to get into James's good graces? Carol earlier: > > As I said in an earlier post, contempt for Muggles and contempt for Muggleborns are two different things. All we need to do to see the distinction, us vs. them, Magic vs. Muggles, is to look at the young *Dumbledore's* plans to rule Muggles for "the greater good." > < BIG SNIP> > Alla: > > Yes, and I believe that Snape had plenty of both. Him stopping himself when he answers Lily's question to me is an evidence of his comtempt for Muggleborns, just not for Lily. My view obviously. > Carol: Yes. Your view. Your opinion. What I'm looking for is canon to support that view. Canon shows Severus and Petunia as children not exactly hitting it off as friends, his view of her as a mere Muggle, and his determination to tell Lily that she, obviously a Muggleborn, is a witch. He's her introduction to the WW, talking about everything from Hogwarts to the Dementors at Azkaban. Yes, he hesitates when she asks whether being a Muggle-born makes a difference, but it's clear that her being a Muggle-born makes no difference to *him.* He wants to be in slytherin, right? And he wants her to be in Slytherin, too, right? So he can't possibly think know that Muggle-borns aren't Sorted into slytherin, or that the new friends he'll find in Slytherin will look down on him for associating with a "Mudblood." Canon does not actually show him using the word except during the SWM. It seems at least as likely that he learned it from his Slytherin Housemates as that he learned it from his mother, who, after all, married a Muggle. It also seems likely to me, and I'm quite aware that I'm speculating, that Severus, who lived in a Muggle neighborhood with no nearby witches or wizards that we know of except Lily, had very little contact with the WW except through his mother before Hogwarts. The "pure-blood Princes" almost certainly rejected both him and their Muggle-marrying daughter or he would not live in poverty in a Muggle slum. He may have learned from them that Half-Bloods like himself were looked down on by some pure-bloods, and if that were the case, Muggle-borns would be equally subject to prejudice. But there is no evidence that nine-year-old Severus in the first memory or eleven-year-old Severus, riding on the train with a Muggle-born, shared that prejudice. If he did and yet wanted to be Sorted into Slytherin, wouldn't he have avoided her company rather than seeking it out? As I said in my previous post, prejudice is learned, usually from the example of the parents but also through peer pressure in a boarding school that serves as a home away from home. Severus, isolated from the WW except for his mother before coming to Hogwarts, would have suddenly been immersed in the Slytherin value system on entering Hogwarts, just as Harry is immersed in Gryffindor's. But, obviously, Severus did not hold such views as a child or he would never have associated with Lily, especially not sitting with her on the Hogwarts Express in full view of older students already in Slytherin. Sirius, having been taught the pure-blood superiority ethic at home, would have had to unlearn it. James, for all his flaws, must have taught him that. Draco, having been brought up with it and had it reinforced all his life, may have unlearned it much more painfully through his disillusionment with the life of a Death Eater. > Carol earlier: > > I doubt that Severus's mother, who married a Muggle, went around using the term "Mudblood" for Muggleborns. Nor do we ever see it "rolling off [Severus's] tongue" at that age or any other. He uses it once in all of canon, under great duress. We have Lily's word that he uses it for others than herself but we don't actually hear him use it. > > > Alla: > > Lily's word is good enough for me to be convinced that he used it many times. > Carol: I'm not questioning Lily's veracity, but she's talking about the evil influence of Severus's Slytherin friends as of their fifth year at Hogwarts. I think he learned the word and the concept in Slytherin, not at home. If his mother thought that Muggle*borns* were inferior, doesn't it strike you as odd that she married a *Muggle*? (I do suspect that the Prince family rejected her for doing so, much as the Blacks rejected Andromeda, but I have only the young Severus's isolation in a "Muggle dunghill" to support this view.) However, there's no evidence except for a slight hesitation in response to Lily's question that the pre-Hogwarts child Severus thought that Muggle-borns might be regarded as lesser beings by other wizards. His answer that there's no difference seems to me to reflect his own view, the hesitation to reflect a Dumbledorelike view that perhaps Lily isn't ready for the full truth, that some wizards (not Severus himself, based on his actions) do see a difference. Nor do I think, for reasons already stated, that Severus himself was fully aware of the extent of anti-Muggle-born prejudice in the WW, especially in Slytherin House. If you can produce any evidence to contradict the eleven-year-old Severus's naive belief that Mubble-born Lily could be sorted into "brainy" Slytherin, please provide it. Snape's lifelong prejudice against *Muggles*, shared by many people in the WW and not just by Slytherins, is another matter (unrelated to the Hogwarts Express scene with James and Sirius). His concern with Harry's and Ron's breach of the Statute of Secrecy suggests that he never got over the idea of Muggles as inferior beings. As a child, he could see for himself that the few Muggles he knew were "inferior" (nonmagical) and "nasty." That childish observation, perhaps paralleling Harry's judgments of Snape and Snape's of him, does not excuse or justify his view, but it explains how a child whose view of Muggles was based on Tobias Snape and Petunia Evans would tend to see them. (The whole Dumbledore family must have had a similar view based on what happened to Ariana, with Albus going to the extreme of thinking that wizards ought to rule Muggles "for the greater good." For all we know, a similar view may have played a part in young Snape's joining the Death Eaters.) Carol, who thinks that the difference between Severus's feelings about Lily and Petunia illustrates his pre-Slytherin conception of Muggle-borns as witches or wizards like himself and of Muggles as nonmagical inferior beings (whose perceived unworthiness is "proven" by Tobias and Petunia) From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sun Aug 12 22:58:16 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:58:16 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility/Sirius' choice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46BF9088.7010609@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175203 justcarol67 wrote: > Canon shows Severus and Petunia as children not exactly > hitting it off as friends, his view of her as a mere Muggle, and his > determination to tell Lily that she, obviously a Muggleborn, is a > witch. > Snape's lifelong prejudice against *Muggles*, shared by many people in > the WW and not just by Slytherins, is another matter (unrelated to the > Hogwarts Express scene with James and Sirius). Carol, I really like your analysis. Just wanted to add that I don't understand why people make such a big business of Snape calling Petunia a "Muggle". McGonagall does the same in book one, when she says to Dumbledore "Are you going to leave Potter with these people? But they are Muggles!" And Ron does the same in book 4, I think. "If the Muggles agree, we will pick you up. If they don't we will pick you up all the same". It's the general wizarding view that the Muggles somehow count less, not specifically Slytherin one. Irene From va32h at comcast.net Sun Aug 12 23:13:01 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:13:01 -0000 Subject: Blame Fryffindor for everything (wasRe: good and bad slytherins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175204 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > The comment was unnecessary. "...he smashed a horrible vase >Petunia sent me for Christmas (no complaint there)." Page 180. She >could just have said Harry had smashed a vase, or even a vase >Petunia had sent. To me, the "horrible" and "(no complaint there)" >smacked of attitude, a wink and a nudge to Sirius against Petunia. >She might > have hated the vase. Petunia might have bought it because it was > Christmas and she thought she ought to send a gift, without putting > any thought into what Lily might like. It may have been the most > hideous vase on earth, and I've seen plenty of hideous vases. > > There is a world of undercurrent in the adjective and parenthetical > comment. We've seen a lot of it in "The Prince's Tale". Lily didn't > have much to do with Petunia's disappointment and shifting to think > of witches as "freaks" since she couldn't be one. But Lily could > react negatively to being called a freak, at the same time adopting > her new world's attitude toward the inferior, magicless Muggles. > Petunia's belittling wouldn't help matters. Lily's a nice girl, it > seems, but she is not immune to influences all around her. The vase, > its looks, a personal matter. But why make the wink and nudge to > Sirius about it? va32h: If there's any winking and nudging going on, I would say that it's from JKR to the reader, because she expects us to detest Petunia too, and this is another example of Petunia's bad taste. I just think you are reading way too much into a throwaway line. No, it wasn't a "necessary" comment in the letter, neither are a few hundred little phrases that JKR inserts in her writing. Why did Dumbledore say "let us step out into the night and pursue that flighty temptress, adventure." in HPB? It isn't necessary. Dumbledore could have said "Let's go." > Ceridwen: > Plenty of them. My sister thinks less of me than Petunia ever hoped > to think of Lily. I haven't made fun of the ugly gifts, the > inappropriate gifts, I've gotten, though. I haven't complained about > the gifts I haven't gotten at all, either, which is my sister's more > recent habit. I haven't heard from my sister since 1989. Maybe one > of these days she'll return the messages I left on her machine. > > I will admit to rolling my eyes at some presents from other relations > who bought something just because it was time to give gifts. I still > don't make fun of them and elbow my friends with droll remarks. In > the end, though, the fact that someone went out of their way to give > me a gift matters more than how ugly it is. va32h: Well then congratulations, you are a better person than St. Lily of Godric's Hollow. I do make fun of the presents my mother-in-law gives me, and I did that even before I read about Gryffindor House, so please don't blame them. Yes - I'm being sarcastic. Lily has been portrayed as nothing short of a goddess in this series - if she's being petty about a vase, why can't that be just a human failing, why must it be indicative of her evil indoctrination? > Ceridwen: > I don't doubt that Lily and Petunia are estranged. Lily has a new > world, a new life. Petunia has her bitterness born of > disappointment. I was surprised that Petunia sent her a vase in the > first place. I'm surprised Lily displayed it, since she thought it > was ugly. va32h: How can they be *that* estranged if Petunia knows where to send the gift? Either Petunia knows Lily's address for Muggle post, or they have exchanged things by owl post. Either way - Petunia would have had to make an effort to get the vase to her, which is not something you do for someone you hate so much that you never speak to them. Why did Lily display it? Maybe because she *did* love her sister, she just thought the vase was ugly. Perhaps it is a sign of how much she loves her sister that she displayed it, *despite* thinking it was so ugly. Ceridwen: > This whole thing goes back to the Elect and... unelect, I guess, with > Petunia "begging" to go to Hogwarts, then, understanding that she > never can, becoming bitter. And, had this whole idea of certain > people being better from conception than others not been implied in > canon, I probably wouldn't have looked at the vase remark as anything > other than sibling rivalry. But it bothers me on that level, the > same as Harry zooming around the house and breaking objects and > nearly killing the cat bothers me on that level, too. The Elect can > do anything and get away with it. > > That's my basic problem with the outcome of the series. Good can do > whatever it wants, without repercussion. Bad can do all sorts of > good and maybe, just maybe, scrape an honorable mention. The vase, > as a vase, is just a vase. As part of the greater series, it's just > another symbol that bothers me. va32h: Well I guess, if you are determined to view every single detail in the series as part of this message. I think that JKR inserted some details just to be colorful or humorous - such as the excessive mention of socks. And in this case, a throwaway line about a vase. I don't think JKR was implying that Gryffindors are allowed to wantonly torture cats either - just because Harry, at the age of one, nearly knocked over the family cat. Look, I don't think that every Gryffindor in the book is above reproach. I would agree that JKR dropped the ball with James and Sirius, expecting us to like them when she gave us scant reason to. Making her "bad" characters so interesting that we were invested in seeing them reform. I just get tired of wildly different standards being applied to characters when they behave in the same manner If Sirius treats Kreacher like garbage, that's evidence that he loathes all house elves, and all "inferior" creatures in general. But if Snape treats Harry like garbage, that is not evidence that he loathes all students, it just means that Snape has a particular issue with Harry that he cannot get past. If Snape develops a fierce personal loyalty to Lily which causes him to completely change his outlook, it's a sign of what a brave person he is. If Sirius develops a fierce personal loyalty to James which causes him to completely change his outlook, it's a sign of how pathetic Sirius is for turning his back on his family in favor of a cool kid. And in this case - Lily is a horrible person for saying her sister sent her an ugly vase. Petunia is simply a jealous, misunderstood person for repeatedly saying her sister is a freak. Frankly, none of the people in HP are particularly admirable and all of them can and have behaved horribly. > Ceridwen, pressing the button with the joke still attached and > waiting for fallout. > va32h: No fallout from me. I'm sure you knew I was being sarcastic. But then again - given the rampant hostility toward James and Sirius, I don't doubt that many readers think them fully capable and willing to murder Lily's parents. (and another batch of readers could come up with ten reasons why Snape would be totally justified in doing such a thing.) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 23:22:13 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:22:13 -0000 Subject: Potter's Teacher's Edition / Plea for Canon (was:Re: DH as Christian Allegory... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175205 > >>Pippin: > You know, I've seen hundreds of copies of DH by now, and none of > them are marked "Teacher's Edition." There's no answer key in the > back of the book, IOW. I'm amazed that this is considered some kind > of flaw. Betsy Hp: I must say the idea that there needs to be Teacher's Edition for DH is a bit funny. It's not like there's a deep lesson in there. The intended moral seems to be, "Nazis are bad" (thanks, Jo!). The unintended moral which would never be included in authorized Teacher's Editions (but would, IMO, make for a very interesting class- room experience) is that there are people who are worthy ("You, dear reader") and those who are not ("Anyone who angers you, dear reader"). It's the dark side of that "rules of the playground" that gets bandied about on the List every now and again. Playground rules are incredibly basic. Jack London called it the rule of tooth and claw: eat or be eaten, kill or be killed. It's brutal and children, like dog packs, pick it up easily. It's part of the reason conformity on the playground can be necessary. JKR encourages children to conform, to not be the "other", and in fact to feel a rather self-righteous pleasure in not being the "other". That JKR keeps the "other" rather than destroying them, shows that she does understand the rules of the pack. There is a need for a scapegoat to be picked on when the pack is restless. Slytherin needs to be there for Gryffindors to take their aggression out on. > >>Pippin: > > Are we to conclude that Hamlet never changed, because Shakespeare > doesn't neatly sum up how a callow princeling fell into a death > spiral of murder and revenge? > > We *know* that Harry changed. He went from saying he would never > forgive Snape, never, to saying that Snape was the bravest man he > ever knew. > Betsy Hp: Hamlet was a grown man trapped in circumstances. His play was less about Hamlet changing then it was about Hamlet dealing. I *thought* Harry's story was about him growing, but I think (and I can't believe I'm actually about to compare Hamlet and Harry, but there you go ) Harry is a boy trapped in circumstances, too. It's just, Shakespeare does a little better job showing us a puppet stuggling against his strings. Frankly, I don't buy Harry's little speech about Snape in the Epilogue. JKR doesn't sell it for me. I mean, yes it's there so it's canon, but it doesn't fit. I have to do too much jumping up and down and dancing around to make that speech make sense. How does Harry go from "this man must die!" to "I shall name my beloved son after him!"? Can it happen? Sure! I was totally expecting this sort of change before DH. But for some reason, JKR didn't feel that writing such a change would be interesting. On the flip side, Shakespeare did a very good job leading his audience up the great blood-bath at the end of his play. Is there still a lot more to parse from Hamlet? Sure. That's part of the reason he's still read. There are things he leaves to the reader's (or viewers) imaginations. But Shakespeare does it deliberately. Personally, I think the stuff left out of the Potter series was just JKR being sloppy. > >>Pippin: > I don't really get where you insist that Slytherin is shown as > forever unclean. They were wrong about the pureblood thing, and > some of them are still wrong about it, but considering the way the > WW as a whole treats Giants, werewolves, etc the other Houses have > nothing to boast of there. > Betsy Hp: Yes, the WW as a whole is an ugly and brutal place that runs on might and vengeance and scoffs at reason and law. In such a dark and horrible world the Gryffindors stand as kings of the hill, and the Slytherins are caught firmly under Gryffindors' boot. Slytherins cannot fight for their world because they aren't really full members of their world. They're tolerated but not integrated or accepted. This is the world Harry enters, and this is the world Harry has fully embraced when we leave him. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174494 > >>Carol: > > As for the final battle and the series as a whole, are you sure > that's not just your own preconception imposed on the books? > > The book (and the series) does not boil down to Gryffindor vs. > Slytherin. Many other things are going on. > > I'm asking you, please, Betsy, as a long-time list friend, to try to > see beyond Slytherin and Gryffindor, beyond your dashed hopes, to > the complex but flawed book (shades of Severus Snape?) that's > really hear. Please. A little canon. A little objectivity. A little > awareness that just because you don't see something on a first > reading doesn't mean it isn't there. > Betsy Hp: I think there probably *are* other things going on in the series. But the Gryffindor versus Slytherin stuff is so hard to ignore. And it's what destroyed the series for me. So it's kind of hard for me to put it on a back burner. But I do understand your plea for canon. I absolutely agree that these sort of conversations work best when everyone plays with the text. The problem there isn't my preconceptions, it's my prerequisites. I need to enjoy books I read. I need to like and care for the protagonists and their goals. I need to believe in the world I'm being asked to enter, and I need to be able to go along with the plot twists. I'm not generally into children's literature so I didn't get into the Potter series in a general interest kind of way. I read the first few books and I liked them. That started to change with... I think OotP was where I started to dislike the Trio (specifically Hermione, but Harry was pushing the envelope at that point, too). I ended up rereading HBP only once, which was weird. I didn't like any of the Trio by that point (Ron was the closest, but he was awfully pathetic). There were scenes though. Really cool scenes that seemed to show such potential for the final book. So I was cool to wait thinking that the things I was disliking would be solved. And I was wrong. So incredibly wrong that even the cool scenes lost their power. Snape healing Draco became meaningless. The Marauders picking on Snape became meaningless. So not only did DH *not* deliver any scenes that I want to reread. It took away those scenes that I did enjoy. It also put the final nail into Hermione's coffin, took Harry off life-support, and shot Ron in the chest. I officially could care less about the Trio. And obviously, I'm not thrilled with the plot (when you don't care about Harry, you're not too worked up about whether or not he beats his nemesis). Which means, I don't have all that much interest in diving back into the books and finding pages and passages to back up my theories. Which, if I were a dolphin means that at this point I'd be saying, so long and thanks for all the fish. I'm a bit more waffely so I'll probably stick around for a bit longer. Or not. I don't know. But I do know I have very little interest in taking deep looks at DH. Life is too short for bad books. Betsy Hp From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 23:37:32 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:37:32 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175206 houyhnhnm: If Snape chose memories to make himself look good (as if he had time to give thought to such a thing in his death throes*), he did a poor job of it. All of the memories in the Pensieve show Snape offending Lily, making her angry. Yet there must have been good times, too, that we didn't see. Why else would they have remained friends into their fifth year? Prep0strus: To clarify, my point wasn't that Snape was trying to make himself look good. In fact, I think he shed quite a harsh light on himself in trying to tell Harry his whole story. But I don't think he has the inclination ? or the ability ? to show James in a good light. My point is that we only see James in scenes when Snape is present ? which is never going to show James in his best light. Snape could have made the choice to show us some touching scenes with Lily, and doesn't. But he couldn't have made the choice to show us James scenes with his friends or later, when James and Lily got together. I don't think the Pensieve clips keep us from knowing Snape fully ? I think they keep us from knowing James fully. Ceridwen: Any person can be "corrupted" into seeing things, or even people, in a different way, if they live a lifestyle that encourages such attitudes. I think Snape was corrupted to think it was okay, even right, to look down on Muggle-borns. I think Lily was corrupted to look down on Slytherins. Neither showed any such leanings, in my opinion, before starting Hogwarts. A child's training is critical. Attitudes are passed on through house-mates and teachers, in a boarding school setting more so than by parents. She might not be threatened or humiliated into holding her house's opinions, but she can be persuaded through constant reinforcement. Prep0strus: If Lily was `corrupted' into looking down on Slytherins, I think the Slytherins did it. She didn't like James and Sirius. But she saw what Mulciber and Avery did. I think for anyone to come out of that NOT looking down on Slytherins is a saint or a crazy person. Every Slytherin she knew became a Death Eater! This is corruption? Ok, I'm going to make a wildly inflammatory comment here, but those darned jews! All corrupting their kids to hate Nazis! Look, we can argue Slytherin's worth in a lot of different time periods, but in Lily's time period, almost every one of them joined Voldemorte's army of evil. I think viewing her looking down on that as corrupted is a strange use of the term. Julie: OF COURSE he was too weak to avoid influence, because he was an 11 YEAR OLD child! All children are easily influenced, and we see that evidence from both James and Snape on the train. They've already learned certain "ideals" from their parents which has made each determined to be chosen by their particular houses. Prep0strus: I patently disagree that all children are easily influenced. That is obviously not a matter of canon, or Harry Potter, but I disagree with the statement. And children can choose to an extent where influence comes from. Snape had Lily as influence. He did not HAVE to become a death eater because he was in Slytheirn. I am one of the biggest proponents of `there are no worthwhile slytherins', but even I don't go so far that to be put into the house is a life sentence to death eaterness. He had a choice. And he had multiple influences. 11 year olds are not mindless creatures ready to be manipulated. I maintain, as I have this entire time, that children know what is going on in the world. 11 year olds understand murder and prejudice and evil and hatred. They know that there are bad guys out there. Those children did not go to school without an understanding of current events. Perhaps Snape had less information than Sirius and James, but as soon as he got to school he would have heard it all. And talked about it with his friend, Lily. And known right from wrong. To absolve him of choosing evil for being a child is something I won't do. Julie: And while Sirius made a choice against his family, at the age of eleven I have to believe it was made based far more on his personal agenda--rejecting a family who perhaps has already shown a marked preference for Regulus based on whatever likenesses or behaviors parents can and do use to favor one child over another--than based on any general principles, i.e., how his family treated *him* indicated the value of "Purebloods" rather than any general outlook they espoused toward non-Purebloods. Prep0strus: I'm curious as to where you got this assertion. I don't care so much that every opinion has to be supported by a page citation, but I never assumed that his family innately treated him worse than his brother. The only reason I can think for that to happen is because he rebelled against their rather odious beliefs, which is a mark in Sirius's favor. Also, considering `influence', no one had more influence on Sirius' life for his first 11 years, and yet he was able to see past that and make a different choice. A lot can be said for sitting next to James on the train, but really, that's a 10 minute conversation being compared with 11 years of life. There is something in Sirius that made him go against his family and against those beliefs. Maybe his cousin, maybe his friend, maybe something inside of him. But to attribute this overwhelming influence to James and to the Slytherin house in Snape's case while ignoring the influence they took from other sources ? the Black family, and Lily, is only showing part of the picture. Each of these children was exposed to many ideas. Some chose one path, some another. I don't know why Snape gets let off the hook for making a bad choice and Sirius gets no credit for making a good one. Montavilla47: Now, we're presented two different images of James. We're told he was a great guy and we're shown memories that reveal an arrogant, bullying, privileged kid. It's very hard to put those two things together into a coherent picture of an individual. For me, what I'm *shown* is more vivid and convincing than what I'm told. Prep0strus: It is more vivid, which is why I think I am trying to hard to present the other side. What we see visually is only the James with Snape. What we hear about from other characters is the James when he wasn't with Snape. I have to hope that that James is a very different person. A person Lily would love, a person that would love her, and his son, and fight for his friends. And even if it's second-hand, I listen to the opinions of other good characters we've come to know, and in my case, like. The fact of James and Lily's marriage, of the friendships he's developed, of the way he was well thought of in the school and in the ww there must be more to that man that what we have been shown in Snape's memories. Montavilla47: Okay, I'm not going to dispute that adult Snape bullied children, but I am going to dispute the points thing. Because we're taking that solely on Harry's word. We don't have any basis to compare how Snape and McGonagall took or gave house points. On occasion we see Snape deduct points from Harry and his friends. The only time it's uncalled-for is in first year when Snape deducts 1 point from Harry because Neville melted a cauldron. Unless you want to count Snape deducting points from Harry for being out of uniform at the beginning of HBP. Prep0strus: Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to refute this with canon at the moment, but if anyone could help, I'd appreciate it. I'm really pretty sure it's the case, and it's driving me nuts that I can't think of good examples. Perhaps it's a faulty memory based on prejudice, but I seem to remember plenty of times that Draco's antics were ignored, while Harry, Ron, and Hermione lost points for very slight offenses. Whereas Mcgonnegal does not hesitate to take away points from anyone. Montavilla47: I think it's fine to want to see the best in people. What I find a bit hypocritical, though (and I'm not directing this at you, but at the general trend) is for either side to ignore the faults of their favorite characters, or to insist that these faults are meaningless, while insisting that the faults of the characters they disliked define their characters. I guess what I really don't understand in all this discussion is why we insist on following the Marauder/Snape feud. Why can't we like Snape AND James and Sirius? I know I like them all. Prep0strus: I completely agree with that first statement. And, for the record I'm not even that huge a fan of Sirius. And James isn't enough of a character for me to be that attached. I do like Lupin quite a bit. But I think that your first statement is why many of us (including myself) fight so hard for characters we see being maligned. I will freely admit James is a bully as a child, Sirius is arrogant his entire life, and Lupin has many flaws. I will also admit that Snape had a difficult life, a great deal of caring for Lily, and in the years of the books acted bravely and on the side of good. I can see this duality. But I like the Marauders better than Snape. A lot better. And what I see in a lot of posters is this (to the perspective of someone who doesn't like him) a fanatical devotion to Snape. I mean, let's face it ? he's interesting. This evil seeming guy who has been doing good all along. He has an interesting past, it's checkered, and he turns out good. And people identify with parts of that, and defend him. But then I see these same people absolutely tearing apart characters we know to be basically good ? James, Sirius, Lupin, Hagrid. And it confuses me greatly why the people who can forgive so many more flaws, so much more evil in Snape take the (in my opinion) much smaller flaws of the good characters and vilify them for it. The only thing I can think of is that they're not as interesting characters. And there's more of a betrayal ? they were supposed to be GOOD and they did BAD things. So they're castigated. But Snape seemed BAD and did GOOD ? and all is forgiven. I think Snape's flaws are much greater than those of the Marauders. Because he did choose evil. He had a choice, and he chose evil. And then he redeemed himself. And all the while he was mean. But Sirius, Lupin, James, and Hagrid all chose good. And all except James had valid reasons to choose evil ? I would argue the possibility that they had in some aspects more reason to choose evil than Snape ? what good influence did Sirius have but his cousin? Was Hagrid not more lonely than Snape? What happens to most werewolves? And even Harry's lonely lonely childhood. But they chose good. And they stumbled and fell along the way ? through bullying, arrogance, self-pity, weakness, irrational trust in monstrous creatures . But in the end they fought for good, and were loyal and true and kind. And of them, I only see Sirius possibly treating children as unfairly as Snape we know did (and I wonder how he would have been had he not been in Azkaban for a decade). And so, while I very much respect the ability to love all of these characters, and accept their flaws and their strengths, I see many more strengths in the Marauders and many more flaws in Snape, and so I will defend the toe-rag James who some posters think manipulated Lily into marrying and I will remind those who think that Snape was an innocent little boy who grew into a hero of the path that I see him taking. The Young Death Eaters weren't the AV Club, being picked on by the football team. They were studying to join up with an army of fascism and racial purity. Lily gets that. People grow out of being bullies. Snape et al grew into being an army of evil. And, for, I think that Lily's assertion that Snape called others Mudbloods and that they were planning on joining Voldemorte is much more telling and supportive of the evil-kid-snape than the punishments for james-the-bully are. I don't deny he was a bully I just want to know how many of the kids he bullied were part of the Young Death Eaters. (not an excuse, I know, but what if it was in retaliation for something Mulciber did? If we're going to read into it, let's read into ALL of it) ~Adam (Prep0strus), coming up for the first time in a while on the frustrations (and likely saving grace) of the 5 post limit. From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 23:52:13 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:52:13 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility/Sirius' choice In-Reply-To: <46BF9088.7010609@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175207 > Irene: > Carol, I really like your analysis. Just wanted to add that I don't > understand why people make such a big business of Snape calling Petunia > a "Muggle". Lanval: Because that's what this group is all about, making a big business out of one remark by any given character? :P Irene: McGonagall does the same in book one, when she says to > Dumbledore "Are you going to leave Potter with these people? But they > are Muggles!" > Lanval: Actually, you may confuse this with the medium-that-must-not-be- named, in which McGonagall says something aloing the line of the Dursleys being the "worst kind of Muggles". I'm not sure though, it's been a long time since I saw it. Of course there's nothing inherently negative about the word. I'm looking at SS/PS , first chapter, and I'm finding this, in DD's conversation with Minerva: "...even the Muggles have noticed something's going on..." "...dressed in Muggle clothes..." "if.... the Muggles found out about us all.." "...a kind of Muggle sweet..." "... before the Muggles started swarming around..." And, the only slightly negative one from Hagrid: "... an' poor little Harry off ter live with Muggles..." Irene: > And Ron does the same in book 4, I think. "If the Muggles agree, we will > pick you up. If they don't we will pick you up all the same". > > It's the general wizarding view that the Muggles somehow count less, not > specifically Slytherin one. > Lanval: That last example is about the Dursleys specifically, not about Muggles in general. I don't recall Ron saying anything condescending about Hermione's parents. About Snape. I can't speak for anyone else, but I quoted him calling Petunia a Muggle while arguing that he was just as arrogant as others, and that he did not point out Petunia's "shortcomings", but found her altogether beneath his notice. And he says it *spitefully*. He repeats it later on the train, too, that Petunia is "only a ...". Maybe that's why he felt it was perfectly all right to open and read her private correspondence? That's all. As an argument that nine-year-old Snape is already a raging Pureblood fanatic and a contemptuous bigot, it won't fly. But come to think of it, I seem to recall discussions in which Arthur and Molly Weasley were accused of precisely that -- contemptuous bigots, full of pureblood superiority. Why? Because Arthur's interest in Muggles was considered "condescending". And because Molly once mentioned King's Cross as "packed with Muggles". Surely, if *that* deserved attention, the case of Snape, future DE and ardent supporter of LV, might deserve some? From miamibarb at comcast.net Mon Aug 13 00:06:47 2007 From: miamibarb at comcast.net (ivogun) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:06:47 -0000 Subject: Blame Fryffindor for everything (wasRe: good and bad slytherins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175208 Ceridwen: The comment was unnecessary. "...he smashed a horrible vase Petunia sent me for Christmas (no complaint there)." Page 180. She could just have said Harry had smashed a vase, or even a vase Petunia had sent. To me, the "horrible" and "(no complaint there)" smacked of attitude, a wink and a nudge to Sirius against Petunia Ivogun: Perhaps it was a just horrible vase. Since Petunia sent terrible gifts to Harry on purpose, I assumed that she had done the same trick to her sister. Could be movie contamination, but I think Petunia is portrayed as having reasonably good taste. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 00:15:10 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:15:10 -0000 Subject: Albus Severus (Was: Potter's Teacher's Edition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175209 Betsy Hp wrote: > Frankly, I don't buy Harry's little speech about Snape in the Epilogue. JKR doesn't sell it for me. I mean, yes it's there so it's canon, but it doesn't fit. I have to do too much jumping up and down and dancing around to make that speech make sense. How does Harry go from "this man must die!" to "I shall name my beloved son after him!"? Can it happen? Sure! I was totally expecting this sort of change before DH. But for some reason, JKR didn't feel that writing such a change would be interesting. Carol responds: First, thanks for your very good-natured response to my plea for canon. I want to focus on just this one very narrow topic in hopes of persuading you that the jump isn't quite as large as it seems to you at the moment. First, we have moments in the Occlumency lessons when Harry first catches glimpses of Snape's past, and when he sees SWM, he actually identifies with him and sympathizes with him for the first time. Admittedly, it doesn't last, but it's important that he realizes, even briefly, that Snape was right about his father being "arrogant" (and worse, a bully). That impression is reinforced in "The Prince's Tale." Also, in the Occlumency lessons, we have Snape's moment of satisfaction when Harry realizes that "finding out what the Dark Lord is telling his Death Eaters" is Snape's (very dangerous) job. We also have moments in earlier books when Harry learns that Snape has saved his (Harry's) life or helped or protected him in some way or risked his own life or liberty to help Dumbledore or fight Voldemort which Harry has always known but never acknowledged. We, as readers, knew these things too. and many of us brought them with us to our reading of "the Prince's Tale." It seems safe to imagine that Harry is unconsciously recalling them, too. he is not encounteringnape's memories in a vacuum. And HBP brings him into even closer contact--and identification--with the young Snape, a genius with a slightly warped sense of humor that he appreciates, who "helps" him with Potions and teaches him new spells. (Levicorpus and Muffliato come in handy in DH; Expelliarmus, his signature spell was taught him by Snape back in his second year.) It's a shame, BTW, that the Potions book is destroyed by Fiendfyre, but it has served its purpose as a bridge between Harry and the man he hates, and I think that once he sees the real Snape in those memories, the feelings he developed for the HBP to some degree return. We're not told that he feels them, true, but they serve as a backdrop. He has already, as Pippin has noted, walked for a year in the Prince's shoes. I pointed out in post number 175069 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175069 some of the parallels between Harry and the young Severus (abusive Muggle father figure, neglect, ridiculous hand-me-down clothes that cause other kids to meke fun of them), as well as the Lily connection (Snape giving him Lily as Black and Lupin gave him James). I also pointed out that he sees Snape's anguished remorse and his progress from doing "anything" to save Lily to working to protect the dead Lily's son to helping Harry defeat Voldemort even when he "knows" that Harry has to die. He sees Snape as Healer and he sees that the "murderer" is doing Dumbledore's will. I pointed out that both of them feel used by Dumbledore, and I asked rhetorically: "How can Harry *not* identify with this man who is so like him in so many ways? How can he not forgive the man who loved his mother and spent his life in suffering atonement for his role in her death? How can he not see the change from not caring about Harry to protecting Harry for Lily to protecting and helping him even after he "knows" that Harry has to die? How can he not be appalled at Snape's death and want to make his last act matter? Or rather, once he knows that he is not going to die himself, make Snape's love and loyalty publicly known as a means of compensating for that terrible death?" During this visit to the Pensieve, Harry moves silently, along with many readers, from hating Snape yet feeling horror at his death (and having granted his last request to look into Snape's eyes) to understanding him, feeling as if Snape had been with him and had just left the room. His reaction is not directly to Snape but to what Snape has given him ("Finally, the truth!"). Granted, he is focused now on what he must do and on DD's "betrayal, but the hatred and bitterness toward Snape is completely and permanently gone. We have the brief moment of empathy (the "abandoned boys" whose only home was Hogwarts) and then the public vindication of Snape, which I've discussed in detail in message 174936 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174936 and elsewhere. I'll quote a paragraph from that post now since it has the relevant canon in it: "But that Harry has, indeed, forgiven Snape (along with many readers) is clear from the text itself. "Albus Severus" does not come out of nowhere. First, there's the "abandoned boys" reference, showing that he understands and empathizes with young Severus's homelife and his view of Hogwarts as home (697). And then there's the very public vindication speech, starting with the part about "the man you thought was your servant" and more emphatically from "Severus Snape wasn't yours. He was Dumbledore's" (740) and continuing to "Dumbledore was already dying when Snape finished him" (741). the key point, for Harry, is that "Snape was Dumbledore's . . . [man] from the time [LV] started hunting down [Harry's mother]" and Voldemort "never realized it because of the thing [he didn't] understand": love. He mentions the doe Patronus, makes clear that what Snape felt was love, not desire. He has also made clear that DD's death was arranged months before it happened with Snape, who was loyal to him and not to LV. Granted, his courage is not specifically mentioned in this scene, but Harry knows the risks that Snape has taken and the perils he has faced. He has seen him die, sending mesaages from his own head to Harry so that he won't have died in vain. "After that speech, in which Snape is publicly presented as working with the man he had supposedly murdered to bring down Voldemort, also publicly declaring Snape's love for his own mother, why should we be surprised that Harry would name his son after him? And in "King's Cross, both Harry and Dumbledore sit in silence "for the longest time yet" in memory of "poor Severus," who died because the plan went wrong (721)." It seems to me that Harry has excellent reason to name his second son for the two headmasters without whom he could not have defeated Lord Voldemort, one of them not only the bravest Slytherin but probably the bravest *man* Harry ever knew, the other the master manipulator who loved Harry after all. Maybe that moment didn't work for you, but it did not come out of nowhere. JKR has been preparing for it since she first had Professor Quirrell say, "Of course, he hated you, but he never wanted you dead." In fact, she's been preparing for it from the moment Snape's eyes met Harry's in SS/PS. Carol, just realizing that yet another plot thread has come full circle with Harry looking into Snape's eyes From elfundeb at gmail.com Mon Aug 13 00:16:28 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:16:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: References: <80f25c3a0708120630p14e596c5j84135c5c3913e045@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708121716p16277a81g5a94d8809183efef@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175210 Much bandwith has been consumed on this subject, so I'll try to limit my response to direct questions, and then hold my peace. Lanval: Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are suggesting that Sirius just didn't want to spoil it with his new buddy, and therefore caved and asked for Gryffindor because he didn't want to lose Jame's approval? Sorry, but I can't buy that. Had it been Peter or Remus in this scene, yes. But Sirius, for all his James-worship, is not that insecure. Which is precisely why I think that, had Sirius still been completely supportive of the Slytherin/Black ideology at that point, he would have bristled at James' remark. After all James just insulted his entire family. Kids usually take offense at that, unless relations with their family are at an exceptionally low point. Debbie: No, not at all. Sirius is a strong and forceful character. He is also a rebel, symbolized by the first thing we ever learn about him, that he owns a flying motorcycle. I also believe it quite likely that he had conflicts with his mother long before he set off for Hogwarts. I can't see Sirius playing the role of dutiful son; it's just too inconsistent with his personality. It is a reasonable inference from Sirius' remark about Slytherin house that he's expecting to be sorted into Slytherin and he's not thinking of the house in terms of ideology. Accordingly, I see his decision to go elsewhere as an eleven-year-old's rebellion against a shrewish mother, who may already prefer the dutiful, unquestioning son. As a sheer act of rebellion, it's perfectly in character for Sirius. Lanval: However, we *never* witness Sirius using the term, while we do know that by the time he was an adult, he *had* rejected the pureblood beliefs, and says so in very strong terms. That's important too. Debbie: Yes, that is important, and I never meant to imply that Sirius was evil or that he secretly looked down upon Muggleborns. However, because my posts are responding to opinions that are rosier than my view, they tend to highlight the negative side. Lanval: "Corrupted"?? Corrupted how? We might as well say then that she was corrupted by Snape, who gave her *his* view of the WW as a child, and made more than a few digs at Petunia. And please, James and Sirius Snape's "tormentors"? There is no proof of this sort of one- sidedness in the books. Debbie: I don't want to imply that because someone acts badly it's ok for the target to react in kind, but it was Petunia who started that trail of corruption. As for tormenting Snape, I don't know how else to read the comment (from SWM) that James and Sirius target Snape "because he exists." One of Snape's worst traits is to react in kind to insults, a habit that tends to boomerang on him, which led him to become a bully himself. While not excusable, it is a mitigating factor that I don't see on James and Sirius' side. The first derisive comment ("Who wants to be in Slytherin? I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?") came from James. Lanval: Lily clearly has made up her mind by fifth year, and rightly so, that Dark Arts and budding DE's are bad news. Sev did not. Debbie: Lily had the influence of Gryffindor, where she spent most of her time. Snape did not. Environment does contribute to bad decisions. I'm not denying that Snape made terrible decisions, but Lily's choice was easier. Let's just say I'm not enamored of the Sorting Hat these days, considering what it does to impressionable eleven-year-olds. Lanval: I absolutely loved that letter. It proves once and for all that Lily did not merely tolerate that nasty Sirius Black because he was her husband's best friend, but loved him as a friend, as a fellow Order member and fighter against LV, and as godfather to her son. If you want to belittle the meaning of this letter by suggesting "corruption", that's your right of course. Debbie: It was the Petunia comment that bothered me most. Ceridwen has made the points I would make elsewhere, but the portrait of Lily that appears elsewhere, who maintains an unpopular friendship and makes a very principled choice to end it, who was genuinely concerned about her relationship with her sister, does not square well with the flip comments she makes in the letter. She's ridiculing her unmagical sister, and It sounds more like a comment that Sirius would make than one she would make, which is why I used the term "corrupted." It would be different if their relationship had deteriorated to the point where they no longer had any contact, but it obviously has not if Petunia is sending a vase as a present. Lanval: And see, that's my problem also. I'm no Snape fan whatsoever, but I have no difficulty feeling for young Snape, even finding him likeable in a rather pathetically touching way, and I can certainly forgive his shortcomings as a child. Why is it that so many people who dislike Sirius see everthing he does, even as a young child, in the most negative way possible? It really puzzles me. Debbie: I'm not really a Snapefan either, though I find him the most compellingly drawn character in the book. But the Snape-Sirius/James relationship touches some very raw nerves with me. My siblings and I were the socially awkward misfits (though my home life was vastly better except for the lack of money), and were subject to merciless bullying. While I was not a primary target, it took a severe emotional toll on all of us, and to this day I have a visceral dislike of bullies. For what it's worth, I have the same reaction to Fred and George, even though I understand that JKR doesn't see them in the same light. So while I can intellectually appreciate Sirius' good qualities, his behaviour -- particularly as a child and adolescent -- puts me on my guard and makes me suspect his altruism. I cannot help it. Lanval: But isn't that stating that neither Sirius nor Snape were capable of independent thought? Nor was James for that matter then, because he just spouted off what his parents believed. What about them? Where does independent, critical thinking start, and how much of it is just groupthink, peer pressure, parroting of familiar beliefs? Debbie: Eleven-year-olds are notoriously subject to groupthink and peer pressure. It's an age when they're only beginning to delve behind their received wisdom and form their own views, so while they're capable of independent thought, they're taking lots of new information, and beginning to process old information in a different way. James' comment about Gryffindor (complete with imaginary sword) does not read to me as a principled position; he's relying on received wisdom, IMO. From my experience (I have two teenagers), eleven-year-olds frequently fall back on their parents, especially when embarking on a new adventure, whether it be Hogwarts or middle school. In Sirius' case, though, he may already have been winging it. Lanval: I thought what JKR says in interviews was not to be taken into serious account? Debbie: You got me here. I've been saying for years that I don't trust anything JKR says off the cuff. Lanval: Where are all those inferiors that Sirius treats with utter contempt? There's Kreacher, that's it. No, IMO it does not include Peter, or anyone Sirius might have felt superior to. The conversation with Hermione centered around Barty Crouch and the way he treated *his* inferiors, which I take to mean people and elves who find themselves in a work-related, hierarchic, dependent relationship with him. Debbie: I was including Peter, who Sirius believes is vastly inferior to him and treats very poorly. But if we're going to limit it to his employees, our universe consists of Kreacher, whom Sirius treated badly and Regulus did not. Lanval: Sirius dislikes KREACHER. Not house-elves in general. Nor do I get the royalty part. When do Sirius and James act like *royalty*? And why is it that house-elves treatment in the WW is a major point of disapproval among readers, but when Sirius speaks out against mistreatment of house-elves, it suddenly gets degraded to a Politically Correct Mantra? Debbie: According to Dumbledore, in OOP ch. 37: "[Sirius] regarded [Kreacher] as a servant unworthy of much interest or notice. Indifference and neglect often do more damage than outright dislike." In other words, servants are unworthy of his interest. Dumbledore also claimed that Sirius was kind to house elves in general, but we never see any such kindness, or have any indication that Sirius ever had meaningful contact with other house elves. His sympathy for Winky derived from his antipathy for Crouch, and thus is suspect. If Sirius had been shown being kind to other beings of any kind, I would not have labeled his views as politically correct. As for the "royalty" comment, there are a number of indications (including SWM) that James and Sirius knew they were the cleverest students in school and behaved accordingly. Note Lily's remark about James' fat head. Debbie who tries to be fair to Sirius, but his behaviour sets off signals in my brain that are very hard to overcome. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From judy at judyshapiro.com Mon Aug 13 00:23:31 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:23:31 -0000 Subject: Comparing Characters (was Re: good/bad slyth/Disappointment...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175211 Even though I am a Snapefan, I am perfectly willing to admit that James and Sirius do have their good points, and that Snape is certainly no angel (he was a Death Eater, after all.) However, some of the things people are saying here against Snape, and in favor of James and Sirius, really go beyond anything presented in canon. To start with, Prep0strus asked: > I want to know if there is canon for the marauders being bullying > jerks outside of their relationship with Snape. Now, there is no > denying they were bullies. And that they were arrogant. > But I can't > recall anything to make me think they would pick on anyone simply > for being smaller or weaker than them, or even being of a different > house > I think they have a specific vendetta against snape, or perhaps > slytherins. And while this doesn't excuse their bullying, I think > maybe it can show them in a better light. I'd like to think of them > as defending younger members of all houses from bullying near-death > eater slytherins, And Carol replied: > As for canon regarding their bullying others besides Severus Snape, > have you forgotten the detention that they received for giving > another student a swollen head in HBP (one of the old cards Harry > has to recopy during his post-Sectumsempra detention) or Lily's > remarks about James hexing people in the hallways because they > annoy him? To which Prep0strus said: > Unfortunately, other than DH, my Harry Potter books are in storage > at the moment. So I'm unable to respond with canon. I am glad to be > reminded of James hexing people who annoyed him and the like ? he > really was a bully. But who was the student? A slytherin? And, > looking deeper into it, I have to wonder, coming from Lily? Could > she just be talking about Snape here? Surely, he would hex > Snape for no reason at all. Now my response: If your books aren't available, no problem, I'll be happy to refresh your memory. :-) When Harry is copying out the records of James' and Sirius' punishment, the student they are recorded as hexing is named "Bertram Aubrey." It never says what house he was in, but Aubrey is not the name of any Slytherins that we've heard of, so there's no reason to think he was a Slytherin. Harry also comes across records of a bunch more punishments for James and Sirius, but it doesn't say whether those were for bullying or for something else (like cutting class, say.) In Book 5 (in Snape's Worst Memory), Lily says accuses James of "walking down corridors and hexing anyone who annoys you just because you can ? I'm surprised your broomstick can get off the ground with that fat head on it. You make me SICK." There is nothing here about James just hexing Snape, Lily speaks of James hexing anyone. Harry is extremely upset at what he sees of his father's behavior. He identifies with Snape: "He knew how it felt to be humiliated in the middle of a circle of onlookers, knew exactly how Snape felt as his father taunted him, and that judging from what he had just seen, his father had been every bit as arrogant as Snape had always told him." (OoP, Am. Ed., p. 650.) After spending several days upset about his father's behavior, he finally manages to contact Sirius and Lupin. Lupin tells him, "Look Harry, what you you've got to understand is that your father and Sirius were the best in the school at whatever they did ? everyone though they were the height of cool ? if they sometimes got a bit carried away ?" So, Lupin isn't saying that James and Sirius only hexed Snape and no one else. He's saying that James and Sirius felt entitled to lord it over others because they were "cool." And Sirius doesn't disagree, he says that he and James were "sometimes arrogant little berks." (Which does show that Sirius now sees that this was wrong ?as I've said, he does have his good points.) In the same conversation, Harry asks why Lily ever went out with James, and learns that Lily dated James: "Once James had deflated his head a bit," said Sirius. "And stopped hexing people just for the fun of it," said Lupin. "Even Snape?" asked Harry. "Well," said Lupin slowly, "Snape was a special case." Lupin & Sirius then go on to say that James still hexed Snape (and Snape cursed James), but that Lily didn't know about it. So, it's pretty clear here that James had been hexing people other than Snape. We have it on the word of his future wife, and his two best friends. About the incident on the Hogwarts Express, Lanval says: > Then it's *Snape* who gets contemptuous and turns up is nose (he > sneers, in fact) at James for wanting to be in SLytherin. He > essentially calls Gryffindor the house of brainless jocks . > And please, just because James gets on Severus, and appears to be a > bit of a spoiled brat, in no way means that he was less-than- > loveable to the rest of the world. Lanval also says: > ...Snape sneers at James, and insults his choice of > house. Let's not omit that, if we're talking canon. On the topic of how "lovable" James seemed at the time, see my above comments. As for who was at fault in the confrontation on the Hogwarts Express, the order of events is: 1) Snape tells Lily, "You better be in Slytherin." I didn't see this as an insult to the other houses, just Snape's hoping that Lily will be in the same house as him. 2) James jumps in and gives his opinion, (not like Snape & Lily had been talking to him), and insults Slytherin by saying, "I'd think I'd leave, wouldn't you?" As others here have noted, this is EXACTLY what Draco says about Hufflepuff in the scene where we first meet Draco. As you may remember, in Book 1, Dumbledore says that James and Snape loathed each other at first sight, similar to the way Draco & Harry did. Initially, Harry assumes this means that Snape bullied James, as Draco bullies him. After the Snape's Worst Memory scene, though, he fears this means that James was the one who was a bully like Draco. I think James being like Draco is exactly what JKR is trying to show us here. 3) Then, there is some back-and-forth between Sirius and James, in which James insults Slytherin again by implying that someone who seems "all right" can't be a Slytherin. 4) After this, yes, Snape does say, "Well, if you'd rather be brawny than brainy." However, I see this as pretty minor insult; more minor than "I'd think I'd leave, wouldn't you?" or the "And I thought you seemed all right!" comment. A lot of people would rather be brawny than brainy. (Think of how jocks and nerds are treated in most high schools.) And, Gryffindor house isn't the "brainy" house, that would be Ravenclaw, with "shrewd, clever, cunning" Slytherin as the runner- up. So, it's safe to say that yes, James would rather be brainy than brawny. 5) Sirius ups the ante considerably by saying that Snape is neither brawny nor brainy, which unlike Snape's comment, isn't true. (Snape is certainly brainy, and he's brawny in magical power.) 6) Lily -- not Snape -- gets ticked off at James' and Sirius' treatment of Snape, and she and Snape leave. 7) James and Sirius make fun of Lily by mimicking her, James tries to trip Snape, and someone calls Snape "Snivelus." I really don't see how Snape can be viewed as starting this conflict. I think if the exact same conversation were written, with, say, Ron telling Hermione that "You'd better be in Gryffindor" and Draco and Crabbe taking the roles of James and Sirius, everyone would see Draco & Crabbe as the bullies. Lanval: > I'm glad DH finally cleaned up with some fanon misconceptions about > Snape. He was no innocent abused lamb, ganged up on from all sides > for no reason. He spies, he snipes, he lies, he helps to drive a > wedge between two sisters, and shows some pretty worrisome character > traits. Actually, what we see of Snape's childhood in DH does make me think that he WAS an "abused lamb." It confirms our suspicions that his home life is desperately unhappy, and now we see that he is a misfit among other children, too, the only child in the area who is not from a muggle family, and given totally inappropriate clothes to wear. And, he was picked on from the first time he set foot on the Hogwarts' Express. As for his "spying" on Lily and Petunia, that seemed like pretty normal kid behavior to me, actually. Same with "driving a wedge between two sisters," sniping, etc. The main thing I'd say in criticism of 11-year old Snape is that he has a low opinion of muggles. My interpretation of this is that the muggle children have rejected him, so he decides to reject them back. Magic is the only thing Snape is good at ? he's not good-looking at all, he's not physically strong, he's very unpopular, he's poor ? so the only way he can preserve any self-esteem at all is by deciding that being magical is very important. Once he's decided this, though, it leads him to look down on Muggles. I don't see this as arrogance on Snape's part, but rather as the typical, and desperate, ego-defense mechanism of a nerd. Also, this is why I have no problem with Snape having a muggle-born as a best friend. I don't think Snape cares anything about ancestry and "pureness of blood," at least not until he's spent a few years in Slytherin. (And even then, I see him as just parroting his friends' "Mudblood" comments, rather than having any real investment in pure blood ideology.) To Snape, being magical, powerfully magical, matters a great deal because magical ability is all that he HAS. Lily is magical (powerfully magical ? he notices this right away), just like him. Her ancestry is irrelevant, until the other Slytherins make it relevant. Lanval: > I don't think there's enough canon to make Mrs Snape the > perpetual victim here, and there certainly is none that Severus was > in any way abused by his father (another fandom myth down the > drain...). > I would go as far and suggest that Harry's early childhood was in > fact far worse than Snape's. Not only was all the abuse in the > Dursley household heaped upon Harry, canonically, by three family > members, but he also lacked what young Severus had: a mother who > probably did love him, the prospect of a brighter future, and, at > least for a few years, a real friend. Harry was treated horribly at home, no question there, although the tone in the first few books is considerably different from what we see of Snape's home, with JKR writing the Dursleys as a parody, like something out of a Roald Dahl story. (By the way, this bothered me ? I don't like anything that makes light of mistreatment of children.) However, I think you are minimizing how bad Snape's situation was. Snape can't wait to leave so he can get away from the conflict at home. In the only scene between his parents, his mother is shown as cowering. (I tend to think that Eileen Snape's misery has affected her magical powers, so that she can't defend herself from Tobias. This is exactly what we see with Voldemort's mother, Merope.) Harry sees put Snape in the same category as himself ? a Lost Boy who didn't have a home before Hogwarts. If Harry's opinion isn't enough to convince you, then what would be? Lanval: > I don't see a single line in DH that supports the idea that Snape > was an outcast at > Hogwarts because of the way he looked, or dressed, or because he > was generally > considered a "little oddball". He is welcomed into his house with > no more or less of an > advantage than anyone else. > Come his fifth year, he *still* has friends. Not only in his own > house, but also one from another house, which is somewhat unusual. > So much for lonely, despised, persecuted-by-all Severus Snape. How about in OoP, where the Marauders are bullying Snape: "Several people watching laughed; Snape was clearly unpopular." True, it's only one line, but it's the ONLY thing we are ever told about Snape's relationship as a student with anyone other than the Marauders, Lily, or the Slytherins. Lanval: > What was it that drew Snape to Lily? He was watching > her "greedily", so would it be > fair to say he *only* became her friend because she was pretty Snape is how old in this scene? Nine? Ten? That's not an age where boys tend to care about a girl's looks. That's an age where boys think girls have cooties. I interpreted Snape's "greedy" look as desperation to meet another magical child, someone who would have something in common with him. And, it seems that he did find this in Lily, until their different experiences in Hogwarts pulled them apart. Adam (Prep0strus) said: > As a girl, Lily called James, as a boy, toerag. > As a woman, Lily called James, as a man, husband. > As a girl, Lily called Snape, as a boy, friend. > As a woman, Lily called Snape, as a man, Death Eater. We do see Lily accuse Snape of wanting to be a Death Eater (although not of already being a Death Eater.) However, it appears that she makes this accusation on the very same day as one of the times that she calls James "an arrogant little toerag." She calls James this when he turns Snape upside-down, and her accusation of Snape appears to take place that night, when he is trying to apologize. So, I don't see how you can say that James is just a boy when Lily calls him a toerag, but that Snape is a man when Lily calls *him* a Death Eater. What would Lily have continued to think of Snape? Well, presumably she died without knowing that he was working for Dumbledore and trying to save her, so she probably died thinking he was a Death Eater. However, I do want to point out that Lily was not quite right when said that Snape had chosen his path. He was a Death Eater for a few years, true. (Probably about four years, from what we know of the timeline.) But, his path didn't end there ? he spent the next 18 years working (and dying) to undo the damage he had done. So, no, Lily didn't know what Snape's path would be. -- JudySerenity, he sees Snape as certainly flawed, but basically good and very, very tragic From judy at judyshapiro.com Mon Aug 13 00:53:02 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:53:02 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175212 I stated my belief that Snape was driven by a desire for knowledge, not power over others, in his quest to learn the Dark Arts. And Geoff responded: (Message 175165) > It's interesting to note what Sirius says to Harry at one point: > '"Ever since I found out Snape was teaching here, I've wondered why > Dumbledore hired him. Snape's always been fascinated by the Dark > Arts, he was famous for it at school. Simy, oily, greasy-haired kid, > he was," Sirius added and Harry and Ron grinned at each > other. "Snape > knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in > seventh year and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all > turned out to be Death Eaters."' > (GOF "Padfoot returns" pp.460/61 UK edition) > Now this partly echoes what you have said, but the interesting > thing is, how did the other students know about his curse knowledge > if he didn't > show it off? And I would have thought that he would need to practise > them in order to convince himself that he knew them.... My response: (Much of what I'm saying here has already been said by Christine, but I wrote it before seeing her post, so I hope it's OK if I still go ahead and post it!) We've seen ways to demonstrate knowledge of the Dark Arts without hurting anyone, at least not any human or sentient creature. We know that there are books of curses, so you can demonstrate your knowledge through words. We also see Fake!Moody showing students not just "any old" curses, but all of the *Unforgivable* Curses, on spiders. Canon shows us Snape shooting down flies with his wand; I took that as practicing some curse or other. (While I like Snape, I certainly wouldn't say of him, "He wouldn't hurt a fly!") So, Snape could both practice curses, and tell others about them, without hurting anyone. Actually, the above statement by Sirius is one of the reasons that I doubt that Snape actually used curses much. If he did, and Sirius was trying to say what a Dark Wizard Snape was, wouldn't he have mentioned Snape actually using the Dark Arts, rather than dwelling on how oily Snape's hair was? We also have James in Book 5. When he is tormenting Snape, and Lily asks him, furiously, "What's he done to you?" James says, "It's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean." James wants Lily to like him; if he had some better reason to torment Snape, wouldn't he have said so? Wouldn't he have said something like, "Snape hasn't done anything to me, but he goes around cursing poor helpless first years"? But James says nothing of the sort. Christine said: > And Judy, if I remember correctly (I don't have my OOTP book), > Snape did use Sectumsempra > at least once at school -- against James in SWM. Carol already responded to this, and I agree with everything Carol said here. I really don't think the spell Snape James with was Sectumsempra. First, it appears that Sectumsempra ("cut forever") never heals fully, not unless you use a specific countercurse (which perhaps only Snape knows), followed by immediately taking Dittany, and maybe not even then. I assume whatever Snape used against James was a minor curse, not true Dark Magic, because it isn't incapacitating, let alone life-threatening, and seems to heal easily. There also is a "flash of light" when Snape curses James, which we don't see when Harry uses Sectumsempra, so I don't think it's the same spell. As for Prep0strus's question of how Snape practiced Sectumsempra, for all we know, he tried it on a bunch of pumpkins. I agree with Carol that Snape would have been expelled if he had used Sectumsempra on students, just as Grindelwald was expelled. Prep0strus also said: > And I believe it is na?ve to think that > Snape never performed dark arts as a death eater simply because we > didn't hear about it. > And I maintain that if his `whole house is like that!', there's a > reason for it ? including a reason why HE'S there ? because HE is > like that. I'm not claiming that Snape never did anything wrong as a Death Eater. Instead, Prep0strus, I was disputing your claim that Snape used Dark Magic ALL ALONG, even as a child. My belief is that Snape was interested in the Dark Arts because of their mystery, rather than because he wanted to hurt to control others. However, (my theory goes) this interest got him put into Slytherin, where he was exposed to terrible influences that led him astray and destroyed the only decent friendship he had (with Lily.) Did Snape ever do Dark Magic as a Death Eater? Presumably he did. But I find it very telling that he isn't shown in canon as doing Dark Magic. To me, this implies that he used Dark Magic much, much less than the typical Dark Wizard. As for what Snape actually did as a Death Eater, canon tells us that during the first conflict, Voldemort assigned him the task of spying on Dumbledore, and this seems to be Snape's main job during the second conflict, too. In HBP, we also see Snape working at home, with Wormtail's assistance. We don't know what they were doing, but I assume it was potion-making or research of some kind. (That doesn't mean it wasn't Dark, but it's not like we're told Snape is out assassinating Aurors.) As for Snape being like the rest of Slytherin, he clearly isn't. Snape's Slytherin friends all became Death Eaters and never repented; Snape did. Furthermore, since we were talking about Pureblood mania, most of the other Slytherins were Purebloods, which Snape isn't either. (Regulus repented being a Death eater, but he was certainly a Pureblood who was very prejudiced against Muggleborns when he was at school; Sirius said so.) I see a big part of Snape's story as being that almost everyone looked at him and assumed he must be destined to be a Dark Wizard, when he really wasn't. As for why Harry, who was also mistreated as a child, turned out so well, I certainly think it helped that he wasn't Sorted into Slytherin. Another big factor, though, was that Dumbledore supported Harry. We never see Dumbledore helping teenage Snape in any way, we even see him being cruel (probably as manipulation) to Snape when Snape is grieving for Lily. From Book 7, we know that Dumbledore can be wrong about people. I think that when Snape was young, Dumbledore misjudged him. In response to my saying that Snape never seems to use the Dark Arts at school, Magpie said: > True, but I would also just throw in that this area is always fuzzy > in canon. Harry hates Draco for his "obsession" with the Dark Arts > as well, and when have we seen Draco using them? Not much at all. > But I think nevertheless that Harry is supposed to be telling us > the truth there. There's a certain kind of kid that's "obsessed > with the Dark Arts" but it doesn't get shown in canon by them > always doing Dark spells. It's the obsession that's important, and > Snape did seem to have that given the little canon we have. At > least he seems to have had that from what I read. But Draco ISN'T a Dark Wizard. He isn't able to use the Killing Curse on Dumbledore, not even when he thinks his own life (and maybe that of his parents) will be forfeit if he doesn't. He can't do it. So, to the extent that Draco is "obsessed with the Dark Arts" he provides evidence that you CAN be obsessed with the Dark Arts, without wanting to use them, or even without being emotionally ABLE to fully use them. (Yeah, I know that Draco uses Crucio, but so does Harry, and Harry doesn't have Voldemort standing there and forcing him, so presumably using Crucio doesn't make Draco a Dark Wizard.) Lanval: > He [Snape] liked Slytherin and approved of its mindset before he even > entered it (that he was aware of the pureblood thing is IMO hinted > at by his hesitation, when Lily asks him about whether being muggle- > born makes a difference). Nothing much changes. He takes to it > willingly, like a fish to water, he may be influenced at times, but > I don't see him as ever being "corrupted". Aware of the mindset against Muggleborns, yes. Approved of it? No. Why would he have a Muggleborn as his best friend, and stay that way for five years, and then beg her to forgive him, if he really felt that way? There is no question that Snape was fascinated by the Dark Arts and that Slytherin is the house associated with the Dark Arts. To the extent that the other Slytherins approved of Snape's interest in the Dark Arts, yes, he took to Slytherin House. But, that doesn't mean he approved of the pureblood philosophy. I've already given my reasons for believing that Snape not only was corrupted by Slytherin House, but saw being Sorted into Slytherin as having ruined his life. If he was just naturally evil, and therefore belonged in Slytherin all along, why was he willing to sacrifice himself? Lizzyben says: > Nope, no excuses for Snape. JKR makes it clear that he was a nasty > little boy who became a nasty teenager who became a nasty adult. > In every scene, Snape is portrayed > doing *something* bad. He was a bad kid, which is why he was sorted > into Slytherin, > home of bad guys. . W/the Marauders & Lily, the Sorting Hat > recognized their innate > moral superiority and place among the elect. It also recognized > Snape's inherent > inferiority & bad essence, which is why he gets Slytherin house. > This is because > Slytherin is where the inferior, the bad, the morally suspect > children are sorted so that > they can't corrupt the rest of us. As I've said, it seems pretty > clear that Slytherin > children are the damned souls of the Potterverse. I agree with your comments that JKR seems to be saying some kids are damned from the get-go. It bothers me that this directly contradicts her (or at least Dumbledore's) claim that one can chose one's destiny. However, I have to disagree with your evaluation of Snape. He is NOT always portrayed as doing something bad. For starters, he stops Quirrell from cursing Harry, he saves Draco from dying when Harry curses him, he saves Dumbledore from the ring curse, and he tells Crabbe (or was it Goyle?) to stop choking Neville. And of course, he warns Dumbledore about Voldemort hunting the Potters. All of this happened after leaving Slytherin House, though, and under the influence of Gryffindors (Lily and Dumbledore), which I believe supports my view that Slytherin House is corrupting. By the way, I don't see Gryffindor House as being corrupting. James and Sirius are "bullying little toerags" when they arrive at Hogwarts, but they improve over time. I see this as being due to the influence of being in Gryffindor, or more precisely, being due to Lily's influence. These last two points would have fit better in my last post, but they are responses to messages that I didn't see until now: va32h said: > given the rampant hostility toward James and Sirius, I don't > doubt that many readers think them fully capable and willing to > murder Lily's parents. (and another batch of readers could come up > with ten reasons why Snape would be totally justified in doing such > a thing.) I've been an ardent Snape Supporter for year, but I don't see any reason why Snape would be justified in murdering lily's parents, and I certainly don't see any reason why James and Sirius would do such a thing. But do I like Snape better than James and Sirius? Yes. Prep0strus says: > I see these same people absolutely tearing apart characters > we know to be basically good ? James, Sirius, Lupin, Hagrid. And it > confuses me greatly why the people who can forgive so many more > flaws, so much more evil in Snape take the (in my opinion) much > smaller flaws of the good characters and vilify them for it. > The only thing I can think of is that they're not as interesting > characters. And there's more of a betrayal ? they were supposed to > be GOOD and they did BAD things. So they're castigated. But Snape > seemed BAD and did GOOD ? and all is forgiven. For the record, I really like Lupin, and I find Hagrid annoying, but very, very good. (To me, Hagrid's love of monsters just shows his truly lovely nature.) But I feel for Snape because he is SO alone. You could say that Hagrid has been rejected, yes, or that Lupin has, and that's true, but it's not what the reader is shown in the books. When we see Hagrid, he is usually socializing with the Trio. Lupin we see interacting closely with Harry, marrying Tonks, and having a son. We know that Sirius spent a lot of rough years in Azkaban, which is probably one reason why he appeals to a lot of fans, but we don't even see that. James is always shown as with either his friends or with Lily and Harry. Who does Snape have? Dumbledore insults him, Lily slams the door in his face. Who does that leave Snape as a friend? Lucius Malfoy? What sort of friend would Lucius be? (And Snape is actually opposing Lucius for most of his adult life.) Snape is tragic and alone in a way that none of these other characters are; he is tormented in a way no one else in the books is. I think that's a main reason why so many fans love him. -- Judy From va32h at comcast.net Mon Aug 13 01:10:44 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:10:44 -0000 Subject: Character Bias, Objectivity, Similarities, Sondheim! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175213 Montavilla47 wrote: I think it's fine to want to see the best in people. What I find a bit hypocritical, though (and I'm not directing this at you, but at the general trend) is for either side to ignore the faults of their favorite characters, or to insist that these faults are meaningless, while insisting that the faults of the characters they disliked define their characters. va32h: Yes, yes, thank you! I wholeheartedly agree. And in areas where canon is not clear, there is the tendency to interpret words and events in a way that reflects poorly on the hated characters and well on the beloved ones. Assumptions and extrapolations are made with the scantest of canon. Such as the James/Sirius conversation on the Hogwart's Express, which is not long enough or substantial enough to "prove" anything about Sirius' pre-sorting opinions of Slytherin house, but which both sides have used as "evidence" that Sirius is either a noble kid who desperately wants to leave his evil family or a pathetic loser who completely rejected his family in an instant for no other reason but to impress James Potter (who apparently wields some sort of Rasputin-esque power over everyone he befriends.) We've had a plea for canon, how about a plea for objectivity? I don't think it is any coincidence that Snape and Sirius are actually very much alike. Both fiercely loyal to a friend (Lily, James), both consumed with guilt over the role they played in that friend's death (Snape in telling the prophecy, Sirius in persuading James to change secret keepers), both sworn to a lifelong pursuit of vengeance (Sirius stays sane in Azkaban by focusing on finding and killing Wormtail, Snape keeps up his facade as spy by focusing on ensuring Voldemort's downfall). Both men were falsely accused of murder, both men are hopelessly mired in the past and unwilling or unable to put aside adolescent hurts. Both men ending up living as adults in the homes they hated as children. And Sirius and Snape, like Voldemort and like Harry, found their true home at Hogwarts. It is certainly no coincidence that Harry has so much in common with a disparate collection of characters: his own father, Voldemort, Sirus, Snape, Neville, Draco, Lupin, Hagrid. Harry comes to see that they are not so disalike after all, surely we are supposed to see that too. And what of other characters... Lily and Narcissa, both willing to defy Voldemort to protect their sons. (Both with sister trouble, too). Merope can't bear the loss of Tom Sr. and dies, abandoning her son. Tonks "couldn't bear not knowing" what is happening to her husband, and leaves her son behind as well. Dumbledore at 18 is much like Hermione at 18, brilliant and utterly convinced of that they are doing the right thing, no matter how questionable their methods. Ron and Regulus both know a thing or two about the pressure to conform to family tradition (as does Sirus. And Draco, come to think of it). I am reminded of one of my favorite Stephen Sondheim songs, from one of my favorite Stephen Sondheim musicals "Into the Woods". I've always felt a connection between that musical and the HP series, and not just because there's a witch and a giant in both. But anyway, the song is "No One is Alone", and it's about understanding that our actions, our thoughts, our ideals, do not take place in a vacuum. And really, the entire song is such an apt commentary on Harry Potter, But the part I am specifically thinking of is: "People make mistakes, Fathers, mothers People make mistakes Holding to their own, Thinking they're alone. Honor their mistakes Fight for their mistakes Everybody makes One another's terrible mistakes" We all are subject to the same collection of human faults and foibles. And yet we all think that we are the first and only ones to suffer in such a way. (Something Phineas Nigellus pointed out, with insight to rival Dumbledore's). When we assign these faults and flaw to specific people, we isolate them, and ourselves. We must acknowledge our shared humanity, our shared imperfection. Their mistakes are our mistakes. We are not alone in our struggle to overcome them, and to find purpose and meaning in ourselves and our lives. The last line of the song is quite in keeping with the Epilogue of Deathly Hallows, and perhaps is appropriate to our concerns as readers, struggling to find the light in JKR's seemingly dark world. "Hard to see the light now, Just don't let it go. Things will turn out right now, We can make it so." va32h From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Aug 13 02:03:43 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:03:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The spiders (Re: The Joke's on Me) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46BFBBFF.7020807@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175214 justcarol67 wrote: > I *did* read it as Hagrid pleading with the staff and students not to > hurt the spiders, just as he was more worried about Norbert than about > Ron getting burned and more worried about the Blast-Ended Skrewts in > the earlier books. And then when the spiders carried him off, I > thought they were going to have a hearty meal. Instead, they carried > him to Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Probably the hearty meal would > have been their reward if Voldemort had won. OK, why doesn't everybody put themselves in Hargrid's place. They see two groups, both of whom they love, about to kill each other. So, who is he pleading? He's pleading with ALL of them!!!! Bart From hhodgkin at charter.net Mon Aug 13 02:05:06 2007 From: hhodgkin at charter.net (highland_holly) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:05:06 -0000 Subject: good/bad slyth/Disappointment/Responsibility/Sorting/Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175215 One thing to remember throughout the analysis of the actions of the Marauders is that *almost* everything we know of them in their youth we have seen through SNAPE's eyes via his memories. I believe that perception is everything. Ask 5 people to recall an occasion or event and you will hear 5 completely different stories. There have been some criticisms of Lily for marrying James (someone we are led to believe she disliked), but we don't have the luxury of viewing their relationship through anyone's eyes but Snape's. It would be lovely to see how their relationship developed from adolescent disdain to marriage and family. However, unless JKR surprises us with a prequel telling this tale, we will be doomed to speculation. I am enjoying everyone's comments. :^) Holly From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 02:25:03 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:25:03 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175216 > Prep0strus: > But I like the Marauders better than Snape. A lot better. And what I > see in a lot of posters is this (to the perspective of someone who > doesn't like him) a fanatical devotion to Snape. I mean, let's face > it ? he's interesting. This evil seeming guy who has been doing good > all along. He has an interesting past, it's checkered, and he turns > out good. And people identify with parts of that, and defend him. Montavilla47: I agree with you that people are probably more fanatically devoted to Snape than to the Marauders (although, viewed from the other direction, the pro-Marauders can seem pretty fanatical, too). The reason I say that the pro-Snapists are more fanatical is because they have to work a bit harder, as they need to fight against the author's state opinion of the character to find him fundamentally worthy of respect. And yes, he is more interesting. I think it's pretty simple. While James, Sirius, Remus, and Hagrid all chose to be good, their choices did not require the amount of danger and plain hard work that Snape's choice did. > Prep0strus: > But then I see these same people absolutely tearing apart characters > we know to be basically good ? James, Sirius, Lupin, Hagrid. And it > confuses me greatly why the people who can forgive so many more flaws, > so much more evil in Snape take the (in my opinion) much smaller flaws > of the good characters and vilify them for it. Montavilla47: I suppose that, speaking strictly for myself, it's partly that Snape's major crimes are off the page. Unless you want to count the his classroom scenes, which I simply dismiss as a teacher being mean. You know, teachers do that and you just learn to live with it. And you keep your toad in your room, instead of carrying it around with you. Even in the first three books, I sort of viewed Snape as the kind of teacher that all the students complain about no one takes very seriously. Especially when he's revealed as protecting Harry in the first book. At that point, all his behavior ticks were easily explained as the over-reactions of an over-protective adult. His Death Eater crimes are, like James's good deeds, unknown, except for his taking the prophecy to Voldemort, which makes sense to me from Dumbledore's explanation. It wasn't personal, it was what he was supposed to be doing because of where he was within the structure of the First War. I'm not trying to minimize the gravity of his crimes, I'm explaining why they don't strike me as strongly as the things I actually know he's doing. *Nothing* strikes me as strongly as those moments in the hospital wing in GoF. It's Sirius gripping Harry's shoulder when he hears the story of the graveyard. It's Snape's glittering eyes when he leaves to try to convince Voldemort not to kill him. It's the both of them, hating each other but also recognizing that they are on the same side. So, yes. Snape's more interesting than James. So is Sirius and Lupin. It isn't what they chose. It's what it costs them to make their choices. > Prep0strus: > I think Snape's flaws are much greater than those of the Marauders. > Because he did choose evil. He had a choice, and he chose evil. And > then he redeemed himself. And all the while he was mean. But Sirius, > Lupin, James, and Hagrid all chose good. And all except James had > valid reasons to choose evil ? I would argue the possibility that they > had in some aspects more reason to choose evil than Snape ? what good > influence did Sirius have but his cousin? Montavilla47: I'm curious. What was Hagrid's incentive to choose evil? He was certainly done wrong by when he was young. He was expelled and his wand broken when he was 13. But was there some attractive evil out there for him to choose, rather than accept the work that Dumbledore secured for him? After all, Tom wasn't recruiting at that point. Even if he was, he'd just framed Hagrid. Why on earth would Hagrid throw in his lot with Tom, even assuming he had an offer? Or would the attractive evil be some undefined life of crime-- perhaps as a bodyguard to some kingpin in Knockturn Alley? I think the same question applies to Lupin. Lupin is presented as someone with a medical condition that turns him into a monster for about three days a month. Other than that, there's no reason for him to be any darker than James. And, since Dumbledore is the one giving him an education, it's in his interest to be "good." Of all the people you mention, the one with the most to lose by joining the Order is Sirius. Which is probably why Sirius is more interesting than James as a character. > Prep0strus: >Was Hagrid not more lonely > than Snape? What happens to most werewolves? And even Harry's lonely > lonely childhood. But they chose good. And they stumbled and fell > along the way ? through bullying, arrogance, self-pity, weakness, > irrational trust in monstrous creatures . But in the end they fought > for good, and were loyal and true and kind. And of them, I only see > Sirius possibly treating children as unfairly as Snape we know did > (and I wonder how he would have been had he not been in Azkaban for a > decade). Montavill47: Of the qualities you mention: fighting for good, loyalty, truth, and kindness, the only one not exhibited by Snape is kindness. Kindness is important. But it isn't everything. > Prep0strus: > And so, while I very much respect the ability to love all of these > characters, and accept their flaws and their strengths, I see many > more strengths in the Marauders and many more flaws in Snape, and so I > will defend the toe-rag James who some posters think manipulated Lily > into marrying and I will remind those who think that Snape was an > innocent little boy who grew into a hero of the path that I see him > taking. Montavilla47: I must have missed those who accuse James of manipulating Lily into marrying him (aside from Harry, of course, who worries about that). As for me, I figure that Lily is as susceptible to good looks and Alpha male aggression as the next person and that she found that James improved with age. > Prep0strus: > The Young Death Eaters weren't the AV Club, being picked on by the > football team. They were studying to join up with an army of fascism > and racial purity. Lily gets that. People grow out of being bullies. > Snape et al grew into being an army of evil. And, for, I think that > Lily's assertion that Snape called others Mudbloods and that they were > planning on joining Voldemorte is much more telling and supportive of > the evil-kid-snape than the punishments for james-the-bully are. I > don't deny he was a bully I just want to know how many of the kids he > bullied were part of the Young Death Eaters. (not an excuse, I know, > but what if it was in retaliation for something Mulciber did? If > we're going to read into it, let's read into ALL of it) Montavilla47: Okay, I guess this is the crux of the matter for me. I also don't think that the Future Death Eaters were an AV club, either, although I definitely see Snape as a nerd. But Snape wasn't "evil" as an 11-year-old, or as a 17-year-old. He was a kid, trying to make sense of the world around him. He made the wrong choice. It seems obvious to us that it's the wrong choice. But it probably wasn't that clear to Snape. Snape went with the people who were treating him well, cheering his sorting and helping him study for classes and appreciating his talents. Why the heck would he want to join the people who were hanging him upside down, pantsing him, and trying to feed him to a werewolf? What allegance would he have to the Headmaster who allowed those things to take place? Montavilla47 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 02:35:06 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:35:06 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175217 > Montavilla47: > I think it's fine to want to see the best in people. What I find a bit > hypocritical, though (and I'm not directing this at you, but at the > general trend) is for either side to ignore the faults of their favorite > characters, or to insist that these faults are meaningless, while > insisting that the faults of the characters they disliked define > their characters. > > Of course, I'm as guilty of that as anybody. If I insist that Snape > is commendable because he is brave, while ignoring that he > treats young children badly, I'm being just as bad as someone > who insists that James was a hero because he died to protect > his family while ignoring that he also cruelly bullied a boy merely > because the kid "existed.' Alla: I am unashamed Sirius' fan, always was and always will be. I like to believe that I see his faults clearly enough - Arrogance, recklessness, being bully to Snape in Pensieve scene. ( obviously opinions may differ) So, sure I see those flaws and acknowledge them. The thing for me is that **despite** those flaws I believe that Sirius and James were better people **altogether** than Snape. I mean, I also agree with you, but from the other side :) I for example always jump in to argue when Sirius' good qualities get dismissed as non-existent, that does not mean that I do not see his flaws. I used to genuinely believe that Snape is Evil or OFH HAHA, I still think that his motivations are mostly for himself, but how can I deny his heroic deeds, even if I believe they were done in the name of Lily only? But at the same time, I choose to give his mistreatment of Harry more weight in my dislike of him than his heroic deeds. > Carol: > Can you cite some canon to support this view of Sirius at age eleven > (not as a teenager whose bedroom is decorated to emphasize his > differences with his family)? I don't see anything except his surprise > at James's antipathy to the House that his family has always been > Sorted into, his curiosity regarding the House James would prefer, his > desire for James to think he's "all right," and his joining with James > to ridicule Severus (who admittedly treats them with equal disdain). > It's James who trips Severus, but my impression (not provable, I > realize) is that it's Sirius who coins the nasty and undeserved > nickname "Snivellus," which he persists in using into his thirties. > And why would he do that, except to get into James's good graces? Alla: I can cite canon in support of my **inference**, but since mentioning canon is enough, that is what I am going to do. So, I am just going to mention the canon in support of the inference that Sirius hated his family and his family hated him. That would be him talking to Harry about his family tree in OOP and his mom's portrait remarks to him. We do not know when Sirius' hating his family started, I choose to believe that it started before he went to Hogwarts. > Carol earlier: > > > As I said in an earlier post, contempt for Muggles and contempt > for Muggleborns are two different things. All we need to do to see the > distinction, us vs. them, Magic vs. Muggles, is to look at the young > *Dumbledore's* plans to rule Muggles for "the greater good." > > < BIG SNIP> > > > Alla: > > > > Yes, and I believe that Snape had plenty of both. Him stopping > himself when he answers Lily's question to me is an evidence of his > comtempt for Muggleborns, just not for Lily. My view obviously. > > > Carol: > > Yes. Your view. Your opinion. What I'm looking for is canon to support > that view. Canon shows Severus and Petunia as children not exactly > hitting it off as friends, his view of her as a mere Muggle, and his > determination to tell Lily that she, obviously a Muggleborn, is a > witch. He's her introduction to the WW, talking about everything from > Hogwarts to the Dementors at Azkaban. Yes, he hesitates when she asks > whether being a Muggle-born makes a difference, but it's clear that > her being a Muggle-born makes no difference to *him.* > Alla: Yes, Carol that is my view based on this same scene in **canon**. That is the only scene I have to base my view that eleven year old Snape has contempt for Muggleborns, but this is enough for me. We just interpret it drastically different. I interpret it that Lily is the **only** Muggle born whose being a witch does not matter to Snape, that every other Muggleborn is beneath him and I make this inference based also on previously mentioned canon of Lily saying that you call everybody of my birth Mudblood ( paraphrase). > Montavilla47: > I suppose that, speaking strictly for myself, it's partly that Snape's > major crimes are off the page. Unless you want to count the > his classroom scenes, which I simply dismiss as a teacher being > mean. You know, teachers do that and you just learn to live with > it. And you keep your toad in your room, instead of carrying it > around with you. > Alla: Indeed and I cannot dismiss them heeee. Montavilla47: > I'm not trying to minimize the gravity of his crimes, I'm > explaining why they don't strike me as strongly as the > things I actually know he's doing. *Nothing* strikes me > as strongly as those moments in the hospital wing in GoF. > > It's Sirius gripping Harry's shoulder when he hears the > story of the graveyard. It's Snape's glittering eyes when > he leaves to try to convince Voldemort not to kill him. It's > the both of them, hating each other but also recognizing > that they are on the same side. Alla: I actually quite agree with Va23 that Sirius and Snape are alike in many aspects ( and despite that I like one and dislike another, hehe), but yeah, I loved those moments too and I so hoped that handshake would mean something. Montavilla: > So, yes. Snape's more interesting than James. So is Sirius > and Lupin. It isn't what they chose. It's what it costs them > to make their choices. Alla: James did not come alive to me at all till Pensieve scene. I do not like saint characters, never did and when in Pensieve scene I saw James as bully, I loved him ever since, hhehehe. Since to me Pensieve scene did not take away his good qualities, just added some real flaws. But yeah, I totally find Sirius and Snape more interesting. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 02:52:40 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:52:40 -0000 Subject: Blame Fryffindor for everything (wasRe: good and bad slytherins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175218 Ceridwen: The vase, its looks, a personal matter. But why make the wink and nudge to Sirius about it? I don't doubt that Lily and Petunia are estranged. Lily has a new world, a new life. Petunia has her bitterness born of disappointment. I was surprised that Petunia sent her a vase in the first place. I'm surprised Lily displayed it, since she thought it was ugly. Prep0strus: Honestly? I liked that little bit. I thought it showed camaraderie between Lily and Sirius, a friendship. I didn't read into it with nearly as much disgust. It also made me feel slightly better about Lily and Petunia's relationship. Lily did love her sister. She did put it up as decoration even though she disliked it. That tells one of two things ? either Petunia was going to come over the house at some point, and she didn't want to seem rude, which makes me happy that she sees her sister, or that despite her dislike, it's a reminder of her sister, whom she loves, and even though she's NOT going to stop by, she still has it out in her home out of respect and love. I think it's normal for mostly nice people to make funny little comments about gifts they received amongst their friends. I think what matters is that it was out. Her little joke is expressing joy in the antics of her son who she loves to her close friend who she can afford to admit she doesn't like the lamp to. This reads `real' to me. Ceridwen: This whole thing goes back to the Elect and... unelect, I guess, with Petunia "begging" to go to Hogwarts, then, understanding that she never can, becoming bitter. And, had this whole idea of certain people being better from conception than others not been implied in canon, I probably wouldn't have looked at the vase remark as anything other than sibling rivalry. But it bothers me on that level, the same as Harry zooming around the house and breaking objects and nearly killing the cat bothers me on that level, too. The Elect can do anything and get away with it. That's my basic problem with the outcome of the series. Good can do whatever it wants, without repercussion. Bad can do all sorts of good and maybe, just maybe, scrape an honorable mention. The vase, as a vase, is just a vase. As part of the greater series, it's just another symbol that bothers me. Prep0strus: While I disagree with the examples ? the vase really is just a vase to me, and the cat again, I thought of this as normal chatting, joking, joy in having a rambunctious child, not actual disregard for safety or the cat (and I say this as a veterinarian!) ? I have to say I agree with the conclusion. I spend a lot of time defending the characters I think are `good' and attacking those I think are `bad', but it doesn't mean I'm not underneath it irritated that it was created that way. It does seem like how these characters were born defines who they will be (see the very interesting Calvinism postings). I mean, I'm happy to see that good characters have flaws, and do bad things, and can be considered good. And I'm happy that at least sometimes, we see that bad characters are also a mix of traits. But I do get the nudging feeling that I'm being taken for a bit of a ride here, and I know the ending. I think I would've liked to be surprised more by some of the choices and final allegiances and attitudes of the characters. Guess I'm not sure where I stand here. While I love the series and many characters, I guess there are a lot of instances where I hoped for a little more. va32h: I just get tired of wildly different standards being applied to characters when they behave in the same manner If Sirius treats Kreacher like garbage, that's evidence that he loathes all house elves, and all "inferior" creatures in general. But if Snape treats Harry like garbage, that is not evidence that he loathes all students, it just means that Snape has a particular issue with Harry that he cannot get past. If Snape develops a fierce personal loyalty to Lily which causes him to completely change his outlook, it's a sign of what a brave person he is. If Sirius develops a fierce personal loyalty to James which causes him to completely change his outlook, it's a sign of how pathetic Sirius is for turning his back on his family in favor of a cool kid. And in this case - Lily is a horrible person for saying her sister sent her an ugly vase. Petunia is simply a jealous, misunderstood person for repeatedly saying her sister is a freak. Frankly, none of the people in HP are particularly admirable and all of them can and have behaved horribly. Prep0strus: Yes! Thank you! I totally agree with this! I'm not even sure you WANT me agreeing, as it's clear that I have my biases as well. But a lot of my enthusiasm for defending the Marauders comes from seeing them lambasted while watching Snape deified. The duality in these characters is what makes them interesting, and what makes any of them difficult to totally get on board with or completely loathe. But, despite how much I agree with you point here I do think that at a certain point there can be a hierarchy of good and bad, of righteousness and evil. I don't think the bad bullying James did as a child is equitable to the evil Snape did as a Death Eater. And I'm confused why Snape becoming a good guy vaults his goodness over those characters who didn't choose evil. James, by all accounts, became a worthwhile member of society ? loving husband, father, friend, fighter against evil. But that never quite makes up for him being a bully. Snape becomes a loyal spy for the good guys, risking safety, reputation, and his life. And that seems to more than make up for being evil and for being a Class A jerk to innocent children. Hm. Well, va32h, I'm not sure you want my support, but you have it. I've been waiting for someone to concisely express what I've been trying to say ? the good guys seem to get dumped on because they're good guys, and Severus gets a pass because it's so much cooler to be the antihero. I'll try to remember not to dump too much on Severus while defending the marauders. ~Adam (Prep0strus), patiently waiting for the right times to come so that he doesn't go over the rolling posting limit. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 02:55:46 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:55:46 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175219 > Montavilla47: > But it's not just what Lily says about James being a bully. - Canon quotes regarding detention slip sortig > Given how angry he is at Snape during this, you'd think he'd > notice if a) Snape was going around hexing people, too, or b) > Snape was the only or one of the main victims. Goddlefrood: This bears a little response even without direct canon support. The detentions in question where Harry was looking at the records of bygone crimes and punishments were set by one Severus Snape, iirc. Is it not then possible, as I posit, that he would have ensured that any adverse record of himself were removed? It's the kind of thing I would expect him to have done and is not provable either way. Whether this is accepted or not, the argument that Harry only came across evidence of his father's and Sirius's wrongdoings in the records does not mean that he saw *all* the records. I severely doubt Severus's record was blemish free, it's just that Harry never saw anything adverse to Snape in what he *did* see. In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175205 > Betsy Hp: > Which means, I don't have all that much interest in diving back > into the books and finding pages and passages to back up my > theories. Which, if I were a dolphin means that at this point > I'd be saying, so long and thanks for all the fish. > I'm a bit more waffely so I'll probably stick around for a bit > longer. Or not. I don't know. But I do know I have very little > interest in taking deep looks at DH. Life is too short for bad > books. Goddlefrood: I'm in a somewhat similar position, the last book really did not further my enthusiasm for the HP world evry much either. It certainly didn't expound a great deal on Life, the universe and everything From juli17 at aol.com Mon Aug 13 03:02:51 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:02:51 EDT Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175220 Julie, earlier: OF COURSE he was too weak to avoid influence, because he was an 11 YEAR OLD child! All children are easily influenced, and we see that evidence from both James and Snape on the train. They've already learned certain "ideals" from their parents which has made each determined to be chosen by their particular houses. Prep0strus: I patently disagree that all children are easily influenced. That is obviously not a matter of canon, or Harry Potter, but I disagree with the statement. And children can choose to an extent where influence comes from. Snape had Lily as influence. He did not HAVE to become a death eater because he was in Slytheirn. I am one of the biggest proponents of `there are no worthwhile slytherins', but even I don't go so far that to be put into the house is a life sentence to death eaterness. He had a choice. And he had multiple influences. 11 year olds are not mindless creatures ready to be manipulated. I maintain, as I have this entire time, that children know what is going on in the world. 11 year olds understand murder and prejudice and evil and hatred. They know that there are bad guys out there. Those children did not go to school without an understanding of current events. Perhaps Snape had less information than Sirius and James, but as soon as he got to school he would have heard it all. And talked about it with his friend, Lily. And known right from wrong. To absolve him of choosing evil for being a child is something I won't do. Julie: We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think 11 year olds are mindless creatures, but neither do I think they are nearly as capable of resisting the influence of family and peers as adults. They need the guidance of adults to see all the angles, and to help them make good decisions. In real life, when a child comes from a very bad home, that guidance comes in the form of society, teachers, ministers, and the like. In the WW such help for children is nonexistent, and in fact at Hogwarts the atmosphere of sorting children according to their personalities and perhaps their own whims is actively working *against* giving these children a real base of knowledge and just as importantly, a MOTIVATION to choose right over wrong. Because, let's face it, we are talking about humans, and often they need some payback to choose right over wrong, especially when it is very much a case of right (reject the Slytherin ideology and be tormented and ostracized for it) versus easy (stick with your friends, your only dependable social network). And, yes, Snape had Lily as a good influence. One person. One person who he interacted with on a very part time basis as far as we can tell. There's no indication they went to each other's houses, or spent time together anywhere but the playground when they had an opportunity to meet. And once they were at Hogwarts, well, Lily was in Gryffindor and Snape in Slytherin, two houses very opposed to each other. We have no evidence again that Snape (OR Lily) tried in any serious way to buck the system. They ate separately, probably studied separately, etc. For Snape to at the later date pick Lily over Slytherin doesn't mean he's suddenly re-sorted into Gryffindor and befriended by everyone there, but that he's ostracized by Slytherin, though he still has to eat and sleep with them and protect himself, all while likely still hated by everyone who already hated him (how likely is it Sirius, and James--who probably was already attracted to Lily himself--are going to welcome Snape with open arms? I don't see it happening.) Of course Lily's good influence did mean *something.* It was Snape's saving grace, his continuing affection for her even after she rejected him. It was that which sent him to Dumbledore, which prompted him to leave Voldemort and work for Dumbledore, which put him under the influence of Dumbledore's values for some 19-odd years, which led to Snape adopting some of Dumbledore's principles, such as saving those he can save (regardless of whether he personally likes them or not), and shifting his focus end the end to the good of the WW and the defeat of evil rather than merely saving one boy, even a boy who just happened to be Lily's son. Julie, earlier: And while Sirius made a choice against his family, at the age of eleven I have to believe it was made based far more on his personal agenda--rejecting a family who perhaps has already shown a marked preference for Regulus based on whatever likenesses or behaviors parents can and do use to favor one child over another--than based on any general principles, i.e., how his family treated *him* indicated the value of "Purebloods" rather than any general outlook they espoused toward non-Purebloods. Prep0strus: I'm curious as to where you got this assertion. I don't care so much that every opinion has to be supported by a page citation, but I never assumed that his family innately treated him worse than his brother. The only reason I can think for that to happen is because he rebelled against their rather odious beliefs, which is a mark in Sirius's favor. Also, considering `influence', no one had more influence on Sirius' life for his first 11 years, and yet he was able to see past that and make a different choice. A lot can be said for sitting next to James on the train, but really, that's a 10 minute conversation being compared with 11 years of life. There is something in Sirius that made him go against his family and against those beliefs. Maybe his cousin, maybe his friend, maybe something inside of him. But to attribute this overwhelming influence to James and to the Slytherin house in Snape's case while ignoring the influence they took from other sources ? the Black family, and Lily, is only showing part of the picture. Each of these children was exposed to many ideas. Some chose one path, some another. I don't know why Snape gets let off the hook for making a bad choice and Sirius gets no credit for making a good one. Julie: Who said Sirius doesn't get any credit? I didn't. And my comment about Regulus I believe is based on a bit of canon, Sirius saying that his parents considered Regulus their "fair-haired" child or some such comment. I can't find the exact quote right now so I could be wrong. If so, I detract it. Still, it's obvious that Sirius did already have a sense of rebelliousness toward his family at age 11. We just don't know why. I think it is more for reasons of personal affront than for an overreaching general principle, though we are not likely to get the answer. It is notable though that Sirius said his favorite aunt was Andromeda, who was struck off the family tree when she married a Muggle-born. Sirius would have been a young child at the time, and that also could have had personal ramifications for him, not to mention that Uncle Alphard was apparently a renegade from the Black family ideology too. So Sirius was at least exposed to opposing views on the subject. Again, I personally have never said nor do I believe that Sirius shouldn't get credit for choosing the right side of the Pureblood superiority issue. I simply think at 11 years old that choice reflected personal experience (hatred of his mother's endless tirades against Andromeda and Alphard, the way he was loved in comparison to his brother, or whatever) which shaped his decision more than any yet set in stone principles. And liking James immediately may have simply been the last straw that pushed him over to Gryffindor and away from his family's house of Slytherin. I might add that I've always seen James, Sirius, and Snape as children and adolescents at Hogwarts at about the same level. The canon moments we've been privy to have shown James and Sirius as the bigger berks, but I have no doubt Snape could be their equal, especially as he got older and more tied to Slytherin House's ideology and loyalties to Voldemort. I do wish we'd been given something besides heresay that showed us how and why James changed from an arrogant bully into a decent man, but I don't dispute that it certainly happened. On a more personal level, I'm going to add a quote from canon that very strongly affected me. That doesn't mean it affected you or anyone else, because ultimately we each interact with the books and characters from our own perspectives, based on our own experiences. I have a degree in child development, and experience with children, and I tend to view them as very vulnerable to their environment. They don't get to pick who their parents are, how they look, where they grow up, whether they are abused or whether they are loved. But all of that does go into forming their personal identities, and who they eventually become as people (along with genetic predispositions, which can and do further influence those environmental factors). In the end we all have choices of course, but we do not all choose from the same position, not by a long shot. This quote is from DH, The Prince's Tale, page 671: "...Harry, whose attention had been focused entirely on the two beside the window (Lily and Snape), saw his father: slight, black-haired like Snape, but with the indefinable air of having been well-cared for, even adored, which Snape so conspicuously lacked." That line (following the previous glimpses into Snape's childhood, with his fighting parents, his mismatched clothes, and his air of desperation) made my heart hurt. And I think it's telling that Harry recognized the difference too. Because he understood it, as he was also a boy who had lacked any air of being well-cared for, or adored. This is probably why I have sympathy for Snape. Yes, James chose the side of Good, and Snape the side of Evil, but really, they both made the *easy* choices. The ones they'd been groomed for from their childhood. Much as Ron choosing Good and Draco choosing Evil were easy choices for them. For James and Ron, choosing the side of Good was the side of their family and friends. But Draco or Snape choosing the Good side would have been a repudiation of a huge part of their lives, families, and friends. For them it really would be as Dumbledore said, "Choosing what is right over what is easy," which is by definition a much more difficult choice, taking a great deal of courage and determination, especially for children. Yes, Sirius did make the harder choice. But it seems highly likely he was exposed to a more diverse set of viewpoints within his divided family. Still, I give him plenty of credit for being courageous. That has never been in doubt, at least to me. Not particularly kind-hearted, and very stunted emotionally by his long stint in Azkaban (obviously!), but never lacking at all when it comes to courage, and loyalty to those he loved. Julie ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From judy at judyshapiro.com Mon Aug 13 03:08:27 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 03:08:27 -0000 Subject: More on Snape's appeal; Is Snape like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175221 Prep0strus asked why some people like Snape, but not Sirius or James: > > it confuses me greatly why the people who can forgive so many > > more flaws, so much more evil in Snape take the (in my opinion) > > much smaller flaws of the good characters and vilify them for it. and I replied: >I feel for Snape because he is SO alone. I actually had more of an asnwer to this question, but had to go off and make dinner. I think that another reason why so many fans like Snape is that they find it emotionally satisfying, or perhaps comforting, that although he is mean on the surface, he has others' best interests at heart. Of course, this caring applies most clearly to Harry, who thinks that Snape hates him and even (at least in Book 1) thinks Snape is trying to kill him, and then finds that Snape has been trying to save him. But it also applies to Neville, who is repeatedly insulted by Snape and then is protected by him at various times, and even to Dumbledore, whom Snape *kills*, but turns out to be trying to help. There really aren't any other characters who do this. Although Sirius is initially believed to be hostile to Harry, that turns out to be a simple mistake -- "He's at Hogwarts" refers to Peter, not Harry. This isn't how it works with Snape. When he calls Neville "Idiot Boy," for example, he really does mean Neville, not, say Goyle. But, that doesn't mean he'll let Neville get choked by Crabbe, or tortured by the Carrows. The closest to another character who acts mean but really cares underneath is probably Draco. Many fans *wanted* to believe that he was protecting Hermione when he told her to keep her "bushy head down" at the Quidditch World Cup, but we never get any canon saying that. In my own case, I wonder if part of the appeal of Snape to me is that one of my own relatives was always very cruel growing up, and that I would like to believe that this relative didn't really mean it. I hope that's not why I care about Snape so much, but it could be. If readers see Snape as caring, even though he acts mean, does that mean they will excuse cruelty in their own lives, perhaps even put up with being abused themselves? Well, my hope is that if readers are using Snape as a way to feel better about abuse in their own lives, the abuse happened in the past, maybe when they were children. I remember, years ago, someone on this board said they wondered about the real-life male partners of all the female fans who were obsessed with Snape. I found this question pretty amusing at the time. My own husband is a saint. (Which is why he has put up with me spending all my time on Harry Potter discussions lately.) At any rate, the Snape- like character who is bad on the surafce but good underneath occurs in many other literary works, not just the Potter books. va32h wrote: > I don't think it is any coincidence that Snape and Sirius are > actually very much alike. Both fiercely loyal to a friend (Lily, > James), both consumed with guilt [snipped rest of list of similarities] I agree that there are a number of ways in which Snape and Sirius are similar. One important similarity that I would add to your list is that both Sirius and Snape act as if Harry were James. It is as if time had frozen forever, for both Snape and Sirius, on the night the Potters died. The closer Harry gets to the age James was at death, the more Sirius and Snape seem to see him as being James. I think, though, that Snape's introverted personality is very different from Sirius' extraverted one, and many of his life experiences were different, too. Also, on the topic of why so many people like Snape but not James and Sirius, I think it's quite easy for some fans to become emotionally involved with Snape because he's such a central character. Then, when James and Sirius bully him (and many, many fans believed that they did, long before Book 5 came out), the attachment to Snape results in hostility towards James and Sirius. Not all Snapefans feel that way, but quite a few do. highland_holly wrote: > One thing to remember throughout the analysis of the actions of the > Marauders is that *almost* everything we know of them in their youth > we have seen through SNAPE's eyes via his memories. I believe that > perception is everything. Ask 5 people to recall an occasion or > event and you will hear 5 completely different stories. JKR has said that the Pensieve is objective, reporting even things that the rememberer initially overlooked. It's true that we don't see all of the events -- we don't see James and Lily dating, for example -- but what we do see, we can assume happened just that way. houyhnhnm102 wrote: > I had the same reaction to the letter. I find Lily's > marriage to James mystifying as well.... I even get a little bit > of a whiff of some kind of rebound thing going on. Rowling > has said that Lily might have come to love Snape romantically > if he hadn't chosen a path she could not follow. It is a > literary cliche after all, the woman who must finally give > up on the outcast who has her heart and marry the > respectable "good marriage prospect" whom she doesn't > really love, but for whom she strives to make good on her vows. Oh, I'd love to think that Lily married James on the rebound from Snape! I don't see anything for or against that in canon, although it does seem like James had no real chance with Lily as long as she and Snape were friends. Would *Snape* have believed Lily married James on the rebound? I wonder! Before I sign off, I just want to add that I agree with a lot these things said by Montavilla47: > You know, teachers do that and you just learn to live with > it. And you keep your toad in your room, instead of carrying it > around with you. > Even in the first three books, I sort of viewed Snape as the kind > of teacher that all the students complain about no one takes > very seriously. Especially when he's revealed as protecting Harry > in the first book... > > ...fighting for good, loyalty, truth, and > kindness, the only one not exhibited by Snape is kindness. Kindness > is important. But it isn't everything. > Snape went with the people who were treating him well, cheering his > sorting and helping him study for classes and appreciating his > talents. Why the heck would he want to join the people who were > hanging him upside down, pantsing him, and trying to feed him to a > werewolf? What allegance would he have to the Headmaster who > allowed those things to take place? > > Snape wasn't "evil" as an 11-year-old, or as a 17-year-old. He was > a kid, trying to make sense of the world around him. He made the > wrong choice. It seems obvious to us that it's the wrong choice. > But it probably wasn't that clear to Snape. I want to add that I think *some* 17 year olds are evil. But I don't see Snape as being evil at that age, though, any more than Dumbledore (who may have killed his own sister) was. I also agree with Montavilla47 on whether Lupin & Hagrid had more incentives to turn evil: > What was Hagrid's incentive to choose evil?... > After all, Tom wasn't recruiting at that point. Even if he was, > he'd just framed Hagrid. Why on earth would Hagrid throw in his lot > with Tom, even assuming he had an offer?... > I think the same question applies to Lupin. Lupin is presented > as someone with a medical condition that turns him into a > monster for about three days a month. Other than that, there's > no reason for him to be any darker than James. Yes indeed, and remember, Lupin and Hagrid both had very, very strong support from Dumbledore. Nothing indicates that Snape did; in fact, canon suggests that he did not. -- JudySerenity, signing off From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 03:34:02 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 03:34:02 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175222 Judy: I agree with your comments that JKR seems to be saying some kids are damned from the get-go. It bothers me that this directly contradicts her (or at least Dumbledore's) claim that one can chose one's destiny. However, I have to disagree with your evaluation of Snape. He is NOT always portrayed as doing something bad. For starters, he stops Quirrell from cursing Harry, he saves Draco from dying when Harry curses him, he saves Dumbledore from the ring curse, and he tells Crabbe (or was it Goyle?) to stop choking Neville. And of course, he warns Dumbledore about Voldemort hunting the Potters. All of this happened after leaving Slytherin House, though, and under the influence of Gryffindors (Lily and Dumbledore), which I believe supports my view that Slytherin House is corrupting. lizzyben: Oh, I definitely agree that Snape is portrayed as doing good things throughout the course of the novels. I just meant that in the "Prince's Tale" chapter, every one of Snape's childhood memories shows him doing something "bad" - from the nine-year old dropping a branch on Petunia, to insulting Muggles, to defending future Death Eaters. It's one of the places where I could almost here the Author's Voice in the background saying "See, see, he was a bad kid from the get-go!" I almost felt like it was deliberately included to try to forestall reader sympathy for this neglected little boy, & encourage us to see him as a lost cause. And probably that's where my sympathy for Snape arises. I mean, even the author doesn't love him or want him. Poor guy. va32h: I don't think it is any coincidence that Snape and Sirius are actually very much alike. Both fiercely loyal to a friend (Lily, James), both consumed with guilt" lizzyben: I just wanted to add one other similarity - they are the ONLY characters that actually offer a sincere apology. Both Snape & Sirius tell their friends "I'm sorry", w/total humility. Man, that's rare in these novels. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 04:13:50 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 04:13:50 -0000 Subject: good/bad Slyth/Disappointment/Responsibility/Sorting/Snape responses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175223 Addressing Julie's post: I didn't want to let it go without some response, as it was a lengthy, well thought out posting, but I simply don't have a response I think we've come to a fairly agreeable middle ground, and I don't have much to disagree with. I think on some points we see things a little differently, but for the most part, I really enjoyed and agreed with everything you said, and didn't have anything to add. ~Prep0strus judyserenity: So, it's pretty clear here that James had been hexing people other than Snape. We have it on the word of his future wife, and his two best friends. Prep0strus: You're absolutely right. Boy was an arrogant little bully. But I think we do start to see some change in him even before he leaves school, both by what you were quoting, and by Snape's comment "I'm just trying to show you they're not as wonderful as everyone seems to think they are" somebody out there is already having a pretty good opinion of James and Sirius. And it seems that opinion only grew in the years after school, until such point that we only hear good things about the Potters. Ok, sure, most of those statements are said to Harry as a boy, and how many of these adults would say `your dad was a jerk', but there appears to be true affection in what they say, especially Hagrid (and to make others' points for me yes, Hagrid would have true affection in his voice for a sea monster, but still) JudySerneity: How about in OoP, where the Marauders are bullying Snape: "Several people watching laughed; Snape was clearly unpopular." True, it's only one line, but it's the ONLY thing we are ever told about Snape's relationship as a student with anyone other than the Marauders, Lily, or the Slytherins. Prep0strus: This is true, but I think Lanval's point was that once Snape got to school, he was not alone. He had a friend before school, who lasted well into school. He was welcomed warmly to his table. And he had other friends as well throughout all of school. He wasn't a complete loner, isolated and preyed upon. He had one friend who was a good influence and a gang of guys with whom he could pursue his less savory tastes and hang with in opposition to the Marauders. It's a different view than that of him being isolated even within his house. JudySerenity: We do see Lily accuse Snape of wanting to be a Death Eater (although not of already being a Death Eater.) However, it appears that she makes this accusation on the very same day as one of the times that she calls James "an arrogant little toerag." She calls James this when he turns Snape upside-down, and her accusation of Snape appears to take place that night, when he is trying to apologize. So, I don't see how you can say that James is just a boy when Lily calls him a toerag, but that Snape is a man when Lily calls *him* a Death Eater. What would Lily have continued to think of Snape? Well, presumably she died without knowing that he was working for Dumbledore and trying to save her, so she probably died thinking he was a Death Eater. However, I do want to point out that Lily was not quite right when said that Snape had chosen his path. He was a Death Eater for a few years, true. (Probably about four years, from what we know of the timeline.) But, his path didn't end there ? he spent the next 18 years working (and dying) to undo the damage he had done. So, no, Lily didn't know what Snape's path would be. -- JudySerenity, he sees Snape as certainly flawed, but basically good and very, very tragic Prep0strus: True. I took a little literary license (of my own, not JKR's) in creating my parallels but Lily would have known Snape was a DE when they were both adults, and condemned him for it. I think the stronger point, for me, is that she came to love James. And any discussion of how she was manipulated into it or became a worse person over those years is clearly not supported at all in the text. She seems to love her husband and son very much. And Snape did become a Death Eater. I think she would be very happy to know that Snape turned away from that path. I have to believe that part of her always held some affection for Snape. And your evaluation of snape flawed, good, tragic. Yeah, I can see that. But overwhelmingly MEAN. And I have a hard time getting past that. He didn't grow up. He stayed an angry, nasty person, even when he was `good'. And he is tragic, but I know also that his choices make him so. He is no Mulciber maybe, but what do we know of Mulciber's childhood that we might make excuses for? Harry had a tough childhood, and Sirius was indoctrinated in evil maybe with a little more work or a little more devotion to Lily Snape could have been like them instead of such a tragic figure. Sirius was tragic as well. And his death is partially due to his own impetuousness, but I definitely mourn for him more ? he didn't make the choice to be evil. But he was punished for it, and lost a decade of his life for it. He lost his best friend. He died young fighting evil. When I put Sirius next to Snape, I see two tragic heroes. But Snape is an antihero, while Sirius is simply a flawed hero, in my view. Judy: But I feel for Snape because he is SO alone. You could say that Hagrid has been rejected, yes, or that Lupin has, and that's true, but it's not what the reader is shown in the books. When we see Hagrid, he is usually socializing with the Trio. Lupin we see interacting closely with Harry, marrying Tonks, and having a son. We know that Sirius spent a lot of rough years in Azkaban, which is probably one reason why he appeals to a lot of fans, but we don't even see that. James is always shown as with either his friends or with Lily and Harry. Who does Snape have? Dumbledore insults him, Lily slams the door in his face. Who does that leave Snape as a friend? Lucius Malfoy? What sort of friend would Lucius be? (And Snape is actually opposing Lucius for most of his adult life.) Snape is tragic and alone in a way that none of these other characters are; he is tormented in a way no one else in the books is. I think that's a main reason why so many fans love him. Prep0strus: I really liked this whole post). I don't know if I fully agree with everything you're saying, but I can see how somebody can think that way. But a lot of what you say about being alone comes at the `end', after the choices have been made. And it is hard not to feel for Snape. But when you look at their whole lives, and see where the breaks happen, it's a little different. If any bad character had Harry's childhood up until 11, and turned out evil, I think we would immediately give him an excuse. 10 years of living in a cupboard, being treated terribly by Muggles who show him no love? But he turns out well. You mention Hagrid ? older than Harry's parents ? not being alone because he is socializing with the trio. So, until those 11 year olds came along, for all those years...? I mean, we have no canon, so I it's hard to say anything without conjecture, but it seems his only real support is Dumbledore ? also Snape's only support. Dumbledore and Hagrid don't appear to go out and socialize all that much. Hagrid appears to have been a bit of a loner even as a child, turning to monsters for friendship, and spent his adult life until CoS being suspected of releasing a monster that killed someone. Hagrid the halfbreed, seemingly quite lonely himself, makes the choice to be good. Lupin, you're right about. I think it's possible Lupin was saved by his good friends which again makes me just want to give James and Sirius big hugs. Sirius suffers through Azkaban ? and not for doing ANYTHING wrong. He isn't atoning. He isn't paying his dues. He's having his psyche attacked day in and day out because of the actions of Snape, Peter, and Voldemorte. He comes out of that remarkably well ? if the worst thing we can say of him is that he hasn't matured from being an impetuous arrogant youth, I think that shows some strength of character. And Snape the way you write of him, it's so hard not to see your point, pity him and care for him. But I have to note that he had a good friend in Lily, who he lost due to his own choices ? she stuck with him through the bad hygiene, through the unpopularity, even through much of his interest in dark arts. But he went too far. And afterwards he wasn't alone then either. All his influences were negative, true, but he wasn't alone. When he rejects Voldemorte, it's powerful I think because he chooses to be alone. Perhaps for the first time since before he met Lily, he is alone. And that thought really does make me admire his strength. But I don't think it entirely wipes away the terrible choices he made prior to that. And no matter how much I pity his isolation or admire his strength, I can never like the man who treated the children the way he did. I can be happy he redeemed himself and sad he never found happiness, but I would rather be friends with the adult James or the adult Sirius than the adult Snape. (I don't know if I want to be friends with the teenage version of any of them.) Judy: I think that another reason why so many fans like Snape is that they find it emotionally satisfying, or perhaps comforting, that although he is mean on the surface, he has others' best interests at heart. Of course, this caring applies most clearly to Harry, who thinks that Snape hates him and even (at least in Book 1) thinks Snape is trying to kill him, and then finds that Snape has been trying to save him. But it also applies to Neville, who is repeatedly insulted by Snape and then is protected by him at various times, and even to Dumbledore, whom Snape *kills*, but turns out to be trying to help. Prep0strus: That's very interesting. I wonder why I have the opposite reaction. I mean, I know he's interesting as a character, but if he does care and want to good, it just makes me want to smack him upside the head in every class and scream, `Be NICE, you big goon!' Judy: Also, on the topic of why so many people like Snape but not James and Sirius, I think it's quite easy for some fans to become emotionally involved with Snape because he's such a central character. Then, when James and Sirius bully him (and many, many fans believed that they did, long before Book 5 came out), the attachment to Snape results in hostility towards James and Sirius. Not all Snapefans feel that way, but quite a few do. Prep0strus: Yeah, I see what you're saying. It frustrates me, but I guess I get it. I tend to focus on the idea that Snape did these terrible things and has apparently earned forgiveness, and on that level, what the Marauders did doesn't seem so bad. Can't we appreciate them for the men they became? Montavilla47: You know, teachers do that and you just learn to live with it. And you keep your toad in your room, instead of carrying it around with you. Prep0strus This made me laugh. :) I was glad to have other things in your post to comment on just so I could say that. I wouldn't mind having a post of the off-hand remarks other posters said that made us smile. Montavilla47: I'm curious. What was Hagrid's incentive to choose evil? He was certainly done wrong by when he was young. He was expelled and his wand broken when he was 13. But was there some attractive evil out there for him to choose, rather than accept the work that Dumbledore secured for him? After all, Tom wasn't recruiting at that point. Even if he was, he'd just framed Hagrid. Why on earth would Hagrid throw in his lot with Tom, even assuming he had an offer? Or would the attractive evil be some undefined life of crime-- perhaps as a bodyguard to some kingpin in Knockturn Alley? I think the same question applies to Lupin. Lupin is presented as someone with a medical condition that turns him into a monster for about three days a month. Other than that, there's no reason for him to be any darker than James. And, since Dumbledore is the one giving him an education, it's in his interest to be "good." Of all the people you mention, the one with the most to lose by joining the Order is Sirius. Which is probably why Sirius is more interesting than James as a character. Prep0strus: You're right. My remarks are mostly theoretical. But the reason I think Hagrid has an incentive is the reason any of our villains do ? he is an outcast. He's a half-giant, which already is seen as a group to be prejudiced against and feared (see madame maxime's vehement denials). He's also got some strange hobbies, and we don't really see any examples of friends in his childhood or adult. Just a protector ? Dumbledore, and the trio. As for available evil, that's where my argument falls down. And Hagrid has always been kind of simple, and good hearted, so it's silly to think of it. But he is another societal outcast, so I include him as one that made good choices. The same can be said of Lupin. Society appears to reject him more than Hagrid, and there are passages that make it seem that most werewolves decide to turn against that society and be the monsters they are perceived as being. Greyback is the worst of the bunch, but I got the impression he wasn't the only one. But Lupin's choice was made easier by his strong Griffindor friendships. However, it doesn't seem to make his adult life that easy. He's often described as haggard and gaunt. The ministry disapproves, he can't find normal employment And Greyback often seems be at least *ahem* well fed. And there's Harry, of course, as well. Montavilla47 But Snape wasn't "evil" as an 11-year-old, or as a 17-year-old. He was a kid, trying to make sense of the world around him. He made the wrong choice. It seems obvious to us that it's the wrong choice. But it probably wasn't that clear to Snape. Snape went with the people who were treating him well, cheering his sorting and helping him study for classes and appreciating his talents. Why the heck would he want to join the people who were hanging him upside down, pantsing him, and trying to feed him to a werewolf? What allegance would he have to the Headmaster who allowed those things to take place? Prep0strus: You make a very strong point. The only thing I can say is, he should have been aware of the world outside of Hogwarts. These students don't live in a vacuum ? they have owls and the like. And he would know what was going on. And even as a child he should be able to tell right from wrong. He may have had a powerful reason to stay with that group. But he also had a `conscience' in his good friend Lily. It's clear she argues with him over what he is doing, and how wrong it is. I can see how Snape's choice is comprehensible, but I still think it makes him weaker, at least as a child, than I think I'm supposed to believe that Snape is. As an adult Snape finds that strength . Alla: So, sure I see those flaws and acknowledge them. The thing for me is that **despite** those flaws I believe that Sirius and James were better people **altogether** than Snape. Prep0strus: That pretty much sums it up for me as well. From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 04:17:21 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggles &. Wizards & Mudbloods (Re: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility/Sirius' choice) In-Reply-To: <46BF9088.7010609@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: <521735.52565.qm@web55015.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175224 justcarol67 wrote: > >Canon shows Severus and Petunia as children not exactly > >hitting it off as friends, his view of her as a mere Muggle, and his > >determination to tell Lily that she, obviously a Muggleborn, is a > >witch. Snape's lifelong prejudice against *Muggles*, shared by many people >>in the WW and not just by Slytherins, is another matter (unrelated to the >>Hogwarts Express scene with James and Sirius). Irene: >Carol, I really like your analysis. Just wanted to add that I don't >understand why people make such a big business of Snape calling Petunia >a "Muggle". McGonagall does the same in book one, when she says to >Dumbledore "Are you going to leave Potter with these people? But they >are Muggles!" >And Ron does the same in book 4, I think. "If the Muggles agree, we will >pick you up. If they don't we will pick you up all the same". >It's the general wizarding view that the Muggles somehow count less, not >specifically Slytherin one. I don't agree with the comment that "its the general wizarding view that the Muggles somehow count less" and I don't think that's what Carol was getting at. That blanket comment is no different than saying "its the general view of [people of the race, religion, etc. of your choice] that [people of the race, religion, etc. of your choice] count less." Here's the passage In Chapter One of PS/SS when McGonagall learns that Dumbledore intends to leave Harry with the Dursley's. She doesn't use the term Muggle and her indignation is based more on the Dursley's behavior than the fact they're Muggles. "You don't mean -- you can't mean the people who live here?" cried Professor McGonagall, jumping to her feet and pointing at number four. "Dumbledore -- you can't. I've been watching them all day. You couldn't find two people who are less like us. And they've got this son -- I saw him kicking his mother all the way up the street, screaming for sweets. Harry Potter come and live here!" Hagrid explains the term Muggle when he first meets Harry in Chapter Four of PS/SS. (Hagrid has just told Harry that he's a wizard and shown him his Hogwarts letter.) "He's not going," [Vernon Dursley] said. "I'd like ter see a great Muggle like you stop him," he said. "A what?" said Harry, interested. "A Muggle," said Hagrid, "its what we call nonmagic folk like them. An' it's your bad luck you grew up in a family o' the biggest Muggles I ever laid eyes on." (p. 52 - 53) As Hagrid explains the term, Muggle simply describes someone who is not a Wizard. Its no different than me saying I'm a Virginian -- its simply distinguishes me from a Californian or a New Yorker. I see nothing offensive about it. I don't even view his barb about the "biggest Muggles I ever laid eyes on" (does he mean the pun?) as an insult against Muggles in general -- just the Dursley's in particular and that's because of their non-tolerant attitude towards Wizards despite the fact there have been and still is at least one Wizard in their extended family. So, when I hear a Wizard use the term Muggle, I don't automatically take it as an offensive comment on the Muggle's place in the world. No doubt many Wizards are prejudice against Muggles -- but I don't think we can make a blanket statement that all or even most look down on them. (I doubt most of the muggleborns count them less and Mr. Wesley certainly doesn't. I don't have my OOTP, but doesn't Sirius more or less acknowledge as folly a pureblood notion of exclusion?) Mudblood, on the other hand, is no doubt offensive -- let's face it, it's a racial slur. And, when used, its meant that way -- with one possible exception... When Snape calls Lily a mudblood in SWM, I'm confident they were both shocked and I'm confident he didn't mean to offend or hurt -- the moment the word come out of his mouth Snape probably was mortified that he said something so hurtful to someone he cared about. Lily probably was right that it "slipped out" DH, p.675 - 676) -- he's used it to insult other Muggle-borns and it rolls off his tongue a bit too easily. Evidently, Snape learned his lesson though; he admonishes Phineas Nigellus when he refers to Hermione as a mudblood (DH, p. 689) I wonder if he ever used the term again; or if he stopped only after he changed sides? Christy, who would like to know what life in Slytherin House was like for the Half-Blood Prince --------------------------------- Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 04:27:10 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 04:27:10 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175225 Magpie: You haven't actually argued against my own issue, which is that grown adults are not house cats where the only thing that matters is what's convenient for their owner and what their owner decides will spare them pain. If as a Muggle you will happily hand over your free will to Wizards because they know best that's your choice. I would lean more towards the Muggle Liberation Army, myself. Does this make things more difficult for the good guys? Sure it does. Morals are a lot easier if you're Hermione in canon, and generally the way to be a good person is to line up with the right leaders, and a happy ending is having the right people in charge of everyone. But it's still important, imo. (Even if, as I said, I really just view this as a throwaway way of getting rid of Hermione's parents so that we don't have to hear about them again. She has essentially just put her pets in a kennel for the rest of the book so we don't have to be told who's feeding them and know they won't be involved from now on.) Prep0strus: I have, for the most part, stayed out of the Hermione discussion and the Crucio discussion. But I read this post, and something clicked with me. I really never bothered to acknowledge what Hermione was doing. I was like, oh, that's nice, convenient, and moved on. But when you stop and think about it ? yeah, there's something seriously `effed' up about what she did. And my problem isn't necessarily that she did it ? I don't think Hermione or any of the good guys are perfect, and I can see this as something she does and we can accept it but what I don't like is that there is no discussion in the books of it. No acknowledgement that this might not be the right path. And that's the problem I have with the Unforgiveables. Up until this book, I felt that they really were this horrible things and good guys would lose a part of what makes them who they are if they did them. And then Harry did, and the response I felt the reader was supposed to give was, `that's funny and clever' to the Imperius and "heeeeelllls YEAH" to the crucio. And, while I've read the arguments of people saying that JKR doesn't need to lay out for us, `this is wrong', and wants us to make up our own minds I think that the hint of opposition should be there. No one seems to question Harry. McGonnagal, a seeming no-nonsense, mostly by the books witch, is flattered by it. And it gave me a sense of discomfort that I felt I should be rooting for this thing I thought was bad. And I wanted some character to express that discomfort for me. And that's now how I feel about Hermione's actions. Except I didn't even catch it in the reading. I just accepted it as ok. Muggles AREN'T house cats. (Again, I comment as a vet ? no insult meant to cats! :) )Someone should have questioned Hermione's arrogant actions, just so at least we know that the world doesn't really think this is unquestionably ok. Just like I want someone to question Harry's unforgiveables so that I'm not thinking he's out there as an adult Auror using them however he feels like it, as if they have no meaning. ~Adam (Prep0strus), mildly surprised to be submitting a post that doesn't mention Snape or any of the Marauders From va32h at comcast.net Mon Aug 13 04:41:46 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 04:41:46 -0000 Subject: Lily, Hagrid, Snape, Lucius, Friends (was Re: good/bad Slyth/Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175226 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: Major Snippage Ahead! > she came to love James. And any discussion of > how she was manipulated into it or became a worse person over those > years is clearly not supported at all in the text. She seems to love > her husband and son very much. va32h: Can I just inject my own little personal made-up fantasy reason for Lily and James having got together? I imagine that they both began their 7th year mourning the sudden, inexplicable deaths of both of their parents. "Gee, your mum and dad died for no apparent reason, too?" Lily would say to James. "It's so odd, it's almost as if some unnamed force in the universe wanted us to both end up with no extended family, except my horrible sister, Petunia." That's the sort of thing that really brings two people together, you know. Judy wrote: > Who does Snape have? Dumbledore insults him, Lily slams the door in > his face. Who does that leave Snape as a friend? Lucius Malfoy? What > sort of friend would Lucius be? (And Snape is actually opposing > Lucius for most of his adult life.) va32h: Lucius is apparently a lifelong friend. We saw that prefect Lucius warmly welcomed Snape at the Sorting. Snape has a rapport with Lucius' son, and Lucius' wife has no hesitation to turn to Snape in time of need (and knows where he lives). Snape is *not* opposing Lucius for most of his adult life, either. Snape may have turned spy when he was just 21, but let's not forget that for the next 13 years, there was no one to spy upon. Voldemort (and the Death Eater movement) disappeared shortly after Snape began spying for Dumbledore, and Snape and Lucius both went on to pursue ordinary, and seemingly respectable lives until Voldemort's rebirth, 13 years later. And even then, I would seriously argue that Lucius and Snape are equally unhappy about Voldemort's return. I won't deny that Snape was immensely brave in going back to Voldemort after GoF and continuing to spy on him for the next three years. But let's not forget that Snape had many, many years in which he lived quite comfortably, with no punishment for his crimes other than his own guilty conscience. And those years did not improve his personality one bit. prep0strous here: > You mention Hagrid ? older than Harry's parents ? not being alone > because he is socializing with the trio. So, until those 11 year olds > came along, for all those years...? I mean, we have no canon, so I > it's hard to say anything without conjecture, but it seems his only > real support is Dumbledore ? also Snape's only support. Dumbledore > and Hagrid don't appear to go out and socialize all that much. va32h: But remember in GoF, when Hagrid is depressed over Rita Skeeter's article, Dumbledore says he has scores of owls from former students who adored Hagrid and will be very angry if Dumbledore sacks him. I think Hagrid was beloved by a succession of students, year after year. He is also well known in all the known bars of the HP world (at least, he has a "usual" in each of them".) I got the impression that Hagrid was like Norm from Cheers. Of course the adoration of children and a succession of drinking buddies isn't really enough to fulfill a man, which is probably why Hagrid is so eager to form relationships with Madame Maxime and with Grawp. va32h From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 05:15:03 2007 From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 05:15:03 -0000 Subject: love magic, sacrifice, and the "gleam" [was: Dumbledore and the slaughtered pig] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175227 > > dumbledore11214 Wrote: > > Are you discounting Dumbledore's gleam in GoF? > Eggplant wrote: > No I am not, but I think you are discounting the fact that the gleam > of triumph only lasted a fraction of a second followed by renewed > gloom. For the first time Dumbledore figured out a way to kill > Dumbledore hence the triumph, but a fraction of a second later he > realized it would involve Harry's death hence the gloom. zeldaricdeau now: Forgive me if I've missed something completely (I've only barely been keeping up with the new posts and haven't posted myself in ages) but my interpretation of the "gleam" was a bit different. My understanding was that DD had known since *before* GoF that Voldemort would eventually return because he had created at least one if not more horcruxes and that one of them was Harry: meaning that, to DD's knowledge, the only way to kill Voldemort was for Harry to die, thus killing the soul bit inside him (which, incidentally puts a whole new spin on the "favoritism" he seems to show Harry in earlier books-- extreme guilt perhaps?). The "gleam" came about because DD, for the first time in GoF, saw a way that Harry *might* be spared death. Since Voldemort had used Harry's blood for his own resurrection (an act of arrogance which makes apparent his inability to understand the nature of the magic behind the mother love sacrifice Lily made) he was now walking around with some of that very magic inside him. DD deduces that, because of this, there is a chance that Harry will not die if *Voldemort* kills him but will instead be anchored to life by the bit of his blood still within Voldemort himself, allowing only the soul bit to be destroyed. If this is the case, then DD wasn't sure that Harry would actually die but didn't want anyone else to know that. Perhaps not JKRs most elegant bit of plotting but that's how I understood it. -ZR From doliesl at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 05:29:32 2007 From: doliesl at yahoo.com (doliesl at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:29:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility Message-ID: <378824.96376.qm@web82206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175228 Montavilla47: I think it's fine to want to see the best in people. What I find a bit hypocritical, though (and I'm not directing this at you, but at the general trend) is for either side to ignore the faults of their favorite characters, or to insist that these faults are meaningless, while insisting that the faults of the characters they disliked define their characters. I guess what I really don't understand in all this discussion is why we insist on following the Marauder/Snape feud. Why can't we like Snape AND James and Sirius? I know I like them all. Prep0strus: I completely agree with that first statement. And, for the record? I'm not even that huge a fan of Sirius. And James isn't enough of a character for me to be that attached. I do like Lupin quite a bit. But I think that your first statement is why many of us (including myself) fight so hard for characters we see being maligned. D: Personally, Sirius and Snape for me, yes. James...huh!? I don't see any appeal whatsoever to *like* about James as reader, he's not even a character...at most for me he's just a background setup. His sole purpose in these books are being Harry's long gone dead father and an excuse of a link for other REAL characters (= ones who actually matters and live across the pages, ie: Sirius and Snape) to have some on-page roles in relation to Harry. So if what was needed to tell the story on page regarding James in the series is a bit favoring Snape-side ultimately, it is because that's what matters in storytelling. I think it's misconception to see James and Snape to have some 'equal' footing as characters. At most, other than Harry and the whole Lily's love magic, both James and Lily and their supposed revelation and importance matter most (esp. in DH) in serving Snape's arc, so you can say they're part of Snape's stories (other than Harry's). While Snape also function only as part of Harry-the-Protagonist's grand scheme. Sometimes I feel that some people here often forget this is a work of fiction and went on with some moral judging contest. To puzzled over "how dare readers liking Snape over James" is a bit 'duh!?' in my opinion. I like what I see and feel on pages. I don't 'see' much about James, while I see and feel plenty for Snape. Snape won my heart, not James. Prep0strus: But I like the Marauders better than Snape. A lot better. And what I see in a lot of posters is this (to the perspective of someone who doesn't like him) a fanatical devotion to Snape. I mean, let's face it ? he's interesting. This evil seeming guy who has been doing good all along. He has an interesting past, it's checkered, and he turns out good. And people identify with parts of that, and defend him. D: Another 'duh!?' from me. Casual readers of these books won't be joining and reading hundreds of long discussion threads daily would they? And they're usually the kind of readers who will say their favorite characters (if they're any) are 'Hagrid' and other obvious 'lovable' characters. Most of us here (=fandom) are the *fans* with a certain obsessive quality and some tend to find the 'unlovable' moral conflicting characters more lovable. Why do majority of discussions goes to characters with moral struggle (ie: Snape, "a flawed man like all of us" in JKR's own words) instead of pure-and-stay-good and supposedly more 'lovable' characters? If you want to sing song praising the love for pure-and-stay-goodand totally lovable positive characters, there're threads on them too or start one yourself (but if you dragged in some comparison on Snape I'm sure it will turn into another who has more flaws 'competition' threads) See the problemw with these 'flaw competition' is that....who the heck is James anyway? While Snape is a major central character many of us love and hate for 7 books. It's no wonder Snape matters a lot a lot more readers's heart than say...James or some other background. It's the same as people saying why Harry is their absolute favorite character because Harry is the protagonist and it's all about him anyway. So you get a jaded applaud from my for you to get work up for "background characters" like James for sake of the so called injustice of 'fans' favoring major character like Snape and having more empathy for him. I just thought that was just...you know...obvious. I too think a lot of characters tearing on this list are excessive, that's why I never join in. Actually before I join this list, I never knew that some fans like to 'judge' and obsessed over 'moral' so much, or that people think readers should 'like" a character based on their moral merit as if they're real life people you'd like to know and look up to as role model, instead of...how they function in a story and click with your type. Prep0strus: But then I see these same people absolutely tearing apart characters we know to be basically good ? James, Sirius, Lupin, Hagrid. And it confuses me greatly why the people who can forgive so many more flaws, so much more evil in Snape take the (in my opinion) much smaller flaws of the good characters and vilify them for it. D: Almost every major and minor character has been ripped apart in fandom (especially on this list). Snape has his huge fair share of equally fanatical haters who rips him apart in every nasty way unfairly (and I bet I won't hear your complain over that). Prep0strus: D: That's why you'd see Snape being mention in "What makes a great character in storytelling" discussion (non fandom) all the time while you won't see Hagrid or James being frequent subject of essays and discussions like that. While Snape's character might not work for you, he worked for A LOT A LOT of readers...maybe that's what irked you? (the heart of problem?) Tortured tragic nasty character with a redemptive arc are always my type, so it's hard for me to see other way. When I read the first vol. I knew Snape would be my favorite. Again, maybe we have a different approach in regarding these stories. While you're looking for real world good role model for moral judging contest or something, I only see characters as purely fictional existing on page to entertain me, so the interesting ones that pushes my button thus stays with me are the ones I like and valued more. While characters like Hagrid, while likable, are only 'awww' heartwarming to me while I read, I won't think or talk about them after I close the book. That's why Sydney Carton won readers' heart more than Charles Darnay, who's obviously a better 'person' and a supposedly better 'man' to married for Lucy. And yeah in a way characters' redemption (especially at the finale) do gain a lot of readers' forgiveness and endearment, that's why it's err...called 'redemption', especially ones involving love and sacrifices and death (ie Sydney Carton). Not working for you and some others obviously, but also working for a lot and a lot of readers. At least from the more 'general' discussion board I've seen, seems like there're lots of 'converts' for Snape *yay* And sorry I disagree with your accessment of 'Snape's flaws are much greater than those of the Marauders.' Peter alone drag down the oh-so-wonderful foursome in total scoring if we go along with your moral/likable scoring competition...or did you forget Peter? Just joking, but you see my point? Keep insisting 'who has more flaws' as if that amounts to why one should and shouldn't like this or that character is a bit absurd in my opinion. Better people =/= makes me like a character more. D. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From weaselyswizardwheezes at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 05:02:38 2007 From: weaselyswizardwheezes at yahoo.com (Rowena Ravenclaw) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:02:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Percy instead of Fred Message-ID: <588934.64942.qm@web44813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175229 Hi, I am new to this group but hardly new to yahoogroups. Here is the very short lowdown on me. I am 38 years young with 4 kids ages 15,13,11 and 2 and I've been a huge fan of the HP books since they came out. I have moderated lists on yahoogroups before in the genre of Star Trek and I run a scifi message board with monthly themes (this month is obviously Harry Potter as scifi and fantasy go hand in hand) for 5 years now. The conversation on Hp which is my current obesession has gone stale at my board (maybe just lacking a bit) so I am here! Now down to the nitty gritty....... Book 7 SPOILERS BELOW************************ Percy should have been the one who died not Fred. Reason being, Percy had only recently made ammends with the Weasleys and was forgiven.His death would have been the ultimate sacrifice for his years of traitorous abandonment. Neville should have been the auror NOT Harry because it truly would have shown the depths or rather leaps and bounds Neville made as he grew into a fine young wizard. His parents were aurors and Neville never thought he measured up but he did didnt he!? Harry should have been the DADA teacher. I was sure this would happen but I figured he would play professional Quidditch for the Chudley Cannons (weren't they the underdogs with a really bad team? book 4) PERFECT for Harry..... Ron an auror?? Yeah right.....nope I do not see it. I see him in a civil servant type job at the ministry like his father. Hermione.....Id have liked to have seen her take on a job nobody would have expected like Care of Magical Creatures OR better yet diplomat of sorts between the different species, centaurs, giants, werewolves, mermaids and on and on.....Somebody to sort of take over for Hagrid in caring for the magical creatures but in a more Hermione way like diplomat.....My opinion. Draco...I was dismally disappointed that Draco did not commit some unfathomable act in his father's eyes that helped the trio out in their moment of need. He did help and I won't point out all the examples because you all know but it wasn't direct enough for me. I had hoped in the Epilogue when they see Draco at the train station JKR would have surprised us and had Draco come over with a smile on his face and a friendly handshake. People can argue that that would not be very realistic that Draco and Harry and Ron would be friends but during great upheavals in peoples' lives people DO change whereas had none of book 7 happened it would be completely plausible that they would hate each other for the rest of their lives..It would have been a nice twist is all. The Epilogue......I thought it was rather cheesy, but I like cheese. However...Id have rather seen the epilogue start off at a Quidditch match with Harry as Seeker and maybe even Ginny as Chaser and the game ends and Harry catches the Snitch and then comes over to the stands and hands the golden snitch over to Albus Severus and sitting next to them is Uncle Ron and Aunt Hermione with their two children......that would have been ultimate CHEESE in my opinion...So Harry plays professional Quidditch and then retires and teaches at Hogwarts in defense against the dark arts and later becomes a wonderful headmaster following the footsteps of his mentor Albus Dumbledore..and all was well....The End..... Of course I will have to live with the real version but I like this idea better. JennyPenny From kjones at telus.net Mon Aug 13 06:23:25 2007 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:23:25 -0700 Subject: More on Snape's Appeal Message-ID: <46BFF8DD.8080907@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 175230 Judy wrote: In my own case, I wonder if part of the appeal of Snape to me is that one of my own relatives was always very cruel growing up, and that I would like to believe that this relative didn't really mean it. I hope that's not why I care about Snape so much, but it could be. If readers see Snape as caring, even though he acts mean, does that mean they will excuse cruelty in their own lives, perhaps even put up with being abused themselves? KJ writes: I think that this is a valid point. I also had a truly mean uncle. He always acted very friendly and loving, happy to see me when I was a child. I soon learned, however, not to shake hands with him when he offered because he would twist my wrist. I knew, even as a small child, that he damn well did mean it. Finally when I was nineteen I shook his hand when he offered and when he tried to hurt me, I smacked him hard right across the old B'**&^*'s head and told him it was over. I never had that feeling reading Snape. Only once did he lay hands on Harry and that was to throw him away. Snape was more like an old dog that had been teased too many times. He bit but was not truly cruel by nature. As a character, it made him far more interesting to me than Harry. KJ From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Aug 13 06:39:03 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:39:03 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility/Sirius' choice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175231 Alla wrote: > > NO, I doubt that Sirius wanted to go to Gryffindor based on > > principle at that point as well. Carol responds: > Good. That was my main point. I'm glad we agree that principle > played no part in that childish conversation. Dana: Has anybody ever thought about what the scene with Sirius and Snape and later the sorting also actually could mean and why Snape showed it to Harry? Instead of only looking for conformation that James and Sirius always made Snape's life hell? Which I seriously doubt not only because Lily asks Snape about why he is so obsessed with the marauders (and if you have forgotten she was in the scene as well and if years of bullying followed, I do not think Lily wouldn't have understood why Snape disliked the marauders so much to a point that it seemed obsessive to Lily) and secondly with Lucius there, I hardly think the marauders could get away with bullying a Slytherin and not get bullied in return. And of course their seems to be some denial going on about Snape having friends in Slytherin because we were not shown any interactions with Snape and them but then there is a selective acceptance of Lily's word to proof one thing and deny she could be a honest witness if it turns out negatively for Snape. Let me say this I respect and understand the love people have for Snape as a character but please do not ask me to swallow the unrealistic picture some of you have created in your minds to make him fluffier then he actually is portrayed in canon. Snape had the same amount of chances at Hogwarts as anybody else and nothing he did was just because he had a poor upbringing, been bullied or not enough backbone to stand up against negative influences. That is actually downgrading the person/ character that he is not upgrading him. But anyway let's go back to the scene. Snape says to Lily that she better be in Slytherin and when James and Sirius respond to this, Snape makes it known that to him (for what ever reason or conviction) Slytherin is the only right house. Then they all get sorted and when Lily gets sorted into Gryffindor Snape groans for her not being sorted into Slytherin. Snape is sorted after Lily, not before and he doesn't make any objection for him being sorted into Slytherin but he made an objection for Lily being sorted into Gryffindor. We see that Sirius is already sorted when Lily arrives at the Gryffindor table but if my memory serves me right James is not yet sorted at this point so if he had been sorted into Ravenclaw then Sirius would have been out of luck following a friend as he was sorted first. Anyway, instead of arguing about what Sirius convictions where for being sorted into Gryffindor and if they are honorable or not, one might want to wonder about the real reasons for Snape showing these memories to Harry. I think it is because he wanted to show Harry that he regretted the fact that like Sirius he could have made a choice to go with his friend (or potential friend in Sirius case) instead of what the house, he clearly already was fascinated with, could offer him. Snape wanted Lily sorted into Slytherin and it never occurred to him that if she was sorted into a different house that he could do the same to stay with her. Snape saw Sirius break with a family tradition of being sorted into Slytherin and with Sirius being sorted before Snape, Snape (being smart enough even at age 11) could have known that it was possible to have yourself sorted into a different house if you really wanted it. But he didn't. He chose Slytherin over Lily and Snape showed Harry this memory because he regretted that choice. He could have done what Sirius did but he chose not to do it. Snape then shows memories that again emphasis that he made choices to follow his own convictions/ fascinations/ ambitions over his friendship with Lily and later losing her friendship over it and that all these choices together eventually led to the one biggest regret of his life -> bringing the prophecy to LV that let to Lily's death. Slytherin house is not the house of evil but it is the house that represents people choosing their own ambition over everything else. Snape had strong ambitions and is reluctance to part with them even for his friend and thus why the hat sorted him into Slytherin. Ambition doesn't have to be a negative trait but it can become so when the ambition becomes the only focus point you have to a point that you are willing to sacrifice everything for it. I do not know how many of you know Dickens's tale of Scrooge (A Christmas Carol) but that is what Slytherin house represents. If you let ambition blind you then you can even lose the one thing that is actually the only important thing in life -> Love. I think DD's remark about sorting to soon, hit Snape hard for this very reason. DD's remark also was not about focusing on Slytherin being evil but about Snape's change in focus and just like DD himself this change can come later in life. It is not Snape changing into a Gryffindor it is Snape letting go of his ambition as a life driven force and accepting other values of his being over that once strong ambition and why he is a better man then Karkaroff. The hat is never wrong because every human being has something of all four houses in them and therefore the hat could never be wrong because it choses that facet of the person that he or she's focusses on predominatly over the other espects these houses represent. It is not the hat that defines the person but the person him or herself. Therefore Harry could have done well in Slytherin if he had any ambitions for it just like anybody else. Draco wanted nothing more then to follow the ambitions his family had set out for him and it was so obvious to the hat that it didn't need more then to barely touch Draco's head to see it. Not because Draco was defined evil but because Draco chose to follow in his family's footsteps without ever thinking there was any other possibility. Draco was not defined by the hat but by his own lack of wanting to be anything else then his family wanted him to be. It is not the hat that made Draco turn into the person that he is and neither did it mean that being in that house meant he could never be anything else or do anything good with the ambitions he chose to follow. Peter did not get sorted into Slytherin because he did not have any ambitions, was not loyal enough to be sorted into Hufflepuff and was not intelligent enough or to lazy to be sorted into Ravenclaw. He was sorted into Gryffindor by default. Peter and Snape are each others opposite later in life, where Peter made the choice to ambition staying alive over anything else he might have valued once when faced with the dangers of war or death to be more precise, Snape made the choice to stop following his own ambitions when the truth of war claimed the life of the only person that had ever meant something to him on a deeper level. Narcissa and in the end also Lucius where not prepared to sacrifice Draco for their ambitions, even if they truly believed in it. LV did not have anyone that was important enough to stop following his goals in life because there wasn't anyone to change his mind for and that is the true evil in life. Ambition in life can be truly evil if there is nothing that balances the length you are willing to go for that ambition. Without this balance you would even be willing to sacrifice another person's life if it furthers your goal or at least turn a blind eye. Snape's ambition was being the best in the Dark Arts because he was truly fascinated with its potentials but instead of realizing (and no I do not think he truly understood this or ever realized it) that this knowledge could be used in a good way instead of believing that he could only utilize it by following LV's ways. LV wanted to be somebody and used the Dark Arts to further his goals and I believe that Snape wanted to be like LV, to be someone people looked up to. That he had admiration for LV because of this and why he wanted to join to such a point he adopted the Slytherin view of blood supremacy. As many have already noticed that Snape could use this knowledge to safe people's life but he never realized that part of the ambition he had, not even when he was forced to use his knowledge in that way. It is not the fascination with the Dark Arts that is evil by definition; it is the way you chose to use it that defines the evilness. (Hence the curcio debate) Unlike DD who realized that his knowledge could be put to better use when he lost a person close to his heart, Snape had to be forces into using his potentials for the good cause and was bitter and grudging about it all the way through and only started to realize some of it when it was pretty much to late to have any meaning/ effect on his own life. Snape could have enjoyed his stay at Hogwarts as a teacher and make a life for himself. He could have been a good example for his house that ambition is nice as long as you do not let it control every choice you make in life but he CHOSE not do to so. Snape showing Harry these specific memories is Snape's way of saying that he regretted not having made different choices and that he acknowledges that Harry is the bigger man for choosing to love and fights for what he believes in even if he doesn't gain anything from it personally, that he now understands that Harry is indeed Lily's son. To not have chosen love over his own ambitions was wrong and that love should actually have been the one thing he should have ambitioned. And with JKR stating that Lily would have loved him back it makes Snape's choices not to go for it that more ironic that he only started to realize what he had when he lost it as do most people in life. Just my two cents. Dana, Who thinks that people should not hate other characters in the novel because they love Snape, which would make it possible for them to see the true story of Severus Snape in the novel instead of making one up to fit what they want him to represent instead. Snape could have been James if he had made different choices. He hated that everybody looked up to James without, in Snape's mind, James doing anything for it and in the end it was James that ended up with the one thing that Snape lost over the ambitions he had -> Lily. Snape blamed everybody for the choices he himself made and if he had realized this sooner then he could have been everything he ever wanted and more. From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 06:46:37 2007 From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:46:37 -0000 Subject: "Look at me" and hidden identity [was: The picture of Lily and Harry] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175232 > > McJuels again: > > I also believe that Snape chose the memories for Harry to view in > > an effort to make some amends, though a bit late. When Snape > > asked Harry to "Look at me!" I choose to believe that Snape was > > finally forcing himself to look at Harry and see him for who > > Harry is and not who his mother and father were. > houyhnhnm: > The enmity between these two who should have been friends > is one of the tragedies of the series. zeldaricdeau: Agreed absolutely 100%. I've been a "Snape loved Lily and tipped off DD" believer since after GoF. There were so many times in the series when it broke my heart to think that there is this potential tie in the pasts of these two terribly lonely people but both of them (and here I do reserve most of the blame for Snape) keep destroying chances to make anything of it. Perhaps Snape's role as a spy would have prevented any form of friendship even if he weren't a git half the time, but it's still a tragedy. > houyhnhnm: > I agree that Snape's request to "Look at me" may not have been in > order to see Lily's eyes but to see Harry in order that they might > say "thou" to each other one time before it was too late. zeldaricdeau now: On the topic of the "Look at me" line (which I get chills just typing!) I've generally been of the opinion that in life people often do or say things for more than one reason and that in fiction it's often more interesting to have people do or say things for more than one reason. Perhaps it's the actor in me, but I think that, specifically in writing, packing as much information and shades of meaning into a single sentence makes for better dialogue. I'm not JKR of course (I wish), and I have no idea what her views are on the matter, but isn't it possible that when Snape says "Look at me" we're meant to interpret it in several ways both on the level of what Snape is trying to say and on the level of what JKR is trying to say about Snape and Harry? Personally, my first reaction was a relatively literal one. Snape is asking Harry to look at him. Snape is asking Harry to *see* him, the real him, the "heart on his sleeve" him for the first time in his life. Which, I think, goes along with his action just prior: the voluntary and literal bleeding of all those things he kept secret (including the memories he most hated for Harry to see) out from behind the mask and into Harry's hands. Later I began to perceive the line as also meaning what some people have said here: it was a chance for Snape to see Lily's eyes again before he died, whether out of a desire for comfort, recognition, absolution, etc.. Which, I guess I personally don't really find creepy at all. Then a couple days ago a read an essay where someone was arguing that the line meant essentially what is being argued in this thread or perhaps a variant on it: Snape wishes to *see* Harry for the first time and/or see the Lily inside Harry and not the James exterior (eyes being the window to the soul and all). Each of these seems a perfectly valid and interesting interpretation of the line, but I think in this case limiting it to one or another is unnecessary and, potentially, takes some of the beauty out of it. > houyhnhnm: > I am with you on this. There was no actual need for > Snape to include the early memories of himself and Lily > in order to carry out his promise to Dumbledore. He > really only needed to show the memories of himself with > Dumbledore. It was a gift, though Snape may not have > intended it as such. It may rather have been his need to > justify himself to Harry, to make Harry understand him. zeldaricdeau: I agree here completely as well. The memories given were not random by any means; they clearly showed a logical progression and that progression showed far more than would be strictly necessary for Harry to learn what he needs to learn. So long as he knows that pensive memories are objective truth that can only be edited and not intrinsically altered then he really only needs to see the HBP era conversations with DD to learn the truth of things and get the info he needs (baring some form of faked situation with a polyjuiced Death Eater standing in for DD--not impossible but seems unlikely). In that light, I think the memories Snape gave lend credence to the "'look at me' as request for Harry to *see* Snape" interpretation. > houyhnhnm: > This need of Snape's to be seen and understood by Harry > strikes me as the other side of the coin from Harry's > wish to be friends with the Half Boold Prince. [SNIP] > That Snape's attitiude towards Harry is continuing > to evolve in DH is shown by the success of his plan to > deliver the Sword, though once again, as in HBP, he is > able to teach Harry only because his identity remains unknown. zeldaricdeau: I know I'm not the first DDM!Snape/LOLIPOPS supporter to feel vindicated by reading DH :-) but this one aspect made me quite happy, too. I remember arguing with a friend who was of the opinion that a DDM!Snape couldn't possibly be of any use to Harry post HBP, being so deep undercover, because Harry would never believe a word he says. Which I thought would be true if it hadn't been for the HBP's potions book storyline. I felt pretty sure that, knowing Harry trusted Snape implicitly so long as he didn't know it was Snape he was trusting, Snape would be able to find a way to contact him in DH. Of course, I'm sure the benevolence-radiating doe helped .... But it goes back to the theme of Snape and Harry never actually *seeing* the other person. -ZR (Wow! Two posts in one day!) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Aug 13 07:10:09 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:10:09 -0000 Subject: Percy instead of Fred In-Reply-To: <588934.64942.qm@web44813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175233 JennyPenny: > Percy should have been the one who died not Fred. Reason being, Percy had only recently made ammends with the Weasleys and was forgiven. His death would have been the ultimate sacrifice for his years of traitorous abandonment. Hickengruendler: IMO, Fred is just the right victim, if any of the Weasleys has to die at all. What would be the point in killing of Percy, other than half (or maybe more) of the readership saying: "Yeah, that's what he deserves". I always rather liked Percy, but he is not very beloved among the fans, and in the last two books (prior to DH, I mean), he was portrayed mostly in a negative light, so his death would not have much impact. On the other hand, he hasn't done anything truly evil, like Voldemort or Bellatrix, so that one could feel some real satisfaction about his death. IMO, killing off Percy would have been a pretty easy way out for JKR and not achieving much, killing one of the Twins is a much more daring move. And for me, it was a pretty logical end to the end. I can not give any specific reasonings for this, except that I was emotionally satisfied with the end of the Weasley-rift storyline, in a way that I was not with all of the subplots, (even though I really liked this book generally). But I also would have found Percy's death (especially in a sacrifical manner) more clich? than anything else. People often say, that JKR uses many clich?s, and she probably does, yet when she goes against the clich?s (for example in not having Percy or Snape die trying to save a Weasley or, in Snape's case, Harry, many fans seem dissatisfied as well). JennyPenny: > Neville should have been the auror NOT Harry because it truly would have shown the depths or rather leaps and bounds Neville made as he grew into a fine young wizard. His parents were aurors and Neville never thought he measured up but he did didnt he!? Hickengruendler: And he found a very well respected job in the biggest Wizarding School of the country. Neville is my favourite character, and I was a bit afraid, what she was going to do with him. And I really liked it in the end, mostly because we don't see Neville doing any spectacular bits of magic. He got better than he was in the first books, of course, but in the end he succeeded not because of any magical abilities, but because of his ability not to give up and continue to fight, even when everything seems hopeless. This is how he stood up against the Carrows and this is, why he had the opportunity to kill Nagini in the end. In fact, I think the only time, when he is mentioned doing some actual magic in the book, is when he defeated Greyback, together with Ron. (At least I assume "floored" meant they used the STunning Spell, or something similar.) And in this regards, I find it fitting, that Neville found his own place, and did not go the same professional route as his parents, but instead ended up teaching the only subject, he was said to be good at since Philosopher's Stone. I snipped the next three examples (about the Trio's careers), because I generally find "Character X should have ended up like this instead of that" to be a rather problematic argument. All that it means is, that your opinion differs from JKR's, but that does not make any opinion less valid, nor does it make the books weaker fron any objective point of view. JennyPenny: > Draco...I was dismally disappointed that Draco did not commit some unfathomable act in his father's eyes that helped the trio out in their moment of need. He did help and I won't point out all the examples because you all know but it wasn't direct enough for me. Hickengruendler: Yes, that is discussed here a lot, less about Draco's redemption as an individual, but more about how much she succeeded showing good sides of Slytherin house in general. I *mostly* liked Draco's characterisation in Deathly Hallows. I thought it was pretty realistic, and it also was the first time since Philosopher's Stone, where I found him all in all sympathetic. But I, too, thought after HBP, that she went a step further in redeeming him. Nonetheless, the only scene, that I did not understand at all, is why he cornered Harry in the RoR. Both his behaviour in Malfoy Manor and his reaction towards Crabbe and Goyle seem to indicate, that he did not want the Trio back. So why stay back to hand them to Voldemort? Was it merely a Pretext, so that he didn't have to join Voldemort, and did he think, he could convince Crabbe and Goyle to lay off of Harry pretty soon? I'm not sure, but I do find this one of the moments, where JKR sacrificed character development a bit for plot development. She needed the Malfoy Trio to be there, so they were, ignoring a bit how Draco was potrayed prior to this scene in this book and also afterwards. From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 07:48:39 2007 From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:48:39 -0000 Subject: King's Cross Station and DH as Christian Allegory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175234 > allthecoolnamesgone > Why didn't he talk to Dumbledores > portrait at this point? zeldaricdeau: I believe it is stated as Harry enters the room that, while the portrait frames are there, the inhabitants have left to watch the battle. So, DD's portrait is (conveniently) empty at this point in the story. -ZR From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon Aug 13 08:20:27 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:20:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility/Sirius' choice Message-ID: <455855.28588.qm@web86210.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175235 Lanval: That last example is about the Dursleys specifically, not about Muggles in general. I don't recall Ron saying anything condescending about Hermione's parents. Irene: Well, that's funny in a way, because it's the very same Petunia. :-) If I wanted to argue for argument's sake, I could say that Snape, who was observing the sisters for a while before approaching Lily, made the same conclusions as McGonagall - Petunia is the worst sort of Muggle. :-) Lanval: That's all. As an argument that nine-year-old Snape is already a raging Pureblood fanatic and a contemptuous bigot, it won't fly. Irene: Excellent, that acknowledgement is all I wanted - because some listees did use this word to build all of the above. Lanval: But come to think of it, I seem to recall discussions in which Arthur and Molly Weasley were accused of precisely that -- contemptuous bigots, full of pureblood superiority. Why? Because Arthur's interest in Muggles was considered "condescending". And because Molly once mentioned King's Cross as "packed with Muggles". Surely, if *that* deserved attention, the case of Snape, future DE and ardent supporter of LV, might deserve some? Irene: I would not necessarily call them bigots, but of course they are condescending. I don't want to go through Weasleys visiting Dursleys episode again - book 7 didn't shed any new light on the events. But my general impression of wizarding world being a very Muggle-unfriendly place is even stronger after book 7. Yes, the bad guys would hold Muggles upside down for their pleasure, but the good guys would wipe Muggles' memory for their convenience. I, as a Muggle, would like to stay as far as possible from both kinds. Irene From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon Aug 13 08:38:41 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:38:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of Sorting and Snape Message-ID: <461880.48846.qm@web86209.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175236 Judy wrote: Who does Snape have? Dumbledore insults him, Lily slams the door in his face. Who does that leave Snape as a friend? Lucius Malfoy? What sort of friend would Lucius be? (And Snape is actually opposing Lucius for most of his adult life.) Snape is tragic and alone in a way that none of these other characters are; he is tormented in a way no one else in the books is. I think that's a main reason why so many fans love him. Irene: I'm completely with you about finding Snape's fate tragic and loving his character. I'd like to comment about Lucius as a friend. Actually, I think Lucius could have been a very good friend to Snape. Maybe a main reason why Snape found Slytherin way of life so attractive (can't see him being that eager to be friends with Crabbe and Goyle seniors). Lucius is at least 4 years older, rich, cool and popular in his House at least. If he had taken poor misfit under his wing, in boarding school environment this is of enormous importance. Certainly Snape's gratitude lasted for years, stretching to him being sympathetic to Narcissa's plight and favouring Draco. Oh, and Draco seems terribly familiar with Snape from year 1 - did Snape visit regularly at Malfoy Manor? Maybe even while he was still at school. Were Lucius's parents still alive back then? If they were as caring of each other and their son as Lucius and Narcissa seem to be, Snape probably felt as a freezing man invited to sit by the fire, emotionally speaking. I'm thinking "Brideshead Revisited", in short. :-) Irene From dunctonhams at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 08:38:25 2007 From: dunctonhams at yahoo.com (Andrew Bryan) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: In defence of Molly Weasley Message-ID: <401138.5640.qm@web60714.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175237 Ginger wrote: Snip> Molly is certainly not trained as an auror might be, but she does have that mama-bear-protecting-the-cubs thing going for her. No: HPFGUIDX 175238 va32h wrote: Snape is *not* opposing Lucius for most of his adult life, either. Snape may have turned spy when he was just 21, but let's not forget that for the next 13 years, there was no one to spy upon. I won't deny that Snape was immensely brave in going back to Voldemort after GoF and continuing to spy on him for the next three years. But let's not forget that Snape had many, many years in which he lived quite comfortably Irene: I'm not sure there was no one to spy upon. Dumbledore seemed pretty sure that Voldemort would find a way to return. It stands to a reason that he'd ask Snape to keep his "faithful DE" facade and keep an eye on Voldemort's supporters. Prep0strus wrote: And your evaluation of snape flawed, good, tragic. Yeah, I can see that. But overwhelmingly MEAN. And I have a hard time getting past that. He didn't grow up. He stayed an angry, nasty person, even when he was `good'. And he is tragic, but I know also that his choices make him so. Harry had a tough childhood, and Sirius was indoctrinated in evil maybe with a little more work or a little more devotion to Lily Snape could have been like them instead of such a tragic figure. Irene: I'm sorry, but I had to laugh at the idea that with a little effort Snape could have been "as good" as Sirius. I can understand presenting Harry as a role model of someone who overcame tough childhood, but Sirius? He is every bit as MEAN as Snape is, if not meaner. He is mean to Peter, he is mean to Molly, he is mean to Kreacher, he is even mean to Harry when Harry does not play along. Ah, I can hear the objections, but he is so nice to the people he cares about! Guess what - Snape is also perfectly civil and even nice to Malfoys, for example. I really have to wonder - if teenage Lupin one day decided that he's had enough "close chances" to kill someone in Hogsmead, and he does not want to run around with Marauders on full moon nights anymore, would Sirius stayed nice to him? Irene From muellem at bc.edu Mon Aug 13 10:24:43 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:24:43 -0000 Subject: good/bad slyth/Disappointment/Responsibility/Sorting/Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175239 > Holly wrote: > One thing to remember throughout the analysis of the actions of the > Marauders is that *almost* everything we know of them in their youth > we have seen through SNAPE's eyes via his memories. I believe that > perception is everything. Ask 5 people to recall an occasion or event > and you will hear 5 completely different stories. colebiancardi: ahhh, but Pensive memories are objective and tell the truth. They have have been *seen* thru Snape's eyes, but it isn't thru a filter. DD states Pensive memories are objective and therefore, there is no perception on the memory, only interpretation on the viewer's part. It isn't a recall with different stories. It is like viewing a film - the data is all there, but the viewer filters thru it, not the film itself. From judy at judyshapiro.com Mon Aug 13 11:17:16 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:17:16 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0708121716p16277a81g5a94d8809183efef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175240 Debbie (elfundeb) wrote: > Lily had the influence of Gryffindor, where she spent most of her > time. Snape did not. Environment does contribute to bad > decisions. I'm not denying that Snape made terrible decisions, but > Lily's choice was easier. Let's just say I'm not enamored of the > Sorting Hat these days, considering what it does to impressionable > eleven-year-olds. That is exactly how I feel, too. Debbie continued: > I'm not really a Snapefan either, though I find him the most > compellingly drawn character in the book. But the Snape- > Sirius/James relationship touches some very raw nerves with me. > My siblings and I were the socially awkward misfits (though my > home life was vastly better except for the lack > of money), and were subject to merciless bullying. While I was > not a primary target, it took a severe emotional toll on all of us, > and to this > day I have a visceral dislike of bullies. For what it's worth, I > have the same reaction to Fred and George, even though I > understand that JKR doesn't > see them in the same light. I agree with this completely (other than that I am a Snapefan.) I also was a target of severe bullying, and like Debbie, I just can't bring myself to like bullies such as James and Sirius. (And to a less extent, Fred and George.) I imagine that some people will ask me. "Isn't Snape a bully?" My answer would be: Not in the same way. We never see Snape and his buddies ganging up on other kids at school. And, Snape isn't generally a physical bully. He says snarky things, but that's usually about it. The one exception is when he threatens Trevor the Toad. I know a lot of Snape-haters put a great deal of emphasis on the scene in PoA where Snape feeds Neville's potion to Trevor, but I've never been very affected by it. I guess it's partly because I have a hard time seeing myself getting attached to a toad (although I love animals in general), and partly because I always assumed that if Neville was so scared of Snape, Neville wouldn't have brought Trevor to class, and so the whole "Snape threatening to poison Trevor" thing always struck me as a bit of a plot hole. (Montavilla47, I did love your "You keep your toad in your room" line!) I just don't see sarcasm as being all that bullying, especially when it is just one person being sarcastic, rather than a whole group insulting someone. You can choose to ignore a snarky comment, especially from someone who makes a habit of sarcasm (although Harry rarely does, despite Hermione admonishing him to.) On the other hand, it's hard to ignore being physically attacked. As they say, "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me." By the way, I had a teacher (in chemistry, as it happens) who once said something to me that was a lot more hurtful than Snape's comment about Hermione's teeth. Despite this, I would feel bad for this teacher if he ended up being bitten to death by a giant snake. Irene: > I'm completely with you about finding Snape's fate tragic and > loving his character. Thank you! On the top of whether Snape was alone, as I said he was, Irene continued: > I'd like to comment about Lucius as a friend. Actually, I think > Lucius could have been a very good friend to Snape. Maybe a main > reason why Snape found Slytherin way of life so attractive (can't > see him being that eager to be friends with Crabbe and Goyle > seniors). Lucius is at least 4 years older, rich, cool and popular > in his House at least. If he had taken poor misfit under his wing, > in boarding school environment this is of enormous importance. And, from va32h: > Lucius is apparently a lifelong friend. We saw that prefect Lucius > warmly welcomed Snape at the Sorting. Snape has a rapport with > Lucius' son, and Lucius' wife has no hesitation to turn to Snape in > time of need (and knows where he lives). > Snape is *not* opposing Lucius for most of his adult life, either. > Snape may have turned spy when he was just 21, but let's not forget > that for the next 13 years, there was no one to spy upon. I see Lucius as a sociopath, albeit a less extreme one than Voldemort. We know that he tortures people for fun (at the Quidditch World Cup.) He seems to be purely out for himself, all the time. We don't ever even see Lucius showing love or affection to *Draco*, his only child, so I don't see how he could genuinely care about Snape. I don't think Lucius, Voldemort's "slippery friend," was ever a true friend to anyone. My view of Snape and his relationship to the other Slytherins is that they would have valued him greatly for his magical skill, which I think we can all agree was both quite high and was very well suited to the Dark Arts and Potions emphasis of Slytherin House. I see Snape as someone who was so thrilled to finally have his skills valued, to have people praising and admiring him, that he didn't realize how evil these new friends were, and how incapable of genuine caring -- which, in JKR's books, is the same thing. Once Snape went over to Dumbledore's side, of course, he really no longer even had the Death Eaters' poor excuse for friendship. (He may have socialized with them some, although we don't see it. But even if he did, it wouldn't have been very comforting to him, because he knew he was no longer on their side.) Again, I see Snape's relationship with his "little Death Eater friends" as analagous to Dumbledore's friendship with Grindelwald. Dumbledore was so happy to FINALLY have someone like him, someone who shared his abilities and interests, that he was blinded to Grindelwald's true nature. Just as some have noted that Snape had Lily to try to show him the error of his ways, Dumbledore had Aberforth. But neither Dumbledore nor Snape could see the truth until it was too late. The difference, as I see it, is that the tragedy that opened Dumbledore's eyes happened very soon, only a few months into his friendship with Grindelwald, while in Snape's case, no personal tragedy occured foryears. I actually think a big reason why JKR included the whole Dumbledore/Grindelwald story was to prepare us for Snape's redemption. (Not that we Snapefans needed preparing, of course!) I do think that Snape really cared about Draco and Narcissa. However, that would presumably be much later (it would have to be, in the case of Draco), and we see Draco reject Snape in books 6 and 7, because he feels Snape has usurped Lucius' position with Voldemort. Someone (I forget whom) said that Snape couldn't be bullied that much at school because he would have had Lucius' protection. The problem here is that Lucius was at least four years ahead of Snape. Students don't seem to have much contact with those in other years, and in any event, Lucius would have soon finished school. As for why I said that Snape spent most of his life spying on Lucius, remember that Lucius doesn't need Voldemort around to do evil. In CoS, he slips the Diary into Hogwarts in an attempt to unleash Slytherin's monster, and in GoF, as I mentioned, he leads a group of former Death Eaters in tormenting Muggles. Based on this, Lucius has been up to no good all along. I think Dumbledore would have wanted Snape to keep spying on Lucius, even when Voldemort was in Albania. Dana, I didn't have time to read your whole post, but I wanted to respond to one point that you made. Dana: > Snape could have been James if he had made different choices. I don't think so. We are told that James was wealthy, very athletic, reasonably good-looking, and adored by his parents. Snape was none of those things. If you just mean that Snape could have married Lily had he made different choices, then yes, that might have been true. But Snape was always going to have much tougher childhood and adolescence than James had, no matter what he did. I also suspect that, had Snape really and truly turned his back on his "little Death Eater friends" he would not have ended up living happily ever after with Lily, he would have ended up dead. I think Voldemort would have come knocking on the door of such a talented, and seemingly evil, Slytherin, whether Snape wanted to work for him or not. Prep0strus, I think a lot of our differences result from the assumptions that we made about the actions taking place off of page. I'd like to quote a great post that Nora made a few weeks ago. Nora: > Whenever I go back and read what Rowling actually wrote, after being > submerged in discussion groups, I'm always surprised at how *little* > of Snape there actually is in the books. Page-time, he doesn't get > that much. Harry is built as a character through a lot of page > time, access to his thoughts, etc. Snape was built as a character > by hints and a whole lot of refusal to give out information... > > The problem and glory of this is that it then encourages each reader > to build their own mental Snape. This is glorious because it's > successful in engaging the reader, leading to elaboration and > speculation. It's problematic because each person builds his own > idea on a remarkably small amount of material, which starts to make > discussion difficult--I probably don't share your mental image of > Snape, you don't share mine, but what we can point to in the text to > gain common ground is not that much I think Nora captured it exactly. One of the reasons that Snape is so popular as a character, I believe, is that his ambiguity allows people to project what they want to see (whether good or bad) into his character. So, it can be fun to debate him, but ultimately, people will have different views of Snape because they will be making different assumptions on all the aspects of him that we *don't* see. (For example, I believe that Snape was a lot nicer with the Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws than he was with Harry and his friends. Your mileage may vary.) -- JudySerenity From random832 at fastmail.us Mon Aug 13 11:46:57 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:46:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggles &. Wizards & Mudbloods (Re: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility/Sirius' choice) In-Reply-To: <521735.52565.qm@web55015.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <521735.52565.qm@web55015.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46C044B1.6020600@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 175241 Christine Maupin wrote: > I don't even view his barb about the "biggest Muggles I ever laid eyes > on" (does he mean the pun?) as an insult against Muggles in general -- > just the Dursley's in particular and that's because of their > non-tolerant attitude towards Wizards despite the fact there have been > and still is at least one Wizard in their extended family. So, when I > hear a Wizard use the term Muggle, I don't automatically take it as an > offensive comment on the Muggle's place in the world On the contrary, the fact that he uses a mere intensifier of the description "Muggles" as an insult seems to indicate that he _does_ view "Muggle-ness" as a negative thing, of which having more of makes someone a worse person. It'd be like insulting someone who happens to be Jewish and also personally has many negative qualities by saying he or she is "the biggest Jew you ever laid eyes on" - as if all the negative things about them come from being Jewish and that they're so bad can be put down to being "more Jewish". I.e. that everything bad about the Dursleys is because they're such huge Muggles rather than because of anything personal to them. -- Random832 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 11:59:18 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:59:18 -0000 Subject: Lily, Hagrid, Snape, Lucius, Friends (was Re: good/bad Slyth/Disappointment In-Reply-To: <424931.55725.qm@web86210.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175242 > Irene: > > I'm sorry, but I had to laugh at the idea that with a little effort Snape could have been "as good" as Sirius. I can understand presenting Harry as a role model of someone who overcame tough childhood, but Sirius? He is every bit as MEAN as Snape is, if not meaner. He is mean to Peter, he is mean to Molly, he is mean to Kreacher, he is even mean to Harry when Harry does not play along. > Ah, I can hear the objections, but he is so nice to the people he cares about! Guess what - Snape is also perfectly civil and even nice to Malfoys, for example. Alla: I will raise a bit different objection - being mean to Harry **once** does not really count for me. And being mean to Molly? When? When she remarked that he is not good enough to raise his godson in essense? Or are you thinking of a different event? If we are thinking of the same one, then I would give Molly much meaner answer than Sirius, frankly. Because I found her remark to be beyond obnoxious. And yeah, he is mean to Kreacher. I still cannot count as many people as I can count for Snape. Not that I want to present Sirius' as role model, lol. But Snape for me is way ahead in that department. Even if you include that hurtful remark to Harry Sirius made. Who else Sirius' is mean to? Because him being mean more than one I can only count Kreacher and his dear old mom. Not a surprise for me at all. Snape, let's see. Hermione, Ron, Neville, Tonks, Lupin, Sirius, Harry of course. And that I can remember right away. Alla. From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Aug 13 12:50:55 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:50:55 -0000 Subject: good/bad slyth/Disappointment/Responsibility/Sorting/Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175243 colebiancardi: > ahhh, but Pensive memories are objective and tell the truth. They > have have been *seen* thru Snape's eyes, but it isn't thru a > filter. DD states Pensive memories are objective and therefore, > there is no perception on the memory, only interpretation on the > viewer's part. It isn't a recall with different stories. It is > like viewing a film -the data is all there, but the viewer filters > thru it, not the film itself. Dana: That might be so but is the viewer/ reader truly objective when presented with this information? And I do not mean Harry, I mean the readers of the book. I truly think not, as most people with a Snape bias read these scenes just to confirm the opinion/ interpretations they themselves have developed about these character's interactions. Never does it come to mind that Snape was actually NOT showing these memories to make Harry see that his father or godfather were truly the bullies Snape had made them out to be. Snape was actually for the first time in his interaction with Harry (even post-mortem) showing Harry that it was Snape who had been obsessed with the marauders and that he truly envied them to the extend that he was prepared to do pretty much anything to bring them down, even sneaking into the tunnel behind the willow, in an attempt to proof to Lily that these guys were not as wonderful as everybody thought they were. Yes, read that part again where Snape says everybody pretty much thought that the marauders were great as many seemed to have missed it. Not my words but Snape's own. His hatred for them propelled explosively after Lily's death. Blaming the marauders for every single thing related to her, from her being sorted into Gryffindor, to him losing her friendship, to her getting killed and it was this inability to let go of this hatred that Snape projected on to Harry. Not because James and Sirius truly did anything that Snape could not have overcome but because he could not face that what he lost was his own fault and his alone. If Snape had wanted to proof that he had been right about them then he surely could have chosen different memories but he did not. He, for once in his life, showed through these memories that no one but Snape himself was to blame for the choices he made in life and the consequences that resulted from these choices. So eventhough the pensieve memories might have been objective, most of the time the reader (or at least many) does not look at them with the same objectivity they are suppossed to represent. Selective reading is bliss if you want it to be so but it is not very objective now is it. JMHO Dana From va32h at comcast.net Mon Aug 13 13:25:52 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:25:52 -0000 Subject: Lily, Hagrid, Snape, Lucius, Friends (was Re: good/bad Slyth/Disappointment In-Reply-To: <424931.55725.qm@web86210.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175244 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > > va32h earlier: > > > Snape is *not* opposing Lucius for most of his adult life, either. > Snape may have turned spy when he was just 21, but let's not forget > that for the next 13 years, there was no one to spy upon. > > > > I won't deny that Snape was immensely brave in going back to > Voldemort after GoF and continuing to spy on him for the next three > years. But let's not forget that Snape had many, many years in which > he lived quite comfortably > > Then Irene: > > I'm not sure there was no one to spy upon. Dumbledore seemed pretty sure that Voldemort would find a way to return. It stands to a reason that he'd ask Snape to keep his "faithful DE" facade and keep an eye on Voldemort's supporters. > va32h: Well then Snape did a crappy job, didn't he? Because Voldemort did indeed find a way to return, and Snape is not shown to have known or provided an iota of information about it. And why would he? Snape has no credibility among the Death Eaters after Voldemort's death. He is seen as Dumbledore's lap dog, having denounced his Dark Lord to live comfortably at Hogwarts. At least, that is what Bella calls him. It isn't *until* Voldemort comes back *and* accepts Snape's explanation, *and* shares that with the rest of the DE that they come to accept Snape as a returning member, and even then they don't fully trust him - see Bellatrix again. Snape's job was to be Voldemort's right hand man, not hang out with lowlifes in general (that's Mundungus' job). And again, who is there to spy on? Anyone outwardly loyal to Voldemort is either dead, presumed dead, or in Azkaban. Those who escaped punishment have every reason to *not* want Voldemort to come back, since they had to denounce him to remain free. That's why Karkaroff runs away. That's why Malfoy and Avery show up at the graveyard begging for forgiveness. It stands to reason that any Death Eater who turned in his fellows, or claimed to have been acting under the Imperius Curse would not want Voldemort to come back, because they would then have to answer for their crimes. So no, there is no one to spy on. There is just Snape, with 13 years of nothing to do but brood on his own losses. That's what I see in canon, at least. va32h From phdindeli at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 13:11:19 2007 From: phdindeli at yahoo.com (Michelle Law) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0708121716p16277a81g5a94d8809183efef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <559515.97755.qm@web51506.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175245 Debbie: According to Dumbledore, in OOP ch. 37: "[Sirius] regarded [Kreacher] as a servant unworthy of much interest or notice. Indifference and neglect often do more damage than outright dislike." In other words, servants are unworthy of his interest. Dumbledore also claimed that Sirius was kind to house elves in general, but we never see any such kindness, or have any indication that Sirius ever had meaningful contact with other house elves. His sympathy for Winky derived from his antipathy for Crouch, and thus is suspect. If Sirius had been shown being kind to other beings of any kind, I would not have labeled his views as politically correct. Michelle: Hi, I'm new here. Re: Sirius' relationship with Kreacher. I believe that Kreacher symbolized everything bad about Sirius' mother and Sirius' bad relationship with her. Kreacher was always parroting the pure-blood drivel he learned at her knee and had no liking for Sirius even tho' he was the last of the Blacks. Kreacher venerated Mrs. Black and all the pure-blood superiority she espoused; Kreacher would have considered Sirius a "blood-traitor" for his choosing to turn his back on the pure-blood/ Slytherin world view. I think this mutual antagonism had much more to do with Sirius' treatment of Kreacher than any kind of general "contempt for underlings" as has been put forth in this forum. Michelle, getting her feet wet on this list. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Aug 13 13:48:04 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:48:04 -0000 Subject: The Joke's on Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175246 The birthday greetings are still appearing at JKR's website. Which reminds me of all the discussions about them. Were they for those who would be on the good side, or to those who survive? What was the rhyme or reason? No rhyme, no reason from the look of it. But I'm glad Snape got them. Potioncat From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 13:59:32 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:59:32 -0000 Subject: The Joke's on Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175247 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > The birthday greetings are still appearing at JKR's website. Which > reminds me of all the discussions about them. Were they for those who > would be on the good side, or to those who survive? What was the rhyme > or reason? > > No rhyme, no reason from the look of it. > > But I'm glad Snape got them. Alla: Huh, well it seems that those who got them were on the good side, no? Or at least not on Voldemort's side, heee. Those who survived definitely does not cut it now, hehe. It seems to me that it may stress JKR's belief in afterlife, if nothing else? As in they are always alive, maybe? On the other hand, Dumbledore and Sirius did not get them and they are there in the afterlife. So, yeah I will go with those who were not on Voldemort's side I mean. Till I hear better explanation anyways. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Aug 13 14:34:14 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:34:14 -0000 Subject: The Joke's on Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175248 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > The birthday greetings are still appearing at JKR's website. Which > reminds me of all the discussions about them. Were they for those who > would be on the good side, or to those who survive? What was the rhyme > or reason? > > No rhyme, no reason from the look of it. > > But I'm glad Snape got them. > > Potioncat > Hickengruendler: Definitely not for the survivors. Snape, Lupin, Fred and Dobby all got Birthday wishes. Every character, who got them, was goodish or at least not completely evil. The closest caming evil were Snape, who half of his life fought Voldemort, and Draco, who was more weak or naiv, than really evil. My guess is, that it are characters, who are good, and who were still alive after HBP (JKR started with the birthday wishes, while writing Prince), which is why Dumbledore and Sirius didn't get a Birthday wish. Maybe now the victims of Deathly Hallows won't get one either. The next of them to come would be Snape in January. We'll see, if he still gets his birthday wish. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Aug 13 14:40:16 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:40:16 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility/Sirius' choice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175249 > Dana: > Has anybody ever thought about what the scene with Sirius and Snape > and later the sorting also actually could mean and why Snape showed > it to Harry? Magpie: You know, I see a lot things I agree with in this post, and yet it still seems pretty hopeless for kids in Slytherin--like it's a trick that gets played on them early, a test that other kids know how to pass and they don't, and which gets me back on the same track I already was about Slytherin: they make themselves unpleasant, they deserve any punishment they get. I mean, I don't think Slytherin is the "evil" house, but putting yourself above others still does seem very much inferior to other people. You can't get around the unpleasant nature of Slytherins with thousands of pages to show them. (And sometimes characters that come across as funny to me actually seem to be intended to be far more unpleasant in the scheme of the books as well, so I may even be seeing them as better than I'm supposed to see them.) Dana: > I think it is because he wanted to show Harry that he regretted the > fact that like Sirius he could have made a choice to go with his > friend (or potential friend in Sirius case) instead of what the > house, he clearly already was fascinated with, could offer him. Snape > wanted Lily sorted into Slytherin and it never occurred to him that > if she was sorted into a different house that he could do the same to > stay with her. Snape saw Sirius break with a family tradition of > being sorted into Slytherin and with Sirius being sorted before > Snape, Snape (being smart enough even at age 11) could have known > that it was possible to have yourself sorted into a different house > if you really wanted it. Magpie: And yet why should he have done that? It's like, again Snape should have known not to be a Slytherin. But why should the one house matter that way? Snape wanted to be in Slytherin because it was his family house and to him it was the house you should want to be in, much like Hermione had decided Gryffindor was obviously the best. Why should he have chosen (and there's more to the Sorting than just requesting your house--the hat does the choosing to some extent) to go into Gryffindor because his friend was there? Obviously she wasn't wrong for not choosing Slytherin for Snape. It's like there's this trick answer where Snape's being tested in a way he couldn't pass. Harry doesn't choose to be in Gryffindor to follow Ron, the hat chooses it for him because Harry himself wants not Slytherin. And Sirius seems, as I said, to be a very Gryffindor personality above just not wanting Slytherin for himself and was Sorted before James. It just seems like a trick to say the kid is supposed to know not to want to be in Slytherin or know he should have done his best to follow his friend into a different house. Couldn't they just continue to be friends in different houses? Obviously they could-- they did until Snape proved himself a bad friend because he wanted to do these other things as well as be friends with Lily. We know right away that Snape's being in Slytherin is a bad choice that says something very important about his personality. Dana: > Snape then shows memories that again emphasis that he made choices to > follow his own convictions/ fascinations/ ambitions over his > friendship with Lily and later losing her friendship over it and that > all these choices together eventually led to the one biggest regret > of his life -> bringing the prophecy to LV that let to Lily's death. Magpie: I agree this is what happened--and this seems to be a trait that Slytherins share, which is why it's so important when they actually feel something for another person. Even in the end Snape never allowed himself or never could have good relationships with anybody it seems to me. This still to me seems to put them in a different group than other characters who form more normal connections. Dana: > I think DD's remark about sorting to soon, hit Snape hard for this > very reason. > > DD's remark also was not about focusing on Slytherin being evil but > about Snape's change in focus and just like DD himself this change > can come later in life. It is not Snape changing into a Gryffindor it > is Snape letting go of his ambition as a life driven force and > accepting other values of his being over that once strong ambition > and why he is a better man then Karkaroff. Magpie: But isn't this basically saying that the goal of any Slytherin is to rise above the thing that makes you a Slytherin? It still seems like he's obviously handicapped when it comes to the basic things that make all the other characters good. Even the "good Slytherin" has this problem. How is Snape letting go of his ambition, which makes Dumbledore say they perhaps Sort too soon, not Snape overcoming his Slytherin-ness? It just seems like the self-centeredness and personal ambition is the thing that must be overcome, and this is obviously a fundamental problem for Slytherins more than other houses. Snape is perhaps just being told this now. Being Sorted into another house doesn't seem to include this kind of lesson you have to learn, even if one could imagine what they might be. Dana: Draco wanted nothing more > then to follow the ambitions his family had set out for him and it > was so obvious to the hat that it didn't need more then to barely > touch Draco's head to see it. Not because Draco was defined evil but > because Draco chose to follow in his family's footsteps without ever > thinking there was any other possibility. Draco was not defined by > the hat but by his own lack of wanting to be anything else then his > family wanted him to be. It is not the hat that made Draco turn into > the person that he is and neither did it mean that being in that > house meant he could never be anything else or do anything good with > the ambitions he chose to follow. Magpie: Right--but doesn't that just say that the Hat is correctly identifying people as what they are? The hat doesn't force anybody to be anything, but once you've been Sorted by the Hat it does show something about you, doesn't it? In Draco's case it says something pretty negative, while Harry had the *abilities* to do well in Slytherin but not the character flaw of being so self-centered. Snape's ultimate relationship to the Malfoys was actually a big let- down for me in DH. They weren't capable of the kind of ties the good guys make easily. (This seemed to completely go against what I saw in HBP, but then a lot of what I thought was interesting in HBP seemed to just be an accidental illusion.) Dana: > Peter did not get sorted into Slytherin because he did not have any > ambitions, was not loyal enough to be sorted into Hufflepuff and was > not intelligent enough or to lazy to be sorted into Ravenclaw. He was > sorted into Gryffindor by default. Magpie: This I can't accept. I don't think anybody gets put into Gryffindor by default. You get Sorted into Gryffindor for courage, not for being too lazy or too disloyal or too lacking in ambition for anything else. The closest thing we even get to a default house is "all the rest" Hufflepuff. Peter must have valued bravery and had it in him, it seems to me. His courage ultimately failed him in an important way as perhaps Snape's personal ambition failed him. Or else it manifested in different ways. But where Peter became a Shadow Gryffindor, someone who was the most cowardly as the opposite of bravery, Snape became the most self-sacrificing in only one specific way. (As did Regulus.) Dana: > Unlike DD who realized that his knowledge could be put to better use > when he lost a person close to his heart, Snape had to be forces into > using his potentials for the good cause and was bitter and grudging > about it all the way through and only started to realize some of it > when it was pretty much to late to have any meaning/ effect on his > own life. Magpie: And that fits with Dumbledore having the better character, imo. We hear how ambitious he is, but everything in canon points to him being a Gryffindor, which to me suggests he had a different essential nature. For him the ambition was a mistake that he snapped out of. Snape did not naturally snap out of it, and never snapped out of it even years later as clearly as Dumbledore did. Dana: Snape could have enjoyed his stay at Hogwarts as a teacher > and make a life for himself. He could have been a good example for > his house that ambition is nice as long as you do not let it control > every choice you make in life but he CHOSE not do to so. Magpie: Exactly. Even when Snape switched sides he rejected the possibility of good relationships there. Dana: > Snape showing Harry these specific memories is Snape's way of saying > that he regretted not having made different choices and that he > acknowledges that Harry is the bigger man for choosing to love and > fights for what he believes in even if he doesn't gain anything from > it personally, that he now understands that Harry is indeed Lily's > son. To not have chosen love over his own ambitions was wrong and > that love should actually have been the one thing he should have > ambitioned. Magpie: You know, this is just a bit too much for me and I don't agree. Why has Snape suddenly decided that Harry was really so great after all the years of hating him? I can't believe that just because of the memories that were in the Pensieve. I can easily believe this is what *we* are supposed to see as readers but it's far more in Snape's personality, imo, to have a completely different view of things. It's just far too schmaltzy for me to imagine Snape putting memories in a dish thinking, "Oh Harry, now I see you are the bigger man and are Lily's son! I was so wrong for having ambitions! All I needed was love! I have joined the hoards of adults who think you're the best boy ever!" I think this is what we are supposed to see from Snape's story, but having Snape think that about himself is just too humiliating imo. Dana: And with JKR stating that Lily would have loved him back > it makes Snape's choices not to go for it that more ironic that he > only started to realize what he had when he lost it as do most people > in life. Magpie: I admit that when I hear JKR say that Lily *might* have loved him back romantically it seems again just to be a compliment to Lily. Snape was completely unpleasant and unattractive, but of course Lily would have looked past all that and loved him because she was so wonderful. It's just all the more ironic that Snape lost that for himself so it's really his fault Lily married the charismatic guy. It just seems like another way of building up Lily and making Snape a lesson, even JKR herself says you'd be crazy to be in love with Snape. > Dana, Who thinks that people should not hate other characters in the > novel because they love Snape, which would make it possible for them > to see the true story of Severus Snape in the novel instead of making > one up to fit what they want him to represent instead. Snape could > have been James if he had made different choices. Magpie: Well, he would never have been James. But yeah, that's the same idea that I get from all the Slytherins: of course they could have been better if they'd made different choices. But their choices show who they are, and their Sorting shows us the kinds of choices they're going to make. It's more the reason not to see them as like the good guys or think things could have been different. They just choose to be bad people and make themselves miserable and earn derision, while better people--or as Betsy says "You, dear reader"--make the right choices but get picked on by other people for no reason. Which is why Harry ultimately identifies with all the abandoned boys but never the bullies. There are just these awful people in the world and you have to learn how to put up with them and smack them down. -m (who also doesn't see Sirius as being as mean as Snape) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Aug 13 15:01:10 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:01:10 -0000 Subject: Childhood influences: Sirius (Re: good and bad Slytherins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175250 > Carol: > Can you cite some canon to support this view of Sirius at age > eleven (not as a teenager whose bedroom is decorated to emphasize > his differences with his family)? I don't see anything except his > surprise at James's antipathy to the House that his family has > always been Sorted into, his curiosity regarding the House James > would prefer, his desire for James to think he's "all right," and > his joining with James to ridicule Severus (who admittedly treats > them with equal disdain). Jen: I'll offer my intepretation of canon with a few quotes, meaning I doubt citing canon is convincing if someone has a different interpretation. I'm rather attached to my interpretations now that canon is complete, and I expect others are as well! Still, canon can help paint a picture for why I hold my interpretations, so here goes.... Part of my picture of Sirius is due to the way JKR creates characters, where events and impressions in childhood matter for who an 11-year old is when he/she puts on the Sorting Hat. We learn much about Sirius and the Black family because he's back in his childhood home, an atmosphere that lends itself to revelation of memories. When Sirius told Harry, "I don't like being back here...I never thought I'd be stuck in this house again," [1] I understood that to mean he'd felt 'stuck' when he was a child. Harry understands, he can't imagine going back to live at Privet Dr. as an adult. The comparison between the two characters, and knowing what Harry experienced at the Dursleys before escaping to Hogwarts, is part of my reasoning to think Sirius had similar feelings growing up, whether it had to do with him rejecting his family, his family rejecting him or a cycle playing out of both reinforcing the other. IOW, it's hard for me to think of Sirius on the train at 11 existing in a vacuum, with no particular positive or negative impressions of his family. Also, I didn't read Sirius's reaction as surprise when James said "Who wants to be in Slytherin? I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?" [2]. Instead, that interaction reads like this for me: James is making what he thinks is a funny joke; Sirius doesn't smile and the reader is about to find out why. Turns out he doesn't smile because his whole family is in Slytherin and for some reason that's not funny to him. Since he's not mad at James for the comment, his family is the reason there's no humor in the joke. > Alla: >So, I am just going to mention the canon in support of the inference > that Sirius hated his family and his family hated him. That would > be him talking to Harry about his family tree in OOP and his mom's > portrait remarks to him. > > We do not know when Sirius' hating his family started, I choose to > believe that it started before he went to Hogwarts. Jen: I agree, and one reason in my mind is all the family history Sirius was able to recite about the family tree even after stating, "I haven't looked at this for years." [3] So when was the last time he looked? After he got sorted into Gryffindor and started hanging banners and Muggle posters around his room? Not likely. No, the implication is he was a child, learning about family history from mum. And if Sirius felt proud of his family history, of a relative who tried to force through legalization of Muggle-hunting or one who started a tradition like beheading house elves, I can't see him telling James he might be the first to break the family tradition of Slytherin. It doesn't work for me that a character like Sirius, who is *very* strong-headed and strong-willed, didn't already have ideas about what he wanted at 11. Jen [1] OOTP, chap. 6, p. 106, UK ed. [2] DH, chap. 33, p. 671, Am. ed. [3] OOTP, chap. 6, p. 105, UK ed. From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Aug 13 15:21:26 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:21:26 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175251 Julie: > And, yes, Snape had Lily as a good influence. One > person. One person who he interacted with on a very > part time basis as far as we can tell. There's no > indication they went to each other's houses, or spent > time together anywhere but the playground when they > had an opportunity to meet. houyhnhnm: "That boy found it! You and that boy have been sneaking in my room!" "No--not sneaking--" Now Lily was on the defensive. "Severus saw the envelope, and he couldn't believe a Muggle could have contacted Hogwarts, that's all! He says there must be wizards working undercover in the postal service who take care of--" So, Severus was in Lily's house at least once. Going by what little we know of the Evanses who seem to have been even more wizard-friendly than the Grangers (thrilled to have a witch in the family, passing through the barrier onto platform nine and three-quarters), I can imagine that he was made welcome in Lily's house, probably even fussed over by Lily's mother (poor little urchin). I doubt if Lily ever went to Sevy's house, though. The memories we saw cannot have been the whole story. They must have summarized Snape's regrets, the memories of his offenses against Lily that tormented him. Surely they had fun together, too. Why would Lily have remained friends with Snape to the end of their fifth year at Hogwarts if it had been nothing more than what we saw, Snape making bungled attempts at friendship and Lily merely tolerating him. From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Aug 13 15:54:11 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: <461880.48846.qm@web86209.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175252 Irene: > Actually, I think Lucius could have been a very good > friend to Snape. Maybe a main reason why Snape found > Slytherin way of life so attractive (can't see him > being that eager to be friends with Crabbe and Goyle > seniors). Lucius is at least 4 years older, rich, cool > and popular in his House at least. If he had taken > poor misfit under his wing, in boarding school environment > this is of enormous importance. Certainly Snape's > gratitude lasted for years, stretching to him being > sympathetic to Narcissa's plight and favouring Draco. > Oh, and Draco seems terribly familiar with Snape from > year 1 - did Snape visit regularly at Malfoy Manor? houyhnhnm: Time to revisit the Unbreakable Vow? Now that we know that both Snape and DD knew of Draco's task before the sisters ever came to Spinner's End. That DD had already ordered Snape to discover what Draco was up to and to complete the task himself. Was the UV strictly necessary to carry out DD's instructions or does it tell us something more about Snape's relationship with the Malfoys. Time to re-read "Spinner's End". I have to admit I was wrong about the UV. I was sure Snape didn't know what Draco's task was and was resorting to the UV in a desperate attempt to gain information. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 16:04:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:04:29 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175253 Montavilla47: The > reason I say that the pro-Snapists are more fanatical is because they have to work a bit harder, as they need to fight against the author's state opinion of the character to find him fundamentally worthy of respect. Carol responds: If we're looking at JKR's opinions at all, it would seem that "deeply horrible person" has been reduced to a "spiteful" man who was a bit of a bully but also a kind of hero and "immensely brave." And we now have canon on our side in the form of the objective Pensieve memories, Harry's public vindication of Snape, and his naming of his second son. So, i con't think fanaticism has anything to do with it. Sirius Black's goodness, namely his love of Harry (as James-based as Snape's dislike of him) has always been offset by his arrogance, his vindictiveness, and his reckless streak. James we barely know. His heroism in saving Severus turns out to be "cold feet," just as Snape always said, or at best trying to keep his friends out of trouble and not a change from the arrogant bully he's always been, and even his heroic battle against Voldemort turns into a wandless murder. So all we have for James is the Mirror of Erised, the "echoes" from LV's wand in GoF, a glimpse of him playing with his baby son, the Resurrection Stone scene in DH, and the word of other characters, all Gryffindor and all prejudiced in his favor. On the other side, we have SWM, Lily's opinion of him until he stopped hexing people in the hallways around seventh year, and new revelations in DH. So, James was an arrogant, bullying berk, a "toerage," to use Lily's term, for most of his early life. For some reason, presumably a wish to impress Lily with something other than his reflexes, he stopped being a bully and a show off and presumably earned his status as head boy (promoted over Lupin's head, since Lupin was the Prefect). As for "the best in the school at all he did," no doubt he and Sirius were the best in Transfiguration (McGonagall's subject), considering how much effort they'd put into becoming Animagi, but we don't see them writing book-length answers on their DADA exams like Severus or being praised for the Potions prowess like Severus and Lily. James was an excellent Quidditch player, but the team must have had a good Seeker, too (either a girl or in a different year as neither Sirius nor Remus nor Peter seems to have been on the team). As for looks, I don't mean to be petty, but James looks just like Harry except for his eyes, meaning he's, to quote Fred, "a scrawny, specky git." To be kind, he's slightly built, has black hair that sticks up in the back, and wears glasses. At age eleven, at least, Harry has "knobbly knees." James's nose, we're told in OoP, is slightly longer than Harry's. We're never told that Harry is handsome. If he weren't a TWT champion and/or the Boy Who Lived, he'd have had no easier time than Ron finding a date to the Yule Ball. It's Sirius who's handsome, in an arrogant, Bellatrixesque way (he won't even look at the girls who sigh over him). What James has is not good looks but athletic skills and self-confidence born of his parents' fond indulgence and a belief in his own superiority. He's an athlete who also has some remarkable talents (shared with his friends--the Marauders' Map is quite an achievement, but it was created for magical mischief making), but he's also a show-off who hexes people who annoy him "because he can." Somehow, off-page, this "arrogant little berk," who gets all the credit while the equally talented Half-blood Prince, busy inventing spells and improving potions and memorizing textbooks, a la Hermione, gets almost none because of his unpopular House, his greasy hair, and his evil friends. I don't know. I guess it's a personality thing. I identify far more with Severus than with James, have much more sympathy for him. Maybe it's because I was never a popular athlete and was definitely a nerd (though I certainly didn't have evil friends who performed Dark Magic). It can't be argued, can it? Either you like the Marauders, empathizing with Sirius, who went after Peter Pettigrew to avenge James and ended up spending twelve years in Azkaban and later rattled around his parents' hated house drinking and feeling depressed, or it turns your stomach every time he calls Snape Snivellus while snape (who returns his animosity with cool sarcasm) is out risking his life for Harry and DD (and, as it turns out, Lily), atoning for his past mistakes while receiving little praise or gratitude and no affection (except, occasionally, from DD). It can't be argued because it's feeling-based. I'll take the immensely brave Severus Snape, who died giving Harry the memories that enabled him to sacrifice himself, over any of the Marauders. But that's my choice and my preference, and it's based on canon, not on JKR's inconsistent and manipulative remarks, intended (like much of what DD says) to conceal as much as they reveal about future books. The "immensely brave" remark at least relates to the completed series and can therefore be taken with a little less salt than "deeply horrible person," which is simply not borne out by the books. Spiteful, yes. Unable to let go of the past, yes (along with Sirius Black). Deeply flawed, yes. Unfair, yes. But brilliant, highly talented, powerful, brave, and unappreciated. And while Harry could have defeated Voldemort without Sirius Black's help, he could not have done it without Snape's. Carol, who thinks that Harry's choice to name his second son Albus Severus tells us that in *his* view Snape is, indeed, fundamentally worthy of respect From va32h at comcast.net Mon Aug 13 16:27:46 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:27:46 -0000 Subject: There it goes again! Objectivity out the window. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175254 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Either you like the Marauders, > empathizing with Sirius, who went after Peter Pettigrew to avenge > James and ended up spending twelve years in Azkaban and later rattled > around his parents' hated house drinking and feeling depressed, or it > turns your stomach every time he calls Snape Snivellus while snape > (who returns his animosity with cool sarcasm) is out risking his life > for Harry and DD (and, as it turns out, Lily), atoning for his past > mistakes while receiving little praise or gratitude and no affection > (except, occasionally, from DD). va32h: Is Sirius hiding in 12GP, drinking and being depressed because that's his choice? Or is he stuck in 12GP because his status as a wrongly accused and falsely condemned murderer makes it impossible for him to contribute to the Order outside of 12GP? Do you really think so little of anyone but Snape that you don't think Sirius would be out there, risking his life, if he had the freedom to do so? And can we PLEASE not forget that from the time of Voldemort's downfall to the time of his rebirth, Severus Snape did NOTHING dangerous or risky. He says so himself in HBP: "I had a comfortable job that I preferred to a stint in Azkaban...Dumbledore's protection kept me out of jail; it was most convenient and I used it." And don't try to argue that Snape is just lying because he's talking to Bellatrix. Everything in canon says that the 10 years following Voldemort's disappearance were peaceful and uneventful, and we have seen in the first three years following Harry's arrival at Hogwarts that Snape faced such terrifying dangers as...refereeing a Quidditch match, getting bit by a dog, threatening the pathetic Quirrel, duelling the incompetent Lockhart, and trying to get back at Lupin. How very fortunate for Severus that Dumbledore's suspicion that Voldemort *might* come back *one* day and that Snape *might* be useful as a spy one day, *if* Snape could regain the returned Voldemort's trust of course, actually came true. So that Snape does have this opportunity to be brave. For which I give him full credit. But I won't pretend that he didn't enjoy 13 years of peace and comfort in the interim. Perhaps that makes him even more brave that he was willing to give that up, unlike say, Slughorn. But let's not pretend that Snape devoted his entire adult life to risking it on behalf of Lily and Harry. He devoted 4 years at most (1 year pre- Godric's Hollow, 3 years post GoF.) Oh and who was it who did survive a stint in Azkaban? That would be Sirius, who kept himself sane, risked everything, including the Dementor's Kiss, to escape the unescapable prison, to come back to the heart of the wizarding world, to come face to face with the people who thought he'd betrayed and murdered his best friend - and all this to save Harry from a danger Sirius believed only he knew about. So could we possibly conclude that Sirius and Snape are at a draw in terms of bravery? One suffered while the other one lived in relative peace and vice versa? Why must one be "better" than the other? Why can't both men be just as praiseworthy, (or condemnation worthy). va32h, who had this wacky notion that the series was about a boy called Harry Potter, not The Canonization of Severus Snape with a cameo appearance by Harry Potter. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Aug 13 16:35:03 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:35:03 -0000 Subject: This moment Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175255 Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, or the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character you generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks to you. Potioncat, who will post her moment later, and who is creating light- weight threads because she doesn't have the intellectual energy at the moment to join in with the heavier ones, but is reading them with great enjoyment. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 16:55:33 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:55:33 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175256 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, or the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character you generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks to you. <> ***Katie: A light-hearted thread! Fantastical!! : ) There are two moments that jump out at me, and since I am at work and do not have my book, forgive me lack of quotes and stuff! 1 - I really identified with all three kids when Ron left. I could really understand Ron's frustration, fear, and anger. I could also really understand the misery he created in Hermione and Harry when he left. That was a vary real moment for me, and I remembered what it felt like to have that intensity of friendship that you have in high school, and how heartbreaking it can be for all those involved. 2 - I also really loved Harry's burial of Dobby. As someone who has lost many loved ones, including friends, I was so affected by Harry's grief in that scene. It really got me. His digging of the grave with his own two hands, instead of magically, was such a Harry kind of thing to do, and it made me love him even more. I also felt Harry understood, for the first time, that Dobby wasn't a joke or a pet, but a brave and loyal friend. It was just a beautifully written scene, and one of my favorites in the whole series. I have more, but I should probably get back to work! :) Cheers, Katie From rokiko.geo at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 15:50:06 2007 From: rokiko.geo at yahoo.com (Alcantur/Rodrigo Rosa) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:50:06 -0000 Subject: The innocence of Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175257 Must of us tend to judge Severus Snape for the facts we DO know about him, what he did, what he became, how he behaved. Some thinks he is bad from the very beginning, but we are forgetting something here: the facts that we DON'T KNOW about him and his childhood. We don't know the kind of education he was getting at home, the kind of family where he grew. But we may got at least a clue: Why he has been named Severus? Is is a name that may show some strictness and a somehow distant family. Maybe his muggle parent tended to see his magic ability as a way to get power or richness, and his wizard parent has some dark tendencies; and that environment later influentiated his ways and behaviour, as well as the deeds of the Slytherin house. He might been seen as a tool more than a child. But under that there is still a somehow decent guy, brave, loyal and wise, under the dark shroud he created to protect himself is still a human been with all the defects and values that are bouded to the values you got at childhood. Maybe he is not in the ways we would like, but they are part of the real Snape we don't see, until the very end of the Harry Potter books. rokiko.geo From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 16:07:02 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:07:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's Going On In Slytherin House During Year 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <484870.99168.qm@web55014.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175258 I will admit that I can not keep up with all of the discussion surrounding Slytherin House and good Slytherins vs. bad Slytherins, etc. -- there are just too many emails... So, if I'm bringing up something that has been discussed, I am sorry and hope someone will point me towards the specific discussion so I can go back to it. If it hasn't been touched on, I would be interested in hearing what others think. In Chapter 30, The Sacking of Severus Snape, after Snape has fled and Flitwick, Sprout, and McGonagall decide to make a stand and gather their students in the Great Hall, McGonagall has an interesting confrontation with Slughorn: "We shall meet you and your Ravenclaws in the Great Hall, Filius!" said Professor McGonagall, beckoning to Harry and Luna to follow her. They had just reached the door when Slughorn rumbled into speech. "My word," he puffed, pale and sweaty, his walrus mustache aquiver. "What a to-do! I'm not at all sure whether this is wise, Minerva. He is bound to find a way in, you know, and anyone who has tried to delay him will be in most grievous peril --" "I shall expect you and the Slytherins in the Great Hall in twenty minutes, also," said Professor McGonagall. "If you wish to leave with your students, we shall not stop you. But, if any of you attempt to sabotage our resistance or take up arms against us within this castle, then, Horace, we duel to kill." "Minerva!" he said, aghast. "The time has come for Slytherin House to decide upon its loyalties," interrupted Professor McGonagall. "Go and wake your students, Horace." (p. 601 & 602 US) "The time has come for Slytherin House to decide upon its loyalties..." We know from Neville that Crabbe and Goyle love practicing the Cruciatus Curse on students in detentions; we know that Pansy would have gladly turned Harry over to Voldemort. But, Pansy, Crabbe, and Goyle are just a small fraction of the Slytherin House student body -- where do the others stand? >From McGonagall's comment, it sounds as if Slytherin House has tried to remain neutral even though Death Eaters now run Hogwarts. I can definitely see Slughorn being as neutral as he can. If he has remained neutral, has the majority of Slytherin House tried to follow his lead? When Pansy "raised a shaking arm and screamed, "But he's there! Potter's there! Someone grab him!" we see how members of the other Houses react, but not how any of the Slytherins react -- we see no Slytherin either support or challenge her. Are they keeping their heads down, reluctant to choose one side over the other? I even wonder if Pansy's reaction was out of fear or ideology or both? I wonder what Slughorn told his students when he gathered them from their dorms... Year 7 can't have been an easy year for any Slytherin who did not support Voldemort. Self-preservation might have dictated one be as quiet and unnoticeable as possible -- and Headmaster Snape might have encouraged them to do just that; that might have been the best way he could protect those students -- esp. the younger ones. If so, in the Slytherin House, good or bad debate (not to be confused with the individual good vs. bad Slytherins), does neutrality signal what could be the start of a reversal? Is neutrality better than blindly following or following only because your parents do? (I'm neither condoning nor condemning such neutrality...The old adage if you don't stand for something, you fall for everything keeps running through my mind though...) After reading so many (but not all) of the emails, I feel I need to re-read the books to concentrate solely on Slytherin House. I would like to think that Harry's exchange with Albus Severus is indicative of a change of attitude regarding house loyalty and prejudice that could permeate the whole WW, if it hasn't already -- that Harry and his peers, who lived through Voldemort's second rise to power, and who, in the epilogue, are approaching middle age and raising their own kids will in remembering history avoid repeating it. (I do see big brother James's attitude as nothing more than teasing his younger brother -- I see such exchanges between my 14- & 12-year-old nephews all the time. I liked how one poster equated the argument among James & Sirius & Snape on the Hogwarts Express of wanting to being in one house over another to wanting to be in one fraternity over another.) Christy, who is very curious about how the Slytherins we don't know survived year 7 and is interested in the opinions of others even though we have little canon to support our thoughts beyond inference --------------------------------- Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Tovah814 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 15:30:53 2007 From: Tovah814 at yahoo.com (Debera) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Raised by Muggles In-Reply-To: <1187005629.921.81830.m41@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <927146.39718.qm@web60717.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175259 When Hermine got the "kids story" book from Dumbledore's will, she explained that she never heard of the story because she and Harry were raised by Muggles. If that was the case, how would her parents know about Diagon Alley to get Hermione's books her 1st year? We know that Harry was shown where it was by Hagrid. Debera From shirley2allie at hotmail.com Mon Aug 13 17:09:03 2007 From: shirley2allie at hotmail.com (Shirley) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:09:03 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175260 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, or > the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character you > generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks to you. > > Potioncat, who will post her moment later, and who is creating light- > weight threads because she doesn't have the intellectual energy at the > moment to join in with the heavier ones, but is reading them with great > enjoyment. > Katie added: 2 - I also really loved Harry's burial of Dobby. As someone who has lost many loved ones, including friends, I was so affected by Harry's grief in that scene. It really got me. His digging of the grave with his own two hands, instead of magically, was such a Harry kind of thing to do, and it made me love him even more. I also felt Harry understood, for the first time, that Dobby wasn't a joke or a pet, but a brave and loyal friend. It was just a beautifully written scene, and one of my favorites in the whole series. Shirley: Yes, the whole bit of Dobby's death and Harry burying him 'non- magically' really, really hit me. Same reason, I expect - I've lost a lot of people, and giving himself the opportunity to grieve and do something for his friend, Dobby... Well, let's just stay I had to stop and sob during this scene - every time I've read it and/or listened to it. Something else that struck me was Neville. I know there's a bit of contamination from that "other medium" (i.e. OotP on film) making him the one that found the Room of Requirement, but it seems like total foreshadowing of part of Neville's part in this book. When Seamus says that "Neville really gets this room" - I made that connection when I heard it in the audiobook, even though I'd already read the book twice. But, aside from that odd little observation, I also had this "aHA" moment (while listening) of perhaps another reason that Snape was so horrible to Neville during the entire series: If Voldemort had only gone after Neville (the other child born as the seventh month died) instead of Harry after he heard the prophecy, then Lily would have lived (presumably). So perhaps every time he looks at Neville, he thinks of what might have been. Logically, he shouldn't blame Neville for that, but emotions are rarely logical. I don't know why, but for some reason this thought has really stuck with me. Shirley, who is also at work, and should now get back to it... From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 17:16:14 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:16:14 -0000 Subject: Raised by Muggles In-Reply-To: <927146.39718.qm@web60717.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175261 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Debera wrote: > > When Hermine got the "kids story" book from Dumbledore's will, she explained that she never heard of the story because she and Harry were raised by Muggles. > > If that was the case, how would her parents know about Diagon Alley to get Hermione's books her 1st year? > > We know that Harry was shown where it was by Hagrid. > > Debera > ****Katie: I would assume it was sent in a letter, or someone actually came to help them. We know that someone came to help Lily's parents and tell them how to get Lily to Hogwarts, so I guess we can assume that is standard procedure for Muggleborns. One thing about Muggleborns that I don't think was ever mentioned...If someone came to me, or a letter came, saying my son was a wizard and was accepted at a wizarding school, I would be like, "Yeah, right." And I would really doubt the veracity of anyone that came to my house in wierd clothes and wanted to help me find oddly-named train platforms and take me to unknown streets. I would probably call the police!! LOL. I wonder if any Muggle parents ever had that reaction? KATIE From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 17:23:31 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:23:31 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: <378824.96376.qm@web82206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175262 > Prep0strus: > But I like the Marauders better than Snape. A lot better. And what I > see in a lot of posters is this (to the perspective of someone who > doesn't like him) a fanatical devotion to Snape. I mean, let's face > it ? he's interesting. This evil seeming guy who has been doing good > all along. He has an interesting past, it's checkered, and he turns > out good. And people identify with parts of that, and defend him. > > D: > Another 'duh!?' from me. Casual readers of these books won't be joining and reading hundreds of long discussion threads daily would they? And they're usually the kind of readers who will say their favorite characters (if they're any) are 'Hagrid' and other obvious 'lovable' characters. Most of us here (=fandom) are the *fans* with a certain obsessive quality and some tend to find the 'unlovable' moral conflicting characters more lovable. Why do majority of discussions goes to characters with moral struggle (ie: Snape, "a flawed man like all of us" in JKR's own words) instead of pure-and-stay-good and supposedly more 'lovable' characters? If you want to sing song praising the love for pure-and-stay-goodand totally lovable positive characters, there're threads on them too or start one yourself (but if you dragged in some comparison on Snape I'm sure it will turn into another who has more flaws 'competition' threads) > Lanval: First of all, I should like to point out that there are casual readers who do like Snape, and casual readers who don't, and that casual readers who simply enjoy the series hardly deserve a blanket judgment of "duh, they're usually the ones who like Hagrid or some other 'lovable' character". Your definition of casual reader probably includes hundreds of thousands of young children, who are absent from the internet debate. That, again, hardly makes their opinion less than equal. I would also add that there exist a large number of devoted Snape fans who are NOT fans of the books, quite the contrary. There are also people who, while very active in discussion of all things HP, do not consider themselves HP fans. I can easily appreciate your argument about "morally conflicting characters" because I feel pretty much the same way. Here's where we part ways though: where are all these pure-and-stay- good lovable characters that *we* (I'll include myself here as a non- Snape fan, since you appear to be operating from the view of a Snape fan, and the whole argument started with him) sing-song praise over? I can't think of any of the major characters who fits that description. Certainly not Sirius, Harry or Lupin, to mention just three whose fans' views regularly clash with that of Snape fans. Here's a mystery for me. Why is it that, on the one hand, so many Snape fans have always claimed to love Snape for his complexity, his 'greyness', his ambiguousness, yet on the other hand insist that he's the Good Guy in almost every situation involving him? If one were to take every argument ever fought out here, and adopted the pro-Snape opinion as canon, he'd be counted among the most boring, good-guy-under-a-dirty-cloak, nerve-gratingly noble, tear-inducing sob-story cliche in literature. The correspondent mystery is, of course, why the same amount of greyness in other characters seems to carry so much more weight. Examples? Sirius once getting disppointed with Harry and making a rather unkind remark = proof of his lamentable moral deficiency. Snape merrily insulting, mocking, scorning, slighting, sneering his way through seven books, most of it directed at Harry and other children, and ... well, he's been *hurt*! he's been *abused*! hey, it's *funny*! he's so sarcastic, I *love* it! In other words, not only is Snape totally justified, he's cool, too. And he protects Harry! Er, so does Sirius, right? Yeah. But... but... Sirius was mean to Snape. More examples of this, yes, double standard in this excellent post by va32: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175204 D: > See the problemw with these 'flaw competition' is that....who the heck is James anyway? While Snape is a major central character many of us love and hate for 7 books. It's no wonder Snape matters a lot a lot more readers's heart than say...James or some other background. It's the same as people saying why Harry is their absolute favorite character because Harry is the protagonist and it's all about him anyway. Lanval: Actually, it isn't quite the same, because the books *are* called "Harry Potter and...". Snape may be a more prominent character than James, but certainly takes a backseat when it comes to appearance to Ron or Hermione. D: > So you get a jaded applaud from my for you to get work up for "background characters" like James for sake of the so called injustice of 'fans' favoring major character like Snape and having more empathy for him. I just thought that was just...you know...obvious. I too think a lot of characters tearing on this list are excessive, that's why I never join in. Actually before I join this list, I never knew that some fans like to 'judge' and obsessed over 'moral' so much, or that people think readers should 'like" a character based on their moral merit as if they're real life people you'd like to know and look up to as role model, instead of...how they function in a story and click with your type. > Lanval: Well, since you brought it up... You see, that breeze, it does blow both ways. I agree that I've seen my share of "how dare you like the Bad Guys, don't you know that you're supposed to hate them, what are you, BAD?" But. I've seen as much condescension from the Snape(insert Draco/Slytherin/Random Designated Bad Guy) fandom, as in, "I LOVE the Bad Guys -- what an interesting, deep, intellectual reader I must be! what, you like the guys JKR 'told' you to like? Oh dear...I suppose so do the ten-year-olds..." Yes, yes, that fandom judging thing. Lately it seems to have become quite an issue, though more centering on who liked DH and who did not, and as someone who did, I've sometimes wondered about *my* possible moral, er, deficiency? Then again, it could of course just be my "simple" way of reading it. I would certainly prefer childlike na?vet? to being Sorted against my will into a political, moral and religious corner by those who don't share my view on DH. I must add that this refers mostly to offlist content, found elsewhere on the internets. And now I'll go burn my ears with the iron, and slam the oven door on my hands a few times, for discussing fans instead of HP. My apologies to the list elves; I won't do it again, but it just has been rankling for a while. > Prep0strus: > characters. And there's more of a betrayal ? they were supposed to be > GOOD and they did BAD things. So they're castigated. But Snape > seemed BAD and did GOOD ? and all is forgiven.> > > D: > That's why you'd see Snape being mention in "What makes a great character in storytelling" discussion (non fandom) all the time while you won't see Hagrid or James being frequent subject of essays and discussions like that. While Snape's character might not work for you, he worked for A LOT A LOT of readers...maybe that's what irked you? (the heart of problem?) Tortured tragic nasty character with a redemptive arc are always my type, so it's hard for me to see other way. When I read the first vol. I knew Snape would be my favorite. Again, maybe we have a different approach in regarding these stories. While you're looking for real world good role model for moral judging contest or something, I only see characters as purely fictional existing on page to entertain me, so the interesting ones that pushes my button thus stays with me are the ones I like and valued more. Lanval: I'm not Prep0strus, but... ouch. I certainly don't see Sirius, Lupin, the Trio etc. as "good role models for moral judging contest". I love them precisely for the same reasons you give for liking Snape. The heart of the problem? again, not speaking for anyone else here, but I freely admit that while I dislike Snape it does irk me *more* to see him so often elevated into something he is NOT. Usually at the expense of whoever shares the scene with him. Exhibit A: Harry's first Potions Class. My other pet peeve regarding Snape is the amount of Fanon served as Canon, but that's another post entirely. No, one does not find James very often as the subject of essays, academical works, etc. One finds him however quite often as the subjects of LiveJournal posts along the lines of "I hate James Potter with the fire of a thousand suns!!!") 'Splain that one to me, somebody. If the bloke ain't interesting enough to be considered a Worthy Character to Like, surely he can't qualify for this kind of hatred either? D: > And yeah in a way characters' redemption (especially at the finale) do gain a lot of readers' forgiveness and endearment, that's why it's err...called 'redemption', especially ones involving love and sacrifices and death (ie Sydney Carton). Not working for you and some others obviously, but also working for a lot and a lot of readers. At least from the more 'general' discussion board I've seen, seems like there're lots of 'converts' for Snape *yay* Lanval: Yes, love and sacrifice, redemption, death. Harry? Sirius? Lupin? Lily? Dumbledore? It would be a mistake, I believe, to reserve these themes for one character in HP only. D: > > And sorry I disagree with your accessment of 'Snape's flaws are much greater than those of the Marauders.' Peter alone drag down the oh-so-wonderful foursome in total scoring if we go along with your moral/likable scoring competition...or did you forget Peter? Just joking, but you see my point? Keep insisting 'who has more flaws' as if that amounts to why one should and shouldn't like this or that character is a bit absurd in my opinion. Better people =/= makes me like a character more. > Lanval: True. But also: Good Guy disguised as Bad then Redeemed =/= Epitome of Character Worthy of Worship. And just to add to Prep0strus' assessment of the sum of Snape's flaws being greater than those of Sirius, James, Remus (no, Peter does not count): I agree with him wholeheartedly. Whether that sort of 'judging' (including all other characters) is absurd is pretty much moot ... as it has fueled probably more discussions on this group or in the rest of fandom than any other topic, save perhaps Theories & Predictions. > > > > From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 17:30:26 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:30:26 -0000 Subject: There it goes again! Objectivity out the window. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175263 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > > va32h: Is Sirius hiding in 12GP, drinking and being depressed because > that's his choice? Or is he stuck in 12GP because his status as a > wrongly accused and falsely condemned murderer makes it impossible > for him to contribute to the Order outside of 12GP? > > Do you really think so little of anyone but Snape that you don't > think Sirius would be out there, risking his life, if he had the > freedom to do so? > Let us not forget Lupin, barred from employment and driven into poverty, facing prejudice on all sides while trying to act as an envoy to hostile werewolves. Or Hagrid facing a journey to see violent giants. Or Tonks and Shacklebolt, trying to operate within an ever-more-hostile and dangerous ministry, as is Arthur. And all without stooping to abusive cruelty a la Snapey-poo. And, by and large, with the arguable exception of Sirius, without the driving force of a creepy and stomach-turning obsession. For that matter, let us remember a little matter of three kids who manage to face and fight off dangers much greater than any these bumbling adults (and yes, I include Snapey-poo in that number) could deal with successfully. Oh yes, there are many other people at work than Sevviekins. > va32h, who had this wacky notion that the series was about a boy > called Harry Potter, not The Canonization of Severus Snape with a > cameo appearance by Harry Potter. Oh dear, I had that impression, too! I think so did JKR! Ah, well. I guess when she does her revised editions she can correct the titles to "Saint Severus Snape and the ...... with a cameo appearance by a certain unworthy and ungrateful brat who deserves all the cruelty and abuse he gets." Then again, I doubt the people who do the dust jackets would go for it. Lupinlore From minihooie at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 18:08:19 2007 From: minihooie at yahoo.com (Liz) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:08:19 -0000 Subject: Baby in King's Cross chapter of HP7 In-Reply-To: <258689.18646.qm@web55013.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175264 It sounded like the "creature" had a similar form to Voldemort before he got his body back in GOF. A creature, wrapped up, looking almost like a baby. A hideous baby, that Harry hoped would die when put in the cauldron. (Sorry for not having any direct quotes...) Is it possible that this is the visible form a piece of soul takes when it's ripped from the whole? Also, from Slughorn's lecture in HBP, it seems like the soul is torn each time you murder; it is this tearing that allows for the making of a horcrux, and not the making of the horcrux that tears the soul. Arguably, his soul is in as many pieces as murders he's committed, but he has only the few pieces in horcruxes that keep him alive. minihooie From cpsauter at msn.com Mon Aug 13 17:36:01 2007 From: cpsauter at msn.com (sauter1969) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:36:01 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175265 potioncat: > > > > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a > character, or the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be > a character you generally identify with---just a moment that > particularly speaks to you. My very favorite moment in DH was at the beginning of the Battle of Hogwarts. When the entire school is in the Great Hall and Pansy Parkinson wants to turn Harry over to Voldemort. The entire rest of the school (except Slythering) stands up in front of Harry protecting him. That really spoke to me. In almost every book there is an instance when the general student population of Hogwarts makes Harry's life so miserable. I just loved that the school as a whole was finally standing up for him. sauter1969 From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 18:30:48 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:30:48 -0000 Subject: Revenge, Greek tragedies & the heart (Re: Molly's "revenge" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175266 > Jen: There are elements of revenge in all the books, on both sides. > I don't think the epigraph is from a Greek tragedy for nothing! Eye- > for-an-eye justice is at the core of Western literature (not to > mention the world of kids) so for the series to bypass this very real > part of any society would make the WW come across as very sterilized > indeed in my book. It seems like a distillation to say the series is > focused on revenge to the exclusion of the overcoming of revenge as > well, though. For every example cited of revenge, there are several > examples of turning the other cheek and not just by the good guys. > Which may very well be the point, or at least the point as I > understand it. > > What I see as an important part of DH and the series is this > question: How does a person, a society, stop action begetting > action, cycles of violence, perpetuating conflict out of unexamined > ideals? Because there are unexamined ideals on both sides of the > fence and we see Harry/Trio, the good side, engage in some activities > that aren't particular commendable but are a very real part of the > world in which they live. lizzyben: Well, I originally thought that the novels were heading toward such an examination of the ways in which revenge can perpetuate an endless cycle of violence. Because, as you say, there are many many instances of the Trio & other characters seeking revenge against their enemies. But in the end, I don't believe that the novels actually do try to show the dangers of such a vengence-based system. These novels are pro-revenge, IMO. That was the big shocker for me. And I say this because we never see the Trio's revenges boomerang back on them the way it would in real life. We see the "good guys" getting revenge on the "bad guys," but we never see the "bad guys" getting revenge back. For example, we see Hermione getting revenge against Rita Skeeter(trapping her), Umbridge (centaurs), & Marietta (hex). However, we never ever see Hermione's victims retaliating against her - Marietta doesn't hex Hermione back, Skeeter stops writing negative articles, Umbridge leaves the school. The message seems to be: revenge is sweet, and it works! Fred & George get revenge against Montague, almost killing him, and it's presented as as a joke; Montague never comes back to the school to get his own revenge. Hagrid gets revenge against the Dursleys, the Dursleys don't hurt him back. Ginny hexes Zacharias Smith mercilessly, and rams into his podium to get revenge for him daring to question Harry. This is never presented as wrong or dangerous - instead DH specifically mentions how Zacharias Smith ran cowardly during the final battle. It's like, OK he's an awful person & he deserved it. I really could go on & on. It really seemed like "The Prank" would end up being a central part of this theme. Because the prank is really totally emblematic of all the other revenges. Sirius gets revenge on Snape for snooping, and his reaction is "he deserved it." Snape was snooping to catch the Mauraders & get revenge against them for their bullying, etc. And the Prank had long, long consequences - potentially being the catalyst for Snape entering the Death Eaters, Lupin seperating from the Mauraders etc. The plot was all set up, ready to go. And it went nowhere. In DH, the prank is hardly mentioned, and certainly isn't seen as a significant or life-changing event. Snape was already eager to be a Death Eater at the time it happened - so I guess we're supposed to agree that "he deserved it". At the least, we're not supposed to examine any long-term consequences, or the way it might have started a cycle of violence. And this is where the message of revenge seems to tie into the Calvanism of the novel. I keep getting this sense that, if you are in the Elect, revenge is simply your due. Revenge is justice, and the Elect are entitled to dispense that revenge/justice at their discretion. Jen: > Reading up on "The Libation Bearers" by Aeschylus yesterday, I was > interested to find out it's a transition play, a second play in a > triology about a society moving from a vengeance-based system, which > was begetting cycles of violence, to a justice-based system of law, > where responsibility for actions and choice is placed on humans > instead of held in the hands of the gods. The protagonist is a man > whose heart, whose agony about what he's done in perpetuating > violence yet again, is the spark for the gods to reconsider the > choice of man, ultimately pushing justice back down to the level of > the human race. It's message is more hopeful than most Greek > tragedies! lizzyben: Wow, I had no idea that the quote is actually from a play which deals w/the issues of vengence. That seems to reinforce that this may be a central theme of the Harry Potter novels. Jen: > The first parallel I see in DH is with Dumbledore. He's grown up in > a family where violence perpetuated violence, first with the Muggle > boys hurting Ariana, which led to the father seeking revenge, which > led quite probably to some of Dumbledore's ideas about taking over > Muggles for the greater good. Then a violence is perpetuated that > causes a loss so great and feelings of guilt so deep, that Albus is > stopped in his tracks and never fully recovers from what he might of > done or come close to doing. His turning point plays out in the rest > of the story because he passes on his (sometimes unexamined) ideals > to Harry. > > Ultimately, despite the flaws, his ideals *are* better than those > that have come before. The idea that a person can choose how to act > and not only to carry out the dictates of their family's past, their > house, and the various wizarding prejudice espoused toward each > other, creatures and Muggles. lizzyben: Where does DD ever tell Harry not to seek revenge? In fact, IIRC, one of DD's last speechs to Harry in HBP was all about revenge & vengence. DD keeps bringing up all the loved ones LV has killed, tells Harry that he'll "never rest" until he gets vengence, etc. It's a revenge pep rally! DD does everything he can to basically manipulate Harry into a state of hatred & rage, to inspire him to seek vengence against Voldemort. He IS asking Harry to carry out the dictates of his family's past to avenge Godric's Hollow, & show his honor of his house as a true Gryffindor. And, as I always suspected, DD just did this to get Harry all ready to be a martyr & sacrificial lamb for his cause. These are *better* values? Yikes. We never see DD actually reject revenge - he actually seems to encourage it in both Harry & Snape. Jen: >By the standards that have come before > him, Harry *is* an unusual wizard as pointed out by various creatures > and humans, not because he was somehow born annointed and perfect but > because of a combination of entering the WW later in life, latching > onto Dumbledore's ideals - considered odd and dangerous to many in > the WW - and his nature, which was oriented toward Lily's concept of > justice more than James's interest in revenge. lizzyben: You know what was my ultimate WTF moment? When Griphook compliments Harry for being a "very unusual wizard" because he actually seems to respect goblins & treat them fairly. All the while, the Trio are trying to figure out how to double-cross Griphook - like all the other wizards apparantly do. Was that just? At the end, when Griphook takes the sword & runs, I was angry at him at first - that sneaky goblin! Then I set down the book for a second, and thought, wait a minute, we're supposed to think Griphook's a bad guy because he won't let the Trio double-cross him? He did just what he promised to do, and he should get the payment they promised him. Run, Griphook, run! :) IMO, it's just another example of the very narrow focus of the novels - where we're only supposed to see things from the Gryffindor perspective & not contemplate the effects that their actions might have on others. Jen: > In the end, I'd say that Harry & Co., like Dumbledore and the Order > before them, are not the Ultimate Right in the WW so much as *more* > right than those they are opposing. Trying to stop cycles of > violence, attempting to do so by making choices for right action more > often than not, taking small steps against the various centuries- old > rifts in the WW...all are meaningful and worth doing if only because > the alternative, following the path Aberforth recommended and > disregarded himself , is to do nothing. > > Jen > lizzyben: See, I would agree that DD & the Order are not the Ulimate Right if we saw somebody "more right" in the course of the novels. And if we saw real repurcussions for the things that the Order does wrong (Crucios, double-crosses, various revenges). But we don't. Instead, the Gryfindor elect are allowed to seek revenge against the non- believers w/little to no repurcussions to themselves. So I ultimately don't see any message here about stopping the cycle of violence. At the end of the novels, the WW remains a revenge-based system, not a justice-based system - and the various themes about social justice for oppressed groups were basically dropped. We also don't see a real attempt made to heal the centuries-old rift between the Houses - instead one House is even more demonized & stereotyped as deserving of revenge. This was not a series about reconciliation, or ending the cycle of violence, or many of the other themes that I thought were present. IMO, we're left with a pretty straight "revenge plot" - in which the good guys get revenge against the bad guys, and everyone cheers. lizzyben From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Mon Aug 13 18:36:08 2007 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:36:08 -0400 Subject: What did Severus really cry about? In-Reply-To: <93D0C9E3-A54E-49C6-A3AA-3E6875058CBD@hitthenail.com> References: <93D0C9E3-A54E-49C6-A3AA-3E6875058CBD@hitthenail.com> Message-ID: <8C9ABEFF320AFBA-B40-6A6A@WEBMAIL-MB21.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175267 I've been reading all the posts about Severus crying over Lily's letter, and I've had a thought: He wasn't just crying over Lily's death and the loss of her. Think about it for a second.? He's spent his entire life trying to make up for what he did (I'm sure he's also trying to make up for what he did to her in school), but this doesn't mean that that was the only thing he was crying about.? It could've happened like this: Severus was reading the letter and he started to remember how things were in school, then he thought about what he did to Lily, the prophecy, her death, his life as a double agent, the years he's spent teaching, killing Dumbledore -- in short, his wasted life.? He wasn't just crying over Lily, he was crying over his entire life and what he could have been.? Haven't you ever started crying about one thing and it turned into something completely different?? Severus was probably thinking about what might have happened if he had chosen a different path -- not just with Lily, but with his entire life. We've seen how complicated Severus is, let's not sell him short now. Oryomai Snape Lives. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ckc at rochester.rr.com Mon Aug 13 18:38:47 2007 From: ckc at rochester.rr.com (CK Campbell) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:38:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Raised by Muggles In-Reply-To: <927146.39718.qm@web60717.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007101c7ddd9$3027b9a0$6501a8c0@CKC> No: HPFGUIDX 175268 Debera wrote: When Hermine got the "kids story" book from Dumbledore's will, she explained that she never heard of the story because she and Harry were raised by Muggles. If that was the case, how would her parents know about Diagon Alley to get Hermione's books her 1st year? We know that Harry was shown where it was by Hagrid. Carolyn: I imagine that just as Hagrid was sent to escort Harry, another escort was sent for Hermione and any others who wouldn't have knowledge or experience with Diagon Alley. We don't hear about it because we don't meet Hermione until the train, but it makes sense to me. Carolyn From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 18:39:55 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:39:55 -0000 Subject: There it goes again! Objectivity out the window. (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175269 > > va32h: Is Sirius hiding in 12GP, drinking and being depressed > because that's his choice? Or is he stuck in 12GP because his status as a wrongly accused and falsely condemned murderer makes it impossible for him to contribute to the Order outside of 12GP? > > > > Do you really think so little of anyone but Snape that you don't > > think Sirius would be out there, risking his life, if he had the > > freedom to do so? > > > > Lupinlore:Let us not forget Lupin, barred from employment and driven into poverty, facing prejudice on all sides while trying to act as an envoy to hostile werewolves. Or Hagrid facing a journey to see violent giants. Or Tonks and Shacklebolt, trying to operate within an ever-more-hostile and dangerous ministry, as is Arthur. And all without stooping to abusive cruelty a la Snapey-poo. And, by and large, with the arguable exception of Sirius, without the driving force of a creepy and stomach-turning obsession. For that matter, let us remember a little matter of three kids who manage to face and fight off dangers much greater than any these bumbling adults (and yes, I include Snapey-poo in that number) could deal with successfully. Oh yes, there are many other people at work than Sevviekins. > va32h: > > va32h, who had this wacky notion that the series was about a boy > > called Harry Potter, not The Canonization of Severus Snape with a cameo appearance by Harry Potter. > > Lupinlore: Oh dear, I had that impression, too! I think so did JKR! Ah, well. I guess when she does her revised editions she can correct the titles to "Saint Severus Snape and the ...... with a cameo appearance by a certain unworthy and ungrateful brat who deserves all the cruelty and abuse he gets." Then again, I doubt the people who do the dust jackets would go for it. ****Katie: First of all, Lupinlore, LOL on the "Saint Severus..."! I laughed out loud (not so good, since I'm at work, but...). However, I think all this side-picking has gotten a little out of whack. I like Harry, Sirius, and Lupin....AND Snape. I think it is possible to like them all. Except James. I agree with those who think we were given too little to like and too much to dislike. I think James *must* have turned into a decent guy, but I didn't see it, and I don't have much positive to say about him. I do think that the Snape-canonizing has gone crazy. I like Snape - in fact, he's one of my favorite characters to read about. Of course, just because I find him interesting doesn't mean I would want to have a butterbeer with him. I *would* want to have a butterbeer with Sirius or Lupin or Harry. In addition, Snape DOES have a creepy obsession. Sorry, that's just true. As for giving the other people props for what they have done, I agree that they are given NO slack, and Snape is given tons by certain people. Meanwhile, other people give Snape NO slack or credit. I think each group needs to bend a little. :) Here's my take: Snape - A pretty decent guy who got picked on, fell in with the wrong crowd, and lost his girl. He became bitter and fell in with a REALLY bad crowd, did some regrettable things, and because of a personal loss, turned back to the good side, and went back to being a pretty decent guy, albeit a really bitter one with a wierd obsession. His treatment of Harry and Harry's friends is just inexcusable. There is no argument about Snape's awful childhood, or crappy adulthood, or James' tormenting of him, that can justify adult Snape's behavior toward small children in his care. We have to remember that they *were* small children at the beginning, not 17 year olds. And Snape was terrible to them. Harry hadn't even known his father! Taking out his anger at James on Harry was unjustifiable. Period. However, he did keep Harry physically safe, if not emotionally safe, and he did put his own life on the line many times. He was a good friend to Dumbledore and he was, ultimately, on the right side, doing the right thing. I think he deserves commendation for that. However, no more commendation that all the outwardly good people should get for openly defying Voldemort. Harry - Everyone knows that I love and respect Harry. I think he is exactly how he is presented to be, a good person in a difficult situation, handling it as best he can, and occasionally screwing up or being unpleasant. I think he deserves all the credit in the world for being a brave, strong, and good person. Marauders - They are a difficult bunch. We see them so rarely, yet they are a constant presence in the books, and in Harry's life. I see them as the kind of guys that never really grow up (much like Snape). I don't, in any way, think any of them (minus Pettigrew) were "bad" people. Sirius is one of my favorites. I think he loved Harry dearly, and I think he went to great lengths, as Lupinlore said, to save Harry. He put his own life in danger almost constantly, just having broken out of Azkaban. He did what he could for the Order, and he fought at the Ministry to save Harry, even though (had he not been killed) he could have been captured. Sirius, in my opinion, was very brave, and very loving, if a little immature. I think he deserves at least as much credit as Snape. I really think we need to look at these characters objectively. They all have flaws, and they all have positive attributes. I think it is possible to like all of them, and I do. Katie, just lovin' on er'erybody. From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Aug 13 18:43:16 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:43:16 -0000 Subject: What's Going On In Slytherin House During Year 7? In-Reply-To: <484870.99168.qm@web55014.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175270 Christy: > From McGonagall's comment, it sounds as if Slytherin > House has tried to remain neutral even though Death > Eaters now run Hogwarts. I can definitely see Slughorn > being as neutral as he can. If he has remained neutral, > has the majority of Slytherin House tried to follow his lead? houyhnhnm: That's an interesting line of speculation. Too bad there is so little canon to go on. Slughorn was a character trying to preserve his neutrality when we met him, but later on he committed himself to the good side by giving Harry the unadulterated memory. Slughorn seemed like a pretty saavy guy. He was also the only one besides Harry and Dumbledore who knew about Tom Riddle's interest in horcruxes and he was Snape's teacher and Head of House for seven years. It seems possible to me that he, alone among Hogwarts professors, figured out what was really going on and may have had a tacit understanding with Snape to keep his head down, his students safe, and concentrate on not rocking the boat. From graynavarre at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 19:00:27 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] There it goes again! Objectivity out the window. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <881155.51575.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175271 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > > wrote: > > Either you like the Marauders, > > empathizing with Sirius, who went after Peter > Pettigrew to avenge > > James and ended up spending twelve years in > Azkaban and later > rattled > > around his parents' hated house drinking and > feeling depressed, or > it > > turns your stomach every time he calls Snape > Snivellus while snape > > (who returns his animosity with cool sarcasm) is > out risking his > life > > for Harry and DD (and, as it turns out, Lily), > atoning for his past > > mistakes while receiving little praise or > gratitude and no affection > > (except, occasionally, from DD). > How very strange. I seem to be living in a very small HP world where my two favorite characters are Sirius Black and Severus Snape. I howled with rage with Sirius died and I howled with pain when Severus died. (Sidenote: I have started calling him Severus. Since most people use Sirius's first name, it only seemed fair) JKR set us up to feel disgust and hatred for both men. Both were accused of doing foul things. Both looked evil. One turned out to be innocent of the crime for which he was sent to prison. The other did something wrong, repented it and fought the evil that he had once joined. Both men died fighting that evil. JKR showed how much she disliked Severus Snape in many ways. Even his name is an attempt to make us dislike him at once. Snape is only one letter away from Snake. First, as you reread the stories notice how often she doen't give him the title of Prof. She does this for the other professors at Hogwarts, but not him. In the same paragraphs where she talks about Prof Moody, Prof. Sprout, etc., JKR will refer to Severus as Snape. Second, even though he is an adult, she keeps him dirty. Harry describes him as skinny and having dirty hair. When I was taking a course on the recognition of abused children, two of the characteristics of abused children are their being underweight and being continuously dirty. Parents who want people to stay away and not like their abused children will actually keep them from being clean. In society, people don't like to be around anyone is dirty - it is seen as if that person is less human than us. JRK keeps us and all the other characters away from Severus by her descriptions of him. But I got to see through the description and found a man I liked - lonely, sad, brave, guilt-ridden, brillant, and abused by his own creator. I also liked Sirius - even in OotP. He was also lonely, sad, brave, guilt-ridden ("if he had not trusted Peter"), maybe not so brillant, but not abused by his creator. My world is small, but I like it. Barbara From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 19:19:45 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:19:45 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175272 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shirley" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" > wrote: > > > > > > > > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a > character, or > > the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character > you > > generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks > to you. > > > > Potioncat, who will post her moment later, and who is creating > light- > > weight threads because she doesn't have the intellectual energy at > the > > moment to join in with the heavier ones, but is reading them with > great > > enjoyment. > > When I catch up to more of my posts so I don't go over the limit, I'm sure I'll respond to some of the threads I've been participating in, but for now, my moment... I've mentioned this before, actually, but for me, it was Petunia's letter to Dumbledore. It makes sense to me that most of us on this site have at some point hoped we'd be granted magic powers, or get to escape for real into a world like those we read about in books, but we grew up, and it never happened. And here, we see two little girls, one of whom is invited to join that world. Told she has unbelievable powers, and there's an entire alternate universe that she is welcome to join. And her sister isn't. It broke my heart, because I can't imagine what it would be like if my sister, or friend, or anyone suddenly got this magic ticket to a whole new world, and I was told, sorry, you can't come - even worse that it was told so kindly by Dumbledore. And what kind of world does Petunia wind up in? One married to Vernon Dursley, of whom we've seen precious little to regard as worthwhile. Maybe Petunia did look for one of the biggest Muggles there is to get further from a world she could never join. The most powerful message of calvinism and fate dictated by birth isn't Slytherin, it's the simple fact of magic vs. non-magic. There is no choice, no personality judgment, no qualifications. But some get the magic ticket, and some get left behind. Poor Tuney. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From foodiedb at optonline.net Mon Aug 13 19:21:59 2007 From: foodiedb at optonline.net (David) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:21:59 -0000 Subject: Mad Eye Alive? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175273 I am sorry if I missed any discussion on this, but in DH when the trio head to Gringotts with Hermione "polyjuiced" as Bellatrix; there is mention of a dirty old sort of down on his luck wizard who approaches them with a bandage covering his eye. Has there been any thoughts and/or evidence that this might have been Moody? Thanks, David From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 19:25:30 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:25:30 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175274 Potioncat wrote: > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, or the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character you generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks to you. *teeny snip* Doddie here: Actually one of the major events after all that Harry had been through and yet had to go through was him and the trio saving Draco and Goyle's lives. I paid extra close attention to Draco's experiences throughout DH especially in the rereads..just to get some sort of idea of what Snape's early DE experiences may have been like. I also think this is why JKR put in the "Hallows" so we could see DD's temptaions in his youth as well. Draco's life truly became a living nightmare-- what a journey he had in the series let alone the last two books between his boastful bragging and face stomping in HBP to huddled between his parents in the great hall at the end of DH. I was never much of a Draco fan but I was intruiged by this character's development. Also, knowing that Crabbe destroyed a horcrux helped make up the off- page destruction of the cup horcrux. I always get a visceral response when Voldiemorts "cronies" inadvertently (like Crabbe and Lucius's involvement with the destruction of the diadem and diary) or blatently like Cissy vitals check that help Harry on his way. Doddie, (who hopes that the Malfoy's finally got it by the end) From elfundeb at gmail.com Mon Aug 13 19:30:34 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:30:34 -0400 Subject: Toons, Petunia, and the Horrible Vase (WAS: Blame Fryffindor for everything) Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708131230p29af7318lc2da8077e4896d66@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175275 va32h: If there's any winking and nudging going on, I would say that it's from JKR to the reader, because she expects us to detest Petunia too, and this is another example of Petunia's bad taste. I just think you are reading way too much into a throwaway line. No, it wasn't a "necessary" comment in the letter, neither are a few hundred little phrases that JKR inserts in her writing. Why did Dumbledore say "let us step out into the night and pursue that flighty temptress, adventure." in HPB? It isn't necessary. Dumbledore could have said "Let's go." Debbie: I don't doubt that JKR included the bit about the vase as a throwaway and as a joke. I also believe there are certain characters who are fair game for such comments. Had Vernon sent the vase (not that he ever would), I would not have cared, because Vernon is an example of what someone on this list once characterized as a 'Toon.' Vernon is so caricatured and obviously mean that we can have little, if any empathy for him. Like a cartoon villain, a Toon can be physically and mentally tortured and we can laugh because he/she suffers no real harm, only well-deserved humiliation for being such a nasty villain. In PS/SS, I might have characterized Petunia as a Toon. By the end of DH, however, Petunia has been given a backstory with a good deal of pathos attached to it. She's much more than an object of ridicule; she has become sympathetic (which is not the same thing as being likeable). The very existence of the vase tells us that however much Petunia resents Lily and her magical talent, she cares enough to send Lily a gift. Whether Petunia has good or bad taste (and I have no doubt that it is bad, because taste requires self-confidence and Petunia feels her inferiority too keenly) is beside the point. Lily's comment is belittling to her inferior sister. Thus, the comment is a jarring moment in what otherwise is a very thoughtful letter in which Lily thanks Sirius and enlists his help in raising James' spirits. Perhaps I should read the comment as humanizing Lily. She is not perfect, if she cheerfully makes her Muggle sister the butt of jokes. However, if JKR means us to find this funny, I don't think it works, at least for me. Petunia is not the only character that JKR sometimes treats as a Toon and sometimes not. However, JKR gives these characters sufficient depth -- often using just a couple of vignettes -- that we feel their pain. For example, Percy also sometimes is treated as a Toon, yet the jokes played on him are part of the dynamic that alienates him from his family. Like the Velveteen Rabbit, once characters become "real", they're no longer fair game for jokes between the author and reader. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 19:42:27 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:42:27 -0000 Subject: Lily, Hagrid, Snape, Lucius, Friends (was Re: good/bad Slyth/Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175276 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Irene: > > > > I'm sorry, but I had to laugh at the idea that with a little > effort Snape could have been "as good" as Sirius. I can understand > presenting Harry as a role model of someone who overcame tough > childhood, but Sirius? He is every bit as MEAN as Snape is, if not > meaner. He is mean to Peter, he is mean to Molly, he is mean to > Kreacher, he is even mean to Harry when Harry does not play along. > > Ah, I can hear the objections, but he is so nice to the people he > cares about! Guess what - Snape is also perfectly civil and even > nice to Malfoys, for example. > > > Alla: > > I will raise a bit different objection - being mean to Harry > **once** > does not really count for me. And being mean to Molly? When? When > she remarked that he is not good enough to raise his godson in > essense? Or are you thinking of a different event? > > If we are thinking of the same one, then I would give Molly much > meaner answer than Sirius, frankly. Because I found her remark to be > beyond obnoxious. > Lanval: Oh, absolutely. It was as below the belt as it gets. But somehow I never find myself too angry with Molly, probably because of the Boggart scene following it so close. Poor woman. And she did it out of concern for Harry, even if she was IMO completly wrong. I 'gree with Sirius here. :) Alla: > And yeah, he is mean to Kreacher. I still cannot count as many > people as I can count for Snape. > Lanval: Oh Kreacher. No matter how much I loved his transformation in DH, I shudder to think what Teenage Sirius' life must have been at home during holidays, with Kreacher, Mom and Dad Black, and Regulus around him all day long. Alla: > Not that I want to present Sirius' as role model, lol. But Snape for > me is way ahead in that department. Even if you include that hurtful > remark to Harry Sirius made. > > Who else Sirius' is mean to? Because him being mean more than one I > can only count Kreacher and his dear old mom. Not a surprise for me > at all. > > Snape, let's see. Hermione, Ron, Neville, Tonks, Lupin, Sirius, > Harry of course. And that I can remember right away. > > Lanval: We could of course also make a list of Sirius being "nice". :) Mind, not "good", just nice, as in kind, or openly helpful, or compassionate -- since the argument posted centered on "mean" being a defining quality of his character. Ok. In no particular order of time or importance. Sirius: - shows real, heartfelt shaking-hands-white-faced concern over Harry at the end of GoF and helps him into a chair. - gives Ron an owl, because he feels guilty over Ron losing his pet. Imagine. - sends 'his best' to Ron and Hermione in a letter - lives on rats in order to be near Harry - calmly and thoughtfully advises the Trio on many subjects in GoF - gives his godson birthday and Christmas presents, even while he's on the run - offers Harry a home and is totally, touchingly happy when realising Harry *wants* to live with him - hesitates, even as every second counts when trying to escape on Buckbeak, to find out how Ron is doing, to thank Harry and Hermione, and praise Harry (yes, in Sirius' mind, saying "You are truly your father's son" counts as the biggest compliment ever) - writes to Harry - likes Crookshanks and pets him :) - apologizes for the fright he gave Harry the night Harry left the Dursleys' house in PoA - remembers about the Hogsmeade permission, and sends it to Harry - instinctively knows what Harry's thinking about, and reassures him about the trial - is kind, calm, and very patient with the Weasley children when Arthur is almost killed, even after Fred gets nasty with him - this is just conjecture of course, but *somebody* had to pay to feed all those people walking in and out of Grimmauld Place for months. Anything I forgot? That's not too bad, considering how little page time Sirius actually has in the series. From phdindeli at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 19:48:30 2007 From: phdindeli at yahoo.com (Michelle Law) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:48:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Raised by Muggles In-Reply-To: <007101c7ddd9$3027b9a0$6501a8c0@CKC> Message-ID: <415505.92297.qm@web51506.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175277 Carolyn: >I imagine that just as Hagrid was sent to escort Harry, another >escort was >sent for Hermione and any others who wouldn't have knowledge or >experience >with Diagon Alley. We don't hear about it because we don't meet >Hermione >until the train, but it makes sense to me. this is Michelle (a newbie) again: It is quite possible that Hermione, like Lily and Harry, also exhibited "magical" qualities pre-Hogwarts, and that when the letter arrived those muggle parents (not the Dursleys, of course) may have hit themselves on the forehead and said "That (the letter) explains all the weird sh-tuff that has been going on with this kid for the last 11 years!" Off topic one moment: As to muggleborns vs. pure-bloods: It seems to me that anyone born of two magical humans (especially 2 "pure- bloods) would be more likely to be magical than not. In other words, big hairy deal that Draco (for instance) is a wizard--the amazing thing would be if he were not! Therefore to be muggleborn should mean even MORE to the wizarding community, since muggleborns didn't get their magic genitically but had to come up with the magic "capacity/potential" on their own. Since Slytherin House accepted half-bloods (examples: Snape and Riddle) but not muggleborns (refute me if I'm wrong, but McGonaggle, in COS, told how Slytherin wanted to "be more selective about the students allowed in to Hogwarts"), I wonder if the half-bloods felt they had to "out pure-blood" the pure-bloods in regard to exhibiting extreme prejudice against muggleborns, as proof of their worthiness to belong to Slytherin House. Michelle, wondering if we can't just all get along, united as HP fans. From gbadams_77 at charter.net Mon Aug 13 19:55:23 2007 From: gbadams_77 at charter.net (bzbbaba) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:55:23 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175278 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, or > the character's situation? Our family read the book out loud over a couple of weeks (scheduling difficulties complicated the reading times). I read most of the time so there were three times when I got emotionally wrapped up in it: 1. When Dobby died I got a bit of a catch in my throat as Harry looked at the knife sticking out of Dobby's chest. It was like a very good friend died. I really liked Dobby's character. 2. When Ron showed concern for the house elves in Hogwarts and Hermione kissed him after dropping all the Basilisk fangs. Ron got caught up in the moment and *really* kissed her back. I had to reread Harry's reaction, I thought it was so genuine: ("OI! There's a war going on here!") 3. When Molly screamed at Bellatrix. I really identified with Mrs. Weasley using everything in her power to go after someone who was threatening one of her children. I know there's been a lot of controversy about this scene, but when I read it out loud I put a lot of feeling into it and I could feel a sense of justified anger coming out. Apparently the people I was reading to (my husband, two teenage kids & a friend of theirs) felt so, too, as they were whooping and hollering of "Go Molly!!!" Beverly (who would also like to relate that when we got done with the book we all toasted Harry along with all who died including Dobby and Hedwig) From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 19:59:58 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:59:58 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175279 Adam wrote: *small snip( > I've mentioned this before, actually, but for me, it was Petunia's > letter to Dumbledore. > It makes sense to me that most of us on this site have at some point hoped we'd be granted magic powers, or get to escape for real into a world like those we read about in books, but we grew up, and it never happened. > > And here, we see two little girls, one of whom is invited to join that world. Told she has unbelievable powers, and there's an entire > alternate universe that she is welcome to join. And her sister isn't. It broke my heart, because I can't imagine what it would be like if my sister, or friend, or anyone suddenly got this magic ticket to a whole new world, and I was told, sorry, you can't come - even worse that it was told so kindly by Dumbledore. > > And what kind of world does Petunia wind up in? One married to Vernon > Dursley, of whom we've seen precious little to regard as worthwhile. > Maybe Petunia did look for one of the biggest Muggles there is to get further from a world she could never join. > > The most powerful message of calvinism and fate dictated by birth > isn't Slytherin, it's the simple fact of magic vs. non-magic. There is no choice, no personality judgment, no qualifications. But some get the magic ticket, and some get left behind. > > Poor Tuney. > > ~Adam (Prep0strus) Doddie here: This may have been more of a moment for me if Petunia had atleast apologized to Harry for her treatment of him, but she got her wish in the end the Dursleys went into a wizarding household to hide. They get to side-along apparrition too! You're right poor Tuney, living in a wizarding household during a Wizarding War-with Dudders running about with his hands over his posterior each time he sees a want and all Vernon's "Ruddy Hell's" each time a patronus delivers a message! Tuney listening to the news of the deaths of muggle and wizards alike remembering hearing the news of Lily's death and her knowing Harry was out there fighting. Doddie, (who wonders if Petunia ever met Albus Severus--even if out shopping some day, and what, if anything would she say to Harry after the war.) From dream_gurl1991 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 18:58:13 2007 From: dream_gurl1991 at yahoo.com (dream_gurl1991) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:58:13 -0000 Subject: What did Severus really cry about? In-Reply-To: <8C9ABEFF320AFBA-B40-6A6A@WEBMAIL-MB21.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175280 Oryomai: > I've been reading all the posts about Severus crying over Lily's > letter, and I've had a thought: > > He wasn't just crying over Lily's death and the loss of her. > He wasn't just crying over Lily, he was crying over his entire life > and what he could have been. Haven't you ever started crying about > one thing and it turned into something completely different?? Severus > was probably thinking about what might have happened if he had chosen > a different path -- not just with Lily, but with his entire life. I agree with that. When Harry saw Snape's thoughts in the Pensive and how in love with Lily he was, it really changed my veiws about Snape. I mean, with the way he's treated Harry over the years, who would've thought that Snape actually cared for Harry and his family. I was absolutly dumbfounded when I found out what was really in Snapes mind. (Just like to introduce myself, my name is Morgan and I am a total HP freak. I can't wait to share some of my opinons with all of you. Just as an FYI I don't have internet at home and can only check stuff at the libaray so I may not be heard from for awhile.) Morgan From dream_gurl1991 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 19:04:36 2007 From: dream_gurl1991 at yahoo.com (dream_gurl1991) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:04:36 -0000 Subject: Raised by Muggles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175281 Debera: > When Hermine got the "kids story" book from Dumbledore's will, she > explained that she never heard of the story because she and Harry > were raised by Muggles. > If that was the case, how would her parents know about Diagon Alley > to get Hermione's books her 1st year? > We know that Harry was shown where it was by Hagrid. Morgan: I wondered that too when I first read Sorcerer's Stone, then I started thinking, maybe it said something in her letter about how to get there since Hogwarts knew that she was Muggle-born. I would think that they would put something in her letter about how to get to Diagon Alley to buy her supplies. > ****Katie: > One thing about Muggleborns that I don't think was ever > mentioned...If someone came to me, or a letter came, saying my son > was a wizard and was accepted at a wizarding school, I would be > like, "Yeah, right." And I would really doubt the veracity of > anyone that came to my house in wierd clothes and wanted to help me > find oddly-named train platforms and take me to unknown streets. I > would probably call the police!! LOL. I wonder if any Muggle > parents ever had that reaction? Morgan: Cool theory Katie...personally...if I was told that my child was a witch/wizard I'd be like "No fair!! Why cant I be one!" LOL From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 13 20:09:01 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:09:01 -0000 Subject: Character Bias, Objectivity, Similarities, Sondheim! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175282 va32h: > Assumptions and extrapolations are made with the scantest > of canon. Such as the James/Sirius conversation on the Hogwart's > Express, which is not long enough or substantial enough to "prove" > anything about Sirius' pre-sorting opinions of Slytherin house, but > which both sides have used as "evidence" that Sirius is either a > noble kid who desperately wants to leave his evil family or a > pathetic loser who completely rejected his family in an instant for > no other reason but to impress James Potter SSSusan: Yes, and we've long done this. :) Remember the "Whoops" broken phial incident in Snape's classroom? What I assumed was *certainly* Snape's revenge upon Harry for his Occlumency intrusion, others were equally certain was truly an accident, or not even of Snape's doing at all. Go figure. >;-) va32h: > I don't think it is any coincidence that Snape and Sirius are > actually very much alike. SSSusan: Heh. See my handle. va32h: > Both fiercely loyal to a friend (Lily, James), both consumed with > guilt over the role they played in that friend's death (Snape in > telling the prophecy, Sirius in persuading James to change secret > keepers)... SSSusan: I'm with you so far! va32h: > ...both sworn to a lifelong pursuit of vengeance (Sirius stays sane > in Azkaban by focusing on finding and killing Wormtail, Snape keeps > up his facade as spy by focusing on ensuring Voldemort's downfall). SSSusan: Here's where my question comes in. *Is* that what Snape was all about? Was he acting all those years because his primary goal was to ensure Voldemort's downfall? I guess I'd like to think that that was a part of it... and yet DH leaves me thinking that most of Snape's goal or motivation was personal, that it was all about *Lily.* What do others think? Was Snape's lifelong pursuit *vengeance* on Voldy (and so he did, then, mirror Sirius in this way, too)? Or was it more a sense of a personal desire or obligation to honor Lily by protecting her child? Of course, if it's the latter, that would be just one more way that Sirius & Severus were alike: protecting Harry... albeit for *exceedingly* different reasons. va32h: > And Sirius and Snape, like Voldemort and like Harry, found their > true home at Hogwarts. SSSusan: I wonder if Sirius' true home wasn't the Potters' (senior), rather than Hogwarts? va32h: > It is certainly no coincidence that Harry has so much in common > with a disparate collection of characters: his own father, > Voldemort, Sirus, Snape, Neville, Draco, Lupin, Hagrid. Harry comes > to see that they are not so disalike after all, surely we are > supposed to see that too. SSSusan: I did like the way Harry saw similarities between himself and Snape and Voldemort/Tom Riddle; I loved the [paraphrased] phrase 'abandoned boys who found a home at Hogwarts.' Did Harry find similarities in himself and Draco? That I'm blanking on. He felt a measure of pity for him in HBP, but did he notice things he had in common with him? va32h: > But anyway, the song is "No One is Alone", and it's about > understanding that our actions, our thoughts, our ideals, do not > take place in a vacuum. And really, the entire song is such an apt > commentary on Harry Potter, But the part I am specifically thinking > of is: > > "People make mistakes, > Fathers, mothers > People make mistakes > Holding to their own, > Thinking they're alone. > > Honor their mistakes > Fight for their mistakes > Everybody makes > One another's terrible mistakes" SSSusan: Decidedly makes me think of the Dumbledore we discover in DH. I wonder how Harry felt about DD after a few years had passed...? Siriusly Snapey Susan From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 13 20:19:32 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:19:32 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175283 sistermagpie Wrote: > Your book glosses over the free will > of other people I don't believe any concept in philosophy has caused more confusion or been more unproductive than that of free will; an idea so bad it's not even wrong. > of creating a completely false binary, > There are many more than just those two How odd that despite the fact that there are "many more" things that Hermione could have done to protect her parents you fail to mention a single one. There is nothing false about that binary; you are just pretending that nobody will ever have to make difficult moral choices in life. If Hermione acted she knew it would lead to bad things, but if she didn't act it would lead to far worse things. Hermione did the logical and courageous thing! I just wish Hermione was my daughter looking after me. > as if it's either do what she did or she > watches her parents gets tortured to > death for information Yep that's about it, sucks doesn't it. If Hermione had done nothing to protect her parents then when they suffered a hideous death as they certainly would have I can just hear the howls of protest from this group. Why didn't she do something? Why didn't she change their memories and move them to Australia? Poor Hermione (and Harry too) is dammed if she does and dammed if she doesn't. Ron and Snape on the other hand can do no wrong. > If as a Muggle you will happily hand > over your free will Hand over my what?! > to Wizards because they know best > that's your choice. Hermione's parents could not possibly make a informed decision in this matter because they don't know what's going on, and Hermione can't tell them for two reasons: 1) She promised Dumbledore she wouldn't tell anyone. 2) The more they know the more danger they are in. And after being tortured when they tell Voldemort that Harry knows about the Horcruxes and is trying to destroy them, the more danger every single person on planet Earth is in. > I find your law [Eggplant's Third Law of > Unequal Moral Responsibility] confusing Talk to the Half Blood Prince, I'll bet he could explain it to you. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon Aug 13 20:17:29 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:17:29 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily, Hagrid, Snape, Lucius, Friends (was Re: good/bad Slyth/Disappointment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C0BC59.2030705@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175284 lanval wrote: > > We could of course also make a list of Sirius being "nice". :) > Mind, not "good", just nice, as in kind, or openly helpful, or > compassionate -- since the argument posted centered on "mean" being > a defining quality of his character. > > Ok. In no particular order of time or importance. But that's exactly my point! No matter how long the list of actual acts of kindness, the list of the persons involved is rather short, and they are all centered around Harry. Ron gets inside the circle after Sirius learns he is Harry's friend. Before that Sirius could care less how frightened or injured Ron gets. Weasley family gets covered as extension of Ron, I suppose. It's exactly the same with Snape - he is nice to his friends, and the rest of the world can go to hell for all he cares. Sirius dismisses his own brother as a perfect little Death Eater, when Regulus was so much more than that. Look, I'm not arguing that Sirius was the most evil character in the series or anything like that. He was good to Harry, and very important in Harry's life and I felt sorry for Harry when he died. But I don't think Sirius should be held as a shining example for Snape, of all people, to follow. I can't help wondering, though, how sorry really was Dumbledore when Sirius died. My theory is - not at all. Sirius was a loose cannon, and would certainly never accept his plans to sacrifice Harry. Because Sirius, for all his faults, loved Harry; I totally get it. Irene From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Aug 13 20:24:03 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:24:03 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175285 Potioncat: > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, or > the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character you > generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks to you. Ceridwen: Dudley leaving a cup of tea outside Harry's door. Thinking about it, it has the feel of hero worship or being a fan. He doesn't want to disturb Harry by knocking, but he wants to leave his offering. Dudley surprised me, and I loved that Harry called him "Big D" when Dudley left. Ceridwen. From va32h at comcast.net Mon Aug 13 20:48:04 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:48:04 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175286 My moment is Harry, waking up that first morning at 12 Grimmauld Place, and seeing that Ron and Hermione had fallen asleep holding hands. It's yet another relationship that others get to have, but is denied Harry, because of who he is and what his life's purpose has become. I realize that Harry also felt this way at the wedding, but the scene is 12GP is even more poignant, IMO. It's not enough that Harry might never get married or have a child - he is even deprived of the simple comfort of hand-holding. Ron and Hermione have undertaken this dangerous mission with him, and yet they have each other, in a way that Harry has no one. va32h From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 20:44:03 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:44:03 -0000 Subject: DH and PS/SS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175287 Okay, folks. We once had a whole set of theories about how the Potterverse existed in a grand cycle with some books mirroring other books. I believe it was set off by JKR's comment about GOF being the "hinge" of the series. In this set of ideas, everything was supposed to come round to the beginning, once again. I don't believe in the grand conception of these theories -- i.e. that the series is some kind of fantastic palindrome where themes and tropes are repeated in reverse order on either side of GOF. Still, if we look just at the two extreme ENDS of the series, DH and PS/SS, I think there might be something to the idea of a circle. In other words, the two books, while different in many, many ways, had a striking number of fundamentals in common: 1) In both books, Harry is introduced into a new world. In PS/SS it's the Wizarding World, in DH it's the fallen Wizarding World dominated by the Death Eaters. 2) Both books feature the trio on a journey through many clues and obstacles to finding a key object or set of objects. 3) Both books turn on Harry coming into possession of an extremely powerful magical tool he has no desire, ultimately, to use. 4) Both books feature important objects protected at Gringott's. 5) In both books Harry believes firmly until near the very end that Snape is a primary mover furthering Voldemort's plans. In both books Snape is revealed to have been working against said plans. 6) Both books play on the rivalries among and between houses. Both end with the expulsion of Slytherin House -- figuratively in PS/SS, literally -- if temporarily -- in DH. 7) In both books, Neville ends up showing depths of bravery that save the day in the end (with points in PS/SS, literally in DH). I don't know how much of this was conscious on JKR's part. If I had to guess at any of it being conscious, I would say it's the parts about Neville, Snape, and Slytherin. Neville and Snape's roles in PS/SS prefigure their ultimate roles in DH. The case with Slytherin house is almost as stark. Slytherin is symbolically banished from the Great Hall in PS/SS by Dumbledore's intervention at the Leavetaking Feast to award Gryffindor the House Cup. They are literally, if temporarily, banished from the Hall in DH, albeit by their own choosing. Oh, one other thing about the last scenes of PS/SS. At one point we had a lot of discussion about DD's motives in intervening when he did in the manner he did. Why intervene personally (why not let McGonagall award the points, for instance)? Why intervene in the most blatant and public way possible? Why wait until the feast, allowing the Slytherins to think they had won a great victory, when he could have awarded the points immediately after the trio's adventures (IIRC there was about a week between the death of Quirrell and the Leavetaking Feast)? Well, given what we see in Snape's memories, there seems an obvious answer, although one much simpler than many proposed, and much more brutal. DD just didn't like Slytherins, and this provided a fine opportunity to stick the knife in -- in front of God, Severus, Minerva, and everybody, I might add. And if he could do so while tilting the scales to Gryffindor and brightening the summer of a child with whom he was "quite taken," then so much the better. Lupinlore From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Aug 13 20:55:14 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:55:14 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175288 > sistermagpie Wrote: > > > Your book glosses over the free will > > of other people > > I don't believe any concept in philosophy has caused more confusion or > been more unproductive than that of free will; an idea so bad it's not > even wrong. Magpie: Yeah, yeah. I concede it's a stupid concept. I shouldn't have used the words. I meant that your book glosses over the fact that maybe two adults' lives and memories meant something and maybe it might be right to not just take it away and give them another life because you think it's best for them. I don't think that's too complicated a philosophy. I imagine Hermione herself wouldn't stand for it being done to her, like if her parents paid some wizard to wipe her mind so that she would be safe. I seem to remember her making some vague noises about "student rights" when Umbridge was reading the mail for the safety of others. Magpie: > > of creating a completely false binary, > > There are many more than just those two Eggplant: > How odd that despite the fact that there are "many more" things that > Hermione could have done to protect her parents you fail to mention a > single one. There is nothing false about that binary; you are just > pretending that nobody will ever have to make difficult moral choices > in life. Magpie: Bull. "Difficult moral choices" does not just mean "a character I like have to do something badass." (Though if anybody actually says it was bad one must rally to their defense to explain how it was the only thing poor dears could have done--look, Hermione's crying you heartless beast! Why don't you think about how painful it is to her that she had to take away her parents' identity? I'll bet you like Snape!) I think the choice should be difficult because it actually acknowledges the rights of other people. How about a plant the perfectly intelligent Grangers are in on? How about a Fidelius charm- -you know, the kind of things they would have used if the Grangers were Wizards they respected so they naturally don't think to take their minds and memories away from them? Eggplant: If Hermione acted she knew it would lead to bad things, but > if she didn't act it would lead to far worse things. Hermione did the > logical and courageous thing! I just wish Hermione was my daughter > looking after me. Magpie: Well, no it wouldn't have led to worse things because there's no indication anything bad would have happened to the Grangers regardless--they didn't go after the Weasleys or search for the Grangers. We've seen memory charms broken through in canon. I didn't say that Hermione didn't do the logical thing (I guess it's courageous to do something so utterly devestating to another person, especially your parents--though luckily Hermione lives in a universe where she rarely gets bad consequences for those kinds of decisions she makes like she might if this were a real person). It's perfectly logical. She just doesn't consider the situation from the position of whether her parents would want to have their lives and daughter taken away from their memories--that doesn't seem to matter. But hey, if you want a daughter who feels it's okay to zap you into a state of oblivion if she thinks it's best for you go right ahead. (Not that you'd know she was looking out for you--maybe she could transfigure you into a turtle for safety--they seem to lead pleasant lives.) I'll stick with the Wizard parents whose children, strangely enough, don't seem to ever consider doing that to them. Magpie:> > > as if it's either do what she did or she > > watches her parents gets tortured to > > death for information Eggplant: > > Yep that's about it, sucks doesn't it. If Hermione had done nothing to > protect her parents then when they suffered a hideous death as they > certainly would have I can just hear the howls of protest from this > group. Why didn't she do something? Magpie: Well, no, actually that's not about it. That's just the limit of your imagination, apparently. I guess it's being used up imagining howls of protest from the group that totally would have happened if Hermione did any other thing and so somehow back her up. Had Hermione told her parents what was going on and they took precautions they were comfortable with and got killed (which there's zero reason to think they would given there's no indication anybody's searching for the Grangers at all in DH) that would have been their decision, not Hermione's fault. Adults can make their own choices and accept responsibility for the consequences. Eggplant: Why didn't she change their > memories and move them to Australia? Poor Hermione (and Harry too) is > dammed if she does and dammed if she doesn't. Ron and Snape on the > other hand can do no wrong. Magpie: Yes, poor Hermione! Poor Harry! The poor dears are victimized on all sides! Damned if they do and damned if they don't--and somewhere, Ron and Snape fans are tormenting them as well! Waaaaaaahhhh! Magpie: > > > If as a Muggle you will happily hand > > over your free will Eggplant:> > Hand over my what?! Magpie: Pardon me. Hand over all your memories and your identity and give someone else total control over what your life will be. Have fun with that. Magpie: > > > to Wizards because they know best > > that's your choice. Eggplant:> > Hermione's parents could not possibly make a informed decision in this > matter because they don't know what's going on, and Hermione can't > tell them for two reasons: > > 1) She promised Dumbledore she wouldn't tell anyone. > > 2) The more they know the more danger they are in. And after being > tortured when they tell Voldemort that Harry knows about the Horcruxes > and is trying to destroy them, the more danger every single person on > planet Earth is in. Magpie: They can't possibly make an informed decision why? Because they can't do magic and that makes them idiots? Even though every person reading these silly books can't do magic? How is it that Ron's parents are able to make the same decision? And why would they need to know information that would put them in more danger? Hermione doesn't have to tell them about the Horcruxes any more than Ron tells his parents about them. Magpie:> > > I find your law [Eggplant's Third Law of > > Unequal Moral Responsibility] confusing Eggplant: > > Talk to the Half Blood Prince, I'll bet he could explain it to you. Magpie: Is that another reference to how somehow any argument you have is won by people liking Snape? -m From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 13 20:58:38 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:58:38 -0000 Subject: Percy instead of Fred In-Reply-To: <588934.64942.qm@web44813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175289 Rowena Ravenclaw wrote: > Percy should have been the one who died not Fred. I loved book 7, I think it is the best of the series and that is saying a lot! That said I think JKR missed an opportunity with Percy, she had set up things perfectly for a grand betrayal; after all in real civil wars brothers do kill brothers. Percy being killed by a member of his own family would have been a very powerful moment. But no, it turns out that Percy was a good guy after all. Yawn, we already have 6 good Weasleys we don't need another one, an evil Weasley would have been much more interesting. Oh well, it's still a great book, and I have no objection to Fred dieing, the more blood the better. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Aug 13 21:06:43 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:06:43 -0000 Subject: The Fourth Deathly Hallows -- Deconstructing the Sorting Hat (LONG) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175290 Like the cloak, the stone and the deathstick, the Sorting Hat is both legend and reality in the WW. In the course of DH, Harry and Dumbledore deconstruct the legends around the three Deathly Hallows. It turns out the wand needn't pass by murder, the stone may be a comfort instead of a curse, and the legend of the cloak does not relate its most useful property. I believe canon invites us to apply a similar process to understanding the Sorting Hat and the nature of Slytherin House. The Sorting Hat does not seem to be a matter of legend. Every student knows it exists. But the legend of the deathstick as a wand that must pass by murder arises though the deathstick itself has left a visible (and supposedly blood-spattered) trail through wizarding history. The truth, like the origin of the wand itself, is less macabre. It is, says Dumbledore, not the gift of Death but instead the creation of wizards, gifted, dangerous wizards but merely mortal all the same. Its powers, though impressive, are sinister only in the hands of the wicked, though it is dangerous indeed to all who are unwise. Hagrid relates what turns out to be a legend of the Sorting Hat in PS/SS: "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin." According to this story, the sorting process can infallibly identify, at the age of eleven, which Hogwarts students have the potential to go bad, and which do not. Canon partially contradicts the legend. We learn that Sirius Black, a Gryffindor, was thought, even at the time Hagrid was speaking, to be a dark wizard. We learn that Peter Pettigrew, Gryffindor, actually became a dark wizard. Still, by the time all this has been revealed to the reader, the legend of Slytherin as the dark wizard's house seems to have become firmly fixed in Harry's mind and there it stays for a long time. Yet, mysteriously, by the epilogue Harry's attitude has altered. He has named his son after a once hated Slytherin, and seems phlegmatic, if not entirely sanguine, about the possibility that said son might become a Slytherin himself. Does canon offer a solution to this mystery? If the Sorting Hat truly recognizes people as potential Dark Wizards, why do Rowling and Harry seem to think its a good thing that it's been preserved? Why is it Voldemort who tries to destroy it, while mouthing a fascist-style slogan about the house, emblem and colors of his ancestors being suitable for everybody? Has Rowling, despite all she's said about the importance of choices and her belief that most people are basically good, written a story where one quarter of the populace will be evil no matter what? Is it just a good thing the Hat knows who they are? But what does it know? The Hat, mighty though its powers may be, cannot within the scheme of canon, possess divine wisdom. Like the three Deathly Hallows, and the Marauders Map, the Hat is the product of human intelligence, another creation of those dangerously gifted wizards who crop up now and then. We know little of the Founders, but one thing we do know about them is that at the time the hat was created they, like the Marauders, were friends and trusted one another. We can assume then, that at least three of them had no idea that Salazar Slytherin was later to become a dark wizard or, as Ron put it, a twisted old loony. The Hat, like the Map, is surely imprinted with the personalities of the wizards who created it. Now, while Harry is a bit dubious about the Map, he never fears that it is full of dark magic, even after he's learned that it was created in part by one who later became a Death Eater. The Map preserves the Marauders as they were at a more innocent time. None of them, not even Pettigrew himself, knew what he would become. Salazar is a bit more of a question mark than Peter, but it seems that in the beginning no one had reason to doubt him, nor should they have, if the Hat itself is any guide... "and never did they dream that they/Might someday be divided." Now, if the Founders of Hogwarts couldn't even predict that one of their own number was going to go bad, how could they possibly have given this power to the Sorting Hat? Maybe it is historically true that there are more dark wizards coming out of Slytherin than the other houses. But is this because Slytherins are evil, and the Hat knows it as soon as it lands on their heads, or does the Hat merely recognize those who, even at the age of eleven, are bent on realizing their ambitions, which few in their innocence can yet tell are good or bad? After all, the WW puts a reasonable number of obstacles in the path of someone who wants to be a dark wizard. People with less drive than Slytherins might get discouraged before they've done too much damage. Fred and George, the Marauders and the Trio all experiment with dangerous magic. Mostly they give it up as not worth the price before they've succeeded in doing anything really bad. But those who grow powerful quickly enough to elude the WW's strictures on dark magic, or those who fall under the spell of one such as Lord Voldemort, may not realize their mistake in time. But Slytherins want power. Isn't that bad? Doesn't power corrupt? Well, that's the conventional wisdom, certainly. But Rowling contradicts it. Love, she says, is the greatest power. And love, though it may tempt one to great folly, is not a wicked thing. It can't be bad to want power *if* the power you want is love, can it? We learn that Dumbledore worked hard to persuade Tom Riddle that the supreme power he sought was love. Tom chose not to believe him. But we see that other Slytherins, even those who support Voldemort, were more able to recognize the power of love than Tom was. Tom sees the Slytherins as his natural allies, and chooses them as his recruits. But canon shows us that though it's easy for him to win their confidence, he has the devil's own time keeping it, and must constantly risk their betrayal. It also shows us that when he does turn his attention to recruiting members of the other Houses, they too fall easy prey, whether to his charm or to his ability to instill fear. What of Salazar Slytherin's pureblood ideology? The fear of Muggles and Muggleborns that it fostered in him seems to have led to his fall. And that ideology remains a legacy of his house. But other houses also have their exclusivist ideologies. Gryffindor would have taught only those with brave deeds to their name, Ravenclaw just those whose intelligence was surest. Only Hufflepuff was willing to teach the lot and treat them just the same. But she could only teach "all *she * knew" (emphasis mine.) Hogwarts seems the poorer when the faculty are chosen for political correctness, if Umbridge's regime is any guide. The shadow of the Holocaust makes Slytherin's form of discrimination seem categorically worse. But history tells us that the mentally incompetent and those who refused to fight have also faced extermination en masse. In any case, the Founders compromised. Each would create a house where those of like kind could congregate, and each would teach the students of all. And all was well, for several happy years. Was it wrong to create Houses? The Hat worries about it. But some social scientists say that people who cannot trust those within their social group are not likely to learn to trust those outside it, and homogeneity within the group makes it easier to trust. The Weasleys, trusting and socially secure, are more tolerant than the Dursleys or the Malfoys, who both have to fear being thought of as different by the neighbors. It is disenheartening to see the extent to which the Founders dream has disintegrated, when all the young Slytherins choose to leave Hogwarts rather than defend it. Would Hogwarts be better off without them? Harry thought so once. "And it wants all the Houses to be friends? Fat chance!" Yet in the end it's Harry who brings them back. He keeps faith with Narcissa and leads her and her slippery spouse back to Hogwarts to reunite them with their son. Still, the Malfoys, sitting huddled together and no part of the celebration around them, aren't a great advertisement for the future of House Unity, and neither is the curt nod that the Malfoys offer nineteen years later. Is there another? Could it be, that as with the cloak, the really important power of the Sorting Hat is in the part of the legend that everyone ignores? I think so. Somewhere in its battered shabby innards resides the essence united of the Founders Four, working in harmony as they have for a thousand years. House Unity indeed. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Aug 13 21:09:36 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:09:36 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175291 Potioncat: > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, > or the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character > you generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks > to you. > > Potioncat, who will post her moment later, and who is creating > light- weight threads because she doesn't have the intellectual > energy at the moment to join in with the heavier ones, but is > reading them with great enjoyment. Jen: Now I'm curious to read yours, Potioncat.:) Has it already been mentioned? Several of mine have been, Dobby's death for one. His actual death was incredibly sad to read: "And then with a shudder the elf became quite still, and his eyes were nothing more than great glassy orbs, sprinkled with light from the stars they could not see." (chap. 23) Poor Dobby. He always warmed my heart, same as I felt toward Neville and Luna, because all three were characters with heartbreaking stories who didn't whine or complain but just pitched in and did what needed to be done. I admire that. Oh, and before I leave Dobby, the fact that they dressed him before burying him *sniff*....I also identified with Harry as becoming very clear about his path after losing Dobby, sort of a last honor to Dobby. My most surprising identification was with Snape when he was crying like a 'wounded animal' after Lily died. I didn't know he had that in him from how he was portrayed in earlier books. One story I truly believed would happen and didn't was Harry discovering his nature was more like Lily's from hearing about her life, *her* life, unconnected to Snape's or her husband's or her sister's...and not hearing it from Dumbledore in a Pensieve memory! Gah. Harry never got to see her be her own person. I suppose her role was Mom and the rest of her story was too intertwined with other characters to hear about separately. Sigh. Thanks, Potioncat! Jen From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 21:22:58 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mad Eye Alive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <405003.43426.qm@web55012.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175292 David: I am sorry if I missed any discussion on this, but in DH when the trio head to Gringotts with Hermione "polyjuiced" as Bellatrix; there is mention of a dirty old sort of down on his luck wizard who approaches them with a bandage covering his eye. Has there been any thoughts and/or evidence that this might have been Moody? There's no evidence. For one quick heart beat I had hope because I liked Mad Eye, but he has so many distinguishing physical characteristics I knew just as quickly that it couldn't be him. If he were Mad Eye, Harry would have undoubtedly recognized him by his scars and wooden leg as well as his eye (or lack thereof). Christy --------------------------------- Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon Aug 13 20:32:27 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:32:27 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] This moment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C0BFDB.6050709@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175293 potioncat wrote: > > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, or > the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character you > generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks to you. > > I've really surprised myself by feeling so sorry for little Petunia. Not that I gave her lots of thought in the earlier books, but there was always a feeling that their parents didn't handle the difference between the girls very well. But in book 7 it became very clear that there was absolutely nothing parents could do to soften the blow, it's just completely heartbreaking for a child. And I felt for her situation. Irene From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 13 21:35:00 2007 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:35:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Toons, Petunia, and the Horrible Vase (WAS: Blame Fryffindor for everything) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175294 Debbie says: >The very> existence of the vase tells us that however much Petunia resents Lily and> her magical talent, she cares enough to send Lily a gift. Whether Petunia> has good or bad taste (and I have no doubt that it is bad, because taste> requires self-confidence and Petunia feels her inferiority too keenly) is> beside the point. Lily's comment is belittling to her inferior sister.> Thus, the comment is a jarring moment in what otherwise is a very thoughtful> letter in which Lily thanks Sirius and enlists his help in raising James'> spirits.> > Perhaps I should read the comment as humanizing Lily. She is not perfect,> if she cheerfully makes her Muggle sister the butt of jokes. However, if> JKR means us to find this funny, I don't think it works, at least for me. PJ: I read this letter to be the start of when Petunia began giving horrid gifts to people she didn't really want to be associated with. Her habit of sending Harry a tissue or a used sock for Christmas may have begun with her sending her sister the most horrid vases she could find in the stores... She is raised to believe she HAS to give a gift, but no one says it has to be a NICE gift... She's being passive/aggressive in her choices. PJ _________________________________________________________________ Learn. Laugh. Share. Reallivemoms is right place! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 13 21:40:20 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:40:20 -0000 Subject: This moment. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175295 "potioncat" wrote: > Is there a moment in DH where you > really identify with a character, > or the character's situation? As I've said before my moment of Epiphany came when I read near the bottom of page 687 "From the tip of his [Snape's] wand burst the silver doe". I wasn't expecting that, I wasn't expecting that at all, and I couldn't even finish reading the rest of the sentence; I had to put the book down stand up and walk away for a while. She's going to do it I thought, she's really going to do it, JKR is going to murder Harry Potter! For years I'd been saying that's exactly what she should do, but now when I actually saw JKR with a gun pointed at Harry's head just a moment before she's going to pull the trigger, well, all I can say is it took me some time to work up the courage to continue reading. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 21:49:16 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:49:16 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: <46C0BFDB.6050709@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175296 > potioncat wrote: > > > > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, or > > the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character you > > generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks to you. > > > > Alla: Hmmm, many were already mentioned. I certainly well will not mention identifying with Harry, I feel for him often enough. But I just mention the death of the Dobby again. JKR can certainly make me cry and emphacise with the characters I would not expect to. I was never very fond of Dobby ( did not hate him, but found him annoying), but OMG, his death just made me cry. Even I was moved by Harry's *abandoned boys* line, that made me see Harry's forgiveness much better than him naming his kiddo after Snape. But I think the most surprise was Dumbledore. I won't rehash my attitudes towards DD in general, but OMG I was soooo sure that if it will be revealed that DD ordered Snape to kill him, DD can go to whatever literary Hell exists in Potterverse and I won't shed a tear. I was SO sure, if we get DD the puppetmaster, I will do that same thing. Well, what do you know? Dumbledore looking like the little boy seeking reassurance just did that for me - I cried, and I completely felt for him (not that I did not want to strangle him many times before), but remorse just does that for me. The clear one, I mean ;) Alla. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 22:17:57 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:17:57 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175297 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, or > the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character you > generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks to you. <<>> ****Katie: I already answered this, briefly, but I had to add a couple. 1 - When Dumbledore asks Harry to forgive him in King's Cross. I was soooo angry with DD by that point, so confused as to his character, and really wondering if he was just a bad guy, plain and simple...and then MY DD came surging back. His self-loathing at his behavior, his complete respect and love for Harry - him calling Harry a "better man", and his tears. It really made me love him all over again, and this time, for who he *really* was. I felt, at that moment, like I knew the WHOLE Dumbledore, and I could really love him, instead of looking up to him. He became human to me in that moment and I loved it. I also loved that at the end of that conversation, his demons scourged, he turned into that silly Dumbledore who has always made me laugh, with the comment, "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" I could just SEE his twinkle and his crooked nose, and it was just a perfect and satisfying moment for me. 2 - Narcissa. God, how I have hated that woman. Even in HBP, when we saw her love for Draco, I still hated her. But the last few scenes with her really touched me. The vision of her and Lucius calling desperately for Draco still gives me goosebumps, just because I was (and am!) so surprised to feel any kind of sympathy for those people. It was in the moments with Narcissa, Lucius, and Draco at the end, that I could really tell that Jo is a parent. That desperate, all-consuming passion for your child was never written better in these books than in those scenes. I even had some sympathy for Lucius...although not much. ;) 3 - I really sympathized with Snape in that first scene when he meets Lily and Petunia. I remember being the wierd kid that couldn't say the right thing to have people like me. I remember the frustration of trying, so hard, to seem "normal". It worked for me about as well as it worked for him. I think Jo must have been that kid, too. That scene was so real, it almost brought up my own long dead insecurities! She really knows how to write "the wierd kid." Katie, having embraced her inner wierd kid and thoroughly enjoying the ride. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Mon Aug 13 22:42:45 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:42:45 -0000 Subject: FILK: Open at the Close Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175298 For me (as well as many others) Chap. 34 in DH was one of the most deeply moving passages in Canon. In creating a filk on this scene, it is obvious that the filker needs to find a vehicle of suitable dignity and purpose, one that will communicate the tragic, transcendent and elegaic elements of the story. Or maybe something with a good beat that you can dance to..... Open at the Close (DH, Chap. 34) To the tune of Rock Around the Clock by Bill Haley and the Comets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY9niMeOwlg Dedicated to CV - and a round of Purple Turbans to everyone! THE SCENE: The Forbidden Forest. Into the Woods, in his Agony and Lament, HARRY discovers that No One Is Alone. HARRY (as he splits apart the Snitch): There's no way to cope, as my woe grows I'm at the end of rope, as my woe grows I have not the faintest hope, as my woe grows It's gonna open at the close tonight (Enter the ethereal quartet of JAMES, LILY, SIRIUS & LUPIN) LUPIN: You'll let Lord Voldy knock you dead `Cause a Horcrux's stuck inside your head It's gonna open at the close tonight You'll expose yourself to foes outright HARRY & QUARTET: Gonna ope, gonna open at the close tonight JAMES: My son, you've got your mother's eyes We'll usher you to a brave demise It's gonna open at the close tonight He'll depose the Chosen One, all right. HARRY & QUARTET: Gonna ope, gonna open at the close tonight (Instrumental interlude, as HARRY'S jitters are replaced with jitterbugging) SIRIUS: We four came down to you from heaven Tragic ending for Book Seven It's gonna open at the close tonight You will doze through those eternal nights HARRY & QUARTET: Gonna ope, gonna open at the close tonight LILY: When the two of us meet face to face, There won't be a dry eye in the place It's gonna open at the close tonight Gonna die in prose of Jo's tonight HARRY & QUARTET: Gonna ope, gonna open at the close tonight (Second instrumental interlude, with further jitterbugging by the Quintet, which suggests that Death really *is* the Next Great Adventure. HARRY & QUARTET enter the Death Eaters' Camp) HARRY What a clumsy-ox, I have dropped the stone And I face the Dark Lord all alone It's gonna open at the close tonight And his blows are unopposed tonight HARRY, VOLDEMORT & CHORUS OF DEATH EATERS Gonna ope, gonna open at the close tonight! (VOLDEMORT casts the AK curse on HARRY, causing both of them to crumple to the ground.) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 23:07:40 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:07:40 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175299 > Eggplant: > If Hermione acted she knew it would lead to bad things, but > > if she didn't act it would lead to far worse things. Hermione did > the > > logical and courageous thing! I just wish Hermione was my daughter > > looking after me. Montavilla47: How do you know she isn't your daughter? From doliesl at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 23:16:36 2007 From: doliesl at yahoo.com (doliesl at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Whose flaws are bigger (was good and bad Slytherins) Message-ID: <985323.848.qm@web82201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175300 Lanval: Here's where we part ways though: where are all these pure-and-stay- good lovable characters that *we* (I'll include myself here as a non- Snape fan, since you appear to be operating from the view of a Snape fan, and the whole argument started with him) sing-song praise over? I can't think of any of the major characters who fits that description. Certainly not Sirius, Harry or Lupin, to mention just three whose fans' views regularly clash with that of Snape fans. D: Don't ask me, I was using Prep0strus's term to respond him. According to him these are the 'pure-and-stay good' characters, meaning 'good' characters who started off good and stay on good side, meaning they didn't have the same character arc as Snape...well duh!? That's my point about trying judge these characters as if they're all equal and have the same story arc and we're supposed to have same reaction hence we shall have a list of 'who're better people' in some moral judging contest that amounts to who we should like. Lanval: Here's a mystery for me. Why is it that, on the one hand, so many Snape fans have always claimed to love Snape for his complexity, his 'greyness', his ambiguousness, yet on the other hand insist that he's the Good Guy in almost every situation involving him? If one were to take every argument ever fought out here, and adopted the pro-Snape opinion as canon, he'd be counted among the most boring, good-guy-under-a-dirty-cloak, nerve-gratingly noble, tear-inducing sob-story cliche in literature. D: Maybe they came off that way to you because you're intend to think the worst of the character of Snape, so if someone try to explain why Snape do certain things or didn't vilify him, they comes off as 'whitewash' in your eyes? I think that's the case sometimes but then who am I kidding, even I as a fan I think some people went too far in 'whitewashing' (eye rolling at all the 'good teacher' argument). But it's all even out because many of the supposed 'evilness' is overexaggerate by many haters too. The haters also don't want the grey, they only want black so they can vilify a much loved shady character in smug righteousness and tell off all those who liked him must be delusional and based on fanon...same old grasping at straws. Snape never get any pass from some readers who intent to hate him and interpret the worst no what matter. Double standard goes both ways. >>D: >>It's the same as people saying why Harry is their >>absolute favorite character because Harry is the protagonist and >>it's all about him anyway. Lanval: Actually, it isn't quite the same, because the books *are* called "Harry Potter and...". Snape may be a more prominent character than James, but certainly takes a backseat when it comes to appearance to Ron or Hermione. D: No it's the same for me. The characters that matters more to readers' heart are usually the ones who have an actual prominent role and revelations that strike an emotional core. Prep0strus kept asking and insisting why there're Snape fans who'd defend him till earth's end while it's the not the same for James. The root of that problem is that he saw them as "equal" in roles exposure and what their character arc lies. The backseat thing isn't my point, why do you suddenly want to rank some list? It's just a comparison how most of us readers care for Harry by default because he's the voice of the book. And a lot of readers would care more about a fascinating character whose arc matters in 7 books versus a mere background name whose existence is to inform readers about other characters. But the thing is, Snape is quite an one of a kind special character within the series in my opinion (and before you go off making a list, yes there're plenty others too, as in Snape is as irreplaceable as Dumbledore). So he's always the 'exception' and the 'controversial' that's why I think it's a misconception if you try to hold up James/Sirius/Lupin/Hagrid/Madam Pomprey/Draco/Slughorn...etc.'s role against Snape's. Lanval: Well, since you brought it up... You see, that breeze, it does blow both ways. I agree that I've seen my share of "how dare you like the Bad Guys, don't you know that you're supposed to hate them, what are you, BAD?" But. I've seen as much condescension from the Snape(insert Draco/Slytherin/Random Designated Bad Guy) fandom, as in, "I LOVE the Bad Guys -- what an interesting, deep, intellectual reader I must be! what, you like the guys JKR 'told' you to like? Oh dear...I suppose so do the ten-year-olds..." D: No the problem you and many don't see is..a lot of Snape fans DON'T see nor appreciate him as among one of many Slytherin/baddies/Random Designated Bad Guy. You might automatically "oh so you must try to whitewash him as some nice white hat." Of course it isn't that either. That's why for me and for many Snape is a truly one of a kind character in the series, there's no other characters that setup the same as him and function like him thruout seven books ('gift of a character' I agree). That's why it's absurd to pit him against _insert lovable, pure-and-staygood or shady minor Slytherin character_ . Unlike you, I never see him in the same league as Slughorn, even Draco and some Random Designated Bad Guy. I don't like any of the LV-align or 'bad" characters like Umbridge and Greyback. I don't like nor identify with Slytherins (because there isn't any really interesting characters coming from that house, especailly the children's generation). I think the puzzle came in because some of you think of Snape only as one among many of the random baddies and don't distinguish the uniqueness of his role, hence the 'puzzle' of his appeal. I always believed he's DDM and on the 'good' side all along. (btw no I don't have much problem with JKR portrayal of Molly's AK, Harry's torture curse, Slytherin house...and I like DH and LOVE Snape's conclusion). Lanval: The heart of the problem? again, not speaking for anyone else here, but I freely admit that while I dislike Snape it does irk me *more* to see him so often elevated into something he is NOT. Usually at the expense of whoever shares the scene with him. Exhibit A: Harry's first Potions Class. D: It irks me when 'haters' dismissed Snape into something he's NOT, also. It goes both ways. The degree of savage vindictiveness of wanting Snape to be the worst evil and how Harry was oh-so-right about him all along etc. etc. (oh so crow-eating!) I understand the frustration of seeing some Snape fans demonizing the 'likable' pure-and-stay-good characters. I find those irksome too and rolling my eyes and hissing 'enough~ geez' in my mouth. But don't try to pretend that it doesn't go both ways. And the whole "James/Sirius/Lupin are way better people in sum than Snape to me" won't cut it and only comes off desperate to me (why does that matter). Lanval: No, one does not find James very often as the subject of essays, academical works, etc. One finds him however quite often as the subjects of LiveJournal posts along the lines of "I hate James Potter with the fire of a thousand suns!!!") 'Splain that one to me, somebody. If the bloke ain't interesting enough to be considered a Worthy Character to Like, surely he can't qualify for this kind of hatred either? D: Really? Where? You're giving characters like James way too much credit. No way the dislikes toward him is anywhere near the intensity, seriousness and amount of the venom toward BIG character like Hermione, Ginny, Harry, Snape, Dumbledore...etc. I don't think people really 'care' about James when they mouth off "James sucks...gosh he's so annoying". He isn't one to get work up about in my opinion. D: > And yeah in a way characters' redemption (especially at the finale) do gain a lot of readers' forgiveness and endearment, that's why it's err...called 'redemption', especially ones involving love and sacrifices and death (ie Sydney Carton). Not working for you and some others obviously, but also working for a lot and a lot of readers. At least from the more 'general' discussion board I've seen, seems like there're lots of 'converts' for Snape *yay* Lanval: Yes, love and sacrifice, redemption, death. Harry? Sirius? Lupin? Lily? Dumbledore? It would be a mistake, I believe, to reserve these themes for one character in HP only. D: We were talking Snape and his own redemptive role, where did Harry and Sirius and Lupin and Dumbledore come from? Did they have the same former DE background/nasty demeaner/tragic hero/redemptive arc? No right? Like I said above Snape was a one-of-a-kind character in this series, it's combination of everything that made me like him best. So yeah in a way that there're certain themes that are pretty much for this one character only. Just like Dumbledore has his own, Harry has his own (and for me Sirius has his and ended them in book 5). Why must we include a check list of how Harry/Sirius/Lupin/50 other characters did this good or that good when the the subject is about Snape alone and his redemption and his very unique (to the series) appeal to us fans? This is a something I see keep popping up. Lanval: True. But also: Good Guy disguised as Bad then Redeemed =/= Epitome of Character Worthy of Worship. D: And who said they never see fictional characters as moral judging contest? Why would one ever want to "worship" someone fictional, especially in Harry Potter series!? Good Guy disguised as Bad then Redeemed = usually awesome character in my opinion. Lanval: And just to add to Prep0strus' assessment of the sum of Snape's flaws being greater than those of Sirius, James, Remus (no, Peter does not count): D: Oh so fanon rules only applied when it regards Marauders -- the Marauder only consisted of 3 people cliche, and how Peter never existed so the James and Sirius were never flawed with their questionable inclusion. Sore misjudgement omitted and erased for convenience. Snape's flaws were bigger but his roles are also bigger than all three combine, and his revelation are more compelling and his roles makes a more memorable and greater character overall for me in my opinion. D. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From judy at judyshapiro.com Mon Aug 13 23:15:25 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:15:25 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175301 Lanval said: > Here's a mystery for me. Why is it that, on the one hand, so many > Snape fans have always claimed to love Snape for his complexity, > his 'greyness', his ambiguousness, yet on the other hand insist that > he's the Good Guy in almost every situation involving him? If one > were to take every argument ever fought out here, and adopted the > pro-Snape opinion as canon, he'd be counted among the most boring, > good-guy-under-a-dirty-cloak, nerve-gratingly noble, tear-inducing > sob-story cliche in literature. I don't actually think many Snape fans believe that Snape is the "Good Guy in almost every situation involving him." (I don't think I've seen a single person say that Snape was justified in calling Lily a "Mudblood," for example.) Instead, they believe that he was victimized by James and Sirius. That's a big difference. Lanval again: > I've seen my share of "how dare you like the Bad Guys, don't > you know that you're supposed to hate them, what are you, BAD?" > But. I've seen as much condescension from the Snape(insert > Draco/Slytherin/Random Designated Bad Guy) fandom, as in, "I LOVE > the Bad Guys -- what an interesting, deep, intellectual reader I > must be! what, you like the guys JKR 'told' you to like? Oh dear...I > suppose so do the ten-year-olds..."... I must add that this refers > mostly to offlist content, found elsewhere on the internets. I haven't seen this here. I've read the past few days of posts here, and I don't remember any personal attacks on fans for not liking Snape. If you say that these attacks are taking place on other sites, I believe you, but please don't bring these fights here. Lanval again: > where are all these pure-and-stay- > good lovable characters that *we*... sing-song praise over? > Certainly not Sirius, Harry or Lupin, to mention just > three whose fans' views regularly clash with that of Snape fans. I think the reason so many fans are "singing Snape's praises" as you put it, is because he's being *attacked* here. No one is vehemently defending Harry because no one is vehemently attacking Harry. (No one is attacking Lupin much, either.) As for Sirius, I don't currently see him coming in for the sort of attacks that Snape is currently getting. (He did get attacked a lot before Book 5, and he did get some vehement defenders then, just as Snape is getting now.) Some people are currently saying that they don't like Sirius and that they feel he was very unfair to Snape, but I don't anyone denying that he had his good points -- he cared about Harry, for example. But people *are* saying that Snape had no real good points -- he was "creepily obsessed" with Lily instead of loving her, he was abusive to children, etc. I even saw one person (Alla, I think) saying how comforted she is to think of Snape being tormented forever in the afterlife by seeing Lily in James' arms. Of course, this is fiction and readers can intrepret things as they wish, but it's no surprise that Snape's fans are going to respond by defending him. If you would rather talk about something other than Snape and don't want to see fans defending him, the solution is simple: Don't attack him. -- JudySerenity, not at all swayed from her love for Snape From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 23:16:45 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:16:45 -0000 Subject: Raised by Muggles In-Reply-To: <927146.39718.qm@web60717.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175302 Debera: how would her parents know about Diagon Alley to get Hermione's books her 1st year? We know that Harry was shown where it was by Hagrid. Juli now: We have canon explaining why: Ch 33 Conversation between Lily & Severus (at age 10-11): "Petunia says there isn't a Hogwarts. It is real, isn't it?" "It's real for us", said Snape. "Not for her. But we'll get the letter, you and me." "Really?" Whispered Lily "Definitely", said Snape...? "And it will come by owl?" Lily whispered "Normally", said Snape. "But you're Muggle-born, so someone from the school will have to come and explain to your parents" We also have the conversation between Dumbledore and Tom Riddle. Dumbledore volunteered to go with him to Diagon Alley, I take it it is a rutinary. If not with kids with parents (who are capable of going there all by themselves), al least with kids witjout families. Juli From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Aug 13 23:20:38 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:20:38 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175303 The description of nine or ten-year-old Lily and Severus sitting in a thicket of trees discussing magic and the description of Harry's heightened awareness of the fragrance and feel of the air when he thought he was going to die were the two passages that produced an uncanny frisson when I read them. houyhnhnm From dezice at yahoo.com.ar Mon Aug 13 22:59:22 2007 From: dezice at yahoo.com.ar (Desire Moravenik) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:59:22 -0300 (ART) Subject: Raised by Muggles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <803817.32003.qm@web56209.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175304 Debera: > When Hermine got the "kids story" book from Dumbledore's will, she > explained that she never heard of the story because she and Harry > were raised by Muggles. > If that was the case, how would her parents know about Diagon Alley > to get Hermione's books her 1st year? > We know that Harry was shown where it was by Hagrid. dezice: Actually, in one of the books (I don't remember now which one, probably the last one) it is said that when it's time to tell a muggle born that he/she is a wizard/witch a wizard gives the Hogwarts letter to the family in hand, so I guess that that wizard explains the family what they need to know in order to get everything for the kid. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 00:08:54 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:08:54 -0000 Subject: The Virtues of Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175305 > > Missy wrote: > > > > First of all, I need to say, that I love Hagrid. > > > > Hagrid loves Harry deeply. > > > > Hagrid is alone in the world. He mentions several times to > > Harry that they are the same, that they have no family. But the > > one thing Hagrid never mentions is that aside from DD, until the > > trio came along, Hagrid didn't have much of anyone at all. Mike: This is a very good point, Missy. Hagrid *is* alone in the world and Dumbledore is not much of a drinking buddy, is he? I don't get the sense that he had many wizarding friends amongst the previous generations of students at Hogwarts. He probably had to live for a long time under the shadow of belief that he had opened the CoS. And as likeable as he seems to us, he is still probably quite scary to many a youngster on first sight. So until someone like Harry, someone with no preconceptions of what the wizarding world is like, came along, Hagrid probably had a hard time making that first connection. Of course it helped that Hagrid rescued Harry from the Dursleys and that the snotty kid in Madam Malkin's disparaged him so Harry could come to his defense. But I think Hagrid took it upon himself to watch over Harry (with maybe a nudge from DD ) and it is a credit to Harry that he accepted Hagrid's friendship without reservation. > cariad > that Hagrid was really his Godfather in every sense. > Mike: I snipped your examples, all good, to add one of my favorites. Near the end of GoF, in Hagrid's hut, Hagrid surprises the trio with his pronouncement that he knew LV would be back. Takes the matter-of-fact approach to the looming battle but shows no fear. Then he turns to the still demoralized Harry: " Hagrid's chest swelled as he looked at Harry. 'Yeh did as much as yer father would've done, an' I can' give yeh no higher praise than that.' Harry smiled back at him. It was the first time he'd smiled in days. " (GoF p.719, US ed.) You bet, cariad, Hagrid was still being Harry's Godfather even after Sirius was back. And not such a dumb giant either, was he? Mike From kat7555 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 23:07:01 2007 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:07:01 -0000 Subject: This Moment Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175306 The scenes in DH that truly moved me all involved Harry. I felt so sorry for him when he wept reading Lily's letter and again at his parents' grave. My heart ached for him when he questioned his loyality to Dumbledore and if he really knew him at all. Kathy Kulesza From taguefamily1 at verizon.net Mon Aug 13 23:24:07 2007 From: taguefamily1 at verizon.net (Michelle Tague) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:24:07 -0400 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175307 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, or the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character you generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks to you. <> ***Katie: A light-hearted thread! Fantastical!! : ) [Michelle Tague] Agreed! I had two... When Hedwig was killed.... and Molly's scene with Bella... as a Mom I really felt that scene... Michelle in PA From ivanneth63 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 23:58:03 2007 From: ivanneth63 at yahoo.com (ivanneth63) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:58:03 -0000 Subject: Lily, Hagrid, Snape, Lucius, Friends (was Re: good/bad Slyth/Disappointment In-Reply-To: <46C0BC59.2030705@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175308 Irene: > But that's exactly my point! No matter how long the list of actual acts > of kindness, the list of the persons involved is rather short, and they > are all centered around Harry. > > Ron gets inside the circle after Sirius learns he is Harry's friend. > Before that Sirius could care less how frightened or injured Ron gets. > Lanval: Where's the proof for that? Irene: > Weasley family gets covered as extension of Ron, I suppose. > > It's exactly the same with Snape - he is nice to his friends, and the > rest of the world can go to hell for all he cares. Lanval: Well, then, show me -- moments of real kindness by Snape. Mind, absence of malice does not count. I only picked moments where Sirius does something actually kind, as opposed to just being "not mean', or being civil. Nor do I mean earth-shaking, life-saving deeds. Snape? He once helps a distraught Narcissa into a chair. Irene: > Sirius dismisses his own brother as a perfect little Death Eater, when > Regulus was so much more than that. > Lanval: It was kind of hard for Sirius to know the truth, no? And I never got the impression that Sirius thought of Reg as a perfect little DE. He did know that Regulus had wanted out. I read his comments as Sirius being extremely bitter over his brother's choices that brought about his early death. Which leads me to believe that the brothers were once closer than they were in their teens. But that's of course just speculation. Irene: > Look, I'm not arguing that Sirius was the most evil character in the > series or anything like that. He was good to Harry, and very important > in Harry's life and I felt sorry for Harry when he died. But I don't > think Sirius should be held as a shining example for Snape, of all > people, to follow. > Lanval: No adult in the HP is a shining example. The way I see it is that even after twelve years in Azkaban, half starved, or deep in a depressive state, Sirius still is able to extend some degree of kindness, understanding, and good-will toward his fellow humans -- if they're not named Severus Snape or Peter Pettigrew or Barty Crouch. For a man who's been treated as unfairly as Sirius, that's a remarkably short list of personal enemies. In addition he loves Harry, and seems still very much Remus' friend (yes, yes, I know, that will...). Snape? Dislikes/despises the entire world, with the exception of perhaps DD and the Malfoys. But even that must have cooled over time, for how can he, if he did indeed come around to be DDM in the end, have still genuinely liked Lucius? And his relationship with DD must have been ambiguous, to say the least. And his Hate List includes children, for crying out loud. That's what I can't get over. Irene: > I can't help wondering, though, how sorry really was Dumbledore when > Sirius died. My theory is - not at all. Sirius was a loose cannon, and > would certainly never accept his plans to sacrifice Harry. Because > Sirius, for all his faults, loved Harry; I totally get it. > \ Lanval: On this we agree, to a point. DD must at least have felt something like guilty relief, that Sirius was out of the way -- what with Sirius' fierce love of Harry, his habit of interfering and doing unpredictable, stupid things, and most of all his hatred of Snape, Harry's DD-assigned protector. From ianuno3 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 13 23:22:27 2007 From: ianuno3 at hotmail.com (ianuno3) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:22:27 -0000 Subject: DH and PS/SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175309 Although I wouldn't agree with you that DD's timing of awarding points had anything to do with his disliking of Slytherins, I like the parallels you've made here. I'm sure we all could come up with more like I'd like to make here: Lupinlore wrote: > > 4) Both books feature important objects protected at Gringott's. > Here I would add a 4a. Both books feature a protected item at Hogwarts. And in both instances -- although the PS/SS item is the same in both locations -- the protected items have to do with immortality and, specifically, LV's desire to cheat death. IPPY From tetsubinatu at yahoo.com.au Tue Aug 14 00:23:12 2007 From: tetsubinatu at yahoo.com.au (tetsubinatu) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:23:12 -0000 Subject: Another angle on Hermione's parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175310 When I first read that part of the book I assumed that Hermione's parents had agreed to the whole relocation and new identities, including the mind tampering. I am surprised that everyone assumes that Hermione did this by force. The relocation and new identities is quite logical, and if Hermione explained the mind tampering as an additional precaution for their (and her) safety, they might well have agreed. After all, it was only a short-term measure. Yes, we can see with 20/20 a totally different picture, but for the Grangers it may have been like entering a Witness Protection program, with the promise that after the criminal was finally dealt with, they could return to their normal lives. tetsubinatu From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 00:30:06 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:30:06 -0000 Subject: The Fourth Deathly Hallows -- Deconstructing the Sorting Hat (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175311 > Pippin: > Hagrid relates what turns out to be a legend of the Sorting Hat in PS/SS: > "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't > in Slytherin." According to this story, the sorting process can infallibly > identify, at the age of eleven, which Hogwarts students have > the potential to go bad, and which do not. Neri: This isn't "a legend of the Sorting Hat", this is Hagrid's personal opinion of Slytherin House and even he does not connect it with the Sorting Hat. The WW in general doesn't think like Hagrid, or obviously they would have abolished the house a long time ago. The Sorting Hat itself does not express any moralistic views about any of the houses. It is just programed to choose the way the Founders would have chosen their students if they were still alive. > Pippin: > But Slytherins want power. Isn't that bad? Doesn't power corrupt? > > Well, that's the conventional wisdom, certainly. But Rowling > contradicts it. Love, she says, is the greatest power. And love, > though it may tempt one to great folly, is not a wicked thing. It can't > be bad to want power *if* the power you want is love, can it? > Neri: But we don't see any Slytherin who is after love because it's power, and any way I doubt it would work. You are supposed to want love for itself sake, not for power. > Pippin: > What of Salazar Slytherin's pureblood ideology? The fear of Muggles > and Muggleborns that it fostered in him seems to have led to his fall. > And that ideology remains a legacy of his house. But other houses also > have their exclusivist ideologies. Gryffindor would have taught only > those with brave deeds to their name, Ravenclaw just those whose > intelligence was surest. Neri: Gryffindor and Ravenclaw are not ideologies in any practical sense. They are merely houses in a boarding school. You don't see any adult wizard outside Hogwarts excluding other wizards because they are not brave or not learned, certainly not to a degree of claiming they are not wizards at all. In fact, you hardly see them identifying themselves as Gryffindors or Ravenclaws after they leave Hogwarts. You don't see any Gryffindor or Ravenclaw family filling their houses with lions or badger motifs, the way 12 Grimmauld Place is filled with serpent motifs. In effect, Slytherin is identified with the racist ideology of the fanatic purebloods, with Salazar Slytherin as their prophet and house Slytherin as their youth indoctrination institution. It is not individual Slytherins who are bad. It is the ideology that Slytherin house has identified itself with. Neri From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Aug 14 00:36:56 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:36:56 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175312 How could I forget the most stunning line in the book when I've already made it my e-mail Sig. "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean it is not real?" houyhnhnm From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 00:44:59 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:44:59 -0000 Subject: A Defense of James Potter(Whose flaws are bigger) In-Reply-To: <985323.848.qm@web82201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175313 I was going to respond to some of "D's" comments, but in the end found that I wasn't really able to put together a coherent reply. Most of the response was based on either a misinterpretation of what I said, or in some cases, a direct misquote. The rest of it I wasn't really able to understand ? an argument that we shouldn't be judging characters as people, or comparing their morality, while still appearing very invested in Snape and happy that more people were now supporting him. Appeared to be somehow saying that only people who were too invested would compare characters this way, and yet people who are only casual readers would never like Snape. Well, I think that being invested, viewing these creations as more than just plot pieces, is interesting. One thing I'd like to note is that it is possible to compare characters are characters, or as people. For instance, someone can think Umbridge functioned very well as a character, but I could still hate HER. For that matter, I could be fascinated by the character study of Voldemorte, this charismatic, talented boy, alone, but surrounded by people, who becomes powerful, but always afraid this is a great character. But I don't like him. But "D" doesn't seem to really mean that either, because the defense of Snape appears to show some affection. So, while I'm certainly willing to discuss characters and how they affect the story arc, I think it's equally as interesting and fun to discuss these characters as if they were people ? at which point, I might add, no character is superior by simple measure of lines granted. They are all equal, and can be discussed based on whatever canon is available. I personally adore the usually dismissed Horatio (as a person and character), and would read anything about him more than any other character in Hamlet. And a thoughtful look at two even smaller characters gave us another amazing play, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are dead. So, even though he's not a favorite character of mine, in fact I would agree he is a minor, almost non-character in the books, I'm going to offer an impassioned defense of James Potter. Katie, in a post I enjoyed and mostly agreed with, said: However, I think all this side-picking has gotten a little out of whack. I like Harry, Sirius, and Lupin....AND Snape. I think it is possible to like them all. Except James. I agree with those who think we were given too little to like and too much to dislike. I think James *must* have turned into a decent guy, but I didn't see it, and I don't have much positive to say about him. ~Katie Prep0strus: Well, here's why I care about James. Not because he has had a tough childhood, because he didn't, or because he has interesting motivations, or an exciting personal storyline. None of that is true. But I care because of what he meant to other characters that we see in our story. I'd like to pull a little `It's a Wonderful Life' and imagine what life would be like for some characters if James had not existed. I know most of what we're shown in the books, but while Snape's memories may be objective, they are not the whole story. There was another James Potter, the one who looked out with kindly eyes from the pictures Harry had, the one who was respected and loved by members of the Order and seemingly the WW at large. He's a non character, who was never alive in the books, who is shown almost exclusively while in the presence of the person he disliked most and disliked him most. There's got to me more to him than that. If someone would like to respond as to how some characters would be better off without him, by all means go ahead. I'm sure it's possible that Snape would have married Lily and raised Harry Snape who was good at potions, or that Peter would have grown up and gotten a respectable job at the ministry. My goal in this is to talk positively of the impact of James Potter ? not to detract from any other character. And, obviously, simply fathering the savior of the world isn't in itself all that interesting. Super-sperm it may be, and without him, Voldy might have taken over the world, but . Anyway. Sirius. There has been much debate over how much influence James had over his friend during the train ride to Hogwarts. I say, whether a little, or a lot, it was ultimately, a GOOD influence. I appreciate Sirius' courage and ability to go against the beliefs of his family. But I believe he was helped along by James. In James he had a best friend who wasn't raised to look down on Muggle-borns, who was inclined to be a `hero' in Griffindor. Whose family welcomes Sirius into their home in the later years of school. And if Lupin had a moderating influence on them, James appeared to hold Sirius back a little as well, when it came to the prank against Snape. Sirius, even if he would have turned against his family without James, where would he have gone? He got a new family. A sister-in-law. A godson. A group of people so different from the family he grew up with, showing him new things, and I believe influencing him positively. Lupin. I think Lupin is most lucky to have James (and Sirius). From what we've seen of the children and parents of the WW, it is not hard to imagine that there would be many people, upon finding out what Lupin was, that they would instantly reject him, write to their parents, try to get him expelled. This could have led to Lupin being a loner throughout his time at Hogwarts, or even being unable to attend school. What kind of person would Lupin have turned into without being able to have a normal childhood, with good friends? An 11 year old monster ostracized? It's not hard to imagine. But he had James and Sirius who saw beyond that, and worked to join him. Peter. A lot can be said about Peter, but I'm not talking about his choices later on. A not-that-talented kid, who easily could have been left behind by the others. James and Sirius could have said `well, too bad' when he had a hard time becoming an animagi. They didn't. they worked and helped him, as their friend, so he could join them. They trusted and supported him. Their friendship of Peter, ultimately betrayed, really makes me respect them. If they just wanted a hanger-on, someone to idolize them, they could have had that without including him, without supporting his lesser talent throughout their time at Hogwarts. Lily. I don't believe JKR treats marriage cavalierly. (with the possible exception of the bizarre courtship of Lupin and Tonks) The marriage of Lily and James was a real one. Lily we know to be a caring, not superficial person, who looks past the many flaws in the young Snape to see a person who cares for her, and she cares for back. She appears patient, and not judgmental. And yet she winds up with the arrogant boy who torments Severus and hexes students. I think this shows more than anything else how he must have grown. There is nothing to make us think Lily just wanted a talented athlete. And the love shown in photographs is clear ? and we've seen many cases where true feelings come out in photos. Lily married James because she loved him. And he her. And they, their son. This was a loving family, ripped apart by Voldemorte. It wasn't an arranged marriage meant to produce the Boy Who Lived. I have to believe that not only did Lily come to stop disliking James, but he made her life better for having been in it. None of these characters would have been the same but for James. And if I were to dismiss James as an arrogant toe-rag, and wonder about what kind of an idiot Lily had to be to marry him, then it takes away a little from the other characters I like and respect. It means that the judgment of everyone else we've heard talk about him was wrong, other than Snape. Lupin, Dumbledore, Sirius they admit James' faults, but love him and miss him and admire him anyway. This is a James posting, not a Severus posting, so I don't want to be accused of attacking him but I refuse to replace Snape's judgment for that of all the other characters. Incidentally, when most of us refer to `The Marauders', no, we're not including Peter. And not because we're trying to sweep him under the rug, or because we're trying to raise Lupin and Sirius so they're not tainted by him. It's because when Peter betrayed them, he stopped being a Marauder. But really, it's because it's easier and more fun to say `The Marauders' than it is to say "James, Sirius, and Lupin' all the time. ~Adam (Prep0strus), who did NOT criticize Severus in this posting, even obliquely, for he's found that attempting to defend "James, Sirius, and Lupin" by comparing the way they are evaluated by posters by how Snape is evaluated only results in pro-snape vs anti-snape posting, so tried a new tack From ken.fruit at gmail.com Tue Aug 14 00:51:52 2007 From: ken.fruit at gmail.com (rt11guru) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:51:52 -0000 Subject: Potter's Teacher's Edition / Plea for Canon (was:Re: DH as Christian Allegory... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175314 Betsy Hp: How does Harry go from "this man must die!" to "I shall name my beloved son after him!"? Can it happen? Sure! I was totally expecting this sort of change before DH. But for some reason, JKR didn't feel that writing such a change would be interesting. guru: Dont' forget that 8 years elapsed between the death of Snape and the naming of Albus Severus. That's a lot of time to reflect. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 01:12:13 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 01:12:13 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175315 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: >> I don't actually think many Snape fans believe that Snape is > the "Good Guy in almost every situation involving him." (I don't > think I've seen a single person say that Snape was justified in > calling Lily a "Mudblood," for example.) Instead, they believe that > he was victimized by James and Sirius. That's a big difference. Alla: I did. He was you know, just being embarassed by being saved by a girl and who would not call a girl who tried to save you a Mudblood. Of course I am being sarcastic towards the argument and I am paraphrasing not my argument. Judy: > As for Sirius, I don't currently see him coming in for the sort of > attacks that Snape is currently getting. (He did get attacked a lot > before Book 5, and he did get some vehement defenders then, just as > Snape is getting now.) Some people are currently saying that they > don't like Sirius and that they feel he was very unfair to Snape, but > I don't anyone denying that he had his good points -- he cared about > Harry, for example. But people *are* saying that Snape had no real > good points -- he was "creepily obsessed" with Lily instead of loving > her, he was abusive to children, etc. I even saw one person (Alla, I > think) saying how comforted she is to think of Snape being tormented > forever in the afterlife by seeing Lily in James' arms. Of course, > this is fiction and readers can intrepret things as they wish, but > it's no surprise that Snape's fans are going to respond by defending > him. Alla: I guess I need to clarify this point on list too. Close but not quite. I said that I was imagining that as carmic justice for Snape for what he did to Harry. And yes, totally him tearing apart that much mentioned letter, and the photograph does give me that creepily obsessed vibe. Nevertheless, upon reread I agree that Snape loved Lily as well, not just being obsessed over her, but the obsessive part for me is absolutely there. And he did heroic deeds, sure, that is in the book. What I am trying to say? I am not sure, frankly. I had fun arguing over the years with **plenty** of Snape's fans who happily acknowledged his multiple bad points and vigorously defended his good ones, but I also argued with Snape's fans who would not acknowledge **one** single bad thing that Snape did. While dismissing for example Sirius' love for Harry, yes, which IMO just stares at us in canon, just as Snape's bravery now stares in mine. And it is their right obviously, but since I always acknowledged Sirius' faults, I sorta like to see that too. That is why I sooo dislike generalising Snape's fans or being generalised myself as Harry fan or Sirius' fan and saying that group thinks about the character. Different people think different things, even if they consider themselves to be Snape fans or HArry fans or Sirius fans in general. And heheh, before HBP I also thought that Snape was loyal to Dumbledore, I always hated him as teacher, but I think I acknowledged **some** of his good points before he killed Dumbledore. Not after that though, no. But it is not like I **saw** those points after he murdered DD and just argued for the sake of arguing that they do not exist, you know? JudySerenity: > If you would rather talk about something other than Snape and don't > want to see fans defending him, the solution is simple: Don't attack > him. > > -- JudySerenity, not at all swayed from her love for Snape > Alla: I totally like Snape's fans defending him, just sometimes want to see that Snape may have done something indefensible as well. And I did have it often enough :) And, far be it from me to try to sway anybody from their love for the character, LOL. I loved talking about Snape and saying how bad he is too A LOT ;) --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: >> So, while I'm certainly willing to discuss characters and how they > affect the story arc, I think it's equally as interesting and fun to > discuss these characters as if they were people ? at which point, I > might add, no character is superior by simple measure of lines > granted. They are all equal, and can be discussed based on whatever > canon is available. Alla: Me too, me too. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 01:30:11 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 01:30:11 -0000 Subject: Percy instead of Fred In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175316 snip of lots of good commentary* > JennyPenny: > > > Draco...I was dismally disappointed that Draco did not commit some > unfathomable act in his father's eyes that helped the trio out in > their moment of need. He did help and I won't point out all the > examples because you all know but it wasn't direct enough for me. > > Hickengruendler: > > Yes, that is discussed here a lot, less about Draco's redemption as > an individual, but more about how much she succeeded showing good > sides of Slytherin house in general. I *mostly* liked Draco's > characterisation in Deathly Hallows. I thought it was pretty > realistic, and it also was the first time since Philosopher's Stone, where I found him all in all sympathetic. But I, too, thought after HBP, that she went a step further in redeeming him. Nonetheless, the only scene, that I did not understand at all, is why he cornered > Harry in the RoR. Both his behaviour in Malfoy Manor and his reaction > towards Crabbe and Goyle seem to indicate, that he did not want the> Trio back. So why stay back to hand them to Voldemort? Was it merely a Pretext, so that he didn't have to join Voldemort, and did he think, he could convince Crabbe and Goyle to lay off of Harry pretty soon? I'm not sure, but I do find this one of the moments, where JKR sacrificed character development a bit for plot development. She needed the Malfoy Trio to be there, so they were, ignoring a bit how Draco was potrayed prior to this scene in this book and also afterwards. Doddie here: Actually I completely understand why Draco is in the ROR in my own opinion. I think by this point in time Draco is trying to capture Harry because he fears for his parents lives and is trying to save them. Remember all the Malfoy's and even Bella running away from Voldemort and his fury after the Gringotts break in..who knows how else he tortured them and what threats he made before making his Horcrux short tour but I think it's reasonable to believe he did both. Malfoy does reapeatedly shout at Crabbe and Goyle not to kill Harry- Malfoy is probably just as terrified for his parent's lives as they are for his. Malfoy doesn't even retaliate to Crabbe's taunt, US.p630, "Who cares what you think? I don't take your orders no more, Draco. You an' your dad are finished.". Crabbe's motives are different as he states that he's in the ROR for the "reward" Voldemort will give him. Of course after this fiasco I remember mistakenly thinking finally, the Malfoys are out of the way, all wandless.. Doddie, (who likes to think this was Malfoy's motive, however perhaps he was initially just in there to hide and stay safe--when the Trio, Crabbe and Goyle suddenly turn up! LOL-driving myself nuts but having fun nonetheless!) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Aug 14 01:36:12 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 01:36:12 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175317 Potioncat: > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, or > the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character you > generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks to you. Ceridwen: I mentioned one, but this isn't exactly a moment I identify with, it was just a surreal moment. When Harry and Voldy are facing off in "The Flaw in the Plan", they suddenly start discussing Snape's potential love life. The first time I read it, it was Harry revealing what should have been terrifying news to LV, but reading it again, it just suddenly seemed almost ludicrous. The whole world stopped to hear that Snape loved Lily, and Voldemort apparently had a heart-to-heart with him about other women afterwards. "He desired her, that was all," sneered Voldemort, "but when she had gone, *he agreed that there were other women, and of purer blood, worthier of him --*" (page 740 US, asterisks for attention, not italics) Snape agreed - so Voldy must have talked with him. Weird. Ceridwen. From colwilrin at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 01:46:28 2007 From: colwilrin at yahoo.com (colwilrin) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 01:46:28 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175318 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, or > the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character you > generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks to you. > > Potioncat, who will post her moment later, and who is creating light- > weight threads because she doesn't have the intellectual energy at the > moment to join in with the heavier ones, but is reading them with great > enjoyment. > Colwilrin: Great Moments...What a great thread! Thank you for starting this one up. My absolute fav...When, in Snape's memory, DD asks him about his doe patronus and says "after all this time?"...and Snape simply replies "always"...that had me crying. Second...as Harry is walking to find Voldy in the woods. With all his loved ones around, he asks if dying will hurt. This was such a natural question for a 17 year old to ask those he loves. It gave humanity and veracity to the moment. Third...Harry burying Dobby...never knew I would have that deep of a reaction for Dobby! Fourth...Molly offing Bella...reminded me of the stories you hear about women having unusual episodes of strength to lift cars off of their children in times of great emergency. As a mother, I have long felt that I would have the power to defend my child at any cost. Fifth...Neville...tattered but not beaten...coming into his own as a rebel leader at Hogwarts! From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 01:59:13 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 01:59:13 -0000 Subject: The Virtues of Hagrid In-Reply-To: <008f01c7dc8a$97678550$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175319 *snip* Shelly wrote: > JKR could have shown Harry repairing Hagrid's wand the very same way that he repaired his own- with a touch of the Elder Wand. Hagrid need not have known that Harry had done it, and Hargrid just would have thought he had gained some confidence now that Voldemort was dead, or that his death had changed something significant about the wizarding world itself. I would have loved to see more of Hagrid after the battle. > > Shelley > Doddie here: Harry couldn't have done this..DD already repaired Hagrid's wand with the Elder wand years ago, and gave it a disguise. I'm sure DD probably gave Hagrid lessons too.(Just like he did with Harry only probably had a great deal more "how to cast certain spells" focus as opposed to a Tom Riddle focus.). I do think that the post final battle years Harry & Co. will clear all names that need clearing and records that need to be wiped clean will be so, and those that need dirting up will. (everyone from Hagrid, to Snape to Sirius). However as sentimental as Hagrid is I don't think he'd want the flowery part of his wand stripped away...it's wrapped up with too many memories of DD...It be like putting flowery embroidery, or a Chudley Cannons badge on the sorting hat, or swapping out the rubies for diamonds in the Sword of Griphindor...it won't make them more valuable or functional and most would consider it sacrilidge. Doddie From ianuno3 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 14 01:54:19 2007 From: ianuno3 at hotmail.com (ianuno3) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 01:54:19 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175320 > Potioncat: > > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, > or > > the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character you > > generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks to > you. > IPPY: I must say there were so many moments that had me on the verge of tears throughout the book. My eyes remained watery from the moment HRH followed Neville through the tunnel to the Room of Requirement right until the end. Favorite moments: 1. Harry returning to the Room of the Requirement, previously rebuffing the DA's attempts to help and saying "We're fighting." 2. Ron's amazing turnaround and growth through saving Harry's from the pool, retrieving Gryffindor's sword and destroying the locket Horcrux. 3. Harry calling LV Tom Riddle, treating him as DD did, with a little arrogance and taunting mixed in. 4. Lupin asking Harry to be Teddy's godfather. Lupin totally recognzing that Harry saved him by forcing him to go back to Tonks. There are so many more, but I love those so much. From urghiggi at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 02:02:31 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:02:31 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175321 JudySerenity wrote: > If you would rather talk about something other than Snape and don't > want to see fans defending him, the solution is simple: Don't attack > him. > Julie in Chicago replies: I've been trying to wrap my mind, for days, around what the heck JKR thinks we are 'supposed' to believe about Snape after reading these 7 books. From secondary canon, at the very least, the picture isn't at all pretty: http://www.accio-quote.org/themes/snape.htm She repeatedly calls him "horrible" and says he was inspired by sadistic/bullying teachers. She admitted he had been "loved" (though never clarified by whom) but called the thought that someone might be in love with him a "very horrible idea." She says he abuses his power and that he is "not a particularly pleasant person at all." OK, fair enough. HOw much of this is deliberate obfuscation/misdirection, how much is sincere? If we're to take her at her word in these interviews (dangerous, IMO), then the icky-obsessed Snape, DDM only through loyalty to Lily, is a very plausible argument. Certainly you can argue that this is supposed to be the take-away message from DH -- that his primary virtue, the one Harry chose to honor, is his bravery. (Now, this is high praise of course, given JKR's penchant for equating guts with virtue in general.) You can be "good," I think, without being "nice" -- certainly no one ever accused him of "nice". But is he good in any sense? Is he only "good" out of a twisted sense of loyalty to Lily? Does he really not see much of a difference between the good guys and the bad guys? Does he give a damn? Or is his loyalty only conditioned by his internal logic -- the notion that by protecting this boy (whom he appears really to hate, as a person) he is paying penance for the sin of getting his beloved killed? If he truly feels he deserves the penance, perhaps in his weird way he believes that the harder and more painful it is, the more effective it is, and the stronger evidence of his love. And how much does it matter in the Potterverse -- that you'd do the right things for the right reason (a la HP hating the dark side) or that you'd do the right things for the 'wrong' reason (not because you believe in the right but because you are obsessively driven to act that way via guilt)? I think you can argue Snape very plausibly from the primary canon, either way. Certainly he appears very angry with Dumbledore for getting himself so badly cursed by the ring. Is he angry because Dumbledore's death might imperil Lily's son even further -- or is it because Snape has come to care for Dumbledore as a human being and is mad at him for making his deadly mistake? He seems hurt, similar to Harry, when he perceives Dumbledore isn't b being straight with him -- is this because his ego is insulted, or is he actually wounded by Ddore's apparent lack of trust (again implying that he actually cares)? Just a few pages later, however, he himself (Scholastic edn page 687) says "Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe" and denies all motivation other than Lily- love (by the symbolic patronus casting). It's a tangle. I still honestly don't know what the author intends me to think about him in the end. My brain hurts. Julie H From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Aug 14 02:08:31 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:08:31 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175323 Ceridwen: > The whole world stopped to hear that Snape loved Lily, and Voldemort > apparently had a heart-to-heart with him about other women afterwards. > > "He desired her, that was all," sneered Voldemort, "but when she had > gone, *he agreed that there were other women, and of purer blood, > worthier of him --*" (page 740 US, asterisks for attention, not italics) > > Snape agreed - so Voldy must have talked with him. > > Weird. Potioncat: But, when she had gone---so had Voldy. So when is this heart to heart supposed to have happened? I think Voldy is not telling the truth in this case. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 02:17:34 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:17:34 -0000 Subject: DH and PS/SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175324 lupinlore: > Oh, one other thing about the last scenes of PS/SS. At one point we > had a lot of discussion about DD's motives in intervening when he did > in the manner he did. Why intervene personally (why not let > McGonagall award the points, for instance)? Why intervene in the > most blatant and public way possible? Why wait until the feast, > allowing the Slytherins to think they had won a great victory, when > he could have awarded the points immediately after the trio's > adventures (IIRC there was about a week between the death of Quirrell > and the Leavetaking Feast)? Well, given what we see in Snape's > memories, there seems an obvious answer, although one much simpler > than many proposed, and much more brutal. DD just didn't like > Slytherins, and this provided a fine opportunity to stick the knife > in -- in front of God, Severus, Minerva, and everybody, I might add. > And if he could do so while tilting the scales to Gryffindor and > brightening the summer of a child with whom he was "quite taken," > then so much the better. lizzyben: Ah, yes. Revenge is sweet. And it works! Especially if you have total power & no one can get you back. Life as Headmaster was good for DD. *Adds this to the list* From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 02:39:07 2007 From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:39:07 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175325 > Potioncat: > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, > or the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character > you generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks > to you. zeldaricdeau: There were so many and many have been mentioned here already (Snape moments, Neville moments, Harry asking if death hurts) so rather than go through the whole list I'll keep it to one. I was always the odd kid out or the one who got teased or bullied for making good grades or for being shy and terrible socially. So I would say for me it was: Harry seeing the pictures of himself, Ron, and Hermione in Luna's bedroom, linked with the golden word chains spelling "friends...friends...friends...friends..." -ZR From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Aug 14 02:53:51 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:53:51 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175326 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > The whole world stopped to hear that Snape loved Lily, and Voldemort > apparently had a heart-to-heart with him about other women afterwards. > > "He desired her, that was all," sneered Voldemort, "but when she had > gone, *he agreed that there were other women, and of purer blood, > worthier of him --*" (page 740 US, asterisks for attention, not italics) > > Snape agreed - so Voldy must have talked with him. Allie: I doubt it was a heart-to-heart (can someone with almost no soul still have a heart? :) ), more like a 5 second exchange. I doubt Voldemort even dreaded discussing with Snape why he had killed Lily. This is how I imagine it: Voldemort: And you understand, Severus, why the silly girl had to be eliminated. Snape: Yes, my Lord. Voldemort: Surely you must see now that there are women worthier of your attention, women of purer blood. Snape: Of course, my Lord. Very touching, isn't it. Probably Snape's biggest challenge at performing Occlumency. From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 02:54:09 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:54:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A Defense of James Potter(Whose flaws are bigger) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <881638.6206.qm@web55009.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175327 Prep0strus: [snip] >Well, here's why I care about James. Not because he has had a tough >childhood, because he didn't, or because he has interesting >motivations, or an exciting personal storyline. None of that is true. >But I care because of what he meant to other characters that we see >in our story. I'd like to pull a little `It's a Wonderful Life' and >imagine what life would be like for some characters if James had not >existed. [snip] >And if I were to dismiss James as an arrogant toe-rag, and wonder about >what kind of an idiot Lily had to be to marry him, then it takes away >a little from the other characters I like and respect. It means that >the judgment of everyone else we've heard talk about him was wrong, >other than Snape. Lupin, Dumbledore, Sirius they admit James' >faults, but love him and miss him and admire him anyway. [snip] Nice post Adam and I like your "It's a Wonderful Life" approach. There are two events in James's life that I would like to add because I think they are true measure of the man -- in both, James rushed headfirst into danger with hesitation to save those he cared about. The first was rushing after Severus when Sirius played the infamous trick on him. Now, before everyone yells at me -- I'm not implying that James cared about Severus. (But, since he did fight on the "right side," I'm confident he cared about human life and, despite his bullying, wouldn't want to see Severus dead.) No, I'm referring to the fact that James cared about Sirius and Remus. Sirius is one of my favorites characters but I could just slap him upside the head for pulling that trick. What if Remus in his werewolf form had injured Severus, turned him, or killed him, all of which were very real possibilities. Imagine the guilt both Sirius and Remus, esp. Remus, would have to bear -- not to mention the legal ramifications. What does the Ministry do to werewolves who injure or kill? And, then there's Dumbledore, who allowed a werewolf to attend school in the first place. And, Poppy who assisted Remus every month. How would the trick affect their careers; would the Ministry hold them accountable? It was stupid, stupid, stupid and incredibly dangerous -- and not for only Severus. James saved three people that night. The second was October 31, 1981: "Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold him off--" (POA, p. 240) James rushed knowingly to his death (and in DH we find out without his wand), in an effort to warn his wife and give her a few extra moments to grab their son and get to safety. Did James's death change anything or save anyone's life? No. Harry certainly has no doubt how much his dad loved him and his mum though (which appears to be more than the other two abandoned boys can say). No matter what else one can say about James, good or bad, it would be hard to deny his courage and loyalty. And based on Lily's letter, the photograph, and his death, he seems to have been a good husband and father; and, in my opinion, you can't pay a man a higher compliment than that. Christy --------------------------------- Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 02:59:38 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:59:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <622915.10714.qm@web55009.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175328 Ceridwen: > The whole world stopped to hear that Snape loved Lily, and Voldemort > apparently had a heart-to-heart with him about other women afterwards. > > "He desired her, that was all," sneered Voldemort, "but when she had > gone, *he agreed that there were other women, and of purer blood, > worthier of him --*" (page 740 US, asterisks for attention, not italics) > > Snape agreed - so Voldy must have talked with him. > > Weird. Potioncat: >But, when she had gone---so had Voldy. So when is this heart to heart >supposed to have happened? I think Voldy is not telling the truth in >this case. Either that, Potioncat, or Severus told Voldemort what he wanted to hear when he returned to the fold at the end of GOF. Either is viable, but the fact remains, it was a lie. Christy --------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Aug 14 01:53:23 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:53:23 -0400 Subject: Raised by Muggles Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175329 JKR said that in the case of Muggle-borns, a Hogwarts teacher or an official from the MOM delivers the letter and answers any questions the child and/or the parents had. Since mageborn children tend to have magical breakouts--think the sweater incident, the school roof incident, the python incident, Aunt Marge--I would think that this news would be something of a relief to the parents who had been plagued with weird things happening around the kid for so many years. The program was short-circuited in Harry's case because he was listed as the son of a witch and a wizard; Hagrid was shocked when he found that the Dursleys had kept Harry in ignorance. Almost every fantasy series involving working magic has some variant of Ursula K. LeGuin's saying in EARTHSEA: "To keep dark the mind of the mageborn is an evil thing." Another variant--I don't remember from which author--is "An untrained sorceress is a danger to herself and others." (Ariana, anyone?) I'm sure that whoever comes to explain matters to Muggle parents comes armed with plenty of case studies. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pam_rosen at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 03:00:37 2007 From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:00:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: This moment Message-ID: <901162.20292.qm@web30812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175330 > Potioncat: > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, > or the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character > you generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks > to you. Pam: Something unusual really resonated with me. I am the eldest of three children, and when we were young, I was always "the bright one," and "the talented one," etc. But our parents often left us alone at night when I was a preteen and teenager, and I had to take care of my two younger siblings nightly. I often had to miss out on chances to excel, at chances to perform, because I was the one who had to be responsible for my siblings. I really identified with Dumbledore there. You can't really resent your siblings; it's not their fault, and yet... there is resentment. The younger siblings were well aware of what I was missing on account of them, and they felt partly guilty, but partially they were really gleeful that I was being kept from getting attention and glory I would have gotten more of if not for them. Until I read JKR's story of the Dumbledores, I thought I was the only one who had ever experienced or even thought of something like that. A strange thing to identify with? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Aug 14 02:21:20 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:21:20 -0400 Subject: Raised by Muggles Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175331 KATIE: >>>> One thing about Muggleborns that I don't think was ever mentioned...If someone came to me, or a letter came, saying my son was a wizard and was accepted at a wizardling school, I would be like, "Yeah, right." And I would really doubt the veracity of anyone that came to my house in weird clothes and wanted to help me find oddly-named train platforms and take me to unknown streets. I would probably call the police!! LOL. I wonder if any Muggle parents ever had that reaction? <<<< Bruce: After eleven years of shrinking sweaters, growing hair, inflated aunts, released pythons, teddy bears turning into spiders, etc.? These sort of uncontrolled releases of magical energy happen with wizardling children. In wizardling families, the parents know this and take precautions to keep the chaos within bounds. Muggle parents who throw a magesport would probably find the Hogwarts Letter and a visit from a Hogwarts teacher or a MoM official something of a relief. Another thing occurs to me--Kinsley is probably not the only wizardling mole. I bet there are lots of other wizards who live and work among Muggles, blending in as best they can, and not a few of them are in professions that bring them into contact with children, and are placed where they can keep an eye on magesports (who are identified at birth by the magic quill at Hogwarts, which records the date, time, and place of every magebirth in the British Isles; I'm guessing that not a few of the mole wizards are Healers working in Muggle medicine as obstetricians, midwives, and maternity nurses.) Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From marion11111 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 03:06:12 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:06:12 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175332 I loved the appearance of the doe and Harry following it through the woods to the pond. And I had no clue what was going on or who sent it. I wasn't even convinced it was a patronus. I just loved the mystery of it appearing and Harry following. The timing was perfect because I had pretty much had it with the camping and then this scene comes up followed by the scary plunge in the lake and then Ron saying (perfectly, I thought) "Are you mental?" A wonderful scene. marion11111 From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Aug 14 03:10:00 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:10:00 -0000 Subject: Potter's Teacher's Edition / Plea for Canon (was:Re: DH as Christian Allegory... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175333 > Betsy Hp: > I must say the idea that there needs to be Teacher's Edition for DH > is a bit funny. It's not like there's a deep lesson in there. The > intended moral seems to be, "Nazis are bad" (thanks, Jo!). Pippin: How do you know there's not a deep lesson? Because there's an obvious message does that mean there can't also be a more subtle one? > > Betsy Hp: > Frankly, I don't buy Harry's little speech about Snape in the > Epilogue. JKR doesn't sell it for me. I mean, yes it's there so > it's canon, but it doesn't fit. I have to do too much jumping up and > down and dancing around to make that speech make sense. How does > Harry go from "this man must die!" to "I shall name my beloved son > after him!"? Can it happen? Sure! I was totally expecting this > sort of change before DH. But for some reason, JKR didn't feel that > writing such a change would be interesting. Pippin: But she did write it! Harry is not an introspective character. He's an action hero. He learns by doing, not thinking and what he does, all through canon, is have experiences that echo and illuminate the Prince's Tale. Harry knows how it feels to be dressed in horrible clothes, to embarrass yourself in front of a girl you're trying to impress, to be bullied for no better reason than because you exist, to have a secret that would vindicate you and keep your word not to tell, to let slip, in a moment of fury and humiliation, 'the unforgiveable word' (only in his case it was 'crucio' and 'sectum sempra'.) He knows how it feels to sit in Dumbledore's office, with a hundred years of misery on your face, and feel that the world has been divided forever into two universes, the one with the only person who loved you, and the one without. And to know that it was your doing. How could he go through all that and *not* feel sympathy for Snape? The beauty of JKR's plotting is that we can think back through the books and discover all this. It would completely spoil the fun for me if JKR pointed it all out. Betsy_HP: > I'm not generally into children's literature so I didn't get into the > Potter series in a general interest kind of way. I read the first > few books and I liked them. That started to change with... I think > OotP was where I started to dislike the Trio (specifically Hermione, > but Harry was pushing the envelope at that point, too). I ended up > rereading HBP only once, which was weird. I didn't like any of the > Trio by that point (Ron was the closest, but he was awfully pathetic). Pippin: It sounds like you're assuming the Trio must be intended as cuddly heroes whose flaws are supposed to be the endearing sort that make us love them all the more, only JKR totally misread what you're willing to consider endearing. But I don't think so. Not since GoF at any rate. I think these are supposed to be dangerously gifted young people, with admirable strengths, yes, but also with great big honking ugly flaws that make us tremble for their humanity, flaws they can't be shown overcoming because they will always have to struggle against them. "Harry held up the Elder Wand, and Ron and Hermione looked at it with a reverence that, even in his befuddled and sleep-deprived state, he did not like to see." Doesn't that make it clear enough that Harry knows he and his friends bear watching? Pippin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 03:20:32 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:20:32 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175334 > Julie in Chicago replies: > She repeatedly calls him "horrible" and says he was inspired by sadistic/bullying teachers. > She admitted he had been "loved" (though never clarified by whom) but called the thought > that someone might be in love with him a "very horrible idea." She says he abuses his > power and that he is "not a particularly pleasant person at all." > OK, fair enough. HOw much of this is deliberate obfuscation/misdirection, how much is > sincere? zgirnius: I would place little weight in trying to determine her intent on anything she said about Snape pre-DH, especially as relates to his backstory/allegiances. I definitely think she was protecting her plot twist. After all, in post-HBP interviews she seemed to imply that Dumbledore's flaw was trusting recklessly (which Harry thinks, from the end of HBP until he learns the truth). *has giggling fit about DD's trusting nature* *resumes typing* Though, to consider the particular quotes you mention: I am sure she did draw on bullying teachers she has known in devising his classroom manner (what this means in terms of her intent is less clear). And I think we may conclude safely post DH that Snape was loved by Lily (his longtime best friend) and this is the reason for the coy phrasing (not identifying who it was that loved Sev). The third quote you have backwards - it is the idea of Snape in love that Rowling called horrible. Certainly, the one instance of Snape being in love turned out rather badly in many ways. Though without it we would have no story. > Julie H: > I think you can argue Snape very plausibly from the primary canon, either way. zgirnius: The scene I have not seen argued convincingly from the 'obsessive only' standpoint is his attempt to save Remus Lupin's life in the "7 Potters" raid in DH. (This results in the removal of George's ear). I suppose some readers choose to toss this out and suggest Harry misunderstood the intent behind the action. However, Harry is described as being right there on the broom with Snape in that memory, and Harry is an outstanding flier/Quidditch player, so I would tend to think he would be right about Snape's target (the wand hand of a fellow Death Eater who was about to curse Lupin). And if this is accepted as the reason, it is an act that could not have been requested by Dumbledore (he counseled rather the opposite) and does not further any of Snape's goals. But it had the possibility of saving a life - and if that is the reason Snape took it, as I believe, then he grew beyond a completely narrow obsession with the preservation of Lily's son. Julie H: > Just a few pages later, however, he himself (Scholastic edn page 687) says "Everything was > supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe" and denies all motivation other than Lily- > love (by the symbolic patronus casting). zgirnius: Well, the comment you quote fits logically with Snape's accusation that he has been used - that *is* what Dumbledore told him it was about. Keeping Harry safe was not originally Snape's idea at all. Taking the books as a whole, would you expect him to respond affirmatively to Dumbledore's inquiry ("Have you grown to care for the boy, after all?") even if it were true? I find it suggestive that his response was not formally a denial - *that* is the response I would expect if he did not care for Harry at all. I don't think he liked Harry or anything like that, but I don't think he wanted Harry (the person himself) dead either. After all, Snape loved Lily, and never told anyone about it. (Not even Dumbledore, if you read the dialogue, though Snape's feelings could reasonably be deduced therefrom). And Snape swore Dumbledore to secrecy about it, too. It is just not in character for him to make admissions of that nature. If Snape developed any affection for Dumbledore, that's another one that I imagine went unspoken. I think he did, and I think Dumbledore knew it. Dumbledore's arguments convincing Snape to kill him suggest it, anyway. He could have focused on the intelligence coup the fake murder would be, cementing Snape's place at Voldemort's right hand the better to protect Harry/further their plans - instead he asked to be spared pain and humiliation. Which presumably means this is the argument he thought would sway Snape. As, apparently, it did. Julie H: > It's a tangle. I still honestly don't know what the author intends me to think about him in > the end. My brain hurts. zgirnius: One reason I don't worry too much about it. I know what I think about the events in the book, and why, and that's good enough for me. Rowling's intent is a hard thing to discern from short answers to a few questions, anyway. Facts like Snape was heroic, but flawed, or he loathed Harry to the very end, or he only left the DEs because Lily was targeted, don't address all the nuances. (They surely do not discriminate between the two readings you offer). And the matter is complicated by statements like "Snape is a deeply horrible person". Even if truly reflective of the full array of things she was always planning to write about Snape, that statement is an opinion. If we kidnapped her and made her answer all our questions and interpret all the scenes for us, so we knew everything Snape ever did and why, it would be entirely possible that some of us might walk away not thinking Snape was horrible. Our personal judgment of him might simply differ from hers, just as our personal judgments of people in real life vary. I might suspect it was her intent to make Snape a character people would dislike, for example. But that would not make it incorrect for me to like him. It would just mean that things Rowling finds dislikable have, in the right combination, some sort of appeal to me. From marion11111 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 03:25:36 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:25:36 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175335 > >Ceridwen said: > > "He desired her, that was all," sneered Voldemort, "but when she had > > gone, *he agreed that there were other women, and of purer blood, > > worthier of him --*" (page 740 US, asterisks for attention, not > italics) > > > > Snape agreed - so Voldy must have talked with him. > > > > Weird. > Then Potioncat said: > But, when she had gone---so had Voldy. So when is this heart to heart > supposed to have happened? I think Voldy is not telling the truth in > this case. > And marion11111 pondered: Wow, I didn't notice this on either read-through. I kept picturing this odd "lonely hearts" conversation between Voldemort and Snape with Voldemort offering various DE groupies to Snape. But of course, it couldn't have happened unless it was years later and Snape was talking to the back of Quirrell's head or to that awful Fetus!Voldemort with Wormtail and Nagini in the room. Ick. The scene would work if Voldemort suggested the other women *before* the visit to the Potter's when Snape went and asked him to spare Lily, but canon says "after she had gone." I guess it's just a continuity/editing error. From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Aug 14 02:59:32 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:59:32 -0400 Subject: Harry enjoys causing pain? (was Re: Fly on the wall commentator Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175336 Christy: "This occurs four pages after Harry used the Cruciatus Curse on Carrow. If Harry enjoys causing pain, I'm confident he would have raised his wand beneath his Invisibility Cloak and used the curse against this man who he hates so much. He doesn't do that though and he has the perfect opportunity...which proves to me that his earlier use of the curse was an isolated incident, a momentary lapse in judgment, an extreme reaction to the "straw that break the camel's back." Yes, he meant it when he used the curse on Carrow, and yes he meant it to punish; however, we do not see him use it again, even in a situation when we should expect him to if it were to become a habit, if he enjoyed causing pain. He knows he can successfully cast the spell, and chooses not to...In Harry's case, Its a far leap from meaning it to enjoying it. " Exactly. And if anyone deserves to be Crucio-ed, it was Carrow, given what he had been doing to the Hogwarts kids all year long, and what he was proposing to do to the Ravenclaws. Indeed, he got off lightly. *I* would have brought him back to consciousness and done it again. And again. And then I would have used Levicorpus to drop him into the lake for the Giant Squid to eat. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ckc at rochester.rr.com Mon Aug 13 22:23:37 2007 From: ckc at rochester.rr.com (CK Campbell) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:23:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Toons, Petunia, and the Horrible Vase In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002701c7ddf8$98377e30$6501a8c0@CKC> No: HPFGUIDX 175337 I believe that Petunia is very conflicted about Lily. As the older sister, she is stricken when her younger, (to her eyes) prettier, better-loved-by-parents, smarter, and *magical* sister gets to do something she can never do. She loves her; she is jealous. I've been there. I can understand why Petunia sends her sister gifts -- and I firmly believe that Petunia believes she has wonderful taste and that her sister will appreciate the gifts. These are not used tissues she is sending. But like many sisters, they have different tastes. My own sister prefers warm, western colors, for instance, while I prefer old-fashioned, dusty kinds of colors. We don't really know what Lily's taste is, but it appears to have been shaped by her time at school (and don't most of us find that our taste is shaped there, by our environment, and our friends?) and to have diverged from her sister's. I don't see any harm in her comment about the horrible vase. This letter is a bond between Lily and Sirius, and you can imagine them teasing and laughing with one another about their families. I did the same with my husband's best friend. I imagine Petunia would have been mortified to learn about this letter, but it was never intended for her eyes, and I don't think Lily would have said anything like that to Petunia's face. Yes, Petunia treated Harry abysmally. Shame on her. But we can see, in DH, the source of Petunia's bitterness and envy. And no doubt, her husband supported her bitterness (I've noticed this -- perhaps you have with your spouses -- that my husband seems to feel more anger toward my family when they "do me wrong" than I do, and I feel resentment when he says so, after all, they're *my* family, and it should be *my* right to complain and no one else's). Harry is a constant reminder of what her sister was able to do that she was not, no matter how she tried. It must have been very painful for her to have him there, as a reminder of her beloved yet estranged little sister, that sister's death, and her own unhappy childhood. Carolyn From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 03:33:45 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:33:45 -0000 Subject: Character Bias, Objectivity, Similarities, Sondheim! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175338 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > What do others think? Was Snape's lifelong pursuit *vengeance* on > Voldy (and so he did, then, mirror Sirius in this way, too)? Or > was it more a sense of a personal desire or obligation to honor > Lily by protecting her child? I think that, at least at the end, Snape wanted LV finished more than he wanted to protect Harry. If his intention was only to protect Lily's child at all costs, why would he go along with DD's plan, which was supposed to lead to Harry's death? Snape didn't know that Harry might survive, right? If he wanted nothing more than to protect Harry, he should have kidnapped him, modified his memory, changed his appearance and moved him to Australia or even farther away right after he found out about the plan :-). JMO, of course. zanooda From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Aug 14 02:33:47 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:33:47 -0400 Subject: Another angle on Hermione's parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175339 Leah: "Hermione has a power which her parents do not have and she uses it over them without their knowledge or consent." Canon please. Where does it say that she did this 'without their knowledge or consent'? For all we know she may have sat them down and explained the whole situation to them, presented her plan, and got their consent (even if they would have forgotten about it after she cast the spell[s]). Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From bdhale59 at frontiernet.net Tue Aug 14 02:54:39 2007 From: bdhale59 at frontiernet.net (Brett Hale) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:54:39 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: This moment References: Message-ID: <005301c7de1e$756336d0$6c01a8c0@kayenta.k12.az.us> No: HPFGUIDX 175340 In response to zeldaricdeau, who wrote: I also felt this to be a wonderful revelation. I have always liked Luna L., and was hoping that she and Neville would link up. Maybe they did...we'll find out later, I suppose. Brett [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From squeaker19450 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 03:03:06 2007 From: squeaker19450 at yahoo.com (barb burke) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The innocence of Snape? Message-ID: <279948.27540.qm@web36604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175341 {IMHO} {The innocence of Snape} It seems that those of us who will always like Severus Snape will never have our minds changed by those who don't like him, just as we can never change their minds. I personally believe that the Snape haters can't stand the fact that he turned out to be on the "good" side for whatever reason and they were so sure he was totally evil that they can't stand it {in my humble opinion, of course}. Severus rules!!!!!. And, by the way, I like Harry, Sirius, Remus, Hagrid, etc, etc, etc. So, could we all stop trying to convince each other of evil or good Severus because "never the twain shall meet" and it's getting just a tad repetitive. Love to all Barb From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 03:54:59 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:54:59 -0000 Subject: The innocence of Snape? In-Reply-To: <279948.27540.qm@web36604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175342 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, barb burke wrote: > > {IMHO} {The innocence of Snape} > I personally believe that the Snape haters can't stand the fact that he turned out to be on the "good" side for whatever reason and they were so sure he was totally evil that they can't stand it {in my humble opinion, of course}. Alla: No. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Aug 14 03:59:07 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:59:07 -0000 Subject: Another angle on Hermione's parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175343 "tetsubinatu" wrote: > > When I first read that part of the book I assumed that Hermione's > parents had agreed to the whole relocation and new identities, > including the mind tampering. I am surprised that everyone assumes > that Hermione did this by force. The relocation and new identities is > quite logical, and if Hermione explained the mind tampering as an > additional precaution for their (and her) safety, they might well have > agreed. After all, it was only a short-term measure. Magpie: We assume it because it wasn't a short-term measure if Hermione died. She specifically says that it's possibly forever. If she dies, her parents will never remember her again and never return to their own life. (Something I can't believe they would have agreed to themselves, even if Hermione wasn't trying out her first memory charm and didn't have a record of preferring to just take care of things herself because she knows best.) This is why Hermione gets ferklempt about it, because she might die and they won't remember her. -m (still amazed that the "Not Much Bothered By It As A Plot Device But In General Anti-Mindwipes for Middle Class Dentists" position is considered unreasonable by anyone) From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 04:02:15 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:02:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: This moment In-Reply-To: <901162.20292.qm@web30812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <477752.98874.qm@web55007.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175344 > Potioncat: > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, > or the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character > you generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks > to you. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald: >As I've said before my moment of Epiphany came when I read near the >bottom of page 687 "From the tip of his [Snape's] wand burst the >silver doe". I wasn't expecting that, I wasn't expecting that at all, >and I couldn't even finish reading the rest of the sentence; I had to >put the book down stand up and walk away for a while. She's going to >do it I thought, she's really going to do it, JKR is going to murder >Harry Potter! For years I'd been saying that's exactly what she should >do, but now when I actually saw JKR with a gun pointed at Harry's head >just a moment before she's going to pull the trigger, well, all I can >say is it took me some time to work up the courage to continue reading. My reaction to the bottom of page 686 ("So the boy ... the boy must die?" asked Snape quite calmly. "And Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential.") was very similar to Eggplant's reaction to the bottom of page 687. However, I had never really considered that Harry would die. (I assumed he was called the Boy Who Lived for more than one reason -- that the title of the very first chapter of the very first book was the ultimate in foreshadowing.) The exchange between Snape and Dumbledore shocked me. And I felt so betrayed by and so angry at Dumbledore -- all this time he knew; and Snape knew ... I too had to walk away for a moment. And, that revelation leads us to Chapter 34, The Forest Again. I think it is JKR's best work -- its beautifully written and so emotional. I've often said that JKR is a good, not great, writer; but she's a great storyteller. In chapter 34 she is both. While I always liked Harry (although he has made me very angry at times), I started to love him in chapter 34. Despite his fear, despite his desire to live, he would do what he had to do. I couldn't help thinking back to a passage in HBP: But he understood at last what Dumbledore had been trying to tell him. It was, he thought, the difference between being dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death, and walking into the arena with your head held hight. Some people, perhaps, would say that there was little to choose between the two ways, but Dumbledore knew -- *and so do I*, thought Harry, with a rush of fierce pride, *and so did my parents* -- that there was all the difference in the world. (HBP, p. 512) He didn't walk into the arena to face a *battle* to the death, he walked in to face death itself. It a wonderful reading experience. Christy --------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 04:13:17 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:13:17 -0000 Subject: Percy instead of Fred In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175345 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > Nonetheless, the only scene, that I did not understand at all, is why > he cornered Harry in the RoR. Both his behaviour in Malfoy Manor and > his reaction towards Crabbe and Goyle seem to indicate, that he did > not want the Trio back. So why stay back to hand them to Voldemort? To me, Draco doesn't seem to be in charge in Malfoy/Crabbe/Goyle trio anymore. He and his family are in disgrace with LV, and even Crabbe and Goyle understand that the Malfoys "are finished". Crabbe & Goyle don't look up to Draco anymore, the roles are reversed. Maybe it was their idea to catch Harry, and Draco didn't dare to argue and had to follow them. He didn't cast a single spell in RoR (he lost his mother's wand soon, but anyway), and tried to stop Crabbe & Goyle from killing Harry (whatever his real reasons were). Believe me, I'm not trying to give Draco more credit than he deserves (never liked him :-)), but I think this is one of a few possible explanations for his appearance in RoR. zanooda From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 04:16:55 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:16:55 -0000 Subject: A Defense of James Potter(Whose flaws are bigger) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175346 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: > Prep0sterus: > Incidentally, when most of us refer to `The Marauders', no, we're not > including Peter. And not because we're trying to sweep him under the > rug, or because we're trying to raise Lupin and Sirius so they're not > tainted by him. It's because when Peter betrayed them, he stopped > being a Marauder. But really, it's because it's easier and more fun to > say `The Marauders' than it is to say "James, Sirius, and Lupin' all > the time. > > ~Adam (Prep0strus), who did NOT criticize Severus in this posting, > even obliquely, for he's found that attempting to defend "James, > Sirius, and Lupin" by comparing the way they are evaluated by posters > by how Snape is evaluated only results in pro-snape vs anti-snape > posting, so tried a new tack > Good post, Adam. I have no problem with your defense of James as James. Although, just to be a quibbler, I quibble with the idea of excluding Peter from the Marauders. During school he was one of them, and he must have had some part to play in their antics. If, on the other hand, you are talking of the post-Godric Hollow Marauders, then he wouldn't merit inclusion. Of course, at that point, the Marauders didn't exist as a group at all. And post PoA, they still weren't the Marauders. They were Remus and Sirius. Montavilla47 From juli17 at aol.com Tue Aug 14 04:13:56 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:13:56 EDT Subject: This moment Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175347 "potioncat" > wrote: > > > > > > > > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a > character, or > > the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character > you > > generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks > to you. > > > > Potioncat, who will post her moment later, and who is creating > light- > > weight threads because she doesn't have the intellectual energy at > the > > moment to join in with the heavier ones, but is reading them with > great > > enjoyment. > > Adam wrote: I've mentioned this before, actually, but for me, it was Petunia's letter to Dumbledore. It makes sense to me that most of us on this site have at some point hoped we'd be granted magic powers, or get to escape for real into a world like those we read about in books, but we grew up, and it never happened. And here, we see two little girls, one of whom is invited to join that world. Told she has unbelievable powers, and there's an entire alternate universe that she is welcome to join. And her sister isn't. It broke my heart, because I can't imagine what it would be like if my sister, or friend, or anyone suddenly got this magic ticket to a whole new world, and I was told, sorry, you can't come - even worse that it was told so kindly by Dumbledore. And what kind of world does Petunia wind up in? One married to Vernon Dursley, of whom we've seen precious little to regard as worthwhile. Maybe Petunia did look for one of the biggest Muggles there is to get further from a world she could never join. The most powerful message of calvinism and fate dictated by birth isn't Slytherin, it's the simple fact of magic vs. non-magic. There is no choice, no personality judgment, no qualifications. But some get the magic ticket, and some get left behind. Julie: I hope you don't mind if I piggyback your response, but I had the exact same reaction. I have two sisters, and we are all close in age. I recognize some of Petunia and Lily's interactions (those not having to do with magic). At times during our childhood we fought like cats and dogs. Even more so as teenagers, when there was a near constant "You wore my sweater!" refrain in our house. Fortunately, as with most sisters, once we became adults, we realized how precious sisterhood is. Through friends, lovers, marriages, divorces, births, deaths, and all the other events life throws your way, no one who is there for you at every moment of it all like a sister (or brother), provided you're lucky enough for that relationship to have weathered the ups and downs of childhood and adolescence. (Note: We had very loving parents and as normal a childhood as can be had.) But Lily's invitation to Hogwarts and Petunia's rejection letter made me wonder, could *any* sibling relationship weather this type of divide? As you say, it is like one sibling being invited to live at Disneyland, while the other is told "No, your sister is good enough to come live and play in our wondrous, magical world, but you're not and never will be." On top of that there's the added joy of the chosen sibling coming home on holidays and telling the reject sibling all the fabulous things she gets to see and do that reject sibling will never be part of. Ever. Gee, thanks, sis. Yes, I can see how this almost couldn't help BUT foster enmity and bitterness between the two. And when you consider how Hermione chose the WW more and more over her Muggle family as she grew older, hardly sparing the time to rejoin the Muggle world more than once or twice a year for brief periods, how could two sisters ever maintain a real relationship, repair bruised feelings, etc, when they literally live in two different and disconnected worlds? I can't think of much worse to do to a child (other than outright abuse of course) than what was done to Petunia. It doesn't excuse her rejection in turn of her only nephew, but it does explain where that bitterness came from and how easily it could continue to fester into such a fanatical hatred of everything she had been denied. It's easier for her to think she was denied something ultimately horrible and freakish rather than something wonderful. I can't recall if any other Muggleborns had siblings (Dean Thomas?) but maybe JKR didn't deal with this issue of acceptace versus rejection into the Magical world beyond Lily and Petunia simply because there isn't a very realistic way to show a sibling, especially a child, graciously accepting such rejection. (Dean Thomas--did JKR say he came from a large family? This might be the only instance where I could see one sibling's specialness and entry into a Magical world not being entirely destructive to the sibling relationships, because if it's *one* specially treated child and half a dozen *normal* ones, then the normal ones have got each other, and their majority may allow them to perceive Dean's invitation to Hogwarts as individual good fortune, rather than a rejection directed at their majority. If you know what I mean.) Julie, who already mentioned Harry's observation of James' air of being well-cared for and even adored, versus Snape's very discernible lack of the same. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 04:29:58 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:29:58 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175348 > lizzyben: > I just meant that in the > "Prince's Tale" chapter, every one of Snape's childhood memories shows > him doing something "bad" - from the nine-year old dropping a branch > on Petunia, to insulting Muggles, to defending future Death Eaters. > It's one of the places where I could almost here the Author's Voice in > the background saying "See, see, he was a bad kid from the get-go!" > I almost felt like it was deliberately included to try to forestall > reader sympathy for this neglected little boy, & encourage us to see > him as a lost cause. zgirnius: I loved that about the memories, myself. My very favorite being the inclusion of Snape's first meeting with Dumbledore. Yeah, Sev, way to convince Harry you're a good guy - feature that scene where Dumbledore is disgusted with you because you could not care less about James and Harry. If Rowling intended the inclusion of the 'bad' elements to be a turn- off, she failed with me. The memories have a confessional sort of nature (they are far more information than Harry needs, and they tell the story of Snape's life, really). And that they do not show Snape in a completely perfect light makes them seem honest. Presumably those memories, warts and all, were chosen within the story *by Snape*, whatever reasons Rowling had for writing them. From tenne at redshift.bc.ca Tue Aug 14 04:17:01 2007 From: tenne at redshift.bc.ca (Tenne) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:17:01 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Another angle on Hermione's parents References: Message-ID: <020a01c7de29$f6f400c0$797ba8c0@terrilaptop> No: HPFGUIDX 175349 Magpie: We assume it because it wasn't a short-term measure if Hermione died. She specifically says that it's possibly forever. If she dies, her parents will never remember her again and never return to their own life. (Something I can't believe they would have agreed to themselves, even if Hermione wasn't trying out her first memory charm and didn't have a record of preferring to just take care of things herself because she knows best.) This is why Hermione gets ferklempt about it, because she might die and they won't remember her. I'm not sure why you would think that her parents might not have agreed to having a memory charm even if it may have been permenant. Having watched what a very good friend of mine when through when her 21 year old daughter died very unexpectedly, I think that not remembering may be a blessing. I know that my friend would love to wipe out the hurt of losing her daughter. Even if it would mean losing the memory of her. Everyone is different in how they handle grief, but for some, this is what they have prayed for. Terri [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 14 04:46:53 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:46:53 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175350 sistermagpie Wrote: > How about a Fidelius charm So Hermione casts a Fidelius charm on her house and imprisons her parents there for nearly a year where they can only conclude that their daughter has turned into a psychopath. If she'd done that I have a hunch I'd see a message or two in this group expressing some slight reservations over her actions. > there's no indication anything bad > would have happened to the Grangers That I believe is pure unadulterated nonsense. Of course something bad would happen to the Grangers, something very bad indeed! > they didn't go after the Weasleys Huh? They did go after the Weasleys as soon as they found out Ron was on the run with Harry. > They can't possibly make an informed decision why? Because as I've said before they don't and cannot know what the hell is going on. > How is it that Ron's parents are able > to make the same decision? Because Ron's parents have knowledge and abilities that Hermione's parents do not have and know how to survive in a culture that would be totally alien to the Grangers. > I didn't say that Hermione didn't > do the logical thing Then what are we arguing about? Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From Mhochberg at aol.com Tue Aug 14 04:50:00 2007 From: Mhochberg at aol.com (Mhochberg at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:50:00 EDT Subject: Another angle on Hermione's parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175351 Bruce Alan Wilson: Canon please. Where does it say that she did this 'without their knowledge or consent'? For all we know she may have sat them down and explained the whole situation to them, presented her plan, and got their consent (even if they would have forgotten about it after she cast the spell[s]). ~~~~~ Mary: This is exactly what I think Hermione did. Hermione says that she has told her parents "quite a lot about" Harry---and I don't think it was just this past summer. Hermione writes and talks with her parents. She is the only one we see writing letters home. They discuss fixing her teeth by magic, even though they don't allow her to stop wearing braces. They, in turn, allow her to spend more time with the Weasley's and Harry. They know what kind of daughter they have--very bright, magical, and determined. This plan may have been the best compromise they could reach that would keep them safe. Like it or not, Muggles have little protection against magical attack. ---Mary ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 05:26:12 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 05:26:12 -0000 Subject: Goblin Traditions was Revenge, Greek tragedies & the heart In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175352 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" > lizzyben: > > You know what was my ultimate WTF moment? When Griphook compliments > Harry for being a "very unusual wizard" because he actually seems to > respect goblins & treat them fairly. All the while, the Trio are > trying to figure out how to double-cross Griphook - like all the > other wizards apparantly do. Was that just? At the end, when > Griphook takes the sword & runs, I was angry at him at first - that > sneaky goblin! Then I set down the book for a second, and thought, > wait a minute, we're supposed to think Griphook's a bad guy because > he won't let the Trio double-cross him? He did just what he promised > to do, and he should get the payment they promised him. Run, > Griphook, run! :) Prep0strus: Not quite sure I agree entirely - I mean, once they had the cup he didn't only grab the sword, but abandoned them screaming accusations. Real nice, after Harry pretty much had just saved his life. But reading this made me think again about what Bill told us about the differences between Wizards and Goblins. At the time, I thought very much of Orson Scott Card, and his Ender series, and how making assumptions about other species being like you can lead to grave misunderstandings. But this situation isn't nearly as terrible or incomprehensible. If Bill is aware that Goblins feel something Goblin-made can only be rented for the lifetime of the 'buyer', not bought, while Wizards feel something bought is bought and that owner can give it to whomever they want... well, why has no one done anything about this for centuries? It just works this way? Wizards have the power, they do things their way, and goblins are bitter. I know these are deeply held beliefs. Can't someone bargain in such a way that makes it clear to the goblin they want it FOREVER, or noodle with the price so it's only a lease? I'm sure there's another goblin war coming if they can't work out this bit of economics. I was really disappointed when Harry wasn't going to find a way to convince Griphook to let him keep the sword for a period of time after regaining the cup, and that he would definitely give it to the goblin after. I guess that would be a hard sell to the goblin, but it really seems like nothing came of Griphook being so impressed by the uniqueness of harry's position (which, not to take away from harry, seems more based on naivety of the ww, than any truly innate differences). The deal was achieved, barely, w/ Harry trying to at least bend the rules before adhering, Griphook took matters into his own hands and betrayed them. Harry saved his life, and then... well, Griffindor gets the sword anyway. I guess Godric's hat wasn't goblin-made, and it follows WIZARD rules. True Griffindors get the sword, not grubby goblins. Another blow to the hopes there might be true change in the ww. But, just in case we were feeling too badly for the goblins, being kept down by the wizards (except for seemingly unfettered access to just about all the wizarding gold and treasures), we're shown that while wizards won't show goblins how to make wands, goblins also wouldn't consider teaching them their smithcraft. It would be a lot easier to hope for a world of greater equality if the other species weren't so often shown in a negative light. Giants, centaurs, goblins. I'm all for the rights of the oppressed, but I don't always feel JKR wants us to wish for changes in the status quo as much as Hermione does. Don't rock the boat... In fact, I think of all the things in the epilogue that are missing, a hint as towards those kind of changes might be nice. Fine, slytherin exists... but where do we stand on elf liberation, goblin wand-making, and peace with giants? Not to mention werewolf job protection. Maybe we'll find out a bit more of Hermione's influential career in the Encyclopedia. ~Adam, who yawningly and self-centeredly wonders how the events of the 7 books affected life in the USA From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 06:33:01 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 06:33:01 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175353 --- "allies426" wrote: > > --- "Ceridwen" > wrote: > > > > The whole world stopped to hear that Snape loved > > Lily, and Voldemort apparently had a heart-to-heart > > with him about other women afterwards. > > > > "He desired her, that was all," sneered Voldemort, > > "but when she had gone, *he agreed that there were > > other women, and of purer blood, worthier of him > > --*" (page 740 US, asterisks for attention, not > > italics) > > > > Snape agreed - so Voldy must have talked with him. > > Allie: > > I doubt it was a heart-to-heart (can someone with > almost no soul still have a heart? :) ), more like > a 5 second exchange. I doubt Voldemort even dreaded > discussing with Snape why he had killed Lily. > > This is how I imagine it: > > Voldemort: And you understand, Severus, why the silly > girl had to be eliminated. > Snape: Yes, my Lord. > Voldemort: Surely you must see now that there are > women worthier of your attention, women of purer > blood. > Snape: Of course, my Lord. > > Very touching, isn't it. Probably Snape's biggest > challenge at performing Occlumency. > bboyminn: Very close, I think, Allie, but not quite. The central point is that seconds after Lily was killed, Voldemort became Vapormort. So there was no time for a heart- to-heart. Still, I think you have come close, but picture it this way. Snape approaches Voldemort before the fact, and asks him to spare Lily. Voldemort says he will if he can, but if not, there are plenty of more worthy pureblood girls for him. Voldemort makes assumptions about Snape's motivations. Since he doesn't understand Love, Voldemort assumes Snape simply 'desires' her. So, the heart-to-heart, as we are calling it, could have happened before Voldemort went to kill the Potters. As always, I assume there IS an explanation, we just don't know what it is. Steve/bboyminn From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 06:49:52 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 06:49:52 -0000 Subject: Whose flaws are bigger (was good and bad Slytherins) In-Reply-To: <985323.848.qm@web82201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175354 > D: > Don't ask me, I was using Prep0strus's term to respond him. According to him these are the 'pure-and-stay good' characters, meaning 'good' characters who started off good and stay on good side, meaning they didn't have the same character arc as Snape...well duh!? That's my point about trying judge these characters as if they're all equal and have the same story arc and we're supposed to have same reaction hence we shall have a list of 'who're better people' in some moral judging contest that amounts to who we should like. Lanval: I just read through Prep0strus' entire post, at least all of the part you responded to, and I could not find any mention of the term pure-and-stay-good-lovable characters. Are we discussing the same post? Could you point me to it? > D: > Maybe they came off that way to you because you're intend to think the worst of the character of Snape, so if someone try to explain why Snape do certain things or didn't vilify him, they comes off as 'whitewash' in your eyes? Lanval: I'm not sure you're qualified to know my intentions, but I know I've seen my share of whitewash here, and have been guilty of it myself. My point was that if one put all the pro-Snape arguments from various discussions here together, and called them "true", then *that* Snape would cease to be Rowling's Snape. He'd be, IMO, a boringly "white" character. Saint Severus. And I was under the impression that Snape fans liked him for his ambivalence. Does that make sense? D previously: > See the problemw with these 'flaw competition' is that....who the heck is James anyway? While Snape is a major central character many of us love and hate for 7 books. It's no wonder Snape matters a lot a lot more readers's heart than say...James or some other background. It's the same as people saying why Harry is their absolute favorite character because Harry is the protagonist and it's all about him anyway. > > Lanval previously: > Actually, it isn't quite the same, because the books *are* > called "Harry Potter and...". Snape may be a more prominent > character than James, but certainly takes a backseat when > it comes > to appearance to Ron or Hermione. > > D: > No it's the same for me. The characters that matters more to readers' heart are usually the ones who have an actual prominent role and revelations that strike an emotional core. Prep0strus kept asking and insisting why there're Snape fans who'd defend him till earth's end while it's the not the same for James. The root of that problem is that he saw them as "equal" in roles exposure and what their character arc lies. The backseat thing isn't my point, why do you suddenly want to rank some list? Lanval: Because you wrote that Snape would naturally "matter more to reader's hearts" than some background character like James, because he's a central character for seven books (right? Please tell me if I misunderstood this). And that this compares to Harry mattering more to readers. But Harry is the Hero of the books. As for the rest of the Potter cast, *if* we're going to measure who matters more to readers' hearts by how prominently they feature in the series, my point was that Ron or Hermione would rank before Snape. D: It's just a comparison how most of us readers care for Harry by default because he's the voice of the book. Lanval: You'd be surprised how many fans don't care a fig about Harry. :) D: And a lot of readers would care more about a fascinating character whose arc matters in 7 books versus a mere background name whose existence is to inform readers about other characters. But the thing is, Snape is quite an one of a kind special character within the series in my opinion (and before you go off making a list, yes there're plenty others too, > as in Snape is as irreplaceable as Dumbledore). So he's > always the 'exception' and the 'controversial' that's why I think it's a misconception if you try to hold up James/Sirius/Lupin/Hagrid/Madam Pomprey/Draco/Slughorn...etc.'s role against Snape's. > Lanval: Don't worry, I have no plans to bore you with any lists. I am trying to find, though, where I held up his role within the series to that of Hagrid, Madam Pomfrey or Slughorn? Can you help? The problem is that it's Snape himself who sort of keeps bringing up James' role against his own, isn't it? What would James be in HP, if it weren't for Snape? A faded memory, an image carved in stone on a village square -- father of The Boy Who Lived, husband of Lily, friend of Sirius, Remus and Peter. Good Quidditch player, and a brilliant student. Bit of a troublemaker and a bully. So where there's Snape, there's James. Be it as a hated memory reincarnated in the son's remarkable resemblance to his father, as the guy who ended up with Snape's lifelong love, or as Sirius Black and Remus Lupin's friend, Snape's worst enemy in school, the guy who saved and humiliated Snape. There's no getting away from James. James Potter matters, even if it's only through his impact on the major characters. And that may be why he so often features in these heated discussions about Snape, even if we see very little of his actual self. JMO, of course. > D: > No the problem you and many don't see is..a lot of Snape fans DON'T see nor appreciate him as among one of many Slytherin/baddies/Random Designated Bad Guy. You might automatically "oh so you must try to whitewash him as some nice white > hat." Of course it isn't that either. That's why for me and for many Snape is a truly one of a kind character in the series, there's no other characters that setup the same as him and function like him thruout seven books ('gift of a character' I agree). Lanval: I can't argue with that. Snape is unique in HP. D: That's why it's absurd to pit him against _insert lovable, pure-and- staygood or shady minor Slytherin character_ . Unlike you, I never see him in the same league as Slughorn, even Draco and some Random Designated Bad Guy. I don't like any of the LV-align or 'bad" characters like Umbridge and Greyback. I don't like nor identify with Slytherins (because there isn't any really interesting characters coming from that house, especailly the children's generation). I think the puzzle came in because some of you think of Snape only as one among many of the random baddies and don't distinguish the uniqueness of his role, hence the 'puzzle' of his appeal. I always believed he's DDM and on the 'good' side all > along. > > (btw no I don't have much problem with JKR portrayal of Molly's AK, Harry's torture curse, Slytherin house...and I like DH and LOVE Snape's conclusion). Lanval: I probably expressed that clumsily by adding Snape in with the other *designated bad guys* (that was sarcasm, btw); however in fandom Snape does get thrown in with Slytherin, Draco, etc. He is after all the Head of that House. Snape would identify himself as a Slytherin. But am I so wrong in suggesting that quite a few Snape fans *also* support a more Slytherin-centric view? Liking Snape often if certainly not always includes sympathy for Draco. Or Pansy. > > D: > It irks me when 'haters' dismissed Snape into something he's NOT, also. It goes both ways. The degree of savage vindictiveness of wanting Snape to be the worst evil and how Harry was oh-so-right about him all along etc. etc. (oh so crow-eating!) > Lanval: Again, it's been a while since I saw such a real, savage, ESE!Snape post on this list. As for myself, i was pretty convinced Snape was DDM, but had some doubts, notably about the killing of DD, the scene at Spinner's End, and a few other niggling details. The Lily thing I long suspected, though I imagined it as Teenage Snape becoming obsessed with her. I was wrong there; it actually started out in a much sweeter way. D: > I understand the frustration of seeing some Snape fans demonizing the 'likable' pure-and-stay-good characters. I find those irksome too and rolling my eyes and hissing 'enough~ geez' in my mouth. But don't try to pretend that it doesn't go both ways. And the whole "James/Sirius/Lupin are way better people in sum than Snape to me" won't cut it and only comes off desperate to me (why does that matter). > Lanval: Why desperate? We all have our views, but none of us are in danger of risking anything important here, are we? > > Lanval previously: > No, one does not find James very often as the subject of essays, > academical works, etc. One finds him however quite often as the > subjects of LiveJournal posts along the lines of "I hate James > > Potter with the fire of a thousand suns!!!") > > 'Splain that one to me, somebody. If the bloke ain't interesting > enough to be considered a Worthy Character to Like, surely he can't > qualify for this kind of hatred either? > > D: > Really? Where? You're giving characters like James way too much credit. No way the dislikes toward him is anywhere near the intensity, seriousness and amount of the venom toward BIG character like Hermione, Ginny, Harry, Snape, Dumbledore...etc. I don't think people really 'care' about James when they mouth off "James sucks...gosh he's so annoying". He isn't one to get work up about in my opinion. Lanval: I asked why James, if he's so unimportant and uninteresting, is also hated, which makes no sense. I didn't ask for a list of characters who are hated more. Since I specifically mentioned LJ, I can't very well link to private journals. The quote above *is* a fairly exact quote. Sorry, can't link to every message board topic I ever read these past five years on this particular subject either, so unfortunately you'll just have to take my word that I'm not making it up. Just as I took it for granted that you weren't making things up when you wrote "That's why you'd see Snape being mention in 'What makes a great character in storytelling' discussion (non fandom) all the time while you won't see Hagrid or James being frequent subject of essays and discussions like that". > D previously: > > And yeah in a way characters' redemption (especially at the > finale) do gain a lot of readers' forgiveness and endearment, that's > why it's err...called 'redemption', especially ones involving love > and sacrifices and death (ie Sydney Carton). Not working for you and > some others obviously, but also working for a lot and a lot of > readers. At least from the more 'general' discussion board I've > seen, seems like there're lots of 'converts' for Snape *yay* > > Lanval previously: > Yes, love and sacrifice, redemption, death. Harry? Sirius? Lupin? > Lily? Dumbledore? It would be a mistake, I believe, to reserve these themes for one > character in HP only. > > D: > We were talking Snape and his own redemptive role, where did Harry and Sirius and Lupin and Dumbledore come from? Lanval: Where did Sydney Carton and Charles Darnay come from? You do confuse me now. I thought we were discussing: "...yeah in a way characters' redemption (especially at the finale) do gain a lot of readers' forgiveness and endearment that's why it's err...called 'redemption', especially ones involving love and sacrifices and death". D: Did they have the same former DE background/nasty demeaner/tragic hero/redemptive arc? No right? Like I said above Snape was a one-of- a-kind character in this series, it's combination of everything that made me like him best. So yeah in a way that there're certain themes that are pretty much for this one character only. Just like Dumbledore has his own, Harry has his own (and for me Sirius has his and ended them in book 5). Why must we include a check list of how Harry/Sirius/Lupin/50 other characters did this good or that good when the the subject is about Snape alone and his redemption and his very unique (to the series) appeal to us fans? This is a something I see keep popping up. Lanval: We "must" not do anything, but we can, on this list. And if you wanted this discussion to be about Snape alone, then why didn't you just say so? > D: > Oh so fanon rules only applied when it regards Marauders -- the Marauder only consisted of 3 people cliche, and how Peter never existed so the James and Sirius were never flawed with their questionable inclusion. Sore misjudgement omitted and erased for convenience. Lanval: Please don't assign fandom cliches to me. I was under the impression that Prep0strus did not include Peter anywhere in his argument, and only called Sirius, James and Remus 'the Marauders' out of convenience, that's why I did not include him either, and that's why he doesn't count here. D: > Snape's flaws were bigger but his roles are also bigger than all three combine, and his revelation are more compelling and his roles makes a more memorable and greater character overall for me in my opinion. Lanval: You're welcome to it. > > > > From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 06:52:35 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 06:52:35 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175355 > Judy: > I don't actually think many Snape fans believe that Snape is > the "Good Guy in almost every situation involving him." (I don't > think I've seen a single person say that Snape was justified in > calling Lily a "Mudblood," for example.) Instead, they believe that > he was victimized by James and Sirius. That's a big difference. > Lanval: I have seen fans argue that he didn't mean it, that it was forced from him under pressure, that the word was so often used in his House that it became a habit, that he was beyond himself because a girl tried to help him, and so on. Of course no one has argued (on this list, AFAIK) that a character is justified in calling another "Mudblood"; that would likely raise some eyebrows regarding the poster's personal views. JMO. > Lanval again: > > I've seen my share of "how dare you like the Bad Guys, don't > > you know that you're supposed to hate them, what are you, BAD?" > > But. I've seen as much condescension from the Snape(insert > > Draco/Slytherin/Random Designated Bad Guy) fandom, as in, "I LOVE > > the Bad Guys -- what an interesting, deep, intellectual reader I > > must be! what, you like the guys JKR 'told' you to like? Oh dear...I > > suppose so do the ten-year-olds..."... I must add that this refers > > mostly to offlist content, found elsewhere on the internets. > Judy: > I haven't seen this here. I've read the past few days of posts here, > and I don't remember any personal attacks on fans for not liking > Snape. If you say that these attacks are taking place on other sites, > I believe you, but please don't bring these fights here. Lanval: Hm, you snipped a bit here; I was talking about two different issues. One was a reaction to DH and its morals, one was about the *at times* condescending tone from fans who like Snape or any character they feel the author does not want them to like, and who have *at times* let other fans know they consider this sort of interpretation to be superior. The comparison with ten-year-olds actually stems from this list, but it was some time ago. Then there was the Torture/Crucio discussion. The rest was mostly triggered by a professional review in The Nation, and a review on Yahoo News, which was linked to from this list, and a few private LJ posts. So yes, I think complaining about other HP fans is frowned on here, which is why I apologised to the list elves. If you want a personal apology, here you go: I'm sorry I brought Offlist Fandom Fights here. Are we cool? :) > Judy: > I think the reason so many fans are "singing Snape's praises" as you > put it, is because he's being *attacked* here. No one is vehemently > defending Harry because no one is vehemently attacking Harry. (No one > is attacking Lupin much, either.) > Lanval: Are you familiar with the term ESE!Lupin? Sorry, Pippin.... could not resist. :) Judy: > As for Sirius, I don't currently see him coming in for the sort of > attacks that Snape is currently getting. (He did get attacked a lot > before Book 5, and he did get some vehement defenders then, just as > Snape is getting now.) Some people are currently saying that they > don't like Sirius and that they feel he was very unfair to Snape, but > I don't anyone denying that he had his good points -- he cared about > Harry, for example. But people *are* saying that Snape had no real > good points -- he was "creepily obsessed" with Lily instead of loving > her, he was abusive to children, etc. I even saw one person (Alla, I > think) saying how comforted she is to think of Snape being tormented > forever in the afterlife by seeing Lily in James' arms. Of course, > this is fiction and readers can intrepret things as they wish, but > it's no surprise that Snape's fans are going to respond by defending > him. > Lanval: Well, if that's what Alla wrote, then that's her opinion, and she has every right to express it. I'd like to get one thing straight: I think it's acceptable to "attack" characters, as long as it's reasonably supported by canon (yes, Snape's creepy obsession with Lily can be supported). And Snape being abusive to children... er, how is that totally unsupported? But once we go off into Conjectureland, where we all like hang out from time to time, it gets harder to swallow when unfounded accusations are made. "Snape eventually became a DE, so he was most likely trying to kill Petunia with that branch" would be a good example. "Sirius despised Snape for his weird looks the moment he saw him" would be another. And then there's the double standard issue, of course. Judy: > If you would rather talk about something other than Snape and don't > want to see fans defending him, the solution is simple: Don't attack > him. > Lanval: What gave you the impression I wanted to stop talking about Snape? Oh, and I just noticed your answer to my other post, sorry for not replying. Too tired now, will look at it tomorrow. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 14 06:52:36 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 06:52:36 -0000 Subject: Harry the author Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175356 I'll bet a year or two after the events of book 7 Harry will write a book. If won't be an autobiography detailing his thrilling adventures, I very much doubt Harry will ever do that, instead Harry will write a rather dry textbook entitled "The Potion Formulas Of Severus Snape". Yes the Half Blood Prince's book got burned up during the Battle of Hogwarts but Harry looked at every page and if he has trouble remembering something he can always use the Pensive. I think such a book would be a fitting tribute to Harry's old Potions Master as well as granting a great favor to generations of future potion students as Snape's recipes are far far superior to the standard ones. Needless to say the book would be a huge wizard best seller as anything written by Harry Potter would be. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 14 07:09:24 2007 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:09:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Toons, Petunia, and the Horrible Vase Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175357 Carolyn says: > I can understand why Petunia sends her sister gifts -- and I firmly believe> that Petunia believes she has wonderful taste and that her sister will> appreciate the gifts. These are not used tissues she is sending. PJ: My brother went overseas for a couple of years but when he returned and decorated his apartment I knew who lived there from the moment I walked through the front door. His style, his colors and his trinkets were all over it! After over 20 years of being sisters, even with one away at school, Petunia would have at least a general idea what Lily found attractive. After all, Lily came home over the holidays and, unless she never noticed new drapes, a fresh coat of paint or (in 7 years) new furniture, *some* discussion of style would be going on between her and her Mom at the very least! So no... I don't think Petunia is under the impression that what she's sending will be appreciated at all. Doesn't matter though since the rules only say you have to send a gift and she's fulfilled that particular obligation. The rules don't say "the Freak" has to like it! Maybe she feels guilty now for being so spiteful but judging by her reaction to Dudley's "I don't think you're a waste of space" comment, I sincerely doubt it. PJ _________________________________________________________________ See what you?re getting into?before you go there http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_preview_0507 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 07:18:28 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:18:28 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175358 "potioncat" > > wrote: > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a > > character, or > > > the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character you generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks to you. *snip* I forgot a couple of moments which I thought was absolutely superb...Neville's gran showing up, moth eaten vulture hat on her head to join her granson to do her bit..(FINALLY...Gran gets on Neville's bus rather than Gran chiding Neville to get on his parents bus.) Loved how she greeted Harry but didn't fawn over him...just headed out to meet Neville(grans true hero in her eyes and rightfully so). (I refuse to delve into the whole Neville's boggart scene on this one)! It makes one wonder what type of owl McConogal may have sent to Neville's gran in HBP (which was the last commentary we heard from Neville about his Gran).. I also loved the fact that despite Luna's imprisonment and Ginny not returning to Hogwarts after the Easter Holidays that Neville still kept up the fight.(remember when he first went into hiding(not at home, but at Hogwarts no less) there was only one hammock in the ROR..perhaps it may have been the room more than harry that taught patronus charms to the DA..most likely a combo of both. I had so many moments in the book with ALL the characters....all representing something in the end--hope, rebellion, freedom, redemption, forgiveness, grief, and understanding. It will take us longer to get to the understanding point I think(several hints at that--not sure if DD, ever got there, but we do know that Voldy never did)..I'm guessing that a few years from now, most will get what JKR was telling us. I think the fact that she had outlined said book shortly after she envisioned the story...yet she never did tell her Mum about it before she passed had a massive impact upon the character development more than the story-hence the holes. I imagine JKR shared more of herself in these series than she ever set out to do...simply makes sense when we look at REACTIONS to "significant deaths"..which could turn into a whole other post that I wouldn't tarnish this thread with. Although I do have to add one more thing....when JKR first said Luna ended up with some naturalist...then reconsidered and thought well perhaps she ended up with Neville...I thought that Luna and Dean were a good match because they actually had something in common that was mentioned in the books...they were both good artists.(Dean making those banners...and Luna and her ceiling and all...*shrug*..not upset just saw a match that wasn't out of the blue or out of question....) Doddie (who cannnot quite imagine Luna and Olivander imprisoned in the cellar--poor Ollie..he probably thought he was having illucinations....because the only thing he could hear was someone talking about gurdyroot infusions followed by gulping plimpie broth..inbetween the crucio curses he had to endure. ) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 07:23:49 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:23:49 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175359 > potioncat: > > > > > > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a > > character, or the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be > > a character you generally identify with---just a moment that > > particularly speaks to you. > Tonks: The moment that gripped me the most and I had not thought of it as identifying with Harry, but I guess it was. It was when he saw Fred on the ground and then looked again and saw Lupin and Tonks next to Fred lying there dead. I screamed and cried and carried on so that my neighbors in the apartment below must have thought that I had just lost my entire family. I just felt that if I were Harry, I could not go on. I would just put my arms down to my side and walk up to LV and say ???just kill me now???. My heart broke right along with Harry???s. I felt his pain as my own. I felt that all was lost, there was no reason to go on, the enemy had won. Tonks_op From mindy at 012.net.il Tue Aug 14 05:39:20 2007 From: mindy at 012.net.il (mindyteddybear) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 05:39:20 -0000 Subject: Raised by Muggles In-Reply-To: <415505.92297.qm@web51506.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175360 > Carolyn: > > I imagine that just as Hagrid was sent to escort Harry, another > > escort was sent for Hermione and any others who wouldn't have > > knowledge or experience with Diagon Alley. Hi, This is Mindy who usually only reads and doesn't stick in her 2 cents. I just wanted to say, remember, Dumbledore came to Tom Riddle, told him he was a wizard and offered to take him shopping, which he refused. I enjoy all the opinions that go back and forth. I read ALL the posts. Mindy From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 14 09:06:42 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:06:42 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily, Hagrid, Snape, Lucius, Friends (was Re: good/bad Slyth/Disappointment Message-ID: <331259.40797.qm@web86205.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175361 Irene: > But that's exactly my point! No matter how long the list of actual acts > of kindness, the list of the persons involved is rather short, and they > are all centered around Harry. > > Ron gets inside the circle after Sirius learns he is Harry's friend. > Before that Sirius could care less how frightened or injured Ron gets. > Lanval: Where's the proof for that? Irene: What do you mean? It's all in PoA. Sirius broke to Gryffindor dorm at night, and stood at Ron's bed brandishing a knife. He broke Ron's leg. He wasn't in any hurry to explain to Ron that he isn't planning to kill either him or Harry. Irene: > Weasley family gets covered as extension of Ron, I suppose. > > It's exactly the same with Snape - he is nice to his friends, and the > rest of the world can go to hell for all he cares. Lanval: Well, then, show me -- moments of real kindness by Snape. Mind, absence of malice does not count. I only picked moments where Sirius does something actually kind, as opposed to just being "not mean', or being civil. Nor do I mean earth-shaking, life-saving deeds. Snape? He once helps a distraught Narcissa into a chair. Irene: Look, I can see we are not going anywhere with that amount of irony in the above, but I'll give it another honest try. He reassures Narcissa that in the world where everything seems to be stacked against her son, he will look after him. And Narcissa must by then have realised that lots of people whom she considered friends were only in it for Lucius' influence and/or money, so Snape's act is really one of personal kindness. Healing Dumbledore and Draco doesn't count? Fine. Does it count that he notices Neville being strangled in OoTP? Lanval: The way I see it is that even after twelve years in Azkaban, half starved, or deep in a depressive state, Sirius still is able to extend some degree of kindness, understanding, and good-will toward his fellow humans -- if they're not named Severus Snape or Peter Pettigrew or Barty Crouch. For a man who's been treated as unfairly as Sirius, that's a remarkably short list of personal enemies. Irene: Snape's list is quite short as well: Sirius, Remus, Harry and Neville. :-) Lanval: Snape? Dislikes/despises the entire world, with the exception of perhaps DD and the Malfoys. Irene: He is very good in hiding it then. In the end of HBP, he could have justifiably left a long trail of bodies behind: Flitwick, Hermione, Luna. He seems very determined not to harm them. In DH, not even Stupefy for McGonagall? Why, that's chivalrous. Irene From raymonddavenport at btinternet.com Tue Aug 14 09:06:54 2007 From: raymonddavenport at btinternet.com (raymond300659) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:06:54 -0000 Subject: elder wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175362 "raymond300659" writes: If you want to read about elder tree follow this link http://www.whitedragon.org.uk/articles/elder.htm This may explain the use of this wood. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 14 09:13:05 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:13:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DH and PS/SS Message-ID: <571909.69882.qm@web86201.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175363 lupinlore: > Oh, one other thing about the last scenes of PS/SS. At one point we > had a lot of discussion about DD's motives in intervening when he did > in the manner he did. >Well, given what we see in Snape's > memories, there seems an obvious answer, although one much simpler > than many proposed, and much more brutal. DD just didn't like > Slytherins, and this provided a fine opportunity to stick the knife > in -- in front of God, Severus, Minerva, and everybody, I might add. > And if he could do so while tilting the scales to Gryffindor and > brightening the summer of a child with whom he was "quite taken," > then so much the better. By god, you are right. This simplest explanation also covers some other canonical conundrums, like why Sirius was not adequately punished for the Prank, or why Dumbledore enjoyed pulling Snape's chains so much in PoA. He just never liked him. I like lizzyben's theory of Slytherin being the scapegoat house for qualities Rowling hates in herself. I wonder if as a child Snape didn't bring in Dumbledore the memories of his own worst qualities as a child - quest for knowledge without regard of how dangerous or dark that knowledge is. So Dumbledore dislikes him in the same way Rowling dislikes Slytherin - as a projection. Irene From judy at judyshapiro.com Tue Aug 14 09:48:19 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:48:19 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175364 I only have time for a quick post, but I wanted to acknowledge misquoting Alla. I said: > I even saw one person (Alla, I think) saying how comforted she is > to think of Snape being tormented forever in the afterlife by > seeing Lily in James' arms. And Alla clarified: > Close but not quite. I said that I was imagining that as carmic > justice for Snape for what he did to Harry. Sorry that I got that quote wrong; I was going from memory. I also said: > >> I don't actually think many Snape fans believe that Snape is > > the "Good Guy in almost every situation involving him." (I don't > > think I've seen a single person say that Snape was justified in > > calling Lily a "Mudblood," for example.)... And Alla replied: > I did. He was you know, just being embarassed by being saved by a > girl and who would not call a girl who tried to save you a > Mudblood. Of course I am being sarcastic towards the argument and I > am paraphrasing not my argument. A question -- are you really saying that Snape was *justified* in calling Lily a Mudblood, Alla? Or are you saying that it was an forgivable mistake given the stress Snape was under at the time? To me, there's a difference. -- JudySerenity From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 14 11:02:38 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:02:38 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175365 Carol: > And while Harry could have defeated Voldemort without Sirius Black's > help, he could not have done it without Snape's. SSSusan: Well, not really, imo. Please recall the scene at the Ministry where Voldemort has possessed Harry. What was it that forced Voldemort to leave Harry without having defeated him? What was it that meant Voldemort could not stay inside of Harry? Love, of course, and it was his love for Sirius, his remembrance of Sirius, that made those feelings rise up in Harry and dispel Voldemort. "And I'll see Sirius again... And as Harry's heart filled with emotion, the creature's coiled loosened, the pain was gone..." [OotP, UK hardback, p. 720]. > Carol, who thinks that Harry's choice to name his second son Albus > Severus tells us that in *his* view Snape is, indeed, fundamentally > worthy of respect SSSusan: Not disagreeing with this part. Just thinking that Sirius was quite *important* as well. Barbara: > How very strange. I seem to be living in a very small HP world where > my two favorite characters are Sirius Black and Severus Snape. SSSusan: Nah, you're not alone, even though it might feel like it at times 'round here. Take a look below: Siriusly Snapey Susan From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Aug 14 11:33:12 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:33:12 -0000 Subject: Luna/Neville (was Re: This moment In-Reply-To: <005301c7de1e$756336d0$6c01a8c0@kayenta.k12.az.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175366 "Brett Hale": > I also felt this to be a wonderful revelation. I have always liked Luna L., and was hoping that she and Neville would link up. Maybe they did...we'll find out later, I suppose. Potioncat: JKR mentioned this in an interview, that a number of fans were pairing Luna and Neville. It caught her by surprise. But then, a lot of what we fans think surprises her. ;-) She sort of left it open, which makes me think she didn't have anything in particular planned. Personally, I sort of like her paired with Dean. (He makes it, doesn't he?) That is, Luna with Dean, not JKR with Dean. Potioncat From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Aug 14 11:52:19 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:52:19 -0000 Subject: Killing Harry (was Re: This moment. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175367 Eggplant: > As I've said before my moment of Epiphany came when I read near the > bottom of page 687 "From the tip of his [Snape's] wand burst the > silver doe". I wasn't expecting that, I wasn't expecting that at all, > and I couldn't even finish reading the rest of the sentence; I had to > put the book down stand up and walk away for a while. She's going to > do it I thought, she's really going to do it, JKR is going to murder > Harry Potter! For years I'd been saying that's exactly what she should > do, but now when I actually saw JKR with a gun pointed at Harry's head > just a moment before she's going to pull the trigger, well, all I can > say is it took me some time to work up the courage to continue reading. > Potioncat: Cannot decide how to snip, so won't. So, tell me. Once you came back, was it a satisfying plot twist? Was there something different about thinking she would really kill him, and having thought she should? Did the resolution work? In that period between putting the book down and picking it up, what were you hoping/expecting would happen? I'm asking because there were a few plot twists that I didn't like, until I realised how they managed the expected in an unexpected way. And I'm not giving examples, because that would change the topic too much, and I'm interested in your point of view on this topic. From ken.fruit at gmail.com Tue Aug 14 11:57:30 2007 From: ken.fruit at gmail.com (rt11guru) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:57:30 -0000 Subject: Harry the author In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175368 Eggplant: I'll bet a year or two after the events of book 7 Harry will write a book. If won't be an autobiography detailing his thrilling adventures, I very much doubt Harry will ever do that, instead Harry will write a rather dry textbook entitled "The Potion Formulas Of Severus Snape". guru: I've been wondering why Severus hadn't already written that book or its equivalent. In PS/SS he introduces the class to the wonders of potions, and you can tell he is passionate about the subject. One would think that having figured out how to improve the art, he would have, at least, been teaching the class out of his annotated version of the text, if not having written his own. Of course, that would have left little mystery in who the HBP really was, and leaves a lot of blank pages in the 5th book. From random832 at fastmail.us Tue Aug 14 11:54:17 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:54:17 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Another angle on Hermione's parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C197E9.9000006@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 175369 > Magpie: > We assume it because it wasn't a short-term measure if Hermione died. > She specifically says that it's possibly forever. If she dies, her > parents will never remember her again and never return to their own > life. (Something I can't believe they would have agreed to > themselves, even if Hermione wasn't trying out her first memory charm > and didn't have a record of preferring to just take care of things > herself because she knows best.) This is why Hermione gets ferklempt > about it, because she might die and they won't remember her. What about the possibility that neither of them thought of that? That it's not until they're halfway to Australia that Hermione finally thinks "oh CRAP, what happens if I'm killed?" - as smart as she supposedly is, she doesn't always think things through. -- Random832 From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 14 13:06:09 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:06:09 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175370 lizzyben: > > I just meant that in the > > "Prince's Tale" chapter, every one of Snape's childhood memories > > shows him doing something "bad" - from the nine-year old > > dropping a branch on Petunia, to insulting Muggles, to defending > > future Death Eaters. It's one of the places where I could almost > > here the Author's Voice in the background saying "See, see, he > > was a bad kid from the get-go!" zgirnius: > I loved that about the memories, myself. My very favorite being > the inclusion of Snape's first meeting with Dumbledore. Yeah, Sev, > way to convince Harry you're a good guy - feature that scene where > Dumbledore is disgusted with you because you could not care less > about James and Harry. > > If Rowling intended the inclusion of the 'bad' elements to be a > turn-off, she failed with me. The memories have a confessional > sort of nature (they are far more information than Harry needs, > and they tell the story of Snape's life, really). And that they do > not show Snape in a completely perfect light makes them seem > honest. Presumably those memories, warts and all, were chosen > within the story *by Snape*, whatever reasons Rowling had for > writing them. SSSusan: Wow. I hadn't even *noticed* that every one of the memories showed Snape doing something 'bad.' So if JKR's intention was to say "See! See!" and to forestall sympathy for Severus, it didn't work for me that way either. In fact, I do NOT believe that was her intention at all. I felt quite similarly about the memories Snape chose & gave to Harry as Zara did. To me, they were Truly. A. Gift. As you said, Zara, they showed it ALL. They did provide more information than Harry 'needed,' and yet Snape gave the whole picture. The whole honest picture. Why? I think, first, because he knew it would make it all more understandable to Harry. Snape was giving Harry his most private memories, allowing him to see himself in some very, very vulnerable moments. Yeah, so he was dying and wouldn't have to see Harry again, but it still took tremendous courage, imo, to give Harry that *total* picture. Doing so made the whole thing more powerful for Harry, I think... made it much more likely that Harry wouldn't resist it, wouldn't question Snape's version of things. If he had *not* included all the past Lily stuff, all the way back to pre-Hogwarts, all the student days stuff, but only gave Harry the conversations with DD, would Harry have trusted and believed? He would have been stunned, but I can imagine him having been confused and skeptical AND hanging on to his typical pattern of responding to Snape or allegations about Snape's loyalty. With Snape giving Harry so much -- so much more than he 'had' to -- he gave Harry the full story, the truth, something that Harry had been **craving** throughout the story. It's part of why Harry was so angry with DD -- all those things DD did not share, did not show or tell him about, the truth lacking parts of itself. But here was Snape, of all people, giving Harry All Of It. To me, it was a stunning moment, this gift of the full background, this most difficult gift to give, revealing those things which had been hidden from all to the person to whom it was most difficult to allow to see. It was amazing. Which would probably mean I could cross-post this in Potioncat's One Moment thread. ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From rlpenar at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 13:20:43 2007 From: rlpenar at yahoo.com (R. Penar) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:20:43 -0000 Subject: Ravenclaw common room Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175371 Hi y'all, long time lurker here, I haven't posted in *years* - usually the threads end up all philosophical and deep and while I love to read them and learn, I never feel like I can add much....anyway...on to the post: So I'm listening to the CDs of DH and Harry and Luna are in the Ravenclaw common room. Carrow and Minerva come in (after Electo is stunned) and Carrow says that they (the Carrows) had been tipped off that Harry may try and come into the Ravenclaw common room. Now perhaps this is just something I forgot from my initial read of DH, but *why* would Voldy think that Harry would be going to the Ravenclaw room? He would have had to share that knowledge with the Carrows before setting off on the Horcrux Double Check mission. I got another question too, but I'll post to another thread. Wait for it. Becky From rlpenar at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 13:25:30 2007 From: rlpenar at yahoo.com (R. Penar) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:25:30 -0000 Subject: Imperio Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175372 In the Ravenclaw common room McGonagall Imperio's Alex Carrow and he hands over his and Electo's wands and lies down on the floor. So it got me thinking.....why on Earth didn't she Imperio him about 10 months ago to save Hogwarts from turning into a Child Torture Zone with the outcasts living in the Room of Requirement a la Lord of the Flies?????? Imperio seems to be the most acceptable of the Unforgiveables. Surely if kids are throwing Crucio around, an Order member would be able to justify using Imperio? Becky From gbadams_77 at charter.net Tue Aug 14 13:51:40 2007 From: gbadams_77 at charter.net (bzbbaba) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:51:40 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175373 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zeldaricdeau" wrote: > > > Potioncat: > > > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, > > or the character's situation? > > zeldaricdeau: > > I was always the odd kid > out or the one who got teased or bullied for making good grades or for > being shy and terrible socially. So I would say for me it was: > > Harry seeing the pictures of himself, Ron, and Hermione in Luna's > bedroom, linked with the golden word chains > spelling "friends...friends...friends...friends..." > > -ZR > Beverly now: Ah...that was a great moment. When I read this out loud to my family we all thought it was so sweet and spoke volumes about Luna. I personally had a rush of warmth towards her similar to Harry's rush of affection. Thanks for bringing this one up as I had forgotten to put it in mine. B. From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 13:56:53 2007 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:56:53 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175374 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > > And Alla replied: >> I did. He was you know, just being embarassed by being saved by a >> girl and who would not call a girl who tried to save you a >> Mudblood. Of course I am being sarcastic towards the argument and I >> am paraphrasing not my argument. > > A question -- are you really saying that Snape was *justified* in > calling Lily a Mudblood, Alla? Or are you saying that it was an > forgivable mistake given the stress Snape was under at the time? To > me, there's a difference. She's responding to the last bit of your argument--she's saying that she's seen *the argument* that it was a forgiveable mistake because Snape was under a lot of stress. I can't speak for Alla's perception, but I find Carol's post here to certainly be readable that way: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/172726 "...and the worst memory has to be, as the LOLLIPOPS people have always argued, because he slipped and called her a Mudblood and she refused to forgive him even when he slept outside the Gryffindor common room and abjectly begged her to do so." -Nora pops in despite being totally behind and needing to work on other things From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Aug 14 14:06:31 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:06:31 -0000 Subject: Another angle on Hermione's parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175375 > Magpie: > We assume it because it wasn't a short-term measure if Hermione died. > She specifically says that it's possibly forever. If she dies, her > parents will never remember her again and never return to their own > life. (Something I can't believe they would have agreed to > themselves, even if Hermione wasn't trying out her first memory charm > and didn't have a record of preferring to just take care of things > herself because she knows best.) This is why Hermione gets ferklempt > about it, because she might die and they won't remember her. > > -m (still amazed that the "Not Much Bothered By It As A Plot Device > But In General Anti-Mindwipes for Middle Class Dentists" position is > considered unreasonable by anyone) Pippin: If I understand your argument, you're thinking the worst case scenario for the Grangers is that Hermione will die and they'll never mourn their daughter or return to their previous life, and you can't believe they'd agree to it. They'd prefer the risk of dying under torture. But dying isn't the worst of what might happen if they were discovered. The worst would be betraying their daughter and her friends before they died. Because unfortunately Hermione's told them quite a lot about her life and about Harry's, enough that she's worried about their being interrogated. Lily was willing to die for her child, but you don't think the Grangers would risk their careers and their memories to save theirs? I can see where you might think Hermione should have turned to the Order instead of doing something on her own. But then she'd have to explain *why* her parents are going to need special protection, and oops! nobody is supposed to know that. It's not like she's pulling a young Dumbledore, (or a Lupin) yearning to have adventures and save the world when she should be thinking of her weaker family members. There really was a danger, and there really wasn't anyone else who could have stepped into her shoes if she'd refused to go with Harry in order to keep her parents safe. Maybe you're thinking the Grangers would be just as resistant under torture as their daughter. But the Hermione of DH is very different from the girl we first met in PS/SS, the one most influenced by the Grangers. She had a good heart. But she was completely paralyzed by the troll attack. It took seven years to make a warrior out of Hermione. Her parents haven't had that kind of schooling, as far as we know. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Aug 14 14:21:24 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:21:24 -0000 Subject: Another angle on Hermione's parents In-Reply-To: <020a01c7de29$f6f400c0$797ba8c0@terrilaptop> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175376 > Terri: > I'm not sure why you would think that her parents might not have agreed to having a memory charm even if it may have been permenant. Having watched what a very good friend of mine when through when her 21 year old daughter died very unexpectedly, I think that not remembering may be a blessing. I know that my friend would love to wipe out the hurt of losing her daughter. Even if it would mean losing the memory of her. Everyone is different in how they handle grief, but for some, this is what they have prayed for. Magpie: First, Hermione doesn't say they talked about it and she has a history of doing stuff like this without telling people. It would require more explanation if she actually consulted them because it's OOC for her. Since the whole scene about Hermione's thoughts on what she's done are about Hermione in isolation, that seems a logical conclusion, especially with the way the Grangers are usually handled in canon and the way Muggles are generally handled in canon. Secondly, while you think it would be a blessing for your friend to not remember her daughter, I find it very hard to believe that your friend would not want to remember her daughter. I've spoken to a lot of people who have lost children, and I can't imagine them wishing their child had never been born, which is what we're talking about. And even if we assume there are people who would be in such pain they'd cut off their child to spare themselves, the Grangers are not in pain. Their child is alive, so I doubt even more they'd just assume their pain at losing her would be so great they'll start focusing on themselves and forget her in case. Magpie: > I didn't say that Hermione didn't > do the logical thing Eggplant: Then what are we arguing about? Magpie: As far as I can tell, we're arguing because I said I thought it was creepy the way the Grangers (and Muggles in general) are handled and viewed in the story, even though I recognized this was mainly a plot device to get them off-screen quickly. I would not want to be treated that way by anyone, especially my kid. You seem to feel this is a bad reaction, and that Hermione's actions are 100% admirable and just how you'd want to be treated by your child. We can both peacefully co-exist with those different opinions. I'm surprised that my being a bit Anti-Mindwipes for Middle Class Dentists is so radical. Mary: This is exactly what I think Hermione did. Hermione says that she has told her parents "quite a lot about" Harry---and I don't think it was just this past summer. Hermione writes and talks with her parents. She is the only one we see writing letters home. They discuss fixing her teeth by magic, even though they don't allow her to stop wearing braces. Magpie: She also makes it clear her parents "don't understand" the important stuff and when she makes a decision about what she's doing on that score she's been known to lie. (While her parents may not have allowed her to stop wearing her brace, she went ahead and fixed her teeth with magic anyway--for which I can't blame her, but that's typical Hermione.) Hermione has a history of *not* consulting people with these kinds of plans. Why would I suddenly think that she started here when she doesn't even say she did? She includes her spell on her family along with all the packing she's doing and cries over what will happen if she dies--everyone in the scene is focused on Hermione and not her parents. It's not presented as any sort of conflict between Hermione and her parents, just a sacrifice Hermione has made personally. As for Hermione having the most contact with her parents, I disagree. Ron's in far more constant contact with his family. I know there are obvious reasons for that, but I just don't think Hermione is shown as having the relationship with her parents that you're saying she has here (one where she's supposedly dealing wtih them as equals and would consult them on what to do in a case like this), and it's even been established as part of her personality that she tends to have the opposite problem. Therefore I think everything in the book and scene indicates that Hermione's parents were just taken care of and that that was the only thing anyone (including the author) thought was important. Just as all the memory charming of Muggles is throughout canon. Explanations to the contrary, imo, require more explaining that go against that for me, so they're not convincing. I find Eggplant's position far more in tune with that of the books, where Hermione had to act on her own to protect her parents and deserves our sympathy for it. I think the attitude is troubling if you're really putting it across as the correct way to handle situations like this in real life, but it's a minor blip in canon. I think that fits much more in with the pattern that we've seen in the books that trying to explain that Hermione suddenly did for once decide that she needed to think about this angle and her parents naturally said sure, we'll potentially forget you forever while you go to your death--what parent wouldn't? That raises far more questions than it answers, imo, than Hermione just taking things into her own hand again. (Similarly, after 7 books of one characterization of Slytherin, I don't believe that in the epilogue I should think of them as nothing more than Yale to Gryffindor's Harvard.) Mary: They, in turn, allow her to spend more time with the Weasley's and Harry. They know what kind of daughter they have--very bright, magical, and determined. This plan may have been the best compromise they could reach that would keep them safe. Like it or not, Muggles have little protection against magical attack. Magpie: Including Hermione's. I don't see where you're getting the word "compromise" from. Basically, if Hermione died her parents become other people for the rest of their lives, and go on living in Australia just as the Muggles at the World Cup suddenly decide they have to go to Cleveland or whatever (though they might come back). I suspect a compromise--one that gave the slightest thought to the Grangers at all (by the author, that is) would have had a back-up plan if something happened to Hermione. She certainly doesn't speak about it as a compromise--she concentrates on her own problems by saying that if she dies she thinks she did the charm well enough that her parents will just stay that way forever and that's okay for her. Random: What about the possibility that neither of them thought of that? That it's not until they're halfway to Australia that Hermione finally thinks "oh CRAP, what happens if I'm killed?" - as smart as she supposedly is, she doesn't always think things through. Magpie: I know Hermione tends to forget stuff like that, but her dying seems to be what she's focused on most. That seems at the forefront of her mind. As I said, basically I think the Grangers are occasionally just inconvenient. JKR doesn't want to kill them because Hermione is supposed to have a normal family, but at the same time she needs Hermione to be as free as Harry. This winds up meaning the Grangers sometimes just get in the way and need to be gotten rid of or ignored. They're fine as long as you don't think too much about them. But if you are going to think about them, and want to keep them normal parents, I think Hermione taking things into her own hands is the only way that fits their behavior--and there's a precedent for it in canon already. -m From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Aug 14 14:31:07 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:31:07 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175377 Julie H: > It's a tangle. I still honestly don't know what > the author intends me to think about him in the end. houyhnhnm: Why does it matter what the author intends for you to think about a character? I mean outside of the text itself. Surely that's the reader's job, not the author's. JK Rowling created a fascinating imaginary world. She peopled it with characters and made them do and say various things. But it's up to me to decide what I think and how I feel about those characters. That's the way I approach the reading of fiction anyway. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Aug 14 14:30:11 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:30:11 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175378 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > lizzyben: > > > I just meant that in the > > > "Prince's Tale" chapter, every one of Snape's childhood memories > > > shows him doing something "bad" - from the nine-year old > > > dropping a branch on Petunia, to insulting Muggles, to defending > > > future Death Eaters. It's one of the places where I could almost > > > here the Author's Voice in the background saying "See, see, he > > > was a bad kid from the get-go!" Hickengruendler: The same author who had him save Harry's life already back in book 1, made him show signs of genuine shock, when Ginny was taken into the Chamber of Secrets, called him, through Dumbledore and Harry, very brave, made him try to save Remus Lupin's life and made sure, that his very last deed, giving Harry the memories while dying, was to help bringing Voldemort down. (In a moment, where he thought both he and Harry had to die, therefore this suggestscould suggest *some* caring for the world in general.) And, to bring some non books arguments into the play, the same author who wished him a Happy Birthday on her website for three years in a row, now. JKR knows how to write characters, who are simply, bad, bad, bad (look at Umbridge, for example), if she wanted to write Snape as such, she would have done so. > > SSSusan: > Wow. I hadn't even *noticed* that every one of the memories showed > Snape doing something 'bad.' So if JKR's intention was to say "See! > See!" and to forestall sympathy for Severus, it didn't work for me > that way either. In fact, I do NOT believe that was her intention > at all. Hickengruendler: I think the memories should be seen as two developments. At first, we see Snape getting worse. In the first childhood memory he isn't too bad. He insulted Petunia, but she insulted him first, and while it isn't a nice moment for Snape, it's nothing really damnable either, and he could have chosen another way easily, if he had seen his errors back then. Next memory, he already is a bit worse, using magic to "punish" Petunia, but it isn't really worse, than what the Twins did to Dudley, for example. Then we hear, that he became part of a gang of wannabe Death Eaters. Next chapter, we see him insulting Lily, his only friend, and it becomes pretty clear, that he used the "Mudblood" insult regularly towards any Muggleborn not named Lily Evans. He hits is ultimate low-point, when he makes a deal with Voldemort to spare Lily in exchange for James and Harry, which is, as Dumbledore correctly said, disgusting. But we also see a tiny glimmer of goodness in Snape even in this scene, not only because he still cared for Lily, but also because he admitted what he did in front of Dumbledore, and didn't seem particularly proud of it (compare this with Bellatrix' gloating after she killed Sirius, for example). From that point onwards, we see Snape getting a bit better every time (while still remaining a nasty teacher, admittingly). First, he agrees to help protect Harry, the very child, he wanted to sell out to Voldemort in the previous scene. It was still in remembrance of Lily, though, wanting to make sure, that her sacrifice was not in vain. Next time, we see him genuinely upset over the curse on Dumbledore's hand and the fact, that Dumbledore had to die, wishing, that Dumble's had come to him earlier. Than he is shocked, that Harry has to die, even though he still pretends it is all about Lily, which I'm not sure about at this point. Than we witness him saving Lupin's life, which has nothing to do with Lily at all. (In fact, Lupin is a character Snape hated.) Next time, he tells Phineas Nigellus not to call Hermione a Mudblood. And I will add his deathscene, even saw it wasn't a memory we witnessed. In that scene, he knew he had to die. He knew Lily was dead for a pretty long time, and he thought Harry had to die as well. *And he still gave Harry the memory, as Dumbledore wanted him to do.* That's nothing Snape had to do. It could not have been simply about Lily and her son. In fact, if it were simply about saving Harry, it would have been better not to give the boy the memories at all. Harry might die anyway, but as far as Snape knew, he definitely would have died after seeing the memories. So Snape had to have a different reason. There can IMO only be three explanations: 1.) He did it out of a favour for Dumbledore, whom he started to like over the years 2.) He did it to stop Voldemort, because he hated Voldemort and wanted to see him dead. 3.) He did it out of some general caring for the world in general, which he started to develop (to a degree) over the years. I personally think it is a mixture out of all three possibilities. Anyway, his very last deed, no matter what his reasons were, helped Saving the school and everyone from Voldemort, therefore bringing his development full circle. Hickengruendler From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Aug 14 14:35:49 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:35:49 -0000 Subject: Another angle on Hermione's parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175379 Arrgh. I tried to answer all of these in one post. > Pippin: > If I understand your argument, you're thinking the worst case scenario > for the Grangers is that Hermione will die and they'll never mourn their > daughter or return to their previous life, and you can't believe they'd > agree to it. They'd prefer the risk of dying under torture. Magpie: Or that I think they'd want a further back-up plan once Voldemort was gone even if Hermione was dead. They might have agreed to memory modification to protect her, it just seems that the way it's presented, *none of this stuff is an issue.* All this stuff about what the Grangers might think seems totally stuff that we are considering in the thread because it was brought up, without it being answered or even asked in canon. Hermione doesn't indicate that this was discussed at all, and neither Ron or Harry is inclined to ask about the Granger's pov. There's only one focus in canon-- what Hermione has done to protect them and herself and clear her life so that she can follow Harry. *She* did a memory charm so that they think they're other people and will go to Australia. If *she* dies *she* is pretty sure the charm will just continue to hold and they'll be happy. I don't think the Grangers know much at all. The story just seems written--and this is consistent with the way this sort of thing is usually handled--as Hermione taking care of this stuff with as little thought given to the Grangers as possible *because if we think about them we have to get into this stuff.* And I can accept it as that. I'm just not buying that all this thought went into it at all in canon when the attitude there has always consistently been to deal with Muggles however a Wizard sees fit. Pippin: > Lily was willing to die for her child, but you don't think the Grangers > would risk their careers and their memories to save theirs? Magpie: I think they certainly might. I don't think the book was written with any thought to that at all, and I see no reason to write it in because it seems far more in keeping wtih canon and with Hermione that she just took care of it while keeping her parents blissfully ignorant and not understanding. Pippin:> > I can see where you might think Hermione should have turned to > the Order instead of doing something on her own. But then she'd have to > explain *why* her parents are going to need special protection, and oops! > nobody is supposed to know that. Magpie: Well, she wouldn't have to tell them why--the Weasleys don't know. They just have a fake Ron. They could probably have been told about it after the fact, actually. But again, I just don't think this is an issue brought up in the book that I'm supposed to be solving. It brings up more questions than it solves. All the information for how this works seems far more straightforward in canon: Hermione thought this was best, it's all about Hermione, this is why we won't hear about the Grangers anymore, let's move on to camping around Britain. It's a lot simpler than way. Pippin: > It's not like she's pulling a young Dumbledore, (or a Lupin) yearning to > have adventures and save the world when she should be thinking of her > weaker family members. There really was a danger, and there really > wasn't anyone else who could have stepped into her shoes if she'd > refused to go with Harry in order to keep her parents safe. Magpie: No, I think she's presented as a right hero who sacrificed her own comfort of her parents for the cause. Pippin: > > Maybe you're thinking the Grangers would be just as resistant under > torture as their daughter. Magpie: Nope, the issue always pretty much seemed more about how to keep them away from anybody, not them standing up to torture. This is yet another thing that just raises more questions than it answers. We know that Voldemort can break through memory charms. If he were really after the Grangers, Hermione's sending them to Australia under a different name really shouldn't be much good at all given the powers at Voldemort's disposal. Perhaps Hermione ought to have charmed herself to forget them as well. So it's really best not to think about it. -m From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 14:52:25 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:52:25 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175380 > zgirnius: > I loved that about the memories, myself. My very favorite being the > inclusion of Snape's first meeting with Dumbledore. Yeah, Sev, way to > convince Harry you're a good guy - feature that scene where Dumbledore > is disgusted with you because you could not care less about James and > Harry. > > If Rowling intended the inclusion of the 'bad' elements to be a turn- > off, she failed with me. The memories have a confessional sort of > nature (they are far more information than Harry needs, and they tell > the story of Snape's life, really). And that they do not show Snape in > a completely perfect light makes them seem honest. Presumably those > memories, warts and all, were chosen within the story *by Snape*, > whatever reasons Rowling had for writing them. > lizzyben: Well, there's two levels here - the actual story itself, and the meta level. I'm pretty much sticking to the meta level, cause I find it so facinating. At the story level, Snape had reasons for including the memories he did, and it was quite touching - I loved that Snape, alone, finally provided Harry with the truth. And the fact that he gave all those memories did show a trust in Harry that Snape would have denied. He did care what Harry thought of him. I also totally sympathised w/poor Snape in those memories, and they did have a confessional quality - Snape confessing his sins to receive absolution. Combined w/"look at me" - it's Snape's plea to finally be seen and understood. I got that. It's touching. But on the meta level, it's horrible. Because, ultimately, it's JKR selecting those memories, and she's selecting those memories for a reason. There's an agenda here, IMO.(Warning: here's where this post stops making sense - this is just my reaction to the chapter). OK. There is a story here, but I felt like the author's dislike for the character got in the way of telling that story in an effective way. Because in this chapter, I could hear the Author practically screaming in my ear, and the author was saying "EWWWWW!" First, little Snape is always described in the most unflattering, off- putting possible way - he looks "greedily", he's watching Lily through the bushes like a stalker, he's wearing weird clothes & has dirty hair. EWWWWWW! He's pathetic, he's desperate for friends, but he's nasty and mean too. EWWWWW! At the age of nine, he's already a bad kid - he drops branches and wants Lily to be in (gasp) Slytherin! EWWWWW! He wants to be friends with Lily, but he's defending Mulciber! EWWWW! He's crying over Lily's letter, & ripping up a photo! EWWWWW! Even his love is twisted & wrong! And etc. By the time I reached the scene where DD/JKR tells pathetic, wretched Snape "you disgust me," I just wanted to rush into the story and say "OMG, OMG leave him alone already!" Those memories pounded in, again & again, that no, Snape actually had no inherent moral compass at all. And the break-up of the friendship was totally his own fault. And his love was obsessive and weird, because Slyths can't have normal relationships. And he hated Harry for no reason! And the only morals he ever got were from Lily & DD - his exposure to the golden glow of Gryffindor goodness diverted him from his natural selfish slimy Slytherin ways. And, most importantly, he didn't really change. Because people can't really change in this universe. Snape tries, he really tries, but he fails because of his naturally bad Slytherin character. It's a redemption story without a redemption. This is reinforced by the way Snape dies, and is left in the shack as worthless. How we never see any sign that Snape gets an afterlife (unlike the Elect). How Snape is never given forgiveness or absolution before his death. He is, still, judged by the Author as unworthy. >From a Calvinist perspective, Snape was damned from the moment he entered Slytherin house, actually from the moment he was born, & nothing he did could really change that. That's why each memory shows him doing something "bad", from nine years old - reinforcing the Calvinist message that he was effectively born bad. This is why we shouldn't feel bad when he is sorted to the House for bad children. Lily couldn't help him, nobody could help him, because no one can change who they are. (This goes back to the agonized child we're not supposed to help in King's Cross). It's a totally harsh & deterministic view of human nature, but that's what's offered. Basically, I've just been trying to figure out if Snape gets to go to heaven. And based on the cosmology of the Potterverse, it seems like the answer is no. That breaks my heart, for real. lizzyben From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Aug 14 14:54:42 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:54:42 -0400 Subject: Luna/Neville Message-ID: <000e01c7de83$0e7e78c0$5d62d1d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 175381 "Brett Hale": > I also felt this to be a wonderful revelation. I have always liked Luna L., and was hoping that she and Neville would link up. Maybe they did...we'll find out later, I suppose. Potioncat: >>JKR mentioned this in an interview, that a number of fans were pairing Luna and Neville. It caught her by surprise. But then, a lot of what we fans think surprises her. ;-) She sort of left it open, which makes me think she didn't have anything in particular planned. Personally, I sort of like her paired with Dean. (He makes it, doesn't he?) That is, Luna with Dean, not JKR with Dean.<< >From the live chat: Alicepie : What happend to luna, did she get married who to? J.K. Rowling: Luna became a very famous wizarding naturalist who discovered and classified many new species of animals (though, alas, she never did find a Crumple-Horned Snorkack and had, finally, to accept that her father might have made that one up). She ended up marrying (rather later than Harry & co) a fellow naturalist and grandson of the great Newt Scamander (Rolf)! CathyD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ladymela99 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 15:06:00 2007 From: ladymela99 at yahoo.com (Melanie) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Luna/Neville In-Reply-To: <000e01c7de83$0e7e78c0$5d62d1d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <405689.17115.qm@web30003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175382 >From the live chat: Alicepie : What happend to luna, did she get married who to? J.K. Rowling: Luna became a very famous wizarding naturalist who discovered and classified many new species of animals (though, alas, she never did find a Crumple-Horned Snorkack and had, finally, to accept that her father might have made that one up). She ended up marrying (rather later than Harry & co) a fellow naturalist and grandson of the great Newt Scamander (Rolf)! CathyD I wonder if Rolf went to school at Hogwarts. It seems odd that he would not have. Of course, he could have been considerably older than Luna. It just seems odd that we never heard of Rolf Scamander before. I think it's funny that JKR thought it out that much. ~Melanie --------------------------------- Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 15:38:17 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:38:17 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175383 > lizzyben: > > But on the meta level, it's horrible. Because, ultimately, it's JKR > selecting those memories, and she's selecting those memories for a > reason. There's an agenda here, IMO.(Warning: here's where this post > stops making sense - this is just my reaction to the chapter). > > OK. There is a story here, but I felt like the author's dislike for > the character got in the way of telling that story in an effective > way. Because in this chapter, I could hear the Author practically > screaming in my ear, and the author was saying "EWWWWW!" First, > little Snape is always described in the most unflattering, off- > putting possible way - he looks "greedily", he's watching Lily > through the bushes like a stalker, he's wearing weird clothes & has > dirty hair. EWWWWWW! He's pathetic, he's desperate for friends, but > he's nasty and mean too. EWWWWW! At the age of nine, he's already a > bad kid - he drops branches and wants Lily to be in (gasp) > Slytherin! EWWWWW! He wants to be friends with Lily, but he's > defending Mulciber! EWWWW! He's crying over Lily's letter, & ripping > up a photo! EWWWWW! Even his love is twisted & wrong! And etc. By > the time I reached the scene where DD/JKR tells pathetic, wretched > Snape "you disgust me," I just wanted to rush into the story and > say "OMG, OMG leave him alone already!" Montavilla47: LOL. Lizzyben, that's exactly the reaction I had! But, I wonder... I don't think that sequence was written for us (those who already love Snape and think the best of him). I think it was written for those who took the obvious reading from HBP--that Snape was a bad 'un. If Snape had been presented neutrally in the memories, it would have been too great a shock to the system. And, judging by the number of people who have posted here and other places that ZOMG! Snape was good all along! I understand that the chapter works intellectually. But emotionally, I was right there with you. lizzyben: > Those memories pounded in, again & again, that no, Snape actually > had no inherent moral compass at all. And the break-up of the > friendship was totally his own fault. And his love was obsessive and > weird, because Slyths can't have normal relationships. And he hated > Harry for no reason! And the only morals he ever got were from Lily > & DD - his exposure to the golden glow of Gryffindor goodness > diverted him from his natural selfish slimy Slytherin ways. And, > most importantly, he didn't really change. Because people can't > really change in this universe. Montavilla47: I guess I should have seen that coming since HBP, when we are shown that Voldemort was damned from before he was born, because of the way he was conceived. What tripped me up was that statement by Dumbledore that "it is our choices that show who we are." But I should have realized it. Choices "show" who we are. They don't "define" what we are. They don't "make" us who we are. They only "show" it. So, we already are who we are *before* we make the choices, and therefore we cannot choose to become someone else. lizzyben: > Snape tries, he really tries, but he > fails because of his naturally bad Slytherin character. It's a > redemption story without a redemption. This is reinforced by the way > Snape dies, and is left in the shack as worthless. How we never see > any sign that Snape gets an afterlife (unlike the Elect). How Snape > is never given forgiveness or absolution before his death. He is, > still, judged by the Author as unworthy. > > From a Calvinist perspective, Snape was damned from the moment he > entered Slytherin house, actually from the moment he was born, & > nothing he did could really change that. That's why each memory > shows him doing something "bad", from nine years old - reinforcing > the Calvinist message that he was effectively born bad. This is why > we shouldn't feel bad when he is sorted to the House for bad > children. Lily couldn't help him, nobody could help him, because no > one can change who they are. (This goes back to the agonized child > we're not supposed to help in King's Cross). It's a totally harsh & > deterministic view of human nature, but that's what's offered. > Basically, I've just been trying to figure out if Snape gets to go > to heaven. And based on the cosmology of the Potterverse, it seems > like the answer is no. That breaks my heart, for real. Montavilla47: I can't help but think the Snape went somewhere better than Heaven. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Aug 14 15:51:34 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:51:34 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175384 Lizzyben: (This goes back to the agonized child > we're not supposed to help in King's Cross). It's a totally harsh & > deterministic view of human nature, but that's what's offered. > Basically, I've just been trying to figure out if Snape gets to go > to heaven. And based on the cosmology of the Potterverse, it seems > like the answer is no. That breaks my heart, for real. Hickengruendler: The child hat nothing to do with Snape. It was part of Voldemort's soul. Voldmeort did it to himself through killing and splitting his soul. This soul could have been helped, while Voldemort was still alive. After death, it was too late, and other people can not undo, what Voldmeort did to himself. Hermione said it in the chapter with the ghoul and Harry said it again in the last chapter. It could have been saved by Vodlemort showing regret, because then the sould could heal. Voldemort didn't, and we are shown which fate awaits him, not for being a Slytherin, but for being an evil and remorseless murderer, who split his soul several times. Snape, in contrast, did show regret and truly repented, what he did. He went through the painful development, which Hermione mentioned. He therefore can hope for a much better afterlife, than the Voldemort baby. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 16:10:11 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:10:11 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175385 > > And Alla replied: > >> I did. He was you know, just being embarassed by being saved by a > >> girl and who would not call a girl who tried to save you a > >> Mudblood. Of course I am being sarcastic towards the argument and I > >> am paraphrasing not my argument. Judy: > > A question -- are you really saying that Snape was *justified* in > > calling Lily a Mudblood, Alla? Or are you saying that it was an > > forgivable mistake given the stress Snape was under at the time? To > > me, there's a difference. Alla: **I** was not saying any of those things, actually :) I was paraphrasing the argument which I saw several times to respond to last part of yours - that you did not see anybody trying to justify Snape's calling Lily a mudblood. Therefore if the argument in essense claims that it was a forgivable mistake, to me it is **still** a justification of Snape's calling Lily a mudblood. BUT that argument said pretty much what I paraphrased - no more no less - that Snape was stressed out and had no choice but to lash out at Lily, since it was so embarassing for him to be saved by a girl. I prefer not to guess what was meant - forgivable mistake or something else. That is why IMO it rebuts your assertion that nobody tried to justify that. Oy, I feel so wierd typing it, because I always do not feel comfortable talking about how fans argue, not what they argue, because in my experience even when something like that starts not as flame war, it can so easily became one, but I just felt that I have to clarify my words again. Let me stress it again, I have **no problem** whatsoever with anybody justifying any action of Snape or any other character. But do I think that Snape's actions gets justified much more than any other character **in general** ? Yes, I do. I see no problem with it, but I do disagree that it is not happening. Although I am sure Snape fans may feel the same about other characters and have many examples too. Nora: > She's responding to the last bit of your argument--she's saying that > she's seen *the argument* that it was a forgiveable mistake because > Snape was under a lot of stress. Alla: Exactly, Nora. From urghiggi at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 16:20:43 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:20:43 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175386 > Julie H: > > > It's a tangle. I still honestly don't know what > > the author intends me to think about him in the end. > > houyhnhnm: > > Why does it matter what the author intends for you to > think about a character? I mean outside of the text > itself. Surely that's the reader's job, not the author's. > JK Rowling created a fascinating imaginary world. She > peopled it with characters and made them do and say > various things. But it's up to me to decide what I > think and how I feel about those characters. That's > the way I approach the reading of fiction anyway. > Julie again: Why does it matter? good question. Frankly, it interests me more from an intellectual standpoint than an emotional one, I guess. I'm a writer too (in fact I do it for a living, but nonfiction) so the author's intention and results are of interest in terms of looking at the writer's craft. One thing that really actually interests me a good deal about this group is the amount of discussion that does seem to be generated specifically by ambiguity in the text, and passionate arguments based on interpretation of the ambiguity. I'm interested, I guess, in how much of that ambiguity is actually intentional (a reflection of authorial craft) and how much isn't (a reflection of authorial sloppiness.... or, just as likely, the author's own ambiguous ideas/feelings about the subject matter... or traits/notions within the writer that are not well understood even by the writer). When you have such an unusual amount of secondary canon, as with JKR, to me it becomes irresistible to look at those quotes, and how the author sees the work, and how that's consonant/dissonant with how I as a reader have responded to the work. All creative work reflects not only the writer's talents/imagination but also his/her world view. I'm interested in JKR's worldview because, as discussed here, she seems to prefer to write about some pretty deep stuff. Yes, yes, she's writing about Harry & Co. -- like all good writers, she didn't start out saying "this is my world view, I'm going to write some fiction to disseminate it." But the situations in which she puts her characters, and their response to those situations, at the very least reflect her interest in topics that must matter to some degree to her (life after death, choice vs. fate, race/class prejudice, etc). I enjoy a "cracking good story" as much as the next person -- but to me part of the enjoyment of any work like this -- something that clearly intends to be weightier than, say, an Agatha Christie mystery -- is pondering what the work does say about how the author views the world. For sure, this aspect becomes paramount to me on second and subsequent reads, if any, when basic questions about the plot have been resolved. If there's ambiguity in the work, to me it's interesting to try to figure out whether that stems from actual ambiguity in the author's world view, from an intentional authorial decision to leave a lot open to reader interp, or from the author's shortcomings in skill (in other words, the author had a clear intention to say "X", but the readers think the author said "Y" or "Z" or "X" but also "Y" or whatever.). But that's just some of what interests ME, about the Potterverse and many other works as well. YMMV. Whether it "matters" depends in part on personal interest/tastes, for sure. Julie H, chicago From mysweetdar at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 11:28:21 2007 From: mysweetdar at yahoo.com (mysweetdar) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:28:21 -0000 Subject: A Little Something about The Wedding In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40707310524w6b70daceue7b092b1c66beb8e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175387 > montims: > wizards have traditionally been described as smoking pipes (see > Gandalf, and a number of wizards and witches in HP smoke pipes. I > think you are reading too much it, and it is a particularly American > reading to imagine that there is just the one pipe. Besides, When the lynx popped in, to break up the party...That would have certainly killed their buzz--huh? lol mysweetdar From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 16:43:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:43:23 -0000 Subject: Sirius as Gryffindor (Was: good and bad Slytherins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175388 Julie wrote: > Still, it's obvious that Sirius did already have a sense of rebelliousness toward his family at age 11. We just don't know why. I think it is more for reasons of personal affront than for an overreaching general principle, though we are not likely to get the answer. It is notable though that Sirius said his favorite aunt was Andromeda, who was struck off the family tree when she married a Muggle-born. Sirius would have been a young child at the time, and that also could have had personal ramifications for him, not to mention that Uncle Alphard was apparently a renegade from the Black family ideology too. So Sirius was at least exposed to opposing views on the subject. Carol responds: Andromeda was Sirius's cousin, not his aunt. She's younger than Bellatrix (born in 1951 according to the Black family tree, which doesn't fit the canon that says she was part of the gang that little Severus joined when he got to Hogwarts) but older than Narcissa (born in 1951 according to the BFT and therefore the same age as Lucius Malfoy). So Andromeda was probably born in 1953, which would make her a seventh-year when Sirius arrived, and even if she married right out of school, he would have been about twelve years old, not "a young child" in the sense that I think you had in mind. It would have happened after, not before, he entered Hogwarts. "Dora" Tonks is about five years older than HRH, which suggests that she was born in 1975, when Andromeda was about twenty-two. Sirius would have been fifteen at that time. As for Uncle Alphard, he wasn't written off the family tree until he left Sirius money when sirius was sixteen. I see no evidence that Sirius at age eleven was at odds with his family, whose values he would have been raised with--and he was almost certainly educated at home. He has the same arrogant air as the rest of the family, and he never loses it. On the Hogwarts Express, he doesn't seem to have any preference as to Houses (except that he'd like to be in the same House as James). The decoration of his room and the adolescent rebellion comes *later.* He certainly did not have Gryffindor banners or posters of bikini-clad Muggle girls or a photo of the Marauders on his walls when he left for Hogwarts! Sirius sees two boys, one clean and well-cared for and confident, primed to be in a House he (James) associates with courage, the other greasy-haired and sallow-complexioned, wanting to be in Slytherin, which he associates with brains. Perhaps Sirius, whose parents are Dark wizards who keep jars of blood and poisons and serpent-shaped artifacts lying around, has a slightly better idea than Severus what Slytherin can teach, but I see no evidence that he has rejected it, only surprise that James doesn't think it's "all right." And then he says jauntily that *maybe* he'll break tradition. Had he not met James, the only thing that might have put him in Gryffindor (to this own surprise) would be that reckless streak which matches so well with James's mischievousness. At this time, Slytherin was not the House of Death Eaters and the HoH was the blustering and greedy but innocuous Horace Slughorn, who would have happily "collected" Sirius. Carol, not attacking Sirius, just stating that his choice to be in Gryffindor (if it *was* a choice) and his contempt for the equally young Severus had nothing to do with principle and everything to do with personality and choice of friends From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 17:23:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:23:49 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175389 lizzyben wrote: > > Oh, I definitely agree that Snape is portrayed as doing good things > throughout the course of the novels. I just meant that in the > "Prince's Tale" chapter, every one of Snape's childhood memories shows > him doing something "bad" - from the nine-year old dropping a branch > on Petunia, to insulting Muggles, to defending future Death Eaters. > It's one of the places where I could almost here the Author's Voice in > the background saying "See, see, he was a bad kid from the get-go!" > I almost felt like it was deliberately included to try to forestall > reader sympathy for this neglected little boy, & encourage us to see > him as a lost cause. And probably that's where my sympathy for Snape > arises. I mean, even the author doesn't love him or want him. Poor guy. Carol responds: I get a very different picture, not a bad kid but a lonely, abused child who identifies with and wants to be friends with the Muggle-born withch of his own age who's the only non-Muggle in his village besides himself and his mother. The tree branch is accidental magic (he doesn't have a wand yet) much like Harry's accidental magic at the same age and later--not on a par with blowing up his aunt but similar to releasing the boa constrictor or making Aunt Marge's brandy glass explode in her hand. He does lie about it, but it's because he's embarrassed and confused. These memories don't show a bad boy. They show an odd but eager little wizard trying to educate a little witch about the mysteries of the WW and Hogwarts. It's clear that Harry identifies with Severus's outsider status, with the way he's forced to dress, the neglect of his family, the abusive Muggle father figure, the bullying kids who reject him because he's different, the affection for his mother, the acceptance by the members of his own House. Many things become clear to Harry as he sees those memories. And one is that, while the teenage Severus chose what was easy over what was right, the twenty-year-old Snape reversed that choice and never went back. Harry, it seems clear, both understands and identifies with Snape after seeing his memories. There is, in face, nothing left to forgive. The pursuit of vengeance which had motivated him before, and perhaps was involved in the much-discussed Crucio of Snape's supposed follower, Amycus Carrow, simply falls away. BTW, Harry tells Ron and Hermione in detail (off-page) about his journey into Snape's memories. His reason for doing so? They "deserved the truth" (DH Am. ed. 746)--not only about Harry's walk into the forest and Snape's last message, but about Snape himself, whom Harry has already publicly vindicated. To me, the child Severus in the Pensieve is primarily a figure to be pitied, and I think that's how Harry sees him, too. He is, indeed, a plant left in the dark (image from SWM), his many talents unrecognized outside Slytherin and too easily led in the wrong direction when the girl he loved rejects him. (I'm not blaming Lily here, just trying to see Severus clearly.) He makes the wrong choice and follows his friends, adopting their ambition and becoming a Death Eater. But love for Lily and, later, anguished remorse for his role in her death, drives him *back* to the side of good, which he was on in the first place (pre-Hogwarts) and might have remained on had he been Sorted into Ravenclaw, the House of "brains" that he mistakenly thought Slytherin to be. (As for courage, I think that trait developed later, when he was about twenty, far too late to be Sorted into Gryffindor unless the Hat recognizes potential, as it seems to have done with Neville.) Carol, wondering what would have happened if Severus, James, and Sirius had not had their unfortunate encounter on the Hogwarts Express and the multi-talented Severus had ended up in the same dormitory with them From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Aug 14 17:28:08 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:28:08 -0000 Subject: FILK: The House of Slytherin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175390 This FILK is dedicated to Betsy HP. An owl is on wing with a bottle of vintage Elf-made wine for Caius Marcius for his help and encouragement. One Muggle version of the song can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRV9QCXLtHQ Tip Daily here with the Wireless Wizarding News Entertainment Moment. The newest trend has caught the industry by surprise, as hundreds of witches of all ages are dressing in black and singing a ballad about Severus Snape. A similar song was made popular a few years back by the singing sensation "The Animaguses." However, the ballad itself is very old and exists in many forms. The House of Slytherin There is a house in Hogwarts School. They call it Slytherin. It is the ruin of wizarding boys, When they are sorted in. My lover's heart was brave and true. 'Twas magic that he sought. Ambition sorted him that day And all else went for naught. He chose the House of Salazar. He made that grave mistake. Though others trembled at his strength, He lived and died by the snake The only fate for a Slytherin Is tragic, cruel and dark. His sole reward is to be enslaved By the whim of a burning mark Children when you go for your sorting And the Hat takes a look within Demand for yourself a different house If the Hat says Slytherin. There is a house in Hogwarts School They call it Slytherin It is the ruin of wizarding boys When they are sorted in. Potioncat From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 17:29:39 2007 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:29:39 -0000 Subject: Sirius as Gryffindor (Was: good and bad Slytherins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175391 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > At this time, Slytherin was not the House of Death Eaters and the > HoH was the blustering and greedy but innocuous Horace Slughorn, who > would have happily "collected" Sirius. It wasn't the house of Death Eaters, openly known as such, but it was the house of purebloods, especially people who think that lineage matters. As Neri pointed out**, it's always been the house of thinking that pure blood matters, back to the beginning. [I remember many speculations that we'd get some nuancing and mitigation on Salazar Slytherin's "Get rid of the Muggleborns, oh did I mention this horrific snake I left here?" position. Nothing in DH, so far as I could tell.] It's the house of Phineas Nigellus, who throws around the word 'Mudblood' (to which, to his credit, having learned better, Snape objects). I don't think it's a stretch to see an 11-year old already having problems with that kind of language and talk; it's no stretch to assume that would have been in the air with a household of those who both tended to be in and strongly identified with the iconography of Slytherin. ** http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175311 To quote Neri, who I agree with wholeheartedly here: "You don't see any Gryffindor or Ravenclaw family filling their houses with lions or badger motifs, the way 12 Grimmauld Place is filled with serpent motifs. In effect, Slytherin is identified with the racist ideology of the fanatic purebloods, with Salazar Slytherin as their prophet and house Slytherin as their youth indoctrination institution. It is not individual Slytherins who are bad. It is the ideology that Slytherin house has identified itself with." -Nora remembers these same arguments after the last book, and the book before, and... From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 17:45:54 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:45:54 -0000 Subject: Potter's Teacher's Edition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175392 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I must say the idea that there needs to be Teacher's Edition for > > DH is a bit funny. It's not like there's a deep lesson in > > there. The intended moral seems to be, "Nazis are bad" (thanks, > > Jo!). > >>Pippin: > How do you know there's not a deep lesson? Betsy Hp: Because I'm really, really smart. > >>Pippin: > Because there's an obvious message does that mean there can't also > be a more subtle one? Betsy Hp: No, not with a good writer. Which JKR isn't, unfortunately. I suspect that if pressed for the "subtle" message JKR would burble something about death. IMO, the actual "subtle" message (though I honestly don't think it's that subtle at all) is the "bigotry is where it's at!" message that snuck in while JKR was sending her check to Amnesty International. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Frankly, I don't buy Harry's little speech about Snape in the > > Epilogue. JKR doesn't sell it for me. I mean, yes it's there so > > it's canon, but it doesn't fit. > > > > But for some reason, JKR didn't feel that writing such a change > > would be interesting. > >>Pippin: > But she did write it! Betsy Hp: No, she didn't. She really, really didn't. Snape vomits up his memories and then dies. There's not one scene where Harry has to deal with an unpleasant man who's not evil. The unpleasant man is conveniently dead. Harry's self-satisfaction doesn't even wobble let alone fall down. > >>Pippin: > Harry is not an introspective character. He's an action hero. He > learns by doing, not thinking and what he does, all through canon, > is have experiences that echo and illuminate the Prince's Tale. > Betsy Hp: Harry is beautiful, athletic, rich, and a Gryffindor with the strength of the almighty Dumbledore behind him. Any suggestion that Harry knows how Snape feels is laughable, IMO. > >>Pippin: > How could he go through all that and *not* feel sympathy for > Snape? > Betsy Hp: He manages it for a couple of years at least. I think it's because he's stupid with very little natural compassion or empathy. Which is why asking me to believe Harry was suddenly hit in the head with the clue stick merely by watching Snape stalk his mother is asking a bit much of me, in my opinion as a humble reader. > >>Pippin: > It sounds like you're assuming the Trio must be intended as cuddly > heroes whose flaws are supposed to be the endearing sort that make > us love them all the more, only JKR totally misread what you're > willing to consider endearing. Betsy Hp: This is *exactly* how I think JKR expects me to feel. And hoo boy, but she failed as far as I'm concerned. > >>Pippin: > But I don't think so. Not since GoF at any rate. > > I think these are supposed to be dangerously gifted young people, > with admirable strengths, yes... Betsy Hp: I honestly cannot think of one thing about the Trio that I find admirable. Even within their own universe they're remarkably lacking. > >>Pippin: > ...but also with great big honking ugly flaws that make us tremble > for their humanity, flaws they can't be shown overcoming because > they will always have to struggle against them. Betsy Hp: Their flaws actually make me tremble for *JKR's* humanity because I get the impression she doesn't see them as flaws. As I said in a previous post, I think JKR created (especially with Harry) plaster saints that we're supposed to chuck under the chin and send on their way. Meanwhile I stand aghast at the immense amount of self- righteous, self-involved hate the Trio operate under. > >>Pippin: > "Harry held up the Elder Wand, and Ron and Hermione looked at it > with a reverence that, even in his befuddled and sleep-deprived > state, he did not like to see." Doesn't that make it clear enough > that Harry knows he and his friends bear watching? Betsy Hp: Pippin, Harry is an idiot. He's going to forget that moment the second something shiny crosses his path. Betsy Hp From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Aug 14 17:59:04 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:59:04 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175393 lizzyben: > But on the meta level, it's horrible. Because, > ultimately, it's JKR selecting those memories, and > she's selecting those memories for a reason. There's > an agenda here, IMO.(Warning: here's where this post > stops making sense - this is just my reaction to > the chapter). houyhnhnm: I think she did select those memories for a reason. Every memory contains a point of similarity between Snape's experience and Harry's, making it possible for Harry to identify with Snape. Snape is wearing weird clothes and has dirty hair. Harry had all his hair butched off and "spent a sleepless night imagining school the next day, where he was already laughed at for his baggy clothes and taped glasses." Some readers might have thought Severus hiding in the bushes watching the two sisters was creepy (I didn't). Harry may have remembered what it was like trying to work up his nerve to ask Cho to the Yule Ball. >>Didn't she /ever/ go anywhere alone? Could he perhaps ambush her as she was going into a bathroom<< Harry's father slurs Slytherin using the identical words Draco used to Harry about Hufflepuff. That can't be a coincidence. Harry's had plenty of experience at trying to impress a girl and botching it horribly, from dribbling food down his front to "Wangoballwime." He's also had a third party for whom he was not supposed to feel jealosy (Cedric), just as Snape has a sense of not having the right to come between Lily and her sister, intrude between himself and the object of his affections. He's put his foot wrong, made her cry and felt guilty over it. Harry has never experienced Dumbledore's disgust, but he feared it all the way through OotP when DD wouldn't look at thim. Moreover, Harry has a voice inside his head expressing its own disgust whenever he puts selfish interest first (his guilt over getting Arthur in trouble over the flying Ford Anglia for instance). He's had lots and lots of experience with feeling resentment at Dumbledore's refusal to tell him all the truth. So I don't think the author chose these particular memories to make Snape repulsive, but rather to make Harry's change of heart towards Snape, and especially his acceptance of the awful thing he had to do, convincing. On a personal level, I didn't find the portrait of Snape in "The Prince's Tale" repulsive at all, but rather very touching. That's probably because of the experiences I brought to the book. From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 17:59:31 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:59:31 -0000 Subject: Lily, Hagrid, Snape, Lucius, Friends (was Re: good/bad Slyth/Disappointment In-Reply-To: <331259.40797.qm@web86205.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175394 > Irene: > > > > Ron gets inside the circle after Sirius learns he is Harry's > friend. > > Before that Sirius could care less how frightened or injured Ron > gets. > > > > Lanval: > Where's the proof for that? > > Irene: > > What do you mean? It's all in PoA. Sirius broke to Gryffindor dorm at night, and stood at Ron's bed brandishing a knife. He broke Ron's leg. He wasn't in any hurry to explain to Ron that he isn't planning to kill either him or Harry. > Lanval: Yes, half-crazed Sirius broke into the dorm and brandished a knife at Scabbers. He probably did not care about whether he was frightening Ron, but I also don't think his plan included Ron waking up. It's the same when he scares Harry in Little Whinging as a dog. Sirius had to know that Ron was Harry's friend; he'd been watching them. I agree though that Ron's impassioned loyalty to Harry in the SS made him dearer to Sirius. About the leg -- it's not as if Sirius had taken a crowbar to Ron's leg and smashed it. *Padfoot* was pulling Ron into the tunnel, Ron wrapped his leg around a root, Padfoot (who couldn't see what was going on) pulled harder, and the leg snapped. And of course he wasn't in a hurry to explain himself. :) The plot required it. I know, it's a lame excuse, but it's all I have. > Lanval: > Well, then, show me -- moments of real kindness by Snape. Mind, > absence of malice does not count. I only picked moments where Sirius > does something actually kind, as opposed to just being "not mean', > or being civil. Nor do I mean earth-shaking, life-saving deeds. > > Snape? > > He once helps a distraught Narcissa into a chair. > > Irene: > > Look, I can see we are not going anywhere with that amount of irony in the above, but I'll give it another honest try. > He reassures Narcissa that in the world where everything seems to be stacked against her son, he will look after him. And Narcissa must by then have realised that lots of people whom she considered friends were only in it for Lucius' influence and/or money, so Snape's act is really one of personal kindness. Lanval: Possible. Though this is after DD tells Snape to keep an eye on Draco, who's going to try and kill him. But fine. Still, as you pointed out to me earlier, that's only one person, and a friend at that. Irene: > > Healing Dumbledore and Draco doesn't count? Fine. > > Does it count that he notices Neville being strangled in OoTP? Lanval: I thought we were talking kind moments? Stuff that's not required, or necessary, but that one does anyway, just because. Otherwise I would have included more for Sirius -- his breaking out of Azkaban to save Harry from Pettigrew, his rushing to save Harry at the MoM, his willingness to die for his friends. No, I think when it comes to earth-shattering, life-saving deeds in HP, Snape actually wins. The point I was trying to make only centered on the argument that Sirius was as mean to people as Snape. > Irene: > > Snape's list is quite short as well: Sirius, Remus, Harry and Neville. :-) > Lanval: My point precisely. It includes two children, both of whom were eleven when it began. > Lanval: > > Snape? Dislikes/despises the entire world, with the exception of > perhaps DD and the Malfoys. > > Irene: > > He is very good in hiding it then. In the end of HBP, he could have justifiably left a long trail of bodies behind: Flitwick, Hermione, Luna. He seems very determined not to harm them. In DH, not even Stupefy for McGonagall? Why, that's chivalrous. > Lanval: See above. Quite a few characters owe their life or limbs to Snape (especially during the time of DH), but I think that was for very different reasons than kindness (he either felt compelled to do good out of conviction, or because he gave DD his word that he would protect the school and the students, or both). And he probably *still* heartily disliked all of the above, after he spared/saved them. :) From juli17 at aol.com Tue Aug 14 18:02:32 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:02:32 -0400 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: <1187089386.2163.50460.m39@yahoogroups.com> References: <1187089386.2163.50460.m39@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C9ACB46BEF9AB0-FFC-1E34@webmail-db06.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175395 Lanval: Well, if that's what Alla wrote, then that's her opinion, and she has every right to express it. I'd like to get one thing straight: I think it's acceptable to "attack" characters, as long as it's reasonably supported by canon (yes, Snape's creepy obsession with Lily can be supported). And Snape being abusive to children... er, how is that totally unsupported? Julie: I just want to point out here that while the two positions above are reasonably supported by canon, it is also very possible and valid to argue against those positions using canon as support. For instance, Snape's creepy obsession with Lily. I don't see it. I know some fans have latched on to a couple of points to support this position, one being young Severus's "greedy" look as he watched Lily on the playground. That word is fraught with some negative connotations, but I took it here to simply mean Snape wanted something badly--the chance to be friends with Lily, another magical child with whom he could share his knowledge of that magical world and his joy at his (and her) future there (particularly poignant for Snape, whose life so far has been anything but joyous). I saw nothing sinister or weird in Snape's greedy look, partly because we know his future, so I don't think he was ever looking at Lily then or later like some kind of sexual predator. As for Snape being abusive, again there is a word with a very wide variety of meanings. Some fans, like Lupinlore, believe Snape committed "Child abuse" in the gravest meaning of the word (though even then it can go to much further extremes, like with Umbridge and horrific physical abuse done to children in real life situations). On the other end of the spectrum, some fans, myself included, do see Snape as a mean teacher, even a verbally abusive teacher, but do not see him committing actual child abuse. For me this is because while he's the stereotypical mean teacher kids recall with dislike, he is no more than that in these kids' lives, and his actions, while unpleasant at the time (and scary to some kids like Neville, who BTW was probably a bit frightened of McGonagall too), does not have a long-reaching effect on their lives IMO. (Granted Harry is a special case, but the relationship between Snape and Harry grows to become so complicated by their tied pasts and individual actions that it goes beyond a mere teacher-student relationship anyway.) BTW, this is not to say I nor I think most Snape fans approve of Snape's meanness as a teacher. In the real world, he'd likely be fired and rejected from any other teaching positions. He's not suited to teaching children. But neither is he a child abuser in anything approaching a criminal or seriously damaging sense, IMO. Lanval: But once we go off into Conjectureland, where we all like hang out from time to time, it gets harder to swallow when unfounded accusations are made. "Snape eventually became a DE, so he was most likely trying to kill Petunia with that branch" would be a good example. "Sirius despised Snape for his weird looks the moment he saw him" would be another. Julie: Again, IMO, many of the canon-supported arguments are still largely conjecture when it comes to defining a character's motives or intent, and when it comes to defining such complex terms as "greedy", "child abuser", "evil" etc, etc. Julie ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at gmail.com Tue Aug 14 18:00:12 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:00:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Joke's on Me In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708141100x451c629awb3a0a4cebc9dbd72@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175396 On 8/7/07, potioncat wrote: Did anyone outsmart themselves in DH? The time you knew at once what was going on and what was about to happen?. But to your surprise, it didn't? Not a disappointing moment, but a groaner moment that made you laugh at yourself. Maybe even a place where you half suspected JKR had just pulled one over on you. Then here's the place to confess it. _._,___ Debbie: Hehehe, I've been meaning to make my confession for some time now. My moment was the self-executing spell Harry's wand cast to evade Voldemort during the escape from Privet Drive, with Voldemort. I was 100% certain that Snape had manipulated Harry's wand to cast the spell -- so certain that I ceased at that moment to have any further doubts about Snape's loyalty. Then, reading The Princie's Tale, when I began to read Snape's memory of the same event, I was even more certain that the wonky wand action would be explained . . . and it wasn't. It wasn't even mentioned, only George and his ear. I was so convinced, though, that I didn't give up on my version of events even then. And when the explanation of the self-executing spell was given, I decided that I liked my version better. The official version gives me visions of renegade wands out there meting out rough justice in the Old West. And, really, the only purpose of that spell was to set Voldemort off on a quest for the Elder Wand; it didn't really matter whether he'd correctly guessed the reason why. Or us, for that matter, since it didn't really help (at least it didn't help me) to understand the intricacies of the Elder Wand's loyalties. Debbie right about Snape, but for the wrong reason [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 18:36:44 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:36:44 -0000 Subject: good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175397 Judy wrote: > The one exception is when he threatens Trevor the Toad. I know a lot of Snape-haters put a great deal of emphasis on the scene in PoA where Snape feeds Neville's potion to Trevor, but I've never been very affected by it. I guess it's partly because I have a hard time seeing myself getting attached to a toad (although I love animals in general), and partly because I always assumed that if Neville was so scared of Snape, Neville wouldn't have brought Trevor to class, and so the whole "Snape threatening to poison Trevor" thing always struck me as a bit of a plot hole. (Montavilla47, I did love your "You keep your toad in your room" line!) Carol responds: Just to add a point that I think a lot of people have missed with regard to this incident: the potion that Snape feeds Trevor is not a poison but a Shrinking Solution, and Snape, having seen Hermione helping Neville to get it right and that the potion is now green instead of orange, knows perfectly well that Trevor won't be harmed when he feeds it to him. And he has the antidote, as usual, in his pocket to restore Trevor to his normal form afterwards. Snape does not even mention the word "poison" until after he has seen the potion. He merely says, after pointing out the steps that Neville got wrong, "Longbottom, at the end of this lesson, we will feed a few drops of this potion to your toad and see what happens. Perhaps that will encourage you to do it properly (PoA Am. ed. 126). Yes, he's trying to scare Neville into following directions, both to undo the mistakes he's pointed out regarding leech juice and rat spleens (126) and in future lessons. No doubt he's tired of melted cauldrons and general ineptitude. And, yes, it wasn't very nice to resort to threateing to test the potion on Trevor, but as snape himself says, "What do I have to do to make you understand, Longbottom?" (126). Snape is using psychological coercion since point deductions and low marks haven't worked. But there was never any danger to Trevor, and Snape knew it. Carol, imagining Trevor escaping from Neville and jumping into a cauldron of bubbling potion and wondering what Neville was thinking in bringing him to that class in the first place From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Aug 14 18:43:44 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:43:44 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175398 Ceridwen: > > The whole world stopped to hear that Snape loved Lily, and Voldemort > > apparently had a heart-to-heart with him about other women afterwards. > > > > "He desired her, that was all," sneered Voldemort, "but when she had > > gone, *he agreed that there were other women, and of purer blood, > > worthier of him --*" (page 740 US, asterisks for attention, not > italics) > > > > Snape agreed - so Voldy must have talked with him. > > > > Weird. Potioncat: > But, when she had gone---so had Voldy. So when is this heart to heart > supposed to have happened? I think Voldy is not telling the truth in > this case. Ceridwen: I think he was. He was too sure, too confident, in my opinion. Not that this doesn't mean LV can't be lying through his teeth, projecting some idealized Snape that never existed. It's just that "he agreed" line. It lends veracity, to me. The heart-to-heart could have happened before he went, and that's the part he's lying about, or it could have happened when Snape returned at the end of GoF. Or any time after, really, but the most obvious to me would be the end of GoF when he apparently made a bunch of other excuses and explanations. Voldy might even have accused him of "leaving... forver" because of Lily, which would then bring on the "heart on the sleeve" comment to Harry from OotP. Heh. I think I've got it all mapped out now, to my satisfaction, at least. It was a lot better than the strangely warped timeline I'd been suffering under, where LV and Snape agree that there are purer blooded witches out there, then Voldy sends Snape to teach at Hogwarts. By the way, I didn't really catch this comment and start mulling it over until Sydney noticed it. To be fair, she did place Snape in his thirties, while I went off on some tangent. I was more noticing the whole world stopping just to listen to Harry playing Dumbledore to LV's Harry, and getting an earful of LOLLIPOPS for their patience. Ceridwen. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 17:59:27 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:59:27 -0000 Subject: DH and PS/SS In-Reply-To: <571909.69882.qm@web86201.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175399 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > > > > By god, you are right. This simplest explanation also covers some >other canonical conundrums, like why Sirius was not adequately >punished for the Prank, or why Dumbledore enjoyed pulling Snape's >chains so much in PoA. He just never liked him. Well, I think that DD and Snape had a layered and complex relationship. Once Snape started to work for DD, I think DD did come to respect him, and did have compassion for him. Did he ever *like* him? That is a vague word, and can mean different things to different people. Certainly Snape was not like a son to him, nor was he a devoted disciple or beloved pupil. Was he a *friend*? Once again that's a loaded word -- but I'd have to say, no. Rather they had a relationship that had some aspects of friendship -- namely the respect and compassion -- but also had a great deal of tension, disapproval, frustration, and sometimes outright anger. I do think that the fact DD deliberately announced the points in front of Snape and his House, and the fact that DD enjoyed pulling Snape's chain, was revealing, as was the brusque way he sometimes dealt with Snape (e.g. not looking up from his newspaper when Snape was complaining about Harry). On the other hand, DDs evident concern and respect for Snape are also important. But *liking* or *friendship*? I don't think we can go so far. As far as his relationship with Snape the student, see below: > > I wonder if as a child Snape didn't bring in Dumbledore the >memories of his own worst qualities as a child - quest for knowledge >without regard of how dangerous or dark that knowledge is. So >Dumbledore dislikes him in the same way Rowling dislikes Slytherin - >as a projection. > That is certainly possible. Of course, it's also the case that Snape was hardly a likeable child. Plus DD had another example of a child from Slytherin hungry for knowledge -- one Tom Riddle. Lupinlore From judy at judyshapiro.com Tue Aug 14 18:53:30 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:53:30 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175400 Alla: > **I** was not saying any of those things, actually :) I was > paraphrasing the argument which I saw several times to respond to > last part of yours - that you did not see anybody trying to justify > Snape's calling Lily a mudblood. Ah, OK, I see what you are saying now. I'm sorry that I misunderstood. I still see "justified" and "forgivable mistake" as two different things, though. Alla again: > Let me stress it again, I have **no problem** whatsoever with > anybody justifying any action of Snape or any other character. > But do I think that Snape's actions gets justified much more than > any other character **in general** ? Yes, I do. Actually, here I agree with you 100%. Snape's actions DO get justified more than those of any other character in the HP books. Why is that? Well, at least part of the reason is that he is a deeply ambiguous character whose behavior is open to many interpretations. People feel strongly about him, both for and against. The fact that some posters criticize him leads other posters to defend him, and conversely, the fact that some posters praise Snape leads other posters to attack him. So, I guess the real question is "Are Snape's fans *justified* in offering justifications for Snape's behavior?" I don't think we can resolve that question. -- Judy From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Aug 14 19:13:09 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:13:09 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175401 Julie again: > One thing that really actually interests me a good > deal about this group is the amount of discussion > that does seem to be generated specifically by ambiguity > in the text, and passionate arguments based on > interpretation of the ambiguity. I'm interested, I > guess, in how much of that ambiguity is actually > intentional (a reflection of authorial craft) and > how much isn't (a reflection of authorial sloppiness.... > or, just as likely, the author's own ambiguous > ideas/feelings about the subject matter... or > traits/notions within the writer that are not well > understood even by the writer). When you have such > an unusual amount of secondary canon, as with JKR, > to me it becomes irresistible to look at those quotes, > and how the author sees the work, and how that's > consonant/dissonant with how I as a reader have > responded to the work. houyhnhnm: Yes, I see. I'm not sure I have a lot of confidence in the answers she has given in interviews, many of which seem to have been carefully crafted to keep readers from guessing the ending. I think I might be more interested in reading what she has to say about the Harry Potter series after the distance of a few years, when she is no longer playing the role of JK Rowling megacelebrity. And even then, I have no way of knowing the degree of insight she possesses into her own conscious and unconscious intentions. Julie H: > If there's ambiguity in the work, to me it's interesting > to try to figure out whether that stems from actual > ambiguity in the author's world view, from an intentional > authorial decision to leave a lot open to reader interp, > or from the author's shortcomings in skill (in other words, > the author had a clear intention to say "X", but the readers > think the author said "Y" or "Z" or "X" but also "Y" > or whatever.). houyhnhnm: That is an interesting question for me, too. I have been thinking about that ambiguity and the passages in the book that address the question of truth. For example: "The truth," Dumbledore sighed. "It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution." Choose what to believe. [Harry] wanted the truth. Why was everybody so determined that he should not get it? So I have wondered if the ambiguity was intentional. Specifically, I have been thinking about the ambiguity in *all* the scriptures of the world and the way people have argued over their interpretation for thousands of years. Was it intentional on Rowling's part to echo that or did it just happen. Accidently on purpose? Consciously? Unconciously? Was she just being sloppy? Is she only a confused moral reasoner? I'm not sure we'll ever know and I'm not sure it matters to me. I construct my own meaning. I think that's what all readers have to do ultimately, regardless of the intent of the author. From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Tue Aug 14 19:18:15 2007 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:18:15 -0400 Subject: Character Given A Reprieve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C9ACBEFFB6731D-ED0-1F23@MBLK-M42.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175402 I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm upset with JKR about how she portrayed the character who got a reprieve.? It sounded to me as though she meant a character who was supposed to die *in the last book* would not die after all.? JKR said that Arthur Weasley was supposed to die in OoP -- how did he get a reprieve in DH?? I think that she was really misleading (possibly deliberately misleading...) in order to confuse the fans. IMNSVHO (in my not so very humble opinion lol), it does not count as a book seven reprieve if Arthur received it in book five. Oryomai Snape lives. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lfreeman at mbc.edu Tue Aug 14 19:28:52 2007 From: lfreeman at mbc.edu (Freeman, Louise Margaret) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:28:52 -0400 Subject: FILK: Gran's on the Run Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175403 My first Filk. To the tune of "Band on the Run" by Paul McCartney and Wings [Neville, bruised and battered, gazes forlornly out the window of the Room of Requirement] NEVILLE: Stuck inside a dark Hogwarts. Stuck here with the Carrows. Never seeing no one nice again like you Granny, you? Granny, you? [Musical interlude, as other DA members gradually enter room. Neville becomes less melancholy and more agitated, and begins pacing room] NEVILLE: If I ever get out of here Gonna get me some Devil?s Snare Gonna use it on Bellatrix. I gotta buncha new hexes to share If I ever get out of here! ALL: If we ever get out of here! [Musical interlude, during which an owl flies through the window, dropping a letter in Nevilles? lap. He opens it, reads, initially looks shocked, then breaks into a grin, leaps onto a chair and sings to group.] NEVILLE: Well. they knew I was leading an army of kids after Luna and Ginny fell. They thought if they took hostages, resistance they could quell. Gran?s on the run! Gran?s on the run! Augusta fought! They musta thought, she?d crumble like a leaf, but now Gran?s on the run! Gran?s on the run! Gran?s on the run! Gran?s on the run! They sent one lone Death Eater to capture her, sweet old lady meek and mild Who minded her manners in her vulture hat and raised her ?Squib? grandchild. Gran?s on the run! Gran?s on the run! She called out, and the Dawlish lout, is lyin? in St. Mungo?s! And now Gran?s on the run! Gran?s on the run! ALL: Gran?s on the run! Gran?s on the run! Gran?s on the run! Gran?s on the run! NEVILLE: Well, I got a letter telling me she?s proud I?m breaking the Carrows? rules! In this Room we?re hiding and we?ll keep on fighting till we lib?rate Hogwarts School! ALL: Gran?s on the run! Gran?s on the run! NEVILLE: (slower) I won?t be sad, I?m like my dad, to capture Death Eaters! with my .. ALL: Gran on the run! Gran on the run! Gran on the run! Gran on the Run! Louise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Aug 14 19:57:29 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:57:29 -0000 Subject: Character Given A Reprieve In-Reply-To: <8C9ACBEFFB6731D-ED0-1F23@MBLK-M42.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175404 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, SnapesSlytherin at ... wrote: > > > I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm upset with JKR about how she portrayed the character who got a reprieve.? It sounded to me as though she meant a character who was supposed to die *in the last book* would not die after all.? JKR said that Arthur Weasley was supposed to die in OoP -- how did he get a reprieve in DH?? I think that she was really misleading (possibly deliberately misleading...) in order to confuse the fans. > > IMNSVHO (in my not so very humble opinion lol), it does not count as a book seven reprieve if Arthur received it in book five. Hickengruendler: Here is what she said. "Jo: The final chapter is hidden away, although it has now changed very slightly. One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die ... Judy: Two much loved ones? Jo: Well, you know. A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure evil. They don't target the extras do they? They go for the main characters, or I do." >From here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2006/0626-ch4- richardandjudy.html So she was talking about the final chapter and how she had to change it somewhat, because of the reprieve. I'm not sure if she meant chapter 36 or the epilogue (probably the epilogue), but Arthur is mentioned in both. She did not say, that the character reprieve was specifically from book 7. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 20:01:46 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:01:46 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175405 > lizzyben: > > Well, there's two levels here - the actual story itself, and the > meta level. I'm pretty much sticking to the meta level, cause I find > it so facinating. > lizzyben: > But on the meta level, it's horrible. Because, ultimately, it's JKR > selecting those memories, and she's selecting those memories for a > reason. There's an agenda here, IMO.(Warning: here's where this post > stops making sense - this is just my reaction to the chapter). zgirnius: I get that there are different levels - I'm not sure what the word meta means in this context (math major here...) but judging from the rest of your post, I get a different sort of meta idea about the Prince's Tale chapter and Snape in general than you do. > lizzyben: > OK. There is a story here, but I felt like the author's dislike for > the character got in the way of telling that story in an effective > way. Because in this chapter, I could hear the Author practically > screaming in my ear, and the author was saying "EWWWWW!" First, > little Snape is always described in the most unflattering, off- > putting possible way - he looks "greedily", he's watching Lily > through the bushes like a stalker, he's wearing weird clothes & has > dirty hair. EWWWWWW! zgirnius: The greedy look is still the old Harry filter game, if you ask me (for the last time, because in this chapter Harry finally changes his mind about Snape). Harry has not been won over yet at this point, this is the very first memory he sees, a memory he tells himself he is willing to watch only because being in anyone else's head, *even* Snape's, has got to be better than thinking about what he has just seen (the deaths of Fred, Lupin, and Tonks confirmed). Lily and Harry are described in the next chapter as 'feasting' on each other with their eyes, which I agree is a more positive description, but I think they denote the same sort of emotion of longing. She's played this game before (Harry in "The Cave", Snape's expression of hatred and revulsion in "The Lightning Struck Tover" being a prominent example). "The Prince's Tale" while being a collection of Snape's own memories, has neither a pro-Snape nor a dramatic narrator. It is the usual narrator that has the occasional tinge of Harry's views and prejudices. The weird clothes and dirty hair confirm the suspicions we may have harbored since OotP that Snape was, at best neglected by his parents (based on the memory of the yelling couple, Snape alone shooting flies in the dark room, and the greying underpants). I really do not believe that Rowling included that as a negative and a result of her dislike of the character. On the contrary, it is, in my view, important information she wants us to have and know about the circumstances of boy!Sev. (I consider her response to an interview question about why Snape has greasy hair post DH, another indication that she does not consider this feature a mark of Snape's inferiority - she answered that perhaps he cared more about other things). And his wanting Lily as a friend, before she can have had any influence on him, is in my opinion a sign that we are *not* supposed to view him as already, or intrinsically, 'bad'. Her appeal to him is not entirely and exclusively her magic, as I read those scenes, which shows he valued aspects of her personality - her happiness, her open, loving nature, etc. > lizzyben: > He's pathetic, he's desperate for friends, but > he's nasty and mean too. EWWWWW! zgirnius: So he should have been friendly and well-socialized in order to avoid the supposed Calvinist message here? Then he would not have needed a friend.... > lizzyben: > At the age of nine, he's already a > bad kid - he drops branches and wants Lily to be in (gasp) > Slytherin! EWWWWW! He wants to be friends with Lily, but he's > defending Mulciber! EWWWW! zgirnius: See, I don't think we are supposed to EWWW over Snape wanting Lily to be in Slytherin (which is really, Snape expecting to be in Slytherin himself). Rowling deliberately (I believe) gave James the same line as she gave Draco in PS/SS, about going home if he were sorted into Slytherin (Hufflepuff, in Draco's case). So to me the authorial voice was not condemning Snape for this wish at all. His 'bad act' with Tuney's letter is one Lily shares in, she was equally curious once she knew the letter existed (Snape told her about the envelope). Mulciber, Mudblood, and the failed apology are supposed to be worse, IMO, showing us a slide down from where he started. > lizzyben: > He's crying over Lily's letter, & ripping > up a photo! EWWWWW! Even his love is twisted & wrong! And etc. By > the time I reached the scene where DD/JKR tells pathetic, wretched > Snape "you disgust me," I just wanted to rush into the story and > say "OMG, OMG leave him alone already!" zgirnius: It is a really subjective thing. I *loved* it when Dumbledore said that to Snape. Absolutely, kicking my heels against the mattress and squeeling with glee, love. And, for the record, Snape has been a favorite of mine from the start, eclipsing Hermione at the top of my list after HBP. I really don't think the story of Snape is supposed to be one of being born damned, and living out life that way. It is a story of a fall and a redemption. And you get a more powerful redemption story if the fall is great. "You disgust me" was telling us that rock-bottom for Snape had been going to Voldemort and asking for Lily's life. And from there the memories represent an upward climb. > lizzyben: > And his love was obsessive and > weird, because Slyths can't have normal relationships. zgirnius: This is the same love that generated the Doe Patronus so eloquently and beautifully described in the chapter named after it, a chapter and description written by the same author. I *really* think we are supposed to believe that Snape's love of Lily was something beautiful and ennobling. Snape's relationship to her throughout Harry's schoolyears is not 'normal' - but that would be because she is dead. A non-Snape aside - Slytherins can and do have normal relationships - that is the story of the Malfoy family and Draco's friendship with Goyle in DH. The Malfoys individually and collectively made all sorts of evil choices, but a core motivation for all of them was love of one another in a very normal and touching family and friends sort of way. At least, this was the story as I read it. And on a meta level, I feel this is why they all survive, avoid Azkaban, and we see Draco and young Scorpius being a normal father and son on Platform 9 3/4 in the Epilogue. Love saves them, and not love for shining Gryffindors, either. > lizzyben: > And he hated > Harry for no reason! zgirnius: Rowling, based on her interview comments, clearly has more of a problem with that than I do, I must agree with you there. Then again, she clearly likes Harry a whole bunch more than I do as well. (I do like him, in case anyone is wondering, there are just a slew of characters I like better). > lizzyben: > And the only morals he ever got were from Lily > & DD - his exposure to the golden glow of Gryffindor goodness > diverted him from his natural selfish slimy Slytherin ways. zgirnius: As I already stated, I disagree that it was her intent to portray 9 year old Snape as naturally slimy and selfish. Lily and his love for her absolutely had a transformative effect on Snape - but since this is Harry's story, having Snape love a Slytherin girl, etc. etc. would hardly fit in with the overall scheme - it had to be Harry's mom, and she had to be a Gryffindor for any number of reasons, including the one that if she *had* been a Slytherin, I think she and Snape would have ended up together . Mulciber et al would have had far less pull on Snape. > lizzyben: > And, > most importantly, he didn't really change. Because people can't > really change in this universe. Snape tries, he really tries, but he > fails because of his naturally bad Slytherin character. It's a > redemption story without a redemption. This is reinforced by the way > Snape dies, and is left in the shack as worthless. How we never see > any sign that Snape gets an afterlife (unlike the Elect). How Snape > is never given forgiveness or absolution before his death. He is, > still, judged by the Author as unworthy. zgirnius: But he does change. Rowling shows him change. As far as his death and what it is supposed to mean, a lot of this is hugely subjective. I loved Snape's death, I loved that it was awful, and obscure, and random, and that the closest he got to pre-death forgiveness/ absolution/ what have you was that Harry complied with his final request ("Look at me".) Oh, he also died not knowing for sure that Harry would act on the information Snape brought, and (if it mattered to him, which I believe it did) not knowing that Harry would actually *survive* that encounter and triumph anyway, yet another sad thing about the death. And then that final miserable year of his life, appearing to murder Dumbledore, watching Prof. Burbage killed in front of his eyes, being the hated symbol of the new administration at Hogwarts, having noone but a couple of talking portraits for company, his ignominious booting from the school, was all awful as well, absolutely, it chokes me up to think about it all. But Snape went ahead, did his dangerous tasks, and kept his commitment in spite of all that - the same guy who (presumably) became a Death Eater to be part of something bigger, with friends who appreciated him and gave him respect. If that was not a change, and a big 180 one at that, I don't know what would be. If Snape had somehow been accepted in life before he gave Harry the message from Dumbledore, or if the spirit of Lily had appeared and thanked him, or some such, his achievement would have been (in my eyes anyway) lessened. > lizzyben: > It's a totally harsh & > deterministic view of human nature, but that's what's offered. zgirnius: It is what is offered in your opinion, naturally. I got a rather more hopeful message out of it. (I do find predestination a depressing idea too). Snape loved and was loved, by exactly one person, ever, and because of his (his, not hers, not Dumbledore's) choice to honor that side of himself, he was enabled to make enough of the right choices from there on in to make his own significant contribution to the victory of Good at the end of the series. > lizzyben: > Basically, I've just been trying to figure out if Snape gets to go > to heaven. And based on the cosmology of the Potterverse, it seems > like the answer is no. That breaks my heart, for real. zgirnius: Rowling wisely (IMO) does not go into the details of the Potterverse afterlife - from what is written in the books we cannot decisively conclude what variety of dispositions may be available for departed souls, nor where individual departed souls now are. We do not know that Lily, the Reduced Marauders, and Dumbledore are in Heaven any more than we know that Snape is there. The Resurrection Stone brings back the first four mentioned in some form (described as like Riddle's memory self, a person whose final disposition we would have to imagine to be the worst available) because they are Harry's loved ones, not because they are the ones in Heaven. We see Dumbledore in Harry's near-death experience in "King's Cross", as well as, apparently, Tom Riddle again. If those are the two alternatives, we may conclude from canon that Snape shares Albus's fate, and not Tom's. Remorse is key, this is mentioned at a couple of different points in the book, and Tom is incapable of it. Snape (and Dumbledore) had it. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 14 20:05:06 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:05:06 -0000 Subject: Killing Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175406 "potioncat" wrote: > Did the resolution work? In that > period between putting the book down > and picking it up, what were you > hoping/expecting would happen? I always thought Harry would probably die but suddenly at the bottom of page 687 I felt certain that he would, but I was no longer certain that was a good idea. I suppose Harry felt pretty much the same way I did about it. In a way we got the best of both worlds with many of the powerful emotions we readers would have had if Harry died but without him actually dying. The real beauty of the book is that if you want Harry dead you can have him dead, just rip out the last 53 pages of the book so that the entire Potter saga ends on page 704 with the words "He saw the mouth move and a flash of green light, and everything was gone." What sort of reception do you suppose the book would have received if JKR hadn't written those last 53 pages? Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 20:02:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:02:59 -0000 Subject: There it goes again! Objectivity out the window. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175407 Carol earlier: > > Either you like the Marauders, empathizing with Sirius, who went after Peter Pettigrew to avenge James and ended up spending twelve years in Azkaban and later rattled around his parents' hated house drinking and feeling depressed, or it turns your stomach every time he calls Snape Snivellus while Snape (who returns his animosity with cool sarcasm) is out risking his life for Harry and DD (and, as it turns out, Lily), atoning for his past mistakes while receiving little praise or gratitude and no affection (except, occasionally, from DD). > va32h: > Is Sirius hiding in 12GP, drinking and being depressed because that's his choice? Or is he stuck in 12GP because his status as a wrongly accused and falsely condemned murderer makes it impossible for him to contribute to the Order outside of 12GP? > Do you really think so little of anyone but Snape that you don't think Sirius would be out there, risking his life, if he had the freedom to do so? Carol responds: Of course, it wasn't his choice to stay in that house, any more than being a basket dangling on Voldemort's arm is Snape's. Both or them are acting on DD's orders (which they could choose to disobey, but, since they're trying to do what's good for the Order or for Harry, they don't--at least until Black joins the Order to help rescue Harry after Snape has informed them of his danger). I was giving the reasons why I think some readers prefer Sirius Black and feel sorry for him and why others, including me, feel sorrier for the young Snape and prefer his form of bravery to Black's. I was acknowledging that none of us is objective in our preference for one character over another. If you want my objective view of Sirius Black, whom I merely said did not choose Gryffindor based on principle but for reasons as childish as Severus's choice of Slytherin, please read my other posts. va32h: > And can we PLEASE not forget that from the time of Voldemort's > downfall to the time of his rebirth, Severus Snape did NOTHING dangerous or risky. He says so himself in HBP: "I had a comfortable job that I preferred to a stint in Azkaban...Dumbledore's protection > kept me out of jail; it was most convenient and I used it." Carol responds: We don't know that. DD asks him to protect Harry from the moment Snape expresses his grief and remorse over Lily's death. He has already spied for DD "at great personal risk" and he now knows that Voldemort will return. I wouldn't take what Snape tells Bella in "Spinner's End" as truth. Certainly, he has kept up his contacts (and friendship) with the Malfoys during those years--quite possibly having it both ways as long as he can, watching and waiting. But we know where his loyalties really lie. As for Black, of course, he was in Azkaban, but forgive me for mentioning that if he hadn't gone after Pettigrew himself, he'd never have ended up there. And DD's protecction didn't keep Snape out of "jail" (actually, prison--an editing slip here, IMO)--he had *already* been cleared of all charges because he had "spied for our side at great personal risk"--not exactly a piece of information that he wants to give Bella, to whom he implies that he used the Imperius plea as Malfoy, Yaxley, and the others did. Once snape had been cleared, there was no chance at all of his going to Azkaban. Not even the corrupt WW ministry tries someone twice for the same crime. va32h: > And don't try to argue that Snape is just lying because he's talking to Bellatrix. ,snip> Carol: But that's exactly what he *is* doing, as I've just shown. He's telling her the exact story that he told LV. "hoodwinking" the greatest Legilimens of them all through his superb Occlumency, suppressing interesting little details like sending the Order to the MoM and stopping the curse in DD's hand. va32H: But let's not > pretend that Snape devoted his entire adult life to risking it on behalf of Lily and Harry. He devoted 4 years at most (1 year pre- Godric's Hollow, 3 years post GoF.) Carol responds: I'm making no such pretense. But that he did risk his life both before GH and from the end of GoF till his murde by Voldemort, is canon. My point in the post to which you're responding was solely that some readers see Sirius Black as a romantic, tragic hero and victim with whom they can identify. Others identify more with the sarcastic, unacknowledged anti-hero Severus Snape. It's a matter of taste and preference. There is no right or wrong and objectivity, as we're both illustrating, is equally difficult for both sides. va32h: > So could we possibly conclude that Sirius and Snape are at a draw in terms of bravery? One suffered while the other one lived in relative peace and vice versa? Why must one be "better" than the other? Why can't both men be just as praiseworthy, (or condemnation worthy). Carol: I am not trying to argue that one is braver than the other, merely to explain why some readers are drawn to one character rather than the other. You are illustrating why some readers like and admire Sirius Black. I am sorry that I don't share your affection for him, but I do understand why you feel as you do. I would hope that you, while not sharing my affection for Snape, would understand and respect that affection and, yes, admiration, for a flawed man who was most assuredly not a saint. As or suffering, I'd say that both of them suffered throughout their adult lives, but Black is the winner there, with a twelve-year stint in Azkaban trumping self-imposed bitterness and remorse. But the mind is its own place and can make a hell of heaven or a heaven of hell, and Snape's life, especially when he was continually risking it or pretending to be a DE and enduring the hatred of his own staff in his last year, was no picnic, either. For the record, I, too, am in favor of objectivity, but I think perhaps we should all acknowledge that it's difficult to achieve. Carol, who knows perfectly well that Black would have preferred fighting openly for the Order and who was giving his being forced to stay in his parents' house as a reason why readers feel sorry for him, not as a reason to blame or dislike him From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 14 20:02:47 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:02:47 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily, Hagrid, Snape, Lucius, Friends (was Re: good/bad Slyth/Disappointment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C20A67.6090601@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175408 Lanval wrote: > Yes, half-crazed Sirius broke into the dorm and brandished a knife > at Scabbers. He probably did not care about whether he was > frightening Ron, but I also don't think his plan included Ron waking > up. It's kind of hard to kill a rat sleeping in someone's bed without waking that person up. :-) And what if the rat started to ran around the bed, would he still care about Ron getting injured? >> Irene: >> >> Snape's list is quite short as well: Sirius, Remus, Harry and > Neville. :-) > > Lanval: > My point precisely. It includes two children, both of whom were > eleven when it began. OK, time for a confession. We all bring our own experiences and projections to the books anyway, and I'm very conscious about mine. I had some mean teachers, of any shape and form - from just generally strict and sarcastic, to really unfair and cruel, one of which was targeting me personally. None of them has left even a scratch on my self-confidence. And I also had some bullying classmates, who had brought me into a deep depression and to a point of seriously contemplating suicide. So, whatever Rowling writes, or whatever we say to each other in thousands of posts, *for me* James and Sirius, the golden bullies, will be much worse figures than Snape, the terror of the dungeons. You mileage may vary and I'm perfectly OK with that. > > >> Lanval: >> >> Snape? Dislikes/despises the entire world, with the exception of >> perhaps DD and the Malfoys. >> >> Irene: >> >> He is very good in hiding it then. In the end of HBP, he could > have justifiably left a long trail of bodies behind: Flitwick, > Hermione, Luna. He seems very determined not to harm them. In DH, > not even Stupefy for McGonagall? Why, that's chivalrous. > Lanval: > See above. Quite a few characters owe their life or limbs to Snape > (especially during the time of DH), but I think that was for very > different reasons than kindness (he either felt compelled to do good > out of conviction, or because he gave DD his word that he would > protect the school and the students, or both). And he probably > *still* heartily disliked all of the above, after he spared/saved > them. :) I don't know, it's probably some deep difference in the attitude to life, universe and everything. :-) I remember having this argument before - people saying that Lupin putting lives in danger does not matter that much, because he is kind, likes Harry and speaks softly, while Snape deeds are not enough to redeem him, 'cause he is mean. For me deeds just matter more than words, and having the "right" motivation for the deeds matters even less. Remember what Aberforth said about Dumbledore? Something to the tune of how many people Albus cared about ended up dead? Well, it's opposite with Snape - if so many people he allegedly hated and despised ended up owing his life to him, he can't be all that bad? He even saves Lupin, whom he has every reason to hate. Even after Dumbledore tells him he should be very convincing in that raid. And coming from Dumbledore it probably equals to "Severus, I won't hold it against you if you kill a read-shirt or two". I'm not a great fan of AD after book 7, if you couldn't tell. :-) Irene From taylorlynzie at gmail.com Tue Aug 14 20:38:26 2007 From: taylorlynzie at gmail.com (taylorlynzie) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:38:26 -0000 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175409 You have a good point here, however I think there may have been more people in on the "Child Torture" and she would of had to do a lot more Imperius curses in order to get away with such a thing. It may also be possible that the MOM was doing check up on Hogwart's to make sure that all their biddings were being done. Plus, it wasn't quite "the war" yet and McGonnagle didn't want to start using unforgivables too soon. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 21:37:12 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:37:12 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175410 houyhnhnm: I think she did select those memories for a reason. Every memory contains a point of similarity between Snape's experience and Harry's, making it possible for Harry to identify with Snape. So I don't think the author chose these particular memories to make Snape repulsive, but rather to make Harry's change of heart towards Snape, and especially his acceptance of the awful thing he had to do, convincing. On a personal level, I didn't find the portrait of Snape in "The Prince's Tale" repulsive at all, but rather very touching. That's probably because of the experiences I brought to the book. lizzyben: Yeah, I warned that my reaction didn't make sense, but I felt a need to get it out there for some reason. I perhaps didn't find Harry's sudden (mostly off-page) change of heart as convincing as you did, but I agree that there was enough in the memories for Harry to identify w/Snape. And it's great that Harry accepts Snape as a man of bravery & great love - enough to name his child after him. But weirdly, IMO, there wasn't enough for many readers to feel the same way. It's almost like JKR planned a Snape redemption/reversal story & couldn't bear to write it? There's some gaps there, IMO. If Lily loved him, I'd have liked to have seen evidence of that in the memories. IMO it isn't really there. Carol responds: I get a very different picture, not a bad kid but a lonely, abused child who identifies with and wants to be friends with the Muggle- born witch of his own age who's the only non-Muggle in his village besides himself and his mother. The tree branch is accidental magic (he doesn't have a wand yet) much like Harry's accidental magic at the same age and later--not on a par with blowing up his aunt but similar to releasing the boa constrictor or making Aunt Marge's brandy glass explode in her hand. These memories don't show a bad boy. They show an odd but eager little wizard trying to educate a little witch about the mysteries of the WW and Hogwarts. lizzyben: I totally agree w/you. And I don't think Snape was a bad kid, either. Nor do I agree that people are simply "born bad" w/o real choices - the whole concept of predetermination goes against everything I believe in. I do think that JKR is putting across a certain view of Snape, but we certainly don't have to agree with it anymore than we have to agree w/how much she likes Dumbledore or Harry. > Montavilla47: > LOL. Lizzyben, that's exactly the reaction I had! But, I wonder... > > I don't think that sequence was written for us (those who already > love Snape and think the best of him). I think it was written for > those who took the obvious reading from HBP--that Snape was a > bad 'un. If Snape had been presented neutrally in the memories, > it would have been too great a shock to the system. lizzyben: At least I'm not alone! It does seem like the "bad Snapers" like the ending more than the "good Snapers" - probably because it did come as surprise & they may have had less invested in the character. > Montavilla47: > I guess I should have seen that coming since HBP, when we are > shown that Voldemort was damned from before he was born, > because of the way he was conceived. > > What tripped me up was that statement by Dumbledore that > "it is our choices that show who we are." > > But I should have realized it. Choices "show" who we are. They > don't "define" what we are. They don't "make" us who we are. > They only "show" it. So, we already are who we are *before* > we make the choices, and therefore we cannot choose to > become someone else. lizzyben: I should have seen it coming with the character names. Now really, how could a family named "Mal"foy ever be anything but bad. Poor little "Mal"colm "Bad"dock is doubly bad - in two languages, yet! Severus Snape sounds like a snake - evil! Slytherin sounds vaguely foreign & suspicious - evil! Even Crabbe & Goyle sound like species of bugs. Everything about it screams out to us that these characters are DOOMED to bad guy status from the moment they were named. It's like Snidely Whiplash & Dudley Do-Right all over again. From the outset, you know that Snidely Whiplash is not ever going to be the hero of the cartoon. He's got an evil name; that says it all. > Montavilla47: > I can't help but think the Snape went somewhere better than Heaven. lizzyben: Yeah, me too. The Potterverse Elect aren't, for the most part, people I'd like to hang out w/in the afterlife either. Too many Gryffindors there making noise & being rambunctious. And it's to JKR's credit that she created a character so vivid that I actually worried about his immortal soul. I even read fan-fic to find a happy ending!(The happy ending involves Snape going to King's Cross station, then getting onto the Hogwarts Express one last time. Lily sits next to him to accompany him on his final journey home.) Cheesy, but satisfying. lizzyben From juli17 at aol.com Tue Aug 14 21:39:36 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:39:36 -0400 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: <1187112636.11633.56688.m57@yahoogroups.com> References: <1187112636.11633.56688.m57@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C9ACD2BEB7B125-D8C-2AFA@WEBMAIL-MC06.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175411 Alla: **I** was not saying any of those things, actually :) I was paraphrasing the argument which I saw several times to respond to last part of yours - that you did not see anybody trying to justify Snape's calling Lily a mudblood. Therefore if the argument in essense claims that it was a forgivable mistake, to me it is **still** a justification of Snape's calling Lily a mudblood. BUT that argument said pretty much what I paraphrased - no more no less - that Snape was stressed out and had no choice but to lash out at Lily, since it was so embarassing for him to be saved by a girl. I prefer not to guess what was meant - forgivable mistake or something else. Julie: All mistakes are forgivable, depending on the circumstances. And before DH we didn't know the exact circumstances. Based on canon we had through HBP it was as reasonable a conjecture as any that teenage Snape didn't regularly use that word. We had no idea if Lily and Snape had any sort of relationship, or why Lily blinked with surprise when Snape used the word. Adult Snape never used the word either, so this one use in all the books to that point could easily be an aberration on his part, and forgivable if he genuinely didn't mean it *and* didn't normally use it. Post-DH we do know that he regularly used the term and only regretted using it with Lily because of his feelings for her, so now we know it wasn't forgivable in that context (short of Snape reforming right then and forsaking the Pureblood ideology.) Really, nothing is unforgivable if one truly repents and makes amends, which is rather the theme of the books, no? Alla: Oy, I feel so wierd typing it, because I always do not feel comfortable talking about how fans argue, not what they argue, because in my experience even when something like that starts not as flame war, it can so easily became one, but I just felt that I have to clarify my words again. Let me stress it again, I have **no problem** whatsoever with anybody justifying any action of Snape or any other character. But do I think that Snape's actions gets justified much more than any other character **in general** ? Yes, I do. Julie: One person's justification is another person's explanation. And when it comes to interpreting the behavior and motivations of characters like Snape, Sirius, James, etc, we all rely on our own interpretations, because too little is spelled out for us. I for one NEVER justified Snape's use of the term "mudblood" which to me means condoning it and dismissing any deserved consequences. What I did is *explain* it using again what canon we had in HBP, asserting that as a teenager Snape may have used a term that he didn't normally use because he was under great stress and humiliated teenage boys (and girls) often lash out in the nastiest way possible. It even turns out that he DID use it under great stress when he never would have used it otherwise *against* Lily. Now that we know Snape threw the term around regularly at other Muggleborns, and that he had no remorse about that, it wasn't a forgivable act to Lily, and rightly so. But again, this debate all happened pre-HBP, so I'm not sure why we're talking about it now. Except that I don't want my reasonable explanation for Snape's use of the term BASED ON CANON AT THE TIME (and certainly there were other equally reasonable explanations) to be dismissed as "justification." Unless of course, every argument ever made by every person based on incomplete canon information is a justifcation for that person's interpretation ;-) Julie ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 14 22:34:27 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:34:27 -0000 Subject: Harry the author Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175412 I heard somebody say Harry has already written his memoirs using the penname J K Rowling, but I don't think that's true. I doubt Harry will ever write his memoirs, he has no reason to, he doesn't need the money and he already has far far more fame than he'd like. And even if he did write them I'll bet the book would stink to high heaven. To produce a good autobiography an author needs to bare his soul, but Harry is a very private person who has difficulty expressing his deepest thoughts and feelings to even his closest friends; I just can't see Harry telling all to total strangers. And Harry has no sense for the dramatic, whenever he is forced to explain one of his incredible adventures he somehow makes it sound routine and dull as dishwater. Harry will write books but they will be dry but very good textbooks about potions and Defense Against The Dark Arts. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Aug 14 22:38:34 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:38:34 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175413 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > Very close, I think, Allie, but not quite. The central > point is that seconds after Lily was killed, Voldemort > became Vapormort. So there was no time for a heart- > to-heart. > > Still, I think you have come close, but picture it > this way. Snape approaches Voldemort before the fact, > and asks him to spare Lily. Voldemort says he will > if he can, but if not, there are plenty of more > worthy pureblood girls for him. > > Voldemort makes assumptions about Snape's motivations. > Since he doesn't understand Love, Voldemort assumes > Snape simply 'desires' her. > > So, the heart-to-heart, as we are calling it, could > have happened before Voldemort went to kill the > Potters. > > As always, I assume there IS an explanation, we just > don't know what it is. > > Steve/bboyminn > Allie again: The canon reads something like "after she had gone," which also means after Voldemort had gone. I can see the exchange happening after Snape returns to Voldemort at the end of GoF. Just as an aside at the end of their primary discussion ("Oh, by the way, you know why I had to do that right?") From va32h at comcast.net Tue Aug 14 22:45:15 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:45:15 -0000 Subject: Voldemort/Harry Showdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175414 In another thread entirely, Ceridwen said: I was more noticing the whole world stopping just to listen to Harry playing Dumbledore to LV's Harry, and getting an earful of LOLLIPOPS for their patience. va32h here: This sent me off on another tangent. I agree that it seems odd for Harry to monologue at this moment, and to bring up such a variety of topics. And yet, I have to wonder how else a Harry/Voldy showdown would have occurred. I think it would have to be public; Harry's had too many bizarre and private confrontations resulting in deaths; Cedric, Dumbledore, Memory!Tom, Quirrel!Mort. It's no wonder people think he's a compulsive liar. OoTP was the only time he had credible witnesses. I think a private faceoff just wouldn't be believable. The whole wizarding world needs to believe that Voldemort is really dead, because a bunch of people saw it. And yet, for Voldemort to die publicly, by Harry's hand, requires all the witnesses to back off. Is that believable? Would the readership accept and ending in which Voldemort is ganged up on by dozens of people, or are we conditioned to expect a one-on-one, and does the story require it? I have to admit, I'm stunned that Harry glossed over the whole "you thought I was dead but I'm not" issue to talk about Snape, but I suppose that we needed to know that Voldemort knew Snape wasn't his? For Snape's sake? So that Snape's memory could be exonerated, as Sirius' had been? Personally I would have liked Snape to be the one to reveal that tidbit, even if he did die for it. But that's another topic. While I dislike the cliche of the hero-villain duelling monologues, I am not sure an alternative would have worked. Your thoughts? va32h From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Aug 14 22:45:32 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:45:32 -0000 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175415 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "R. Penar" wrote: > > In the Ravenclaw common room McGonagall Imperio's Alex Carrow and he > hands over his and Electo's wands and lies down on the floor. So it > got me thinking.....why on Earth didn't she Imperio him about 10 > months ago to save Hogwarts from turning into a Child Torture Zone > with the outcasts living in the Room of Requirement a la Lord of the > Flies?????? > > Imperio seems to be the most acceptable of the Unforgiveables. Surely > if kids are throwing Crucio around, an Order member would be able to > justify using Imperio? > > Becky > Allie: I would imagine that the Carrows have been reporting to Voldemort or other high-up Death Eaters - an Imperio would have been detected immediately. The wrath of Voldemort would have descended on the school and on the professor even more quickly. At that point in the common room, it was safe to do it because the final battle was about to unfold. And I may be wrong, but I don't think McGonagall is in the Order. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 23:30:58 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:30:58 -0000 Subject: Ravenclaw common room In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175416 --- "R. Penar" wrote: > > ... *why* would Voldy think that Harry would be going > to the Ravenclaw room? He would have had to share > that knowledge with the Carrows before setting off on > the Horcrux Double Check mission? > >... > > Becky > bboyminn: Voldemort suspected Harry would go there for the very reason he did go there; to find out what the 'crown' of Ravenclaw looked like. Voldemort knows that the Diadem (tiara/crown) is the hidden Horcrux. He also knows that Harry seems to know what the Horcruxes are, but not necessarily what they look like or where they are. For example, if Harry had not seen the Hufflepuff Cup in Hokey the Elfs memory, he wouldn't know what it looked like. But with enough sleuthing he might have suspected that Voldemort was trying to use Hogwarts Founder's related object. He might have then concluded, that Hufflepuff had a cup, and would be interested in seeing a picture or statue of the cup. The only visual example of the Ravenclaw Diadem in existance is on the statue in the Ravenclaw common room. Naturally, if you are going to look for the Diadem, you are going to want to know what it looks like. Therefore a high likelihood that Harry will come to the Common Room. Carrow only knows that he was told to guard the Common Room and watch for Harry. That's it. He says as much. Voldemort doesn't confide his reasons in his followers. You just obey and keep you head down, or you pay a terrible price. Oddly, in sending the Carrows literally to the Ravenclaw Common Room rather than just the general vicinity, Voldemort as good as confirmed to Harry that the Ravenclaw Diadem was indeed the object he was looking for. Does that answer your question? Steve/bboyminn From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Aug 14 23:38:36 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:38:36 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175417 Carol responds: > I get a very different picture, not a bad kid but a lonely, abused > child who identifies with and wants to be friends with the Muggle- > born withch of his own age who's the only non-Muggle in his village > besides himself and his mother. The tree branch is accidental magic > (he doesn't have a wand yet) much like Harry's accidental magic at > the same age and later--not on a par with blowing up his aunt but > similar to releasing the boa constrictor or making Aunt Marge's > brandy glass explode in her hand. He does lie about it, but it's > because he's embarrassed and confused. Dana: Although I do not totally disagree with this view, I think it is slightly more complicated then you're suggest here too. We see in HBP that Tom Riddle was very capable of using his underdeveloped magical abilities to hurt other kids and did so consciously. He was very aware he could use this ability without really knowing why he could do it. We see that Harry had truly accidental magical outbursts when the kids at school bully him and when he is at the zoo. He doesn't even realizes that it was him doing it until Hagrid asks him if he ever made things happen when he was scared or angry (if my memory serves me right) To me Snape did make the branch break on purpose because he wanted to punish Petunia for intruding on Lily and him and insulting him. It does show that Snape at an early age had a mean streak to him but he did not use his ability to go around and bully other kids into submission. Petunia made him angry and his responds was violent. The confusion bit you are referring to is not about the magical outburst but Lily's reaction. I have no problem to believe that Snape reacted the way he did because his adult role model (read father) reacted violently in similar situations but I do not believe that your explanation of why this happened is entirely correct and missing to include the following. Pg 536 DH UKed. `Did you make that happen?' `No.' He (Snape) looked both defiant and scared. `You did!' She was backing away from him. `You did!' You hurt her!" `No ? no, I didn't!' But the lie did not convince Lily: after on last burning look she ran from the little thicket, off after her sister, and Snape looked miserable and confused End quote canon. Snape made it happen because he wanted to punish Petunia for both interrupting/spying on his interaction with Lily as for insulting him in front of her. The moment Lily detects Petunia, Snape had gotten to his feet, immediately making it known to Petunia that she is not wanted/ welcome there. Petunia in return to this response tries to come up with something to insult Snape and makes a comment about his blouse and then the branch breaks and falls on her. Lily immediately understands that Snape made this happen and when she confronts him, Severus feels both justified for what he did and scared at the same time because of Lily's disapproving response and he therefore chooses to lie about it. By Snape's demeanor Lily senses he is lying and she backs away from him. Severus tries to convince her he is not lying, not because he isn't lying but because he doesn't want her to be angry with him. Snape is left miserable because he did not have the intention for making Lily angry with him and he is confused because he did not really understand that what he did was wrong (which I again have no problem believing was because he reacted by example). I think both Petunia and Severus where both very possessive of Lily's attention and Severus misused his magical ability in an attempt to dominate the situation but it backfired. A more interesting question to answer would be; why Snape showed this memory to Harry? If I have to think of an (possible) answer then I think it is Snape way of saying that he felt responsible for all the mistreatment Petunia has made Harry endure because of her hatred of the magical world she lost her sister to. I am not saying that Snape truly was responsible for it but it seems to me that he nevertheless wanted Harry to know he felt that way deep down. Especially if you merge the scene on the platform to this one. You see it is not difficult to put things in a different context and still make Snape come out smelling like roses without denying the bad thing he actually did within the scene itself ;o) Carol: > These memories don't show a bad boy. They show an odd but eager > little wizard trying to educate a little witch about the mysteries > of the WW and Hogwarts. It's clear that Harry identifies with > Severus's outsider status, with the way he's forced to dress, the > neglect of his family, the abusive Muggle father figure, the > bullying kids who reject him because he's different, the affection > for his mother, the acceptance by the members of his own House. > Many things become clear to Harry as he sees those memories. Dana: You know Carol in my view you're focusing a little too much on Snape's outsider status. He unlike Harry made a friend. One that was even willing to forgive him for intentionally hurting her sister. Yes, he was neglected by his family but he also had an advantage that Harry never had (before going to Hogwarts) -> a loving friend. I assume with bullying kids who rejected him because he's different you mean James and Sirius (correct me if I understood you wrong here). They did not reject him because he was different. Snape had already changed into his school robes and neither of them responded or made comments about his hair. They all rejected each other for their preferences for a specific house. James responds to Severus mentioning/ idealizing Slytherin, Severus responds to James idealizing Gryffindor and Sirius responds to James rejection of Slytherin because his entire family has been in Slytherin. James did not reject Severus in that moment, he rejected Slytherin house and it only became personally directed at Snape himself when Snape sneers that wanting to be in Gryffindor is stupid and that Slytherin is a superior choice because he rather be brainy than brawny. I know you do not agree but I do think Sirius reaction to Snape was because he already disliked his family's pure-blood indoctrinations and its reflection within Slytherin house and that he responded to Snape in the same way as we see him respond to his brother in OotP, that you either do not have enough brains if you want to go there or that you do not have the courage to reject it. I believe that Snape did not really understand what the house had become to represent over the years while Sirius did. Because I do not believe that Snape wanted to be sorted into Slytherin because it was his mother's house. I believe that just like Hermione he decided that Slytherin fitted him best. If Spinner's End is anything to go by and if Snape indeed inherited all these books from his mother then my interpretation would be that Snape's mother actually had been in Ravenclaw and that Snape going through these books, developed a fascination for Dark Arts and that Slytherin fitted most with this fascination. Sirius interpreted Snape's willingness to be sorted into Slytherin as holding the same views as he himself was on the verge of rejecting but I think he was wrong even if Snape later adopted many of these views. It is not Snape's differences that these boys rejected but his presumed views. They made fun of both Snape and Lily, not just Snape. Personally I do not believe that Snape's social background or his looks had anything to do with how these two boys responded to him. And if their acceptance of Peter is anything to go by then it actually argues against it. Carol: > And one is that, while the teenage Severus > chose what was easy over what was right, the twenty-year-old Snape > reversed that choice and never went back. Harry, it seems clear, > both understands and identifies with Snape after seeing his > memories. There is, in face, nothing left to forgive. Dana: I hope that I do not misunderstand you but it seems to me that you think Harry had been wrong about hating Snape. To me Snape actually shows Harry that Harry had been right about him that Snape truly hated Harry and that he never thought much of Harry personally and that he would never have helped him if it hadn't been for the love he had for his mother but that he wanted to show Harry that he understood it now and that he hopes that Harry can forgive him. That he would have done a lot of things differently if he could do it all over again. To me these memories include Snape admitting that his hatred for James had been largely unjustified or everrated if you prefer and that it was unjustified to project this onto Harry. To me these memories are about Snape taking responsibility for all that went wrong in his life and owning up to the choices he made. I personally do not think you can blame Harry for believing Snape was DD's killer and hating Snape for it and neither was it Snape's fault. That blame lies with DD and DD alone (and the idea still makes me sick to my stomach that the author wants me to accept this as something good but never mind). It was not unjustified for Harry to hate Snape for it because he simply did not know and it is pretty hard to deny what you saw with your own eyes. And I also do not believe that Harry was entirely unjust to blame Snape for what happened in OotP for the simple reason that if Snape had made an effort to connect with Harry instead of hating him so much then Harry could have believed Snape would help him. Snape was not responsible for Sirius death but his demeanor towards Harry did contribute to Harry ending up there in the first place. Harry is not the best in rationalizing things and give them the proper place but I think it unreasonable to just conclude that Harry therefore had been wrong about everything he concluded about Snape. Harry had been right about Snape's personal vendetta against him but as Quirrell said in PS/SS he didn't want to see him death and he did go the extra length to keep him alive as did many other people if I might add. To me it takes a lot of courage to take responsibility for your own choices, especially for Snape who throughout the books seemed eager to blame everybody else for everything that ever happened to him. And although I will never like the character and think of him as a fluffy bunny, I think he earned to be respected for it and he was granted it. But I can't help but to hope that young kids instead of idolizing this character actually learn that if you open yourself up and reach out that you actually can be forgiven for the mistakes you have made and that taking it out on everybody else will not make your life any better, not even if you do something good hidden in the background. Carol: > To me, the child Severus in the Pensieve is primarily a figure to be > pitied, and I think that's how Harry sees him, too. He is, indeed, a > plant left in the dark (image from SWM), his many talents > unrecognized outside Slytherin and too easily led in the wrong > direction when the girl he loved rejects him. (I'm not blaming Lily > here, just trying to see Severus clearly.) He makes the wrong > choice and follows his friends, adopting their ambition and > becoming a Death Eater. Dana: As I stated above, you actually diminish the power of the story behind the Prince's tale, in my opinion that is, by undermining that his own choices had the biggest influences on the life he had and not his background or the lack of backbone to resist temptation. Snape could have been everything he wanted to be or could have built his own family if he truly had wanted it. Lily did not reject Snape; Snape rejected Lily by following his own chosen path instead of choosing her. He did so twice once with the sorting (to Magpie Lily could not be sorted into Slytherin because of her blood status so it was pretty much left to Snape to keep them together and he chose not to) and secondly when he refused to reject the pure-blood indoctrination supported by both his house and later LV. He chose ambition over love it is that simple. He was not a plant left in the dark; he was recognized for his talents, knowledge and ambition outside of Slytherin house. It was just not a positive recognition. Snape did not adopt the ambition of his friends, he already had the ambition himself, it just never occurred to him that his ambition or fascination could actually be used in different ways and that becoming a DE was not the only way to reach this goal. Snape just like Riddle and Harry where given a second chance in life when they came to Hogwarts, which provided a true home for these abandoned boys. Riddle never took his chances other then to make a name for himself and strive for ultimate power, Snape lost his chances when he lost the ability to see that all he ever needed was right in front of his overly large nose (sorry could not resist) and Harry took every single chance given to him. Riddle never knew love and therefore did not believe he needed it, Snape had love but lost it when he let his ambition be his predominant focus in life and Harry took all the love given to him with both hands. Carol: > But love for Lily and, later, anguished remorse for his role in her > death, drives him *back* to the side of good, which he was on in > the first place (pre-Hogwarts) and might have remained on had he > been Sorted into Ravenclaw, the House of "brains" that he > mistakenly thought Slytherin to be. (As for courage, I think that > trait developed later, when he was about twenty, far too late to be > Sorted into Gryffindor unless the Hat recognizes potential, as it > seems to have done with Neville.) Dana: Snape never during those (almost) 16 years reconciled with the mistakes he made. He followed DD's orders mechanically without recognizing himself that he still could be more then the product of his mistakes. The love he had for Lily kept him going but essentially it also kept him focused on the past without moving on. It made him bitter and he acted it out on pretty much everybody around him. Snape just stopped living. His only goal was keeping Lily's sacrifice alive without really taking advantage of the opportunities given to him. Without any real compassion for what he was doing. I personally think that it was Narcissa that shocked Snape's compassion back into existence after he had locked it away for so long. It was Narcissa's willingness to sacrifice herself for her son that unlocked the closed door. I admit that I believed that Snape did not help Narcissa out of compassion but I am willingly admitting that I believe I was wrong even though he did not have to because it was already arranged. By taking the vow he prevented Narcissa from doing anything desperat that could put herself in danger. He was not saving Draco (because that was already a done deal) he saved Narcissa. Snape's choices in life would have been pretty much the same if he had been sorted in a different house except Gryffindor but not because of the house but because of Lily. And he realized that and why he gave Harry the memory of the sorting. He realized that he should have followed his heart. It is not Snape being a Slytherin that caused his life to go the way it did and although I do think that he was susceptible to take in these racist believes because of his own muggle heritage, which I do believe was the basis for his prejudice and not just the house indoctrination, I also believe that it was his fascination with the Dark Arts that was the true basis for his ambition and the reason for wanting to become a DE. His own prejudice against anything related with muggles made it able for him to turn a blind eye against violence used against muggles and muggleborns. He thought it funny when his friend used Dark Magic against a girl and while Lily considered it an act of evil, Snape could no longer see the difference between an innocent hex and a dark curse. But if you do not believe me that being in a different house would pretty much not have mattered then you only have to look at Percy. He followed his ambition to the point he rejected his loved ones for it. It is not the house these kids are in that causes these kids to stray on the wrong path. It is letting their talents blind them from seeing that there are other more important things in life. Percy was lucky that the reality of war shocked him into this realization before he could not undo the damage he caused (well and having a lot of family members as there was bound to be someone left alive with these numbers) and Snape was very unlucky that he lost the only person he truly loved to his ambition, once when he lost her friendship and then again when she lost her life because of his eagerness to bring the prophecy to LV. I think he lost compassion when he lost her friendship to the point that he believed that his ambition could replace whatever he was missing in his life just like LV himself essentially has done only multiplied by a million. He indeed tried to undo the damage he caused but never learned to live with it and move on mentally from that point. > Carol, wondering what would have happened if Severus, James, and > Sirius had not had their unfortunate encounter on the Hogwarts > Express and the multi-talented Severus had ended up in the same > dormitory with them. Dana: If Snape would have been in their dormitory without the encounter every having taken place then they would have accepted him just like they accepted Remus and Peter. They did not reject him because he was different; they rejected each other because of their own personal preferences. Please stop looking at Snape as some innocent victim because he wasn't. Yes, he was influenced by his own background as are we all, including James and Sirius but we pretty much have control over everything we do and chose the moment we are able to consciously think for ourselves. It is the inability to come to terms with the choices and mistakes we make that keeps us stuck in an unending loop, unable to move on to the better things life can offer us. Sirius had a all the things you claim Snape hadn't but his life was still pretty much as miserably as Snape's. Both of them lost the person closest to them at the same moment and while Snape had the oppertunity to still make something of his life but didn't, Sirius pretty much never had any chances after he lost his adopted family. The big difference between the two is that Sirius transfured his love for James onto Harry even if he never quiet let go of the past and chose to do the best he could to let Harry know he was there for him. While Snape was there for him too but chose not to let Harry know this until it was pretty much to late to have any meaning for Snape himself. Snape could have found Lily's love in Harry but he wasted that chance while Sirius didn't. JMHO Dana From va32h at comcast.net Wed Aug 15 00:46:10 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:46:10 -0000 Subject: Killing Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175418 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > The real beauty of the book is that if you want Harry dead you can > have him dead, just rip out the last 53 pages of the book so that the > entire Potter saga ends on page 704 with the words "He saw the mouth > move and a flash of green light, and everything was gone." > > What sort of reception do you suppose the book would have received if > JKR hadn't written those last 53 pages? va32h: I wondered that too. It think it would have been a very gutsy, powerful move on JKR's part, but I knew she'd never do it, because most of fandom would be hysterical. Much of fandom already is hysterical because the epilogue isn't 5,000 pages long, listing the house, blood status, occupation, spouse, boggart, patronus, Animagus form if they were an Animagus, and favorite Quidditch team of every character ever mentioned in the series. I never believed that Harry should die. Not because "it's a children's book" and not because "the fans would hate it" but because I really believed that Harry's story was one of hope, and progress. Dying at 17 isn't progress, no not even if you are dying for the whole wide wizarding world. Harry loved his parents, and Sirius, and Dumbledore, but spending eternity with them having died at 17 would be rather like crawling back into the womb. He doesn't know his parents, really. He knows and loves Ron and Hermione and Ginny and the other Weasleys and Hagrid and Luna - he belongs in the land of the living. He belongs to the future. va32h From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Aug 15 01:03:28 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:03:28 -0000 Subject: Potter's Teacher's Edition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175419 Pippin: But she did write it! > > Betsy Hp: > No, she didn't. She really, really didn't. Snape vomits up his > memories and then dies. There's not one scene where Harry has to > deal with an unpleasant man who's not evil. The unpleasant man is > conveniently dead. Harry's self-satisfaction doesn't even wobble let > alone fall down. Pippin: "The longer they spent together, the more Harry realized he did not like the goblin. Griphook was unexpectedly bloodthirsty, laughed at the idea of pain in lesser creatures, and seemed to relish the possibility that they might have to hurt other wizards to reach the Lestranges' vault. Harry could tell that his distaste was shared by the other two, but they did not discuss it: They needed Griphook." -DH ch 25 "We don't mind sleeping in the living room," said Harry, who knew that Griphook would think poorly of having to sleep on the sofa; keeping Griphook happy was essential to their plans." ibid Then there's the trio being deeply unpleasant to each other under the influence of the locket, to the point where Ron almost kills Harry. Not to mention that Dumbledore's twinkly niceness turned out to be more of a facade than Harry ever knew. The important thing about this, IMO, is that Harry puts up with it as best he can, and doesn't assume that these people were hateful because they wouldn't be sorry if he was dead or because they're secretly allied with Voldemort. The Trio plot to deceive Griphook (not that I think he fell for it one bit) and as in fairy tales the sword they won by valor leaves its now unworthy owners. And despite their desperate need for it, they don't act as though they think they deserve to get it back, though Ron vents a bit about double-crossing scabs. As if! And if you don't see Harry giving up the Elder Wand in spite of Ron and Hermione thinking he's mental as proof that his self-satisfaction has taken a pretty deep hit, and he's not happy about everything they did to win, then I don't know what would convince you. He says he's had enough trouble for a life time. Jo says there's not going to be another HP book, meaning she doesn't envision him doing anything thrilling, IMO. He spends nineteen years not doing anything thrilling. What more proof do you need? Do you need some kind of soapy scene where Harry decides to bury Snape somewhere in Godric's Hollow near Lily and Dumbledore's family, with the vial of memories in the grave? (Though I think that's what happened, I don't need to read it.) Snape belongs to the past, as others have said. His job as a teacher was to prepare Harry to meet his future, and he more than anyone else in the books did just that. And we see, nineteen years later, when Harry is about the same age that Snape was, that Harry must understand this. The narrative tells us Harry didn't know how to feel about what he'd seen in the pensieve. How else could it be? How realistic would it be for a seventeen year old, whose emotional depth is, well, a teacup to Ron's teaspoon, to demonstrate deep insight into the mind of someone who's something like twenty years older and far more complex? I suppose she could have had Harry dive into the pensieve again as a thirty year old, but that'd be kind of dull and way over the heads of half the audience. > Betsy Hp: > Harry is beautiful, athletic, rich, and a Gryffindor with the > strength of the almighty Dumbledore behind him. Any suggestion that > Harry knows how Snape feels is laughable, IMO. Pippin: So...he was feeling all those things when he was out in the forest, on the edge of starvation, believed to be a murderer, with no clear idea how he was going to get out of the mess he was in? Canon please? And is he supposed to have entirely forgotten how it felt before he knew he was any of those things, when he was living in a cupboard? Remember, Harry knew nothing of Spinner's End till he saw the memories. Up till then, he was probably thinking "Snape Manor" like about 90% of the fandom. > > > >>Pippin: > > How could he go through all that and *not* feel sympathy for > > Snape? > > > > Betsy Hp: > He manages it for a couple of years at least. Pippin: Because he was blinded by prejudice, just as Lupin said. He was sympathetic to other people's points of view all along, unless they happened to be Slytherins, except for a few occasions when anger and fear got the better of him, as they do of everyone occasionally. The effect of the locket made me think that JKR sees anger and fear as little Voldemorts, capable of making people do terrible things without being able to stop themselves. (I'm planning a post comparing the Hallows and Horcruxes to Tolkien's One Ring, unless somebody's beaten me to it?) I just don't recognize the Harry you're talking about. Stupid with very little natural compassion or empathy makes him sound like Voldemort. > Betsy Hp: > I honestly cannot think of one thing about the Trio that I find > admirable. Even within their own universe they're remarkably > lacking. Pippin: Compared to who? Who is it you think could have stood in front of Voldemort and not even wished he could defend himself, knowing he must not betray fear, knowing he was about to die? It's not like Harry is suicidally depressed or thinking that life's not worth living. He does think it's worth dying to stop Voldemort. Is that a sin? > > Betsy Hp: > Their flaws actually make me tremble for *JKR's* humanity because I > get the impression she doesn't see them as flaws. Pippin: She's said that Harry is angry and arrogant, Hermione is self- righteous and a know it all, Ron is deeply insecure. Lupin says Harry is prejudiced. It seems like all this comes through for you in the books, am I wrong? I think her interview comments are sensitive to the needs of her younger readers, who indeed will not see Harry as deeply flawed, or Snape as good even when he's giving Harry a hard time, because they aren't equipped to see things in shades of gray. But that doesn't mean that JKR can't or that grown up readers aren't supposed to. Pippin From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 01:24:48 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:24:48 -0000 Subject: Harry the author In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175420 guru wrote: > I've been wondering why Severus hadn't already written that book or > its equivalent. In PS/SS he introduces the class to the wonders of > potions, and you can tell he is passionate about the subject. One > would think that having figured out how to improve the art, he would > have, at least, been teaching the class out of his annotated version > of the text, if not having written his own. > > Of course, that would have left little mystery in who the HBP really > was, and leaves a lot of blank pages in the 5th book. > Snape's Witch: If he hadn't actually published a potion text, he *was* teaching his innovations, writing the recipes on the blackboard . . . rarely, if ever, referring to a textbook. That's the reason Hermione's class work in N.E.W.Ts potions was suddenly so much worse than Harry's because she was following Borage's text and Harry was using the HBP's improvements. In all her previous potions classes she *had* been taught the HBP's version and getting superior results. From carylcb at hotmail.com Wed Aug 15 00:23:17 2007 From: carylcb at hotmail.com (Caryl Brown) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:23:17 -0400 Subject: This moment Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175421 I love this thread, too. One of my favorite moments is Harry's reaction after Ron's insecurities about Hermione are revealed as he's preparing to destroy the locket: -------- "After you left," he said in a low voice, grateful for the fact that Ron's face was hidden, "she cried for a week. Probably longer, only she didn't want me to see. There were loads of nights when we never even spoke to each other. With you gone..." He could not finish; it was only now that Ron was here again that Harry fully realized how much his absence had cost them. "She's like my sister," he went on. "I love her like a sister and I reckon she feels the same way about me. It's always been like that. I thought you knew." (HPDH US pg. 378) --------- I think this shows the depth of their friendship -- Ron continuing to be Harry's best friend in spite of the jealousy and insecurity he's harbored for years, and Harry realizing for the first time what Ron means to him. clcb58 _________________________________________________________________ Tease your brain--play Clink! Win cool prizes! http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=clink_hotmailtextlink2 From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Aug 15 01:39:33 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:39:33 -0000 Subject: Killing Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175422 Eggplant: > The real beauty of the book is that if you want Harry dead you can > have him dead, just rip out the last 53 pages of the book so that the > entire Potter saga ends on page 704 with the words "He saw the mouth > move and a flash of green light, and everything was gone." Potioncat: Yes, that and the fact that Harry expected to die. He had no idea he might survive; he didn't go into it expecting to trick LV. By that point, I had no idea what was going to happen. Everything seemed to be so horrible. I think JKR did a pretty good job of surprising us (OK, surprising me.) >Eggplant: > What sort of reception do you suppose the book would have received if > JKR hadn't written those last 53 pages? > Potioncat: Well, the people at Universal who signed the amusement park deal would be pretty upset. ;-) From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Aug 15 01:33:07 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:33:07 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Character Given A Reprieve References: <8C9ACBEFFB6731D-ED0-1F23@MBLK-M42.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <006101c7dedc$3beb3470$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> No: HPFGUIDX 175423 SnapesSlytherin at aol.com: > I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm upset with JKR about how she > portrayed the character who got a reprieve.? It sounded to me as though > she meant a character who was supposed to die *in the last book* would not > die after all.? JKR said that Arthur Weasley was supposed to die in OoP -- > how did he get a reprieve in DH?? I think that she was really misleading > (possibly deliberately misleading...) in order to confuse the fans. > > IMNSVHO (in my not so very humble opinion lol), it does not count as a > book seven reprieve if Arthur received it in book five. Shelley: I have to agree, but then again, when you look back at all of her quotes, quite a number of them were misleading. I think at all times she was being vague, and for many of them (she didn't want to give away that the character would have died in Book 5), she really wasn't hiding anything really significant. So, if we knew that it was the Order of the Phoenix, we could have guessed Arthur because of that snake bite- would too much have been revealed? I don't think so, because I could not think of even one fan theory that would have changed with the revelation of Arthur's reprieve. Everyone thought a Weasley was going to buy it, and sure enough, one of them did. The people who died for Mr. Weasley weren't in the family. The only thing that would have changed is everyone would have started spinning tales about how Mr. Weasley would change the ending, per se, to play a very significant role, but in the end he didn't really make a difference past book 5, did he? Frankly, I think that Mr. Weasley's death would have made more sense in the long run than Lupin and Tonk's death. That whole "orphan boy suffering due to Voldemort" was an already used theme, imho, in both Harry and Neville. The death of his best friend's father would have given Harry just one more reason to kill Voldemort, as if he didn't have enough already. To move the deaths to Book 7, and at the end, just appeared to me to be more useless carnage. I don't think a thing would have been changed if Lupin and Tonks hadn't been exchanged for Arthur- if Arthur had just been allowed to live, and no hostages in exchange. One thing that has always bothered me about Rowling is with her quotes that "someone has to die", as if she possibly couldn't find a way to write a decent story without offing another loved character. I wonder if she gets some sort of perverse pleasure with their deaths. Or if those deaths provide an avenue of healing for her (the loss of her own mother) that somehow doesn't come across well to us readers. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Aug 15 02:01:29 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:01:29 -0000 Subject: Voldemort/Harry Showdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175424 va32h: > I have to admit, I'm stunned that Harry glossed over the whole "you > thought I was dead but I'm not" issue to talk about Snape, but I > suppose that we needed to know that Voldemort knew Snape wasn't his? > For Snape's sake? So that Snape's memory could be exonerated, as > Sirius' had been? > > Personally I would have liked Snape to be the one to reveal that > tidbit, even if he did die for it. But that's another topic. > > While I dislike the cliche of the hero-villain duelling monologues, I > am not sure an alternative would have worked. Ceridwen: Heh. I'm glad I'm not the only one to go off on tangents. The talk seemed like some off-the-wall splicing of the Villain's Monologue and Dumbledore Explains It All, and Snape had to be a huge part of it. LV could see that Harry was alive, and I think Harry explained enough of the wand that LV understood that something was screwy. Segue to Snape, the big payoff of the discussion. It serves to make LV nervous, I think, since he was so positive that killing Snape gave him the mastery of the wand, and it also exonerated (sp?) Snape to all and sundry, something Sirius lacked until somewhere off- page after his death. Of course, Snape's dead too, so being vindicated doesn't affect him either. I think this may have been a "correction", that is, Harry "doing it right" where for Sirius it was done wrong. I would love for Snape to have been the one to drop that bomb on LV: "You *thought* I was yours, but you killed Lily! I've been working against you ever since!" It would have been satisfying on the same level as Neville offing Bellatrix would have been satisfying, too. The character would have gotten his own back. I don't think an alternative would have worked. I would never suggest Harry and LV duelling in private, or in some out-of-the-way spot like the Little Hangleton graveyard, as they had done previously. LV was going to die, and the WW had to see it happen, not just to see Harry victorious, but to see that he's really gone this time: assurance. And the monologue has to be part of it. There's a reason why villains do all that expounding in Bond and other stories/movies - it gets the point across in a short time. At the same time, I think it's supposed to be like the taunting done before a joust or a match of heroic representatives for two sides. It carries on a tradition that's older than the printing press. My opinion only, of course. It just seemed surreal to me on subsequent reading that this was the topic of discussion. "Snape loved my mom." "He was just hot for her." Oy, they're going to try and kill one another - so, let's talk Snape/Lily? Now it's making me laugh. Ceridwen. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 02:09:21 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:09:21 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175425 > clcb58: > I think this shows the depth of their friendship -- Ron continuing to be > Harry's best friend in spite of the jealousy and insecurity he's harbored > for years, and Harry realizing for the first time what Ron means to him. zgirnius: The quoted text was a lovely little scene, yes, but what I loved best of all from that whole series of events Ron running away was what Harry said when Ron suggested he was given the Deluminator because DFumbledore knew he would run away. It is one of several perfect one- liners in the book, for me: "No", Harry corrected him. "He must've known you'd always want to come back." *sigh* From tralyn at argontech.net Wed Aug 15 02:01:25 2007 From: tralyn at argontech.net (Traci) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:01:25 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175426 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a > character, or the character's situation? It doesn't even > have to be a character you generally identify with---just > a moment that particularly speaks to you. I still can't get over Hedwig. Silly I know, but she could have been turned loose to fight or die on her own. Every time one of my cats heads out for night of their own free will, I have to accept a chance. I haven't re-read it yet, don't know why, maybe too many moments or not enough, can't decide. Traci' From tinainfay at msn.com Wed Aug 15 02:22:39 2007 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:22:39 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175427 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caryl Brown" wrote: > > I love this thread, too. > > One of my favorite moments is Harry's reaction after Ron's insecurities > about Hermione are revealed as he's preparing to destroy the locket: > -------- > "After you left," he said in a low voice, grateful for the fact that Ron's > face was hidden, "she cried for a week. Probably longer, only she didn't > want me to see. There were loads of nights when we never even spoke to each > other. With you gone..." > > He could not finish; it was only now that Ron was here again that Harry > fully realized how much his absence had cost them. > > "She's like my sister," he went on. "I love her like a sister and I reckon > she feels the same way about me. It's always been like that. I thought you > knew." > (HPDH US pg. 378) > --------- > > I think this shows the depth of their friendship -- Ron continuing to be > Harry's best friend in spite of the jealousy and insecurity he's harbored > for years, and Harry realizing for the first time what Ron means to him. > > clcb58 > > _________________________________________________________________ > Tease your brain--play Clink! Win cool prizes! > http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=clink_hotmailtextlink2 > One of my favorite moments happened during this same scene. I loved Ron's feeling of regret or embarrassment when he notes that DD most have known that he would leave thus given him the Deluminator. I loved Harry that his reply was (semi-quote) 'DD knew you'd always want to come back.' I thought that was so gracious of him yet true. On a lighter note, I really appreciated when the six other Potters were changing that Harry was wishing they would show more modesty. JKR is really inside that boy's head! I'm sure that's what I would be thinking too. I really liked Aberforth when he was asking Harry if the task DD had left him to do was nice and safe? Soemething appropriate for a 17 yo wizard? He knew DD. He didn't quite have a handle on Harry's determination though. It was gut-wrenching to read Ron's reaction to Hermione's being tortured. Gah! It was so painful. It really brought me right into the cellar. The feeling of helplessness and not being able to do a thing to stop it. One more Ron moment: when he admits to staying with Bill and Fleur instead of at the Burrow. He was so ashamed and I loved him for it! ~mrs_sonofgib, lover of all things Ron, apparently. From ken.fruit at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 02:28:31 2007 From: ken.fruit at gmail.com (rt11guru) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:28:31 -0000 Subject: Harry the author In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175428 guru wrote: I've been wondering why Severus hadn't already written that book or its equivalent. In PS/SS he introduces the class to the wonders of potions, and you can tell he is passionate about the subject. One would think that having figured out how to improve the art, he would have, at least, been teaching the class out of his annotated version of the text, if not having written his own. Of course, that would have left little mystery in who the HBP really was, and leaves a lot of blank pages in the 5th book. Snape's Witch: If he hadn't actually published a potion text, he *was* teaching his innovations, writing the recipes on the blackboard . . . rarely, if ever, referring to a textbook. That's the reason Hermione's class work in N.E.W.Ts potions was suddenly so much worse than Harry's because she was following Borage's text and Harry was using the HBP's improvements. In all her previous potions classes she *had* been taught the HBP's version and getting superior results. guru: I would think that if Snape had been teaching his versions of the recipes, that Harry would have recognized them when he saw the notations in the book. From sherriola at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 02:40:56 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:40:56 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius as Gryffindor (Was: good and bad Slytherins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <46c267bc.18bb720a.7a74.5b8e@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175429 Carol, not attacking Sirius, just stating that his choice to be in Gryffindor (if it *was* a choice) and his contempt for the equally young Severus had nothing to do with principle and everything to do with personality and choice of friends Sherry: At age 11, I already had developed principles and I don't doubt that Sirius could have had a few as well. I knew that racism, bigotry, and other forms of discrimination were wrong. One side of my family made racist comments when I visited them, but I knew in myself it was wrong and never joined in. I was devastated by studying the Holocaust in fourth grade, age nine. This was in the 60's, and at age 11, I was telling my 13-month younger brother that if the Vietnam war was still on when he was 18, I'd help him escape to Canada! I actually listened to speeches given by Martin Luther King Jr and Bobby Kennedy! And my dad was definitely conservative. Sure, that's all different, than the HP world, but I bring it all up to say that at age 11, I had already developed a social conscience, one that has stayed with me all my life. I don't have any problem believing that Sirius couldn't have developed the same thing--sorry, no, not a social conscience, don't blast me on that one gang--but at least he could have been able to develop some thoughts and beliefs different from his family's and wanted something different, believed something different than their pure blood ideology. Sherry From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Aug 15 01:39:02 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:39:02 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Raised by Muggles In-Reply-To: <007101c7ddd9$3027b9a0$6501a8c0@CKC> References: <007101c7ddd9$3027b9a0$6501a8c0@CKC> Message-ID: <46C25936.9080409@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175430 Carolyn: > I imagine that just as Hagrid was sent to escort Harry, another escort was > sent for Hermione and any others who wouldn't have knowledge or experience > with Diagon Alley. We don't hear about it because we don't meet Hermione > until the train, but it makes sense to me. In THE PRINCE'S TALE, Snape says to Lily that someone from Hogwarts would come to her family in person to give them the information. I not only suspect that something like this happened with Hermione, but I suspect that whoever it was not only prepped Hermione for Hogwarts, but told her about Harry Potter, implicitly or explicitly making the suggestion that here was someone she should try to make friends with. Bart From Meliss9900 at aol.com Wed Aug 15 03:22:38 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:22:38 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Virtues of Hagrid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175431 In a message dated 8/13/2007 9:00:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time, doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com writes: Doddie here: Harry couldn't have done this..DD already repaired Hagrid's wand with the Elder wand years ago, and gave it a disguise. I'm sure DD probably gave Hagrid lessons too.(Just like he did with Harry only probably had a great deal more "how to cast certain spells" focus as opposed to a Tom Riddle focus.). Melissa: I doubt it. When Hagrid takes Harry to Ollivander's in SS/PS, Olivander comments on Hagrid's expulsion and says (paraphrased) "I suppose they broke your wand when you were expelled?" Hagrid says yes and then adds that he "still has the pieces", Ollivander is quick to ask/state/verify "but you don't use them?" IMO that exchange confirms that Hagrid's wand is indeed broken AND in occasional use (in the pink umbrella) Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Aug 15 03:40:27 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:40:27 -0000 Subject: Character Given A Reprieve In-Reply-To: <8C9ACBEFFB6731D-ED0-1F23@MBLK-M42.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175432 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, SnapesSlytherin at ... wrote: > > > I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm upset with JKR about how she portrayed the character who got a reprieve.? It sounded to me as though she meant a character who was supposed to die *in the last book* would not die after all.? Pippin: She was talking about the end of the series, which we knew was some kind of epilogue, so I always thought it could be a character who was supposed to appear in the epilogue but had died along the way. In fact, I thought that the character referred to was Mad-eye, and that he'd been meant to die in GoF, but I was wrong. I'm not terribly sorry she killed off Lupin. He *knew* that Snape knew his secret and was faithfully keeping it (though not above dropping a hint now and then) and he still didn't try to stop James and co. Talk about ungrateful! That's the first time I ever really felt disgusted with canon!Lupin. I'm not saying he deserved to die for that, of course, just that I think that, having redeemed himself from his cowardice, it was time for him to go. Poor Sev! Trying so hard not to say 'werewolf' and 'mudblood' slips out instead. Tonks' death, I think, was meant as a counterpart to Merope's, and to show that the WW has improved a bit since her time. Orphaned Teddy is accepted despite his werewolf father and bloodtraitor mum. Pippin From Meliss9900 at aol.com Wed Aug 15 03:48:23 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:48:23 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry the author Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175433 In a message dated 8/14/2007 9:32:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time, ken.fruit at gmail.com writes: guru: I would think that if Snape had been teaching his versions of the recipes, that Harry would have recognized them when he saw the notations in the book. >>> Not necessarily. My handwriting at 43 years of age is vastly different to what it was when I was in 17 and in high school. So I can see how Harry might not recognize the notations. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 03:55:36 2007 From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:55:36 -0000 Subject: Harry the author In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175434 > > Snape's Witch: > > If he hadn't actually published a potion text, he *was* teaching > > his innovations, writing the recipes on the blackboard . . . > > rarely, if ever, referring to a textbook. That's the reason > > Hermione's class work in N.E.W.Ts potions was suddenly so much > > worse than Harry's because she was following Borage's text and > > Harry was using the HBP's improvements. In all her previous potions > > classes she *had* been taught the HBP's version and getting > > superior results. > guru: > I would think that if Snape had been teaching his versions of the > recipes, that Harry would have recognized them when he saw the > notations in the book. zeldaricdeau: But if the Half-Blood Prince's Advanced Potion Making book was a 6th year text, it's possible that the information in it wouldn't have been presented by Snape in class until a student's 6th year, meaning Harry and company would not have been exposed to those particular innovations and, therefore, would not have recognized them. I suppose one could argue that they might have recognized a similarity in technique but that seems too far above Harry or Ron's heads. While Hermione might have caught on to such a similarity, she was terribly preoccupied with getting Harry to stop using the book. As to the topic that started this thread--Harry possibly publishing a collection of Snape's potions innovations--that made my day :). -ZR From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 04:16:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:16:01 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175435 Nora wrote: > She's responding to the last bit of your argument--she's saying that she's seen *the argument* that it was a forgiveable mistake because Snape was under a lot of stress. > > I can't speak for Alla's perception, but I find Carol's post here to certainly be readable that way: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/172726 > > "...and the worst memory has to be, as the LOLLIPOPS people have always argued, because he slipped and called her a Mudblood and she refused to forgive him even when he slept outside the Gryffindor common room and abjectly begged her to do so." Carol responds: For the record, this is an early interpretation of mine. The revised version can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/173304 For the record, I am still formulating my interpretations of this book and I hope that others are, as well. I am also attempting to be objective, so I concede SSS's point in another thread that love for sirius black helped Harry to overcome voldemort's possession of him in the MoM. I was, however, thinking of the contributions of the living Sirius, which, unfortunately, included subverting the Occlumency lessons and helping to increase Harry's distrust of Snape. As a plot device, Black's death served mostly, IMO, to increase Harry's hatred of Snape, paving the way for the "murder" at the end of HBP, when Harry's desire for vengeance focuses on Snape as much as on Voldemort. His blaming of Snape for black's death surely parallels snape's blaming of Black for the Potters' death. Neither wants to admit his own share of the blame. And, before anyone jumps on me, I am not comparing Harry's foolishness in believing Voldemort's planted vision to young Snape's revelation of the Prophecy to Voldemort. One was a mistake, the other a crime. What is similar, IMO, is the scapegoating of an enemy to relieve the overpowering guilt and self-recrimination. Snape's memories, I think, help Harry to see the many similarities between himself and Snape, and, as SSS said in the "Of Sorting and snape" thread, "With Snape giving Harry so much -- so much more than he 'had' to -- he gave Harry the full story, the truth, something that Harry had been **craving** throughout the story. It's part of why Harry was so angry with DD -- all those things DD did not share, did not show or tell him about, the truth lacking parts of itself. But here was Snape, of all people, giving Harry All Of It." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175370 FWIW, I made a similar point in my posts on Harry's cleansed perception and Harry as Seeker posts. Regarding Snape, I see him as a flawed human being and not the saint I've been accused of seeing. He has a great deal in common with Sirius Black, but even more, I think, with Harry, as Harry realized when he viewed the Pensieve memories. The key point, I think, is not his failings, including becoming a DE in the first place and revealing the Prophecy to LV, much less any petty vindictiveness on the part of a bitter man who was his own worst enemy, but his atonement, his redemption, and Harry's forgiveness and understanding of a man he once had hated. Since I'm out of posts for the day, I'll mention something that doesn't really belong here but which is on my mind, anyway. DH is the first HP book ever in which I have identified and empathized with Harry--not, of course, in his desire for vengeance on Snape, which, IMO, he had to lose before being willing to sacrifice himself for the WW, an act not of vengeance but of love, but with his self-doubts and his momentary delusion that the united Hallows were the answer, and his doubts of Dumbledore and his moments of compassion, especially for Molly Weasley when she gave him Fabian's watch. Those human moments made me care more for him than I ever have before, much more than I ever cared about Quidditch matches or Harry the celebrity being alternately lauded and censured by the whole school or even the WW at large or his detentions or point dockings or monsters in his chest or his various fallings out with Ron or Hermione. Carol, whose post was interrupted by a phone call and who has now completely lost her train of thought From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Aug 15 04:35:44 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:35:44 -0000 Subject: Sirius as Gryffindor (Was: good and bad Slytherins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175436 Carol: > I see no evidence that Sirius at age eleven was at odds with his > family, whose values he would have been raised with--and he was > almost certainly educated at home. He has the same arrogant air as > the rest of the family, and he never loses it. On the Hogwarts > Express, he doesn't seem to have any preference as to Houses > (except that he'd like to be in the same House as James). The > decoration of his room and the adolescent rebellion comes *later.* > He certainly did not have Gryffindor banners or posters of bikini- > clad Muggle girls or a photo of the Marauders on his walls when he > left for Hogwarts! Jen: Except JKR doesn't write her characters as springing fully- formed with motives at 11 when she's taken time to develop a childhood story for them. (And Sirius doesn't say he wants to be in the same house as James.) Sure the posters and pictures came later but again, to say his rebelliousness came out of a vacuum isn't consistent with how JKR creates her characters. I offered my own interpretation here, in case you're wondering what my canon is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175250 Carol: > Sirius sees two boys, one clean and well-cared for and confident, > primed to be in a House he (James) associates with courage, the > other greasy-haired and sallow-complexioned, wanting to be in > Slytherin, which he associates with brains. Perhaps Sirius, whose > parents are Dark wizards who keep jars of blood and poisons and > serpent-shaped artifacts lying around, has a slightly better idea > than Severus what Slytherin can teach, but I see no evidence that > he has rejected it, only surprise that James doesn't think > it's "all right." And then he says jauntily that *maybe* he'll > break tradition. Had he not met James, the only thing that might > have put him in Gryffindor (to this own surprise) would be that > reckless streak which matches so well with James's mischievousness. Jen: We have no idea what's going on for Sirius in his own mind, beyond the words he says, and you're attributing tone and feeling not written in this blip of memory - 'surprise,' 'jauntiness'? Few of the kids, even Ron with older siblings, seem to know how the sorting takes place or how the hat decides. When Sirius says, 'maybe I'll break the tradition,' he's only expressing what sounds to me like a hope about not being sorted into Slytherin, nothing about which house he's considered or if he's even considered one or if he even believes he *will* have a choice in the end. It's hard to imagine Sirius asking one of his family members if there's any chance he might not be sorted into Slytherin even if it was on his mind. As much as I'd like to read more into that scene and have more information on Sirius, the only thing I pick up on there is that the rift between Sirius/James and Snape started on day one in that train compartment, when James/Sirius act as they later will, like a couple of arrogant toerags, and Snape is sneering at James's choice of house (and maybe looking down on his intelligence, which I personally wouldn't blame him for doing if he is ). Jen From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 04:47:21 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:47:21 -0000 Subject: The Virtues of Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175437 > Doddie wrote: > > Harry couldn't have done this..DD already repaired Hagrid's wand > with the Elder wand years ago, and gave it a disguise. I'm sure DD > probably gave Hagrid lessons too.(Just like he did with Harry only > probably had a great deal more "how to cast certain spells" focus as opposed to a Tom Riddle focus.). > > Melissa wrote: > > I doubt it. > > When Hagrid takes Harry to Ollivander's in SS/PS, Olivander comments on > Hagrid's expulsion and says (paraphrased) "I suppose they broke your wand when > you were expelled?" Hagrid says yes and then adds that he "still has the > pieces", Ollivander is quick to ask/state/verify "but you don't use them?" > > IMO that exchange confirms that Hagrid's wand is indeed broken AND in > occasional use (in the pink umbrella) > > Melissa Doddie now: Hagrid lied--how else can you explain Hagrids wand-like umbrella? How else can you explain the "snapped wand" at DD's funeral--yet DD was buried with the elder wand??? Who else would have repaired Hagrid's wand?(we know spello tape doesn't work...and Hagrid does have all the pieces..they are just reunited!)..and why would Hagrid tell Harry at the end of HBP.. "I KNEW that it was summat like that" when Harry told Hagrid the "aquamenti charm"??!?(Hagrid was given the boot in his fifth year I think....Harry learns this charm in year six.. Didn't Hagrid try to shuffle his umbrella out of Ollivander's sight or guilty touch where he had hid it in ss/PS? Also where on earth might Harry get an idea that the Elder wand could repair wands? He sounded doubtful, yet hopeful...and if Harry repaired his wand..he would have repaired Hagrids too, but I believe Harry already knew..DD already had(why on earth wouldn't DD repair Hagrid's wand...DD alone knew Hagrid didn't open the COS. I just think that if Hagrid's wand had not been repaired we would have heard more about magical creatures like house elves, giants, and goblins having "non-wand status"..not to mention that I don't think DD would have sent Hagrid to pick-up "baby harry" or send hagrid out to deliver Harry's Hogwarts letter w/o a wand... Doddie, (Who's still laughing at Hagrids support party in DH. LOL! And wonders if he's keeping his wand such a secret and concentrates upon it so much that he lets other info in advertently slip..) From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 05:26:58 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:26:58 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175438 > Potioncat > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, > or the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character > you generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks > to you. Mike: Oh, this one is easy, especially since it's a character I not only didn't identify with but actually didn't like at all. The fact that Kreacher could actually aid and abet LV through Narcissa against Sirius and Harry, adore Bellatrix, try to help Draco, and generally revile Harry and the good guys... well, let's just say I agreed with Sirius, my favorite character, Kreacher was a Toerag. When Harry sent him on his mission to find Dung, I wasn't yet convinced Kreacher was a changed elf. But he won me over and gave me first and loudest LOL moment when, holding that ludicrous copper pan he turns to Harry and says: "Perhaps just one more, Master Harry, for luck?" (DH p.221, US ed) Admit it, Kreacher suddenly became likeable just then, didn't he? :D > Potioncat, who will post her moment later, Mike, wanting to know when PC is going to tell us hers ;) From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Aug 15 05:17:42 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:17:42 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry the author References: Message-ID: <006501c7defb$9b57f960$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> No: HPFGUIDX 175439 > guru wrote: > > I've been wondering why Severus hadn't already written that book or > its equivalent. In PS/SS he introduces the class to the wonders of > potions, and you can tell he is passionate about the subject. One > would think that having figured out how to improve the art, he would > have, at least, been teaching the class out of his annotated version > of the text, if not having written his own. > > Of course, that would have left little mystery in who the HBP really > was, and leaves a lot of blank pages in the 5th book. > > > Snape's Witch: > > If he hadn't actually published a potion text, he *was* teaching his > innovations, writing the recipes on the blackboard . . . rarely, if > ever, referring to a textbook. That's the reason Hermione's class > work in N.E.W.Ts potions was suddenly so much worse than Harry's > because she was following Borage's text and Harry was using the HBP's > improvements. In all her previous potions classes she *had* been > taught the HBP's version and getting superior results. > > guru: > > I would think that if Snape had been teaching his versions of the > recipes, that Harry would have recognized them when he saw the > notations in the book. Guru, I think I agree with you. We see nothing in cannon that directly supports that Snape was putting his "extra special recipes" on the board all along. If they had differed from the textbook that they were all required to use, then you think someone would have noticed by now that the two differed- especially the Twins, who were keen to all those details. Thus the difference we see later between Hermione and Harry's work is not that Hermione (and the rest of the class, by extension!) was now using a poor recipe, it's that Harry alone is using a superior recipe. The problem with saying that Snape was using his own recipes on the board all along is that the ENTIRE class, if they followed those recipes, would have been getting superior results, not just Hermione. We see Harry screwing up by missing ingredients, but I can hardly believe that nobody in the entire class but Hermione could correctly read along and follow directions. Shelley From judy at judyshapiro.com Wed Aug 15 05:41:05 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:41:05 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175440 Pippin wrote: >... I'm not terribly sorry she killed off Lupin. He *knew* > that Snape > knew his secret and was faithfully keeping > it (though not above dropping a hint now and then) and he still > didn't try to stop James and co. > > Talk about ungrateful! That's the first time I ever really felt > disgusted with canon!Lupin. I'm not saying he deserved to die > for that, of course, just > that I think that, having redeemed himself from his cowardice, > it was time for him to go. > > Poor Sev! Trying so hard not to say 'werewolf' and 'mudblood' slips > out instead. Ooo, I hadn't thought of that! Yes, it really was nasty for Lupin to not help Snape, who was keeping his secret. Maybe Lupin really was evil after all! :-) Actually, though, I don't get how Lupin would let the Marauders keep tormenting Snape when Snape knew his secret. It seems just too likely that the secret would slip out "under duress" whether Snape wanted it to or not. Maybe this is just a plot hole, another situation where the timeline is off? (*cough*missing24hours*cough*) As for Snape dropping hints -- I know the book makes it sound like he told Lily that he thought Lupin is a werewolf; Snape mentions that Lupin gets ill at the full moon, and Lily says, "I know your theory." But, I wonder if there could be some other theory that Snape proposed, apart from lycanthropy. For example, maybe there are illicit potions (illegal drugs?) that can only be brewed at the full moon; we've seen plants that can only be harvested at the full moon. Maybe Snape never considered that Lupin could be a werewolf, because the idea of inviting a *werewolf* into a school full of children seemed just too outrageous. (Think of Draco's horror in HBP when he realizes he's let Fenrir Greyback into the school, even though he's happy to let other Death Eaters in.) Maybe Snape thought Lupin was either pretending to be sick so he could slip out and make illicit potions, or was actually sick as a result of using them. Madame Pomfrey walking with Lupin to the Whomping Willow could have been interpreted as her bringing an antidote for someone who had overdosed -- we know Madame Pomfrey's supposed to be good about not reporting illegal magic use. Frankly, Snape's suspecting that Lupin was a werewolf doesn't make sense to me. If Snape suspected that, then going into the Willow would be really dumb -- and whatever else Snape is, he isn't dumb. -- JudySerenity From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 06:01:32 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:01:32 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175441 > Hickengruendler: > > The child hat nothing to do with Snape. It was part of Voldemort's > soul. Voldmeort did it to himself through killing and splitting his > soul. This soul could have been helped, while Voldemort was still > alive. After death, it was too late, and other people can not undo, > what Voldmeort did to himself. Hermione said it in the chapter with > the ghoul and Harry said it again in the last chapter. It could have > been saved by Vodlemort showing regret, because then the sould could > heal. Voldemort didn't, and we are shown which fate awaits him, not > for being a Slytherin, but for being an evil and remorseless > murderer, who split his soul several times. Snape, in contrast, did > show regret and truly repented, what he did. He went through the > painful development, which Hermione mentioned. He therefore can hope > for a much better afterlife, than the Voldemort baby. lizzyben: Again, it's a totally irrational intuitive reaction, but I think that baby had a great deal to do with Snape. I say that w/absolute, unexplainable certainty. The parallels between the descriptions of Snape in the previous chapter & the baby in King's Cross are just too striking. And you know what it is? That baby is the scapegoat, the "other", the Shadow, the one that the Wizards can project all their sins upon & stuff under the chair where no one can see it. It's the elves, goblins, Slytherins, too. It's the truths that the wizards have to cover up & hide so that they can keep their illusion of perfection & superiority. It's like something out of "the Lottery". It's absolutely chilling to me. The philosopher William James has commented on the role of scapegoats in society, & his quote is eerily reminiscent of the King's Cross child: "If the hypothesis were offered of a world in which ... utopias should all be outdone, and millions kept permanently happy on the one simple condition that a certain lost soul on the far-off edge of things should lead a life of lonely torture," most people would feel that the enjoyment of such a utopia would be a "hideous thing" at such a cost." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Philosopher_and_the_Moral_Life Well, that's the Wizarding World, and it is a hideous thing. From judy at judyshapiro.com Wed Aug 15 06:16:49 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:16:49 -0000 Subject: Harry the author In-Reply-To: <006501c7defb$9b57f960$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175442 Guru wrote, about the Half-Blood Prince's potions book:: > > I've been wondering why Severus hadn't already written that book > > or its equivalent. In PS/SS he introduces the class to the > > wonders of potions, and you can tell he is passionate about the > > subject. One would think that having figured out how to improve > > the art, he would have, at least, been teaching the class out of > > his annotated version of the text, if not having written his own. Here's my theory, as an academic and a Snapefan: Snape hasn't published his "secret recipes" because then they would no longer be *secret*. As long as he is the only one with this knowledge, he can run - er, brew - circles around the other potion makers. Knowing Snape, it would bother him to have others able to duplicate his success at potions, and it might even interfere with his work, either for Voldemort (who seems to have Snape doing *something* at home in Spinner's End, with Wormtail's assistance), or for the Order. I imagine that Snape would keep an eye out to make sure that no one else was developing the same knowledge (since he would of course want to publish first), but since not even Slughorn seems to have come up with recipes as good as Snape's, Snape probably feels confident that, for the time being, he is in no danger of being scooped. Presumably, Snape would plan to have his recipes published in due time -- either posthumously in the event of his untimely death, or during his retirement, in the unlikely event that he lived that long. Snape seems to be quite aware of the risks he was running. I imagine that he foresaw the possibility of a sudden death and made provisions to ensure that he would received credit for his advances in potion making. After his death, I assume that Minerva would find neatly- written manuscripts of Snape's potions advances and other magical innovations sitting on the Headmaster's desk, with references to Sectumsempra and anything else Dark discretely removed. -- JudySerenity From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 06:26:52 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:26:52 -0000 Subject: Harry the author In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175443 --- "eggplant107" wrote: > > I heard somebody say Harry has already written his > memoirs using the penname J K Rowling, but I don't > think that's true. ... > > Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald > bboyminn: I speculate that Ron, Harry, and Hermione hired a ghost writer (no, not that kind of ghost) whose name I won't mention but her initials are JKR. Each of them wrote their own independent account of the events of their Seven Years at Hogwarts, and the /ghost/ writer compiled it all into a single coherent story told from Harry's perspective. ...or not. Of course, a few of the names and dates had to be change to protect the innocent ...or guilty as the case may be. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From Meliss9900 at aol.com Wed Aug 15 06:28:49 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:28:49 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Virtues of Hagrid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175444 In a message dated 8/14/2007 11:48:09 P.M. Central Daylight Time, doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com writes: <> Explaining the wand-like umbrella is simple. Hagrid stuck the 2 pieces back together (maybe binding them together with Unicorn hair which we know from canon is "dead useful" . . but that's just speculation) and put them in there. True Ron's broken wand didn't respond well to spell-o-tape but then Ron was at a disadvantage. His wand in COS was a hand me down and hadn't actually chosen him. Whereas based on the Ollivander conversation in SS/PS Hagrid's had chosen Hagrid. That all might have made all the difference between the 2 incidents. And Hagrid's wand did misfire at least 2 times. The pig's tail for Dudley (he'd meant to transfigure him into a pig . not just a tail) and on the sidecar in DH. <> Not sure what snapped wand you are referring to but I just reread Chapter 30 "The White Tomb" and Dumbledore's wand (the Elder wand) was NOT snapped at his funeral. . there is no mention of his wand at all. The only mention made anywhere in HBP to a snapped wand is the "Ode to Odo" that Hagrid and Slughorn are drunkenly singing after Aragog's burial. (Chapter 22 After The Burial) And Odo the hero, they bore him back home To the place he'd known as a lad, They laid him to rest with his hat inside out And his wand snapped in two, which was sad" I'm sorry but claiming a character lied to prove a point is an easy out. Anyone can claim anything about any character and simply say "they lied." Melissa. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From judy at judyshapiro.com Wed Aug 15 06:34:34 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:34:34 -0000 Subject: Snape: Childhood, Ambiguity, Love Life, and Afterlife (was: Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175445 Well, as is usually the case when I discuss the books, I have a bunch of Snapethoughts. So as to not exceed my five post limit, I will try to shoehorn a batch of them all into one post. First Topic: Childhood Concerning the oft-cited quote about Snape looking at Lily "greedily," I will confess that this creeped me out at first, especially since I am very sensitive to any suggestion of sexual violence. However, on second reading, I no longer saw this as having anything to do with sexual stalking. Snape is only supposed to be about nine or ten years old here, which is awfully young for stalking, even if one is a precocious little Dark-Wizard-To-Be. I now agree with the posters who say that Snape was "greedy" for friendship with another magical child, since he was isolated in a Muggle community. To support this view, let me point out that both of times the term "greedy" is used, Snape is watching or discussing Lily do magic. The first time he looks at her "greedily," she is swinging very high, about to go leaping magically off. (Which is something she has done before, according to Petunia.) The second time that he watches her greedily, "as he had done on the playground," is just after he tells her that she is highly magical. About the branch hitting Petunia, Dana said: > To me Snape did make the branch break on purpose because he wanted > to punish Petunia for intruding on Lily and him and insulting him. > It does show that Snape at an early age had a mean streak to him > but he did not use his ability to go around and bully other kids > into submission. Petunia made him angry and his responds was > violent... > >Pg 536 DH UKed. > > 'Did you make that happen?' > 'No.' He (Snape) looked both defiant and scared. > 'You did!' She was backing away from him. 'You did!' You hurt her!" > 'No ? no, I didn't!' > But the lie did not convince Lily: after on last burning look she > ran from the little thicket, off after her sister, and > Snape looked miserable and confused This tells us that, yes, Snape's magic caused the branch to break, but I don't think we can tell from this whether the branch breaking was deliberate or accidental. Lily asks whether Snape *caused* the branch to break, and the text states (or at least very clearly implies) that Snape is lying when he says that he didn't cause it. But, Lily never asks him if he broke the branch *intentionally.* So, the "lie" was that he didn't cause the break at all, rather than that he didn't do it intentionally. I would definitely agree with that claim that Snape has a bad temper, and that watching his father quite likely made him think that getting angry was acceptable. However, here we just have no way to know if what happened was accidental, like some of Harry's wandless magic, or intentional, like what Tom Riddle did. Tom Riddle did very cruel magic intentionally even as a young, wandless child, but that doesn't mean that as child Snape ever did, or even was able to. I like Snape a lot, and I think canon states that he was an extremely powerful wizard, but he wasn't in Voldemort's class magically. While we are talking about Snape, Lily, and Petunia, let me say that I don't read Snape as blaming himself for how much Petunia hated magic. I think it would have been very hard on Petunia to see Lily coming and going from Hogwarts each year, even if she had known nothing at all about magic before Lily left. On the other hand, the fact that Petunia's first exposure to the magical world was with Snape gives me some more sympathy for her dislike of magic (although it doesn't excuse her being awful to Harry.) Snapefan though I am, he certainly does fit a very negative stereotype of magic users, bubbling cauldron full of "eye of newt, toe of frog" and all. Second Topic: Ambiguity > Julie in Chicago said: > I've been trying to wrap my mind, for days, around what > the heck JKR thinks we are > 'supposed' to believe about Snape after reading these 7 books... > > It's a tangle. I still honestly don't know what the author intends > me to think about him in the end. My brain hurts. And houyhnhnm replied: > Why does it matter what the author intends for you to > think about a character? I mean outside of the text > itself. Surely that's the reader's job, not the author's. I see your point, houyhnhnm, but I think that the Harry Potter characters (especially Snape) are a special case. Readers have spent 10 years and 4000 pages being given all sorts of hints about Snape's true character and motivations, and this topic has inspired tens of thousands of posts on this list alone. With that big of a build-up, people are going to look for resolution in the final book. It's surprising to me that JKR left Snape as ambiguous as she did. I was expecting something much clearer as to his motivations. Instead, we're left debating questions like: "Was Snape friends with Dumbledore?" and "Did he care about saving the world from Voldemort, or was he just doing penance for Lily's sake?" Amazingly, we don't even get a statement, either way, as to whether Snape cared about revenge on Voldemort. Did JKR intend to leave Snape so ambiguous? You know, I'm not at all sure that she did. She's given some conflicting quotes in the post- DH interviews. She says that she doesn't see Snape as a hero, and then a few days later, she says that she does see him as a hero. I think maybe she's not sure what to make of him herself. Third Topic: Love Life Ceridwen wrote that during the big climatic battle: > > The whole world stopped to hear that Snape loved > > Lily, and Voldemort apparently had a heart-to-heart > > with him about other women afterwards. And Allie responded: > This is how I imagine it: > > Voldemort: And you understand, Severus, why the silly > girl had to be eliminated. > Snape: Yes, my Lord. > Voldemort: Surely you must see now that there are > women worthier of your attention, women of purer > blood. > Snape: Of course, my Lord. > > Very touching, isn't it. Probably Snape's biggest > challenge at performing Occlumency. Like some others here, I found this discussion in the middle of the battle to be a bit amusing, or at least odd. "We interrupt this war to bring you a special bulletin: Snape Loved Lily!" I imagined the conversation between Snape and Voldemort exactly as Allie imagined it, complete with it being Snape's biggest challenge at Occlumency. I figured it took place at the end of GoF. Oh, and the line where Voldemort said, "but when she had gone, he agreed that there were other women, and of purer blood, worthier of him"? I read that and thought, "Hey! Now we're going to get all these fanfics where Snape tries to convince Voldemort that he's over Lily by sleeping around." (Not that I see canon as is necessarily implying this, just that the line will trigger fics.) Forth Topic: Afterlife Ok, one more topic for this post. Regarding what happened to Snape in the afterlife, lizzyben04 said: > it's to JKR's credit that she created a character so vivid that I > actually worried about his immortal soul. I even read fan-fic to > find a happy ending! Me, too, except rather than looking for fanfic, I found it easier to just imagine my own happy ending. I was really broken up by Snape dying while looking into Harry's eyes, so I thought of Snape looking into Harry's green, almond-shaped eyes, everything going black for a moment, and then Snape finding himself in the afterlife, looking into Lily's eyes and finally being forgiven and accepted by her. (No, they can't get married since she has James, but then, I don't really expect that there's marriage, child-bearing or sex in the afterlife -- not because sex is evil, but because sex and child-bearing seem to me to be very much part of the *physical* world.) Leaving fans' imaginations aside, what does the book itself imply? Well, Snape presumably never made a Horcrux (or else he would have become Vapor!Snape instead of dying), so therefore his soul wouldn't have the terrible fate that Voldemort's soul did. (By the way, I felt certain that the deformed child at King's Cross was supposed to be Voldemort, and it reminded me very much of the UglyBaby!Mort in GoF. But I'm not sure if it was supposed to be the main part of Voldemort's soul, or just the bit that was in Harry. Either way, I felt sorry for it.) However, since we don't see Snape in the afterlife, I would have liked to have seen Snape get his portrait in the Headmaster's Office. Oh well, at least JKR said in an interview that she thought the portrait would appear there "in due time." -- JudySerenity, who is really enjoying the thread on readers' most emotional moments, but is spending WAY too much time posting, so doesn't have time to write up her own favorite moments, of which there were lots. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Aug 15 06:36:46 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:36:46 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175446 > lizzyben: > > Again, it's a totally irrational intuitive reaction, but I think that > baby had a great deal to do with Snape. I say that w/absolute, > unexplainable certainty. The parallels between the descriptions of > Snape in the previous chapter & the baby in King's Cross are just too > striking. And you know what it is? That baby is the scapegoat, the > "other", the Shadow, the one that the Wizards can project all their > sins upon & stuff under the chair where no one can see it. It's the > elves, goblins, Slytherins, too. It's the truths that the wizards have > to cover up & hide so that they can keep their illusion of perfection > & superiority. It's like something out of "the Lottery". It's > absolutely chilling to me. > > The philosopher William James has commented on the role of scapegoats > in society, & his quote is eerily reminiscent of the King's Cross child: > > "If the hypothesis were offered of a world in which ... utopias should > all be outdone, and millions kept permanently happy on the one simple > condition that a certain lost soul on the far-off edge of things > should lead a life of lonely torture," most people would feel that the > enjoyment of such a utopia would be a "hideous thing" at such a cost." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Philosopher_and_the_Moral_Life > > > Well, that's the Wizarding World, and it is a hideous thing. > Hickengruendler: I have a really big problem seeing your point here, I have to admit. While I don't necessarily agree with other points of your arguments, I do see, where you are coming from, and that it can be interpreted that way. Here I don't. Harry tells Voldemort "I saw what you will become." For me, suggests, that the baby has nothing to do with Snape, or the house-elves, or the Slytherins, or anyone else but Voldemort, and only Voldemort. He did it to himself, by trying to gain eternal life, he lost his soul for good. And there was still some hope for him, at this point, it was the real Voldemort, who could undo it, in showing some genuine regret. Admittingly, it was unlikely, but at this point, Voldemort still had a chance, which he did not take. And this is, where Rowling draw a big difference between Voldemort and Snape. Not only was Snape capable of love, because of this, he was also capable of true regret, just like Dumbledore did. Which is the one thing, according to Hermione's books, that could seal the soul. Snape showed this regret, therefore the conclusion, that his soul, in contrast to Voldemort's, got healed, is one, that is supported by the text. Why else would JKR have put this information into the books in first place? Just as a route Voldemort did not take? I mean, I can understand people not being sure, that Snape's ultimate fate is similar to Dumbledore's. I mean, we were nothing directly shown, after all. What I have a hard time understanding, is the idea, that it automatically means Snape's fate is like Voldemort's. There are enormous differences between how JKR portrayed these two characters from Philosopher's Stone onwards. Hickengruendler From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 06:47:53 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:47:53 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175447 --- "Caryl Brown" wrote: > > I love this thread, too. > > One of my favorite moments is Harry's reaction after > Ron's insecurities about Hermione are revealed as > he's preparing to destroy the locket: > -------- > "After you left," he said in a low voice, grateful > for the fact that Ron's face was hidden, "she cried > for a week. ..." > > ... > (HPDH US pg. 378) > --------- > > I think this shows the depth of their friendship -- > Ron continuing to be Harry's best friend in spite of > the jealousy and insecurity he's harbored for years, > and Harry realizing for the first time what Ron means > to him. > > clcb58 bboyminn: Well, as long as we are on this part of the book, I really liked it when they went back to the tent and Hermione totally loses it and attacks Ron. I thought that was so funny. Of course, I knew that once she got it out of her system, she would come around. But I suspect that was SOOOOO NOT the reception that Ron expected. I know a lot of people complain about the LONG camping trips but I REALLY like that part of the book. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 06:58:42 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:58:42 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: This moment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40708142358y39379853jaae59254ba666951@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175448 > Jen: > > My most surprising identification was with Snape when he was crying > like a 'wounded animal' after Lily died. I didn't know he had that > in him from how he was portrayed in earlier books. Kemper now: HBP, Flight of the Prince: 'DON'T--' screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them -- 'CALL ME A COWARD!' As for the moment/character I most identified with... it was Snape talking/pleading with Lily after SWM. Sort of. When I was a mid teen, I liked a girl who liked an arrogant a$$40L3. Not that I had friends like McNair (sp?). I didn't. It was more Snape's wtf in regards to James. I, too, knew I was so much cooler (in personality) then the James she liked, Colossal Prichard, but she refused to see it. Until they started going out. God, that was sweet. Kemper From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 08:09:54 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:09:54 -0000 Subject: This moment - Reconciliation? In-Reply-To: <46C0BFDB.6050709@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175449 --- IreneMikhlin wrote: > > I've really surprised myself by feeling so sorry for > little Petunia. Not that I gave her lots of thought > in the earlier books, but there was always a feeling > that their parents didn't handle the difference > between the girls very well. But in book 7 it became > very clear that there was absolutely nothing parents > could do to soften the blow, it's just completely > heartbreaking for a child. And I felt for her > situation. > > Irene > bboyminn: Yes, I felt a bit of sympathy for Petunia too. I have always thought she was likely jealous of Lily, but those scenes really drove it home to me. And how could Petunia not be jealous and hurt. She so obviously wanted to go to Hogwarts and enjoy the experience with her sister. But it was not to be. But, this leave me wondering if Harry felt the same thing? Did he feel for Petunia too? And did that lead to a distant and begrudging, but none the less, reconciliation between them? Certainly, under the best of circumstances they are never going to be more than formally polite to each other. But I have to wonder if maybe Harry didn't send a Christmas card every year just to let her know he understood, and to further acknowledge Dudley's concern for Harry. I don't even see them being close, but I wonder if the weren't at least polite? Steve/bboyminn From ken.fruit at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 09:50:09 2007 From: ken.fruit at gmail.com (rt11guru) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:50:09 -0000 Subject: Harry the author In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175450 guru: I would think that if Snape had been teaching his versions of the recipes, that Harry would have recognized them when he saw the notations in the book. Melissa : Not necessarily. My handwriting at 43 years of age is vastly different to what it was when I was in 17 and in high school. So I can see how Harry might not recognize the notations. guru: Clarification: I was thinking more of content than of form. Having spent a lot of time reading the book, Harry would have recognized that Snape taught them the modified versions of formulas, not the original versions from the book. I know that this is an advanced class with an advanced text, but as with most textbooks, there would probably have been overlap with previously taught material. From kennclark at btinternet.com Wed Aug 15 10:14:04 2007 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:14:04 -0000 Subject: Harry the author In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175451 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rt11guru" wrote: > > guru: > > I would think that if Snape had been teaching his versions of the > recipes, that Harry would have recognized them when he saw the > notations in the book. > > Melissa : > > Not necessarily. My handwriting at 43 years of age is vastly > different to what it was when I was in 17 and in high school. So I > can see how Harry might not recognize the notations. > > guru: > Clarification: I was thinking more of content than of form. > > Having spent a lot of time reading the book, Harry would have > recognized that Snape taught them the modified versions of formulas, > not the original versions from the book. > > I know that this is an advanced class with an advanced text, but as > with most textbooks, there would probably have been overlap with > previously taught material. > Ken says: My apologies but I haven't really been following this thread but . . . are we sure it is Snape who wrote the additions? At one point we are told that the book is 50 years old, well before Harry's father and thus Snape's time. The book must have been Snape's mother's book before it became his and thus it is likely that it was she who made the changes - hence the hidden humour in Hermione's suggestions that this "prince" is a girl and in Harry's wrong assumption that it 'just has to be a guy'. If the new spells are in the same handwriting then it must have been she, not her son, who created the new spells as well, though he may have been the first to use them at Hogwarts and taken credit for them. This of course does not in itself explain why he does not teach the "improved" versions but schools have recognised curricula which, in some cases, must be strictly adhered to - why not so at Hogwarts? Maybe, like scientific medical experiments, rigorous testing over a long period is required for all new potions (and spells) to ensure there are no unknown dangers which may not manifest themselves until much later, or which only effect a percentage of those taking them, rather like only some people being allergic to nuts. Maybe an enhanced potion causes tentacles to sprout from the neck, but only after the fifth dose, or after 4 years or whatever. Given the possible dangers I would think it likely that the Ministry keeps firm control over what is recognised as safe to be taught in such a potentially dangerous area of study. inally and pedantically, I've no problems with bad spelling in posts, I'm a sinner myself, but not to know the difference between canon and cannon? C'mon guys, the latter is a big gun. Ken Clark From salilouisa at googlemail.com Wed Aug 15 10:10:08 2007 From: salilouisa at googlemail.com (Sali Morris) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:10:08 +0100 Subject: Toons, Petunia, and the Horrible Vase In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175452 > Carolyn says: > I can understand why Petunia sends her sister gifts -- and > I firmly believe that Petunia believes she has wonderful > taste and that her sister will appreciate the gifts. These > are not used tissues she is sending. > PJ: > My brother went overseas for a couple of years but when he > returned and decorated his apartment I knew who lived there > from the moment I walked through the front door. His style, > his colors and his trinkets were all over it! > After over 20 years of being sisters, even with one away at > school, Petunia would have at least a general idea what Lily > found attractive. Sali: Not to say that either of these is more likely than the other, but just to point out that being someone's relative does not necessarily mean you will know whether they will like something. After over 50 years of being sisters, my aunt has only the vaguest idea of what my mother's taste in knick-knacks is - they usually now go for safer presents like bottles of wine. There is often a tendency to assume that everyone likes what one likes - my grandmother is like that, much as I love her I've had some (what I consider) awful presents from her (she would have loved to receive them). I have friends who are sisters who only know what the other likes by going for what they hate and these two are very close, unlike Petunia and Lily had become. But the possibility that Petunia is motivated by spite is also possible. I don't feel I have enough background on Petunia to make a definitive personal judgement in that respect. Also, whatever motivation Petunia might have had for giving the vase, I don't see Lily as the kind of person who would ever say to her sister's face how much she disliked it (although maybe needing to vent about it to others) in case she hurt her feelings. So if Petunia's motivation was good, it's possible she would not be able to then learn that she had mistaken Lily's tastes. From muellem at bc.edu Wed Aug 15 11:26:18 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:26:18 -0000 Subject: Harry the author In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175453 > Ken says: > > My apologies but I haven't really been following this thread > but . . . are we sure it is Snape who wrote the additions? At one > point we are told that the book is 50 years old, well before Harry's > father and thus Snape's time. The book must have been Snape's > mother's book before it became his and thus it is likely that it was > she who made the changes - hence the hidden humour in Hermione's > suggestions that this "prince" is a girl and in Harry's wrong > assumption that it 'just has to be a guy'. If the new spells are in > the same handwriting then it must have been she, not her son, who > created the new spells as well, though he may have been the first to > use them at Hogwarts and taken credit for them. colebiancardi: hmmmm, knowing who Snape is now, does one really think he would take credit for someone else's work? He tells Harry that *he* is the Half-Blood Prince and that his filthy father(James) was just like Harry, trying to steal what wasn't his. Snape shows way to much anger after Harry tries to use one of the Half-Blood Prince's own inventions on him to be lying about this, imho. If the additions were his mum's and not Snape's, I don't think he would get so pissed at Harry when Harry is using them - I mean, he doesn't really have the moral high ground here if that is the case. Also, the notations like "Just shove a Bezor down their throats" is just so Snape-like, that I cannot imagine anyone else but Snape writing it. Snape's handwriting in OotP is called crampted and small and when Harry gets a paper back from Snape, it is described as spikey. Not mention that Eileen was a potions genuis; however, Snape is one and has been called this several times through-out the series. As far as we know, Eileen is not a half-blood. Hermione found the article that stated that Eileen Prince married a Muggle, hence Snape's Half Blood Prince nic. colebiancardi From rlpenar at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 11:35:33 2007 From: rlpenar at yahoo.com (R. Penar) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:35:33 -0000 Subject: Ravenclaw common room In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175454 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "R. Penar" wrote: > > > > ... *why* would Voldy think that Harry would be going > > to the Ravenclaw room? He would have had to share > > that knowledge with the Carrows before setting off on > > the Horcrux Double Check mission? > > > >... > > > > Becky > > > > bboyminn: > > Voldemort suspected Harry would go there for the > very reason he did go there; to find out what the > 'crown' of Ravenclaw looked like. > > Oddly, in sending the Carrows literally to the > Ravenclaw Common Room rather than just the general > vicinity, Voldemort as good as confirmed to Harry > that the Ravenclaw Diadem was indeed the object he > was looking for. > > Does that answer your question? > > Steve/bboyminn > Becky: Yes, thanks Steve. I got that far in my listening today....I should have been more patient. Becky From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Aug 15 11:43:57 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:43:57 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175455 Wow! There's been a wide range of "moments" for a wide range of reasons. I guess it's my turn. When I read, it's almost like being in a Pensieve. I'm right there in the action, not part of it, but following along with the characters. The moment --or at least one moment-- was in The Prince's Tale. Severus and Lily are walking in the courtyard discussing his friends. He's trying to show her that Mulciber and Avery aren't any worse than Potter's gang. She points out that they aren't using Dark Magic. Snape does't get it---but I don't understand it either. Even JKR has said that the hexes and jinxes used by students are dark. Clearly, we can see the difference once these boys become adults, but the difference between the boys is confusing. So I feel for Snape, who doesn't get the moral difference between what his Dark friends do and what the other kids are doing. I have to think it's a little like kids who start using pot, telling themselves it's really OK. Potioncat From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 11:45:45 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:45:45 -0500 Subject: Communication Message-ID: <8ee758b40708150445u75600ea4jaa770ca51ddf3574@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175456 On 8/14/07, R. Penar wrote: > So I'm listening to the CDs of DH and Harry and Luna are in the > Ravenclaw common room. Carrow and Minerva come in (after Electo is > stunned) and Carrow says that they (the Carrows) had been tipped off > that Harry may try and come into the Ravenclaw common room. Now > perhaps this is just something I forgot from my initial read of DH, > but *why* would Voldy think that Harry would be going to the Ravenclaw > room? He would have had to share that knowledge with the Carrows > before setting off on the Horcrux Double Check mission. montims: bboyminn has answered that very well, but what I don't get is the communication thing... Someone presses their mark and instantly LV knows they have "the boy", and where they have him... In the past we saw that he pressed the mark to summon them, it would burn and darken on their arm, and they could apparate to wherever LV was. I wasn't sure how that worked, but it's clearly "powerful magic". With regard to the instructions to the Carrows, I can't imagine LV put himself at risk to speak to them directly - I expect the orders came through Snape, but would communications with Snape have always been through the mark? In Snape's spying days also? So the Order speaks through patronuses, and the DE speak through the mark... Interesting... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 12:43:36 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:43:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <46c2f4fe.14b48c0a.3c28.ffff97ba@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175457 Mike: Oh, this one is easy, especially since it's a character I not only didn't identify with but actually didn't like at all. The fact that Kreacher could actually aid and abet LV through Narcissa against Sirius and Harry, adore Bellatrix, try to help Draco, and generally revile Harry and the good guys... well, let's just say I agreed with Sirius, my favorite character, Kreacher was a Toerag. When Harry sent him on his mission to find Dung, I wasn't yet convinced Kreacher was a changed elf. But he won me over and gave me first and loudest LOL moment when, holding that ludicrous copper pan he turns to Harry and says: "Perhaps just one more, Master Harry, for luck?" (DH p.221, US ed) Admit it, Kreacher suddenly became likeable just then, didn't he? :D Sherry now: Oh yes, Mike, this was one of those moments for me too! I've been waiting to jump in on this thread, trying to find a moment nobody else had mentioned, but I just had to say something about this. Sirius is my favorite character after Harry, so I never thought anything could make me sympathetic to Kreacher or make me even like him, but this did! I was crying as he told his story to Harry, and the thing with the copper pan just made me laugh and cheer. How JKR could make me sympathize with someone I blamed so much for Sirius' death is amazing. Another such moment was right before Snape's death. I have never liked Snape, never sympathized with him in any of the previous books except in one scene. But when I realized that Voldemort was going to kill him, the person he considered his right-hand man and most faithful servant, I was struck speechless for a second and then began swearing violently! This was before we saw Snape's memories, and though I'd long suspected that JKR was going to redeem Snape somehow, I was still shocked and sickened at Voldemort's cold, almost careless, way of disposing of someone he considered so faithful. Sherry From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 15 13:56:18 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:56:18 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: <46c2f4fe.14b48c0a.3c28.ffff97ba@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175458 Mike: > But he won me over and gave me first and loudest LOL moment > when, holding that ludicrous copper pan he turns to Harry and says: > > "Perhaps just one more, Master Harry, for luck?" (DH p.221, US ed) > > Admit it, Kreacher suddenly became likeable just then, didn't he? :D Sherry now: > Oh yes, Mike, this was one of those moments for me too! > Sirius is my favorite character after Harry, so I never thought > anything could make me sympathetic to Kreacher or make me even like > him, but this did! SSSusan: This was one of my favs, too, but definitely was THE fav for my children. My 11-year-old daughter & I took turns reading aloud for the first 400+ pages, 'til we went our separate ways and paces with the book, and my 8-year-old son happened to be in the room when I got to this scene. The two of them squealed in delight and were rolling around the bed, laughing. It was priceless. Sherry: > Another such moment was right before Snape's death. I have never > liked Snape, never sympathized with him in any of the previous > books except in one scene. But when I realized that Voldemort was > going to kill him, the person he considered his right-hand man and > most faithful servant, I was struck speechless for a second and > then began swearing violently! This was before we saw Snape's > memories, and though I'd long suspected that JKR was going to > redeem Snape somehow, I was still shocked and sickened at > Voldemort's cold, almost careless, way of disposing of someone he > considered so faithful. SSSusan: Sherry, this is truly amazing to me. In my mind, I think of you as one of the staunchest of staunch 'anti-Snape' members of our fair list. You & I long ago agreed to disagree on him (except that he was without doubt a nasty git :)). That you ended up with this reaction I think speaks volumes about JKR's ability to transform views for some folks with her writing. I think that's just too cool. I ended up mentioning my This Moment in a different thread yesterday, but it follows shortly after your This Moment, Sherry. It was the unfolding of Snape's memories for Harry and the realization of what he was giving to him. As I said in that other thread: With Snape giving Harry so much -- so much more than he 'had' to -- he gave Harry the full story, the truth, something that Harry had been **craving** throughout the story. It's part of why Harry was so angry with DD -- all those things DD did not share, did not show or tell him about, the truth lacking parts of itself. But here was Snape, of all people, giving Harry All Of It. To me, it was a stunning moment, this gift of the full background, this most difficult gift to give, revealing those things which had been hidden from all to the person to whom it was most difficult to allow to see. It was amazing. Siriusly Snapey Susan From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 13:59:40 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:59:40 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175459 > Hickengruendler: > > I have a really big problem seeing your point here, I have to admit. > While I don't necessarily agree with other points of your arguments, > I do see, where you are coming from, and that it can be interpreted > that way. Here I don't. lizzyben: LOL, that's probably because I'm being totally unclear. I'm just trying to figure out why that scene disturbed me so much, & not really succeeding. Hickengruendler: Harry tells Voldemort "I saw what you will > become." For me, suggests, that the baby has nothing to do with > Snape, or the house-elves, or the Slytherins, or anyone else but > Voldemort, and only Voldemort. He did it to himself, by trying to > gain eternal life, he lost his soul for good. And there was still > some hope for him, at this point, it was the real Voldemort, who > could undo it, in showing some genuine regret. Admittingly, it was > unlikely, but at this point, Voldemort still had a chance, which he > did not take. > > And this is, where Rowling draw a big difference between Voldemort > and Snape. Not only was Snape capable of love, because of this, he > was also capable of true regret, just like Dumbledore did. Which is > the one thing, according to Hermione's books, that could seal the > soul. Snape showed this regret, therefore the conclusion, that his > soul, in contrast to Voldemort's, got healed, is one, that is > supported by the text. lizzyben: Oh, yeah, there's definitely more hope for Snape than Voldemort, and I do accept that the figure in that scene is meant to be Voldemort. Still, on a symbolic level, there's something incredibly disturbing about the whole thing. DD tells Harry not to help the crying, wounded child - and Harry the hero restrains his "saving people thing" to let the child be. After awhile he doesn't even hear the cries anymore. That's sort of cold & callous. Within the context of the novel, yeah, LV's soul probably can't be helped, but within the context of that scene alone, it's just two people refusing to help a child stuffed under a chair. And when I think about how this series relentlessly dehumanizes "the other", seems to ultimately accept the oppression of other beings (elves, etc.), seems to accept cutting off qualities that are unacceptable, that creature starts to seem like a symbol for a lot more things. Probably I'm just reading too much into it. lizzyben From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Aug 15 14:05:38 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:05:38 -0000 Subject: Snape vulnerable (Re: This moment) In-Reply-To: <700201d40708142358y39379853jaae59254ba666951@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175460 > > Jen: > > My most surprising identification was with Snape when he was > > crying like a 'wounded animal' after Lily died. I didn't know he > > had that in him from how he was portrayed in earlier books. > > Kemper now: > HBP, Flight of the Prince: > 'DON'T--' screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, > inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling > dog stuck in the burning house behind them -- 'CALL ME A COWARD!' Jen: You're right there's a comparison of Snape to a wounded animal (you clever one ), but I was referring more to the vulnerability of crying, wishing he were dead from grief. (Oh! Another comparison to Harry: after Sirius died. Or that might simply be how JKR has her characters feel after a death to show the impact.) Hmmm, I just re- read that scene...did I insert the tears myself? I don't actually see evidence of tears. might have imagined the sound of a wounded animal involved tears. OK, well tears or no, his vulnerability made me feel like I was invading his privacy a little or had walked into a room and seen something I shouldn't have. Which made him giving Harry *permission* to see his life all the more amazing because of their shared past. His adult persona for me was of an incredibly private and angry person. I could imagine a young Snape capable of wearing his heart on his sleeve after reading the Pensieve scene, but I also imagined all of his vulnerability died when he became a DE and he rejected it further as an adult. So watching him slumped over in grief *was* a shock for me because of how I read him. As was his mother hen healing of Dumbledore after the ring curse, complete with scoldings - loved that moment as well. Jen, thinking she's made a mess of trying to explain why the scene was surprising to her but doesn't know how else to put it into words. From p_yanna at hotmail.com Wed Aug 15 14:29:15 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:29:15 -0000 Subject: A Defense of James Potter(Whose flaws are bigger) In-Reply-To: <881638.6206.qm@web55009.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175461 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Christine Maupin wrote: > > Nice post Adam and I like your "It's a Wonderful Life" approach. There are two events in James's life that I would like to add because I think they are true measure of the man -- in both, James rushed headfirst into danger with hesitation to save those he cared about. > > > The second was October 31, 1981: "Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold him off--" (POA, p. 240) James rushed knowingly to his death (and in DH we find out without his wand), in an effort to warn his wife and give her a few extra moments to grab their son and get to safety. Did James's death change anything or save anyone's life? No. Harry certainly has no doubt how much his dad loved him and his mum though (which appears to be more than the other two abandoned boys can say). > > No matter what else one can say about James, good or bad, it would be hard to deny his courage and loyalty. And based on Lily's letter, the photograph, and his death, he seems to have been a good husband and father; and, in my opinion, you can't pay a man a higher compliment than that. > > Christy > > > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] I found this post quite intriguing. I wanted to read it because ever since OotP my feelings for James went from indifference to outright hatred and I haven't managed to shake them. It is a combination of canon and his bullying ways and how he and his friends continued bullying Snape even after nearly killing him in the Prank. It's in his descriptions, his air of having been taken care of that Snape lacked. It's in how JKR described his upbringing in an interview as the son of parents who had him late in life and doted on him. How he was rich and good in sports and presumably smart... He is the quintessential jock in a movie and on top of everything he got the girl. It's also, from JK again that he never needed a well-paid employment. How he didn't notice that Peter resented him all these years and went along with the change in Secret Keeper and how passive Lily was in all that (didn't she have any friends? We're meant to believe that James' friends are her only friends too). And then there's the mind-boggling fact that this guy who has Voldemort after him, who has supposedly thrice defied Voldie as stated in the Prophecy just lies back and plays with his kid in the house while there's a Dark Lord in his back yard. Said Dark Lord blasts his door open and James sprints to the hall to see what happened without bothering to pick up his wand. Just how stupid was this guy? And I just love how he tells Lily that he'll hold back Voldemort... How exactly? What did he do for a living anyway? What did he do in the Order? Sure, there was the whole Secret Keeper business but what if Peter was tortured and forced to give away the secret? He didn't have any other measures, any way to get his family out of there. And I just don't like James used as a symbol. How Harry has to live his life thinking "What would James do?" How Sirius and James and even Peter always use James' memory to manipulate Harry every chance they get. Sirius to get him to be more reckless, Remus plenty of times, to remind him that James wouldn't distrust his friends ('cept for Remus of course and that must have stung) so urging Harry not to be like James and then when he wants to ditch his kid and go with Harry, he tells Harry that James would want that. It's like... I feel that they used James' name to get Harry to do anything and I'm glad that Harry eventually saw through that and didn't let them. Do I think that James was evil? No. He was a bully as a teen and probably grew out of it. He offered a second home to Sirius. He helped Remus with his transformations (putting people in danger, of course because what did it matter if Remus actually bit someone in one of their many close calls as long as they had lots of great adventures together, right?). He wasn't a bigot and he hated the Dark Arts and he defied Voldemort. I'm guessing also good husband and father, Lily seems happy with him and he seems like a doting if not terribly vigilant dad to Harry. But all that might not be enough for someone to like him or to have any opinion of him, really. I really don't like what I've seen but it's not really something tangible once you get past 15 year old bullying James. He's just boring and even though he seems to have been such an important force in so many lives, Sirius practically lived for him, Peter hated him enough to hate him, Lily had a child with him and Snape hated him even after death the character himself comes short anyway you look at him. I think JKR truly failed with him. Mim (jumping in the fray after several years, I think the last time I posted had been after OotP or something) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Aug 15 14:44:35 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:44:35 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175462 lizzyben: > Within the context of the novel, yeah, LV's soul probably can't be > helped, but within the context of that scene alone, it's just two > people refusing to help a child stuffed under a chair. And when I > think about how this series relentlessly dehumanizes "the other", > seems to ultimately accept the oppression of other beings (elves, > etc.), seems to accept cutting off qualities that are unacceptable, > that creature starts to seem like a symbol for a lot more things. > Probably I'm just reading too much into it. Jen: I wondered why Dumbledore discouraged Harry's natural empathy to pain and suffering there, one of his greatest strengths according to Dumbledore. My preliminary answer while reading was they couldn't do anything because of their location, somewhere between the physical world and behind the Veil, and a greater presence would have to offer the healing if it was to happen. Still, why not have Harry walk over and try? He was repulsed but that never stops him from acting. Now I'm musing whether DD didn't want to encourage empathy for the live LV at that point, knowing Harry would choose to go back and face him in the flesh and empathy might cost Harry his life. That doesn't really fit with how Harry's heart saves him from LV, how his love protects him. Plus there's the whole Elder wand thing (grr, not happy about the conclusion coming down to the Elder wand). So, I'm not sure what to think! Confusing. Jen From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 14:55:19 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:55:19 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175463 Jen: > Now I'm musing whether DD didn't want to encourage empathy for the > live LV at that point, knowing Harry would choose to go back and face > him in the flesh and empathy might cost Harry his life. That doesn't > really fit with how Harry's heart saves him from LV, how his love > protects him. Plus there's the whole Elder wand thing (grr, not > happy about the conclusion coming down to the Elder wand). So, I'm > not sure what to think! Confusing. > > Jen > lizzyben: Yeah, that whole message about the Power of Love got lost somewhere along the way, didn't it? It came down to whose wand had more power - oh, and the only way to get a powerful wand is to take it from another wizard by force. Might Makes Right might be the real message here. From va32h at comcast.net Wed Aug 15 15:10:28 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:10:28 -0000 Subject: Character flaw or author sloppiness? (was Re: A Defense of James Potter) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175464 I had made a personal vow *not* to wade into the whole Snape/Marauder *thing* again, but the comments in a particular post made me think - how much of the negative characterization of James is intentional, and how much of it is the result of author sloppiness? frumenta wrote: ever since OotP my feelings for James went from indifference to outright hatred and I haven't managed to shake them. It is a combination of canon and his bullying ways and how he and his friends continued bullying Snape even after nearly killing him in the Prank. It's in his descriptions, his air of having been taken care of that Snape lacked. It's in how JKR described his upbringing in an interview as the son of parents who had him late in life and doted on him. How he was rich and good in sports and presumably smart... He is the quintessential jock in a movie and on top of everything he got the girl. It's also, from JK again that he never needed a well-paid employment. How he didn't notice that Peter resented him all these years and went along with the change in Secret Keeper and how passive Lily was in all that (didn't she have any friends? We're meant to believe that James' friends are her only friends too). va32h: So - my thinking. The timing of The Prank vis-a-vis SWM has never been firmly established in canon, but for some reason most of fandom believed the Prank came after, not before. Did JKR intentionally place The Prank before SWM because she wanted to communicate something to us about James, or did she just not think about it at all, the way she didn't think about Flint spending 8 years at Hogwarts or Polyjuice Potion having a one hour time limit or the ever-changing methods of detecting underage magic or the Secret- Keeper concept that changes from book to book and indeed chapter to chapter? James' employment - did JKR *intend* James to be a spoiled, rich, layabout, or did she simply not bother to think up a source of employment for him? Lily has no named job either - nor Pettigrew, whom one would expect to need paying work as he is not living off family money. We know that it's nearly impossible for Lupin to find work, but what line of work is he in, when he's not teaching at the only wizarding school in Britain? You see what I mean? James' lack of employment could be a reflection on his character or it could be a detail that JKR just didn't include because she hadn't bothered to think of it or because it wasn't relevant to the story. JKR has said that she needed James to be rich, so she made him rich. Just as she needed Harry's grandparents to be dead, so she made them all dead, without any explanation of how or when or why. Lily didn't have any friends: again, is this meant to tell us something about Lily or about James or is it something that JKR felt would just clutter up the plot and didn't need mentioning? I have been called a nitpicker in the past for complaining about JKR's mixing up of details (see the examples above) or failing to address obvious questions, but I think James is an excellent example of why she needed to not do stuff like that. If the author chronically makes mistakes in continuity, how are we to evaluate the sequence of events as relevant to James' character? If she chronically avoids answering the most basic of questions about multiple characters, how are we to assess the importance of the absence of certain information? For years we thought that James and Lily's occupations must be important, because JKR wouldn't tell us what they were. Now it seems (to me at least) that JKR wouldn't tell us, because she hadn't bothered to come up with that particular detail, because it wasn't relevant to her. frumenta: > And then there's the mind-boggling fact that this guy who has > Voldemort after him, who has supposedly thrice defied Voldie as > stated in the Prophecy just lies back and plays with his kid in the > house while there's a Dark Lord in his back yard. Said Dark Lord > blasts his door open and James sprints to the hall to see what > happened without bothering to pick up his wand. Just how stupid was > this guy? And I just love how he tells Lily that he'll hold back > Voldemort... How exactly? What did he do for a living anyway? What > did he do in the Order? Sure, there was the whole Secret Keeper > business but what if Peter was tortured and forced to give away the > secret? He didn't have any other measures, any way to get his family > out of there. va32h: Well I've addressed the job issue above. I don't think James was stupid for playing with his son - James did not know that Voldemort was in his backyard, the whole point of the Secret Keeper charm (at least in that incarnation) is supposed to be that it protects you completely. I'm sure that one of Moody's first afterlife conversations with James took him to task for his lack of CONSTANT VIGILANCE, but I didn't find it stupid for James to set down his wand for a minute at a time when he believed his family to be safe. How would he hold Voldemort back? I don't know - hand to hand combat? Throwing the furniture at him? I think it's an instinct to jump up and fight, to try and ward off an attacker, even if you are woefully outmatched. What else could he do? Run away, or call out, "Lily, were screwed! We're all going to die!" and just laid down and let Voldemort kill him? frumenta: the character himself comes short anyway you look at him. I think JKR truly failed with him. va32h: There we agree. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Aug 15 15:14:34 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:14:34 -0000 Subject: A Defense of James Potter(Whose flaws are bigger) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175465 Mim: > Said Dark Lord blasts his door open and James sprints to the hall > to see what happened without bothering to pick up his wand. Just > how stupid was this guy? And I just love how he tells Lily that > he'll hold back Voldemort... How exactly? What did he do for a > living anyway? What did he do in the Order? Sure, there was the > whole Secret Keeper business but what if Peter was tortured and > forced to give away the secret? He didn't have any other measures, > any way to get his family out of there. Jen: I'm not sure about my final impression of James yet, just wanted to speak to this one part. James running to the door without his wand reminded me *so* much of Harry. From Lupin's comments in DH, James "would have regarded it as the height of dishonor to mistrust his friends" (DH, chap. 5, p. 81, Am. ed.), so I imagined that James didn't think it could possibly be Voldemort because that would mean he was betrayed. As to why he didn't get his wand when the door was blasted, can't say much except thinking Harry would probably do the same; both are prone to acting before thinking. When James shouted to Lily, it seemed like a desparate attempt to protect Lily and Harry one last time before dying: If he couldn't stop LV or fight him, the only option James had left was to warn Lily and buy a few seconds of precious time. Jen From adanabbett at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 15:34:18 2007 From: adanabbett at yahoo.com (Adan) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:34:18 -0000 Subject: Another angle on Hermione's parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175466 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tetsubinatu" wrote: > > When I first read that part of the book I assumed that Hermione's > parents had agreed to the whole relocation and new identities, > including the mind tampering. I am surprised that everyone assumes > that Hermione did this by force. The relocation and new identities is > quite logical, and if Hermione explained the mind tampering as an > additional precaution for their (and her) safety, they might well have > agreed. After all, it was only a short-term measure. > > Yes, we can see with 20/20 a totally different picture, but for the > Grangers it may have been like entering a Witness Protection program, > with the promise that after the criminal was finally dealt with, they > could return to their normal lives. > > tetsubinatu > Adan, who doesn't post much: Like some others, I didn't really think much about all of this. It never crossed my mind that Hermione would have done this without discussing this with her parents. I can see what others are saying, though I still think she would have talked it over with them. However, and I haven't seen this mentioned so pardon me if it has been, I've come across a bit of a hiccup/conflict: Ch.6 The Ghoul in Pajamas, pg 96: "I've also modified my parents' memories so that they're convinced they're really called Wendell and Monica Wilkins and that their life's ambition is to move to Australia, which they've now done..." Ch. 9 A Place to Hide, pg 167: "We just need to wipe their memories," said Harry. It's better like that, it'll throw them off the scent. If we killed them it'd be obvious we were here." "You're the boss," said Ron, sounding profoundly relieved. "But I've never done a Memory Charm" "Nor have I," siad Hermion, "but I know the theory." She took a deep, calming breath, then pointed her wand at Dolohov's forehead and said, "*Obliviate*." At once, Dolohov's eyes became unfocused and dreamy." .... So: 1- It's effed up 2- Her parents didn't undergo a true memory modification, but perhaps some other type of spell... though I don't know what. 3- Hermione had outside help. Perhaps someone else helped to modify her parents' minds, so she hadn't done the spell alone/without aid before. Ron had help adjusting the ghoul, even without revealing what "The Plan" was, perhaps an Order member aided Hermione. I also wonder about the efficacy of the modifications themselves. I would have thought they'd done both Dolohov and Rowle at the cafe, but later Rowle is tortured over letting Harry get away. Was it a matter of them hitting their mark before having them netted, as Aberforth warns against later? Or did they not stick? And if it didn't, I wonder what Hermione's parents thought about waking up in Australia so suddenly. Obviously, I haven't got it all sorted yet. Adan, probably making things harder than they are, as is often the case. From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Aug 15 15:45:08 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:45:08 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175467 lizzyben: > Again, it's a totally irrational intuitive reaction, > but I think that baby had a great deal to do with Snape. > I say that w/absolute, unexplainable certainty. The > parallels between the descriptions of Snape in the > previous chapter & the baby in King's Cross are just > too striking. houyhnhnm: This is your perception and you certainly have the right to your own psychological reaction to the story, but I don't see anything in the entire series to support it and a great deal to contradict such a reading. First of all, the previous chapter to "King's Cross" is "The Forest Again". It contains nothing about Snape, so Snape is not juxtaposed with the wretched "baby" under the seat. Secondly, fifty or more people died that night. If King's Cross is some kind of way station on the journey to the afterlife, why don't we see any of them. Why would Snape's soul be there with Harry (when he died hours before) and none of the rest? I did find the presence of the baby confusing on the first read. I thought at first it was the soul piece liberated from Harry by the AK. I was confused when Dumbledore said, "you have less to fear from returning here than he does." Why would Voldemort be "returning here" unless the whimpering baby is Voldemort himself? How could he "return"? Then when I re-read the last three chapters, I realized that Snape's death, followed by the story of his life, had left me in a state of shock so that I had not really taken in very much that was in the following chapters. The first thing we learn in chapter 36 after Harry recovers consciousness is that the Death Eaters were not cheering. "Solicitous murmurs filled the air." "The Death Eaters had been huddled around Voldemort, who seemed to fallen to the ground." "And both of them had fallen briefly unconscious and *both of them had now returned*." [Emphasis added] I don't see how it could be any clearer that it was Voldemort himself, with his mangled eighth of a soul, that we saw in the station. And Voldemort didn't have to end up as a helpless, suffering, moaning creature for eternity. He could still have avoided his fate, even after the terrible things he'd done, even after shredding his soul into pieces, if he had been able to feel remorse. He had two chances that I saw, besides Harry's admonition (and I admit that Harry didn't try very hard to convince him). He could have felt sorrow at the death of Nagini or the fall of his "last, best lieutenant" and that might have been the beginning of remorse. Instead, his only reaction to both of these deaths was rage at being thwarted. So, if Voldemort with all his grievous sins could still avoid damnation by feeling remorse, how could there be any doubt of Snape's fate in the afterlife. Snape whose face looked "as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house". Snape, wringing his hands, promising "anything" to Dumbledore, "looking like a man who had lived a hundred years of misery", wishing he were dead and then summoning the courage to see his way forward, protect Lily's child, and evolve even beyond that to see no one die "whom I could not save", and finally to remain faithful to Dumbledore even after DD was gone. I, too, am made uncomfortable by the imagery of the small maimed, creature, trembling under the chair. It reminds me a little too much of the child in the closet in Ursula LeGuin's short story, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas". I tend towards Universalism in my vague, uncertain notions of the afterlife. But even I am willing to admit that if anyone deserves damnation, it was Voldemort. And it has nothing to do with Severus Snape. From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 15:57:59 2007 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:57:59 -0000 Subject: good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175469 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > > For the record, this is an early interpretation of mine. The revised > version can be found at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/173304 I cited it because, early or not, I thought it was notable that it was thrown out there. I can speak only for myself, but I don't post things that I don't have some measure of belief in. > As a plot device, Black's death served mostly, IMO, to increase > Harry's hatred of Snape, paving the way for the "murder" at the end > of HBP, when Harry's desire for vengeance focuses on Snape as much > as on Voldemort. I think the plot device aspects are much more focused on the idea of stripping Harry of his older support network: Sirius one book, then Dumbledore the next, and cutting off the material ties that he had to his parents. But I also think SSS is right, and the experience and pain of the loss is key to repelling Voldemort's possession. > The key point, I think, is not his failings, including becoming a DE > in the first place and revealing the Prophecy to LV, much less any > petty vindictiveness on the part of a bitter man who was his own > worst enemy, but his atonement, his redemption, and Harry's > forgiveness and understanding of a man he once had hated. I think Snape is far more tragic than anything else. He achieves some measure of redemption, but it's very late in the game, and he's fully responsible for his own failure to do better before then. (As a friend of mine, author of some delightful satires herself, says: "Sarcasm is a game for adults.") This is why I thought some forms of OFH were most likely, pre-DH: then the story is of someone consumed by his own bitterness, unwilling to break the cycle. That's not quite what happened, but Snape's story does still retain a whole lot of this OFH reading, given his extremely singular motivations in having turned away from the life of a DH--as JKR says, but for Lily, he wouldn't have cared at all. To what degree he actually picks up morality higher up on the hierarchy of complexity is left pretty open, since we get so little of him and his actions. But then maybe I'm focusing too little on the endgame and too much on the body of the story, which seems to involve Dumbledore's desire that Snape see Harry for who he is and thus get over his own bitterness being repeatedly crushed by Snape's own inclinations. As posted way before this last book, I like Snape as an active character--the one who wants both Lily and Mulciber but chooses Mulciber, chooses to come back, chooses to relentless go after a child who doesn't understand what's going on, and chooses to risk his life. It makes the most out of what little is there to define him. -Nora enjoys some balmy weather and comparative lack of manuscripts From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 16:03:11 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:03:11 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175470 Carol earlier: > > I get a very different picture, not a bad kid but a lonely, abused child who identifies with and wants to be friends with the Muggle- born witch of his own age who's the only non-Muggle in his village besides himself and his mother. The tree branch is accidental magic (he doesn't have a wand yet) much like Harry's accidental magic at the same age and later--not on a par with blowing up his aunt but similar to releasing the boa constrictor or making Aunt Marge's brandy glass explode in her hand. He does lie about it, but it's because he's embarrassed and confused. > > > Dana: > Although I do not totally disagree with this view, I think it is slightly more complicated then you're suggest here too. We see in HBP that Tom Riddle was very capable of using his underdeveloped magical abilities to hurt other kids and did so consciously. He was very aware he could use this ability without really knowing why he could do it. > > We see that Harry had truly accidental magical outbursts when the kids at school bully him and when he is at the zoo. He doesn't even realizes that it was him doing it until Hagrid asks him if he ever made things happen when he was scared or angry (if my memory serves me right) > > To me Snape did make the branch break on purpose because he wanted to punish Petunia for intruding on Lily and him and insulting him. It does show that Snape at an early age had a mean streak to him but he > did not use his ability to go around and bully other kids into > submission. Petunia made him angry and his responds was violent. > > The confusion bit you are referring to is not about the magical outburst but Lily's reaction. > > `Did you make that happen?' > `No.' He (Snape) looked both defiant and scared. > `You did!' She was backing away from him. `You did!' You hurt her!" > `No ? no, I didn't!' > But the lie did not convince Lily: after on last burning look she ran from the little thicket, off after her sister, and Snape looked miserable and confused > > Snape made it happen because he wanted to punish Petunia for both interrupting/spying on his interaction with Lily as for insulting him in front of her. > Lily immediately understands that Snape made this happen and when she confronts him, Severus feels both justified for what he did and scared at the same time because of Lily's disapproving response and he therefore chooses to lie about it. > By Snape's demeanor Lily senses he is lying and she backs away from him. Severus tries to convince her he is not lying, not because he isn't lying but because he doesn't want her to be angry with him. Snape is left miserable because he did not have the intention for making Lily angry with him and he is confused because he did not really understand that what he did was wrong (which I again have no problem believing was because he reacted by example). Carol responds: Actually, the only place in which your "more complicated" interpretation differs from mine (aside from the "mean streak") is that you think Severus's magic was deliberate and I think it was accidental. There's no evidence that he did it deliberately. Severus (let's not call him Snape; he's a little boy) *does not have a wand*. He's nine or ten years old. The incident happens with no sign of action from Severus immediately after Petunia makes fun of his smock, very similar to what happens when Aunt Marge insults Harry's parents in PoA. If he could deliberately drop a tree branch on Petunia's head without a wand, why was he so helpless without a wand as a sixteen-year-old bullied by James and Sirius? Why not just drop something wandlessly on *their* heads or wandlessly cause their faces to sprout warts? In this scene, he neither says anything or makes any movement to indicate that he is deliberately doing magic. It just happens after she insults him. We have canon that children can't really control their magic (except small stuff like opening and closing flowers). Aberforth tells Harry that "no witch or wizard can control it at [Ariana's] age" (DH Am. ed. 564). Admittedly, Severus is about three years older than Ariana was when she was attacked, but he's still a child and he's still wandless. Note that Severus tells Lily that she won't get in trouble for doing magic outside of school because "we're all right. we haven't got wands yet. They let you off when you're a kid and you can't help it" (666). And we have canon, including the examples I cited, for children performing accidental magic when they're angry or upset. Hagrid asks Harry in SS/PS, "Not a wizard, eh? Never made things happen when you was scared or angry?" (SS Am. ed. 58). That, it seems, is exactly what Severus has done. BTW, accidental magic is the reason Hogwarts exists, to help kids learn to control their magic, preferably using a wand. As Severus tells Lily, "But once you're eleven and they start training you, then you've got to be careful" (666). Unlike Harry at the same age, Severus knows he's a wizard. No doubt he has had outbursts of accidental magic before, and, given his father, they probably had most unpleasant consequences. Harry, in contrast, did not know that he was a wizard, so he would not have realized, as Severus did, that he had performed the magic. He has not even been taught that magic exists. Severus, in contrast, knows full well that his mother is a witch, that he's a wizard, and that he will be receiving a letter to Hogwarts. Nor is Severus Tom Riddle, who tortured other children and stole their property. Severus is upset that Tuney is spying on them, which is rather embarrassing and uncomfortable because he was eavesdropping on her and Lily earlier, so as I read the scene, he accidentally makes the tree branch drop. As I said, he has no wand. He could not have done it deliberately. And then, realizing what he's done but not having meant to do it and knowing that Lily doesn't like it, he tries to lie. Severus wants Lily to like him. He would not, IMO, have deliberately done anything to upset her. Tom Riddle, in contrast, never cared about anyone. Severus, like Harry and many other wizard children, performs accidental magic when he's angry or upset. Tom Riddle is highly unusual in controlling his and using it to hurt others deliberately. Now if you can show me canon for a wizard other than Tom Riddle who can control his wandless magic at that age (and I'm not talking about flowers opening and closing in your hand but about magic related to anger and other unpleasant emotions), please do so. Meanwhile, remember Ariana, admittedly six years old rather than nine or ten, and what happened to her because she couldn't control hers. IMO, Severus looks both "defiant and scared" because he knows he's done *accidental* magic. Defiant because he feels that Petunia deserves it but scared because he didn't do it on purpose and is afraid of what Lily will think. He is "miserable and confused" because, again, he didn't mean to do anything that would make Lily angry and she doesn't believe his lie. You are free to see a mean streak in Severus if you like, but I think it's what you want to see. We'd need to see a mean streak in Harry for "blowing up" Aunt Marge if we follow your line of reasoning. And as for mean streak, it's Sirius and James, not Severus, who do the namecalling and tripping on the train. He is merely reacting to their interference in a private conversation and to James's attacks on the House he thinks represents "brains." Dana: > Dana: > You know Carol in my view you're focusing a little too much on Snape's outsider status. Carol: I happen to believe that Severus's outsider status is important. In fact, he remains an outsider for much of his life. And Harry can identify with that. Dana: > Please stop looking at Snape as some innocent victim because he wasn't. Carol responds: I'm sorry, but I can't respond coherently to such a condescending post. Kindly don't tell me how to look at Snape or anyone else, and please don't attempt to read my mind or guess my motives. I am not trying to make Severus look like an innocent victim, only to present the very young Severus as canon shows him, a lonely and socially deficient little boy who is trying to make a friend and keeps making blunders that distress him. I am trying to show that Harry, who has been in a similar position, worn similar clothes, and performed accidental magic himself under similar circumstances, could easily have identified with him, and the "abandoned boys" reference shows that he did so. Luckily for Harry, his first magical friend, Hagrid, came to him. With Severus, it's the other way around, and he's trying to initiate Lily into the wonderful world of magic that he thinks will provide him with such a bright future. It's tragic, actually. Please do me the courtesy of not telling me what to think or how to post and I will extend you the same courtesy. And please remember that you do not have a monopoly on the definitive interpretation of the Potter books. Nor, of course, do I. Carol, who would recommend remedial Legilimency lessons with Professor Snape but unfortunately, he's unavailable From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 16:07:17 2007 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:07:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <942447.3596.qm@web55112.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175471 Potioncat asked (and we're glad she did!): > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, or the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character you generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks to you. akh weighs in: I found myself profoundly moved by the description of Tonks when Harry sees her laid out, looking as if she's asleep. Knowing what she sacrificed to be with Lupin and make a better world for her baby son really hit me in that simple description. Perhaps a less popular moment for others was when I read Lily's letter to Sirius, which really brought her alive for me. I was not offended at all by the vase incident; in fact, I thought it demonstrated that she still has affection for her sister, displaying a vase she finds awful, simply because Petunia gave it to her. Let's be honest: if she hated it and didn't care about Petunia, Harry wouldn't have been able to break it, because it would have been tossed in the back of a closet, or more probably, returned for a more acceptable gift. akh, who would love to tell you all she's been thrilled with every gift her sister ever gave her, but would be lying to a large crowd [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Aug 15 16:25:09 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:25:09 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175472 > Dana: > As I stated above, you actually diminish the power of the story > behind the Prince's tale, in my opinion that is, by undermining that > his own choices had the biggest influences on the life he had and not > his background or the lack of backbone to resist temptation. Snape > could have been everything he wanted to be or could have built his > own family if he truly had wanted it. Lily did not reject Snape; > Snape rejected Lily by following his own chosen path instead of > choosing her. He did so twice once with the sorting (to Magpie Lily > could not be sorted into Slytherin because of her blood status so it > was pretty much left to Snape to keep them together and he chose not > to) and secondly when he refused to reject the pure-blood > indoctrination supported by both his house and later LV. Magpie: Actually, just to clarify, I wasn't asking why Lily didn't go into Slytherin. I was saying I didn't see why any kid should have to follow his friend into any house. If Snape had wanted to be in Ravenclaw, and after Lily got Sorted into Gryffindor he was still Sorted into Ravenclaw (and I don't think it's just as simple as requesting a house a friend is in--I think you do go in the house you're suited to beyond that as well) I can't see why that would be a problem. Students don't have to be in the same house to be friends- -unless you're in Slytherin, because that throws some doubts on the kind of friend you'll probably be imo. (Not because the Hat does something to you, but because it says something about you by your choosing/being chosen by Slytherin.) I'm also not sure why in your interpretation--unless I'm getting it wrong--Snape suddenly has this death bed conversion to seeing that it was all his fault and Harry is such a better person after a lifetime of presumably seeing himself as more of a victim. -m (who thinks the superficial similarties between Harry and Snape's lives for than anything point up how very fundamentally different they are--Snape is Billy No Friends due to a combination of his circumstances of birth and life and his personality (which is influenced by same); Harry is a cool middle class kid temporarily stuck living with idiots until he goes to Hogwarts.) From solar_saramax at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 15:47:00 2007 From: solar_saramax at yahoo.com (Sara) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:47:00 -0000 Subject: Scar Theory in DH or The Scar is Two Sides of One Coin! ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175473 Harry's Scar is Two Sides of One Coin! ? There are two sides to one coin. I have a working theory that Harry's Scar is like a coin. I would like to ask for your comments about it, and your ideas about the meaning of the scar. DH shows new insights about the scar and Harry too. JKR has always shown and emphasized a one-sided coin of that scar. The hatred and anger of Voldemort, Harry touches or feels it, but there is also Lily's side, the other side, of that scar too. The scar was created by love (Lily) and hate (Voldemort). Put another way HP is a story about love vs hate or life vs death all symbolized by that scar. One side of the coin or scar is Lily's sacrifice for love and life. One side of the coin or scar is Voldemort's sacrifice of hatred and death. We always see the connection to LV of Harry touching his scar whenever LVis angry or there is approaching danger. Most of HP is always seeing this connection, this one-sided LV connection, to the scar. But what about Lily's scar connection too? In DH Harry's scar is also associated to love, and JKR has Harry reaching for the scar differently too. Here is the other side... In DH we get the first glimpse of the scar being associated with love when burying Dobby. JKR writes: I want to do it properly, were the first words of which Harry was fully conscious of speaking. Not by magic. Have you got a spade? And shortly afterward he had set to work, alone, digging the grave in the place that Bill had shown him at the end of the garden, between bushes. He dug with a kind of fury, relishing the manual work, glorying in the non-magic of it, for every drop of his sweat and every blister felt like a gift to the elf who had saved their lives. His scar burned, but he was master of the pain, he felt it, yet was apart from it. He had learned control at last, learned to shut his mind to Voldemort, the very thing Dumbledore had wanted him to learn from Snape. Just as Voldemort had not been able to possess Harry while Harry was consumed with grief for Sirius, so his thoughts could not penetrate Harry now while he mourned Dobby. Grief, it seemed, drove Voldemort out. . . though Dumbledore, of course, would have said that it was love. and more comments with Harry touching his scar... Griphook looked at him out of the corners of his slanting black eyes. You are an unusual wizard, Harry Potter. In what way? asked Harry, rubbing his scar absently. You dug the grave. and again the scar being associated with Harry's good traits... The goblin looked slantwise at Harry, and the lightning scar on Harry forehead prickled, but he ignored it, refusing to acknowledge its pain or its invitation. If there was a wizard of whom I would believe that they did not seek personal gain, said Griphook finally, it would be you, Harry Potter. Goblins and elves are not used to the protection or the respect that you have shown this night. Not from wand-carriers. and with DD at King's Crossing another positive trait dying for love... Then . . . I'm dead too? Ah, said Dumbledore, smiling still more broadly. That is the question, isn't it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not. They looked at each other, the old man still beaming. Not? repeated Harry. Not, said Dumbledore. But . . . Harry raised his hand instinctively towards the lightning scar. It did not seem to be there. But I should have died I didn't defend myself! I meant to let him kill me! We certainly see this connection, the Lily side of the scar, on the last page of the entire Harry Potter series in the epilogue. Here is the unique or hidden surprise in a setting of love: A great number of faces, both on the train and off, seemed to be turned toward Harry. Why are they all staring? demanded Albus as he and Rose craned around to look at the other students. Don't let it worry you, said Ron. It's me. I'm extremely famous. Albus, Rose, Hugo, and Lily laughed. The train began to move, and Harry walked along side it, watching his son's thin face, already ablaze with excitement. Harry kept smiling and waving, even though it was like a little breavement, watching his son glide away from him. The last trace of steam evaporated in the autumn air. The train sounded a corner. Harry's hand was still raised in farewell. He'll be all right, murmured Ginny. As Harry looked at her, he lowered his hand absentmindedly and touched the lightning scar on his forehead. I know he will. The scar had not pained Harry for nineteen years. All was well. (The End... alas, no more.) The scar's meaning is transformed by seeing the other side of its coin? Lord Voldemort is dead. The scar is still there and all that remains is love. There is no pain! So, Lily's side of the scar is there at the very end of HP! Sweet. Harry is now touching her love. Harry has achieved it all, touching that scar of Lily's too, now love, for love and the living... life goes on. What comments could be added about the scar and its meaning? Is it a two-sided coin of love vs hatred or ? What about Lily's side of the scar? (If this seems interesting check-out the link below, see tag line, but it's not up for comment in this forum.) Luna blessings... [:)] See A Better Ending for DH and Scar Theory. Here is the post that is being edited and updated for that story, but be forewarned it's only in the "rough storyline"and idea phase. I don't think it will be finished for another month or so, but you might find it interesting to follow along & post your comments about it too, "over there", not in this Yahoo forum. Click: A Better Ending [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 14:33:17 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:33:17 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175474 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > lizzyben: > > At least I'm not alone! It does seem like the "bad Snapers" like the > ending more than the "good Snapers" - probably because it did come > as surprise & they may have had less invested in the character. > Well, I think it's a little more complicated than that. I agree that there are people this fits. However, many "bad Snapers" as you call it did not really expect Snape to be on Voldemort's side. They expected Snape to be OFH or DDM but with decidedly dark characteristics. Both of those camps can reasonably claim to have been vindicated by DH. Why the fact that they like the ending? Well, I was in the Dark Snape camp (i.e. a Snape who was not a good person but nevertheless was probably working against Voldemort). The ending (and I assume we mean the end of Snape, here) seems perfectly fitting on multiple levels as numerous karmic arcs found their end. The nasty, cruel man ended up dead and abandoned like a rag doll, a fitting symbol of the way he had alienated himself from people during life. The venomous, bile-filled man was killed by literal venom, thus ending his physical life in much the same way he had ended his emotional life. The potions master, and presumably master of poisons, was killed by poison. The man who spent so much time showing favoritism to the House of the Snake was killed by a snake. The spinner of webs was caught in a trap that he evidently did not see coming (i.e. he seemed to know nothing about the Elder Wand). The sarcastic, cruel voice he used to torment his students is silenced by the symbol of his own house. The man who loved the Dark Arts was slain by the Dark Arts. The man who has abused Harry for years must rely on Harry for one last glimpse of the woman he "loved." And Severus Snape, who brooded and nursed his bitterness about the Prank for twenty years, ends up dead on the floor of the Shrieking Shack after all. There are other karmic arcs as well, of course, that are better for Snape. Most of them play out later, however. We are talking now about Snapey-poo's end, and why "bad Snapers" find it satisfying. Lupinlore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 16:47:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:47:14 -0000 Subject: Communication In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708150445u75600ea4jaa770ca51ddf3574@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175475 montims wrote: > what I don't get is the communication thing... Someone presses their mark and instantly LV knows they have "the boy", and where they have him... In the past we saw that he pressed the mark to summon them, it would burn and darken on their arm, and they could apparate to wherever LV was. I wasn't sure how that worked, but it's clearly "powerful magic". With regard to the instructions to the Carrows, I can't imagine LV put himself at risk to speak to them directly - I expect the orders came through Snape, but would communications with Snape have always been through the mark? In Snape's spying days also? So the Order speaks through patronuses, and the DE speak through the mark... > Interesting... Carol responds: There's no indication in DH that the order to trap Harry in the Ravenclaw common room came through Snape, who, in any case, does *not* want Harry in the hands of the Carrows. He wants to talk to him himself, to give him that last urgent message. Even though he has no way of knowing whether LV has the snake under magical protection at that moment, he knows that the Dark Lord is comong and time is running out. The last thing he wants is Harry to be turned over to LV without knowing that he has a soul bit in his scar and has to let LV and only LV kill him. If LV can communicate directly to Snape, as he clearly can, he can communicate directly to lesser DEs, telling them to wait for Harry in the Ravenclaw common room but not telling them why Harry would go there. My guess is that LV sends brief messages to them rather like the DA sending messages via Hermione's enchanted coins (or a speaking Patronus) except that it's purely mental. LV doesn't have a Dark Mark, but the DEs Dark Marks link them to him. When a DE presses his or her own Dark Mark, however, it's merely a summons to the Dark Lord, who has told them to do it for nothing less than the capture of the Potter boy. He can communicate with *them* but I don't think it's a two-way street (except possibly with Snape, who is more gifted than most of the DEs and more nearly trusted thanks to the "murder" of DD). What surprises me, BTW, is that Flitwick actually allowed Alecto Carrow into the Ravenclaw common room. Wouldn't that have been the moment to stand up to her? Surely, he wouldn't want such a dangerous and evil woman in the sanctuary of the students in his own House? Carol, suspecting that here as elsewhere, character and plausibility are sacrificed to the demands of the plot From p_yanna at hotmail.com Wed Aug 15 16:49:16 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:49:16 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175476 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > There are other karmic arcs as well, of course, that are better for > Snape. Most of them play out later, however. We are talking now > about Snapey-poo's end, and why "bad Snapers" find it satisfying. > > > Lupinlore > Interesting. At least "Snapey-poo" had a death scene unlike "Wolfie- poo" who dies off camera. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 16:55:53 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:55:53 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175477 Lupinlore: The ending (and I assume we mean > the end of Snape, here) seems perfectly fitting on multiple levels as > numerous karmic arcs found their end. Alla: Absolutely, those are exactly my reasons why I loved the ending of Snape as well. I may add Dumbledore treating Snape sometimes, well... sort of similarly to how Snape treated Harry, hehe. I just wanted to add that I find it so fascinating all over again, that we can all see oh so very different things in Snape's ending. But yeah, I enjoyed it because I saw what LL did, despite the fact that I wanted and expected every flavor of Snape, but complete DD!M. JKR did DD!M and still **for me** left in enough of OFH! flavor AND for me executed carmic justice for Snape perfectly. It is so funny that JKR managed to make myself, who hated Snape so much so very happy with his end **and** many Snape fans as well. JMO, Alla. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 15 17:10:59 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:10:59 -0000 Subject: Killing Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175478 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "potioncat" wrote: > > > Did the resolution work? In that > > period between putting the book down > > and picking it up, what were you > > hoping/expecting would happen? > > I always thought Harry would probably die but suddenly at the bottom > of page 687 I felt certain that he would, but I was no longer certain > that was a good idea. I suppose Harry felt pretty much the same way I > did about it. In a way we got the best of both worlds with many of the > powerful emotions we readers would have had if Harry died but without > him actually dying. > > The real beauty of the book is that if you want Harry dead you can > have him dead, just rip out the last 53 pages of the book so that the > entire Potter saga ends on page 704 with the words "He saw the mouth > move and a flash of green light, and everything was gone." > > What sort of reception do you suppose the book would have received if > JKR hadn't written those last 53 pages? > > Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald Geoff: I'm a bit late coming back on this one but I'm away from my own computer as I am staying with my daughter, admiring our first grandchild and having to fight my two teenage step-granddaughters for computer time!! Eggplant, I have never forgotten you writing some good while ago that you wanted something along the lines of "murder, mayhem and b blood spilt." Now you can't have all your choices. That would be plain greedy... If, using the more sensible UK page numbering - because we use a decent type face and don't have lots of drawing - the story stopped at page 564 and the next 34 pages hadn't been written, how many people would have gnashed their teeth, kicked the cat and run along the High Street calling curses on your head? It's probably saved you from permanent Jelly Legs, Bat Bogey Hex and boils. :-) Without publicising my thoughts, I had quietly hoped for three outcomes in DH; I got, I suppose, one and a half, one of them being that Harry lived (Hooray!). One of the better known writers in the UK is Daphne du Maurier, possibly known in the US at least as the writer of the original story "The Birds" which Hitchcock turned into a film. In one of her books "My Cousin Rachel", the narrator organises a fatal accident to the eponymous relative because he suspects her of unfaithfulness (IIRC). At the end of the book, we (and he) are left wondering whether she was in fact guilty and we never, ever, know the truth. I have heard many people over the years berating this as her worst book because of this. I think that if JKR had done something similar, instead of pleasing 50% of the fans, she would have riled all of them. I feel that we needed to know for the sake of our various stress levels. Just passing on to the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort, I may be naive but I thought it was great. It would have been a terrible shock for Voldemort to arrive in King's Cross as the rather sad little bundle under the seat and, if he was able to voice his thoughts, say to Dumbledore "What the hell am I doing here?" and Dumbledore echoing Harry and saying to him' "You still don't get it, Riddle, do you?" :-) It was good, because it enabled Harry to draw together the missing threads, cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s for Voldemort's and the listeners' benefit so that they could see why things had worked out for good without holding a "Council of Elrond" to explain it in detail. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 17:14:27 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:14:27 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Enchanted Coins WAS: Communication In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175479 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: <<>> My guess is that LV sends brief messages to them rather like > the DA sending messages via Hermione's enchanted coins (or a speaking Patronus) except that it's purely mental. LV doesn't have a Dark Mark, but the DEs Dark Marks link them to him. <<>> ****Katie: Something that confunded me in DH was why Hermione, Harry, and Ron didn't even have ONE SINGLE enchanted DA coin between the three of them, for purposes of communicating with Neville and the rest of the gang. Hermione had been so well-prepared for their leaving, so thorough in packing...I really think she would have had her coin. I mean, she's the one who invented the danged things! And, if for some reason, she did not, wouldn't Harry or Ron have had theirs? This seemed like something that could have been explained in one simple line, but wasn't. Anyone else pick up on this? Katie From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 17:25:43 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:25:43 -0000 Subject: Snape: Childhood, Ambiguity, Love Life, and Afterlife (was: Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175480 Judy: > First Topic: Childhood > > Concerning the oft-cited quote about Snape looking at > Lily "greedily," I will confess that this creeped me out at first, > especially since I am very sensitive to any suggestion of sexual > violence. However, on second reading, I no longer saw this as having > anything to do with sexual stalking. Snape is only supposed to be > about nine or ten years old here, which is awfully young for > stalking, even if one is a precocious little Dark-Wizard-To-Be. I now > agree with the posters who say that Snape was "greedy" for friendship > with another magical child, since he was isolated in a Muggle > community. To support this view, let me point out that both of times > the term "greedy" is used, Snape is watching or discussing Lily do > magic. The first time he looks at her "greedily," she is swinging > very high, about to go leaping magically off. (Which is something > she has done before, according to Petunia.) The second time that he > watches her greedily, "as he had done on the playground," is just > after he tells her that she is highly magical. > Lanval: Far be it from me to belittle Snape's feelings for Lily as merely creepy in a sexual way (as I've said before, I find him for the *most* part heartwrenchingly adorable in those early memories. The way he flaps around like a little bat, his blushing, his eagerness and the way he just can't seem to help Messing Things Up...), however, there is a reason, IMO, that the author uses the words "with undisguised greed" and "greedily". Instead of, say, "with great longing", or "delightedly". No, it's "greed" she chose, twice. The swing scene? Snape knows magic is about to happen; he's watched her do this trick before. But she's not sitting demurely and making earthworms dance, or hunched over a desk mixing potions. She's swinging, soaring through the air, hair flying everywhere. It's a beautiful and attractive picture, isn't it? Here's the second scene: DH, Bloomsbury Ed. p.535: 'Does it make a difference, being Muggle-born?' Snape hesitated. His black eyes, eager in the greenish gloom, moved over the pale face, the dark red hair. 'No,' he said. 'It doesn't make any difference.' 'Good,' said Lily, relaxing: it was clear she had been worrying. 'You've got loads of magic,' said Snape. 'I saw that. All the time I was watching you...' His voice trailed away; she was not listening, but had stretched out on the leafy ground and was looking up at the canopy of leaves overhead. He watched her as greedily as he had watched her in the playground. End of quote. His 'eager' eyes roaming over her pale face and red hair? Him watching her 'greedily' as she lies stretched out on the ground? IMO, there's no denying the sexual overtones, and the author meant for them not to be overlooked. Yes, I know, he's nine or ten, but kids that age have crushes and fall in love, even if they're not aware of *why* they're feeling this way. I'm not suggesting he's imagining her without her clothes here, or anything as overt. But it is her beauty that gets to him. Not just the magical powers. Besides, they already *were* friends in this scene, so the explanation that he longed to have a magical friend doesn't really work here anymore. Judy: > About the branch hitting Petunia, > Dana said: > > To me Snape did make the branch break on purpose because he wanted > > to punish Petunia for intruding on Lily and him and insulting him. > > It does show that Snape at an early age had a mean streak to him > > but he did not use his ability to go around and bully other kids > > into submission. Petunia made him angry and his responds was > > violent... > > > >Pg 536 DH UKed. > >T > > 'Did you make that happen?' > > 'No.' He (Snape) looked both defiant and scared. > > 'You did!' She was backing away from him. 'You did!' You hurt her!" > > 'No ? no, I didn't!' > > But the lie did not convince Lily: after on last burning look she > > ran from the little thicket, off after her sister, and > > Snape looked miserable and confused > > This tells us that, yes, Snape's magic caused the branch to break, > but I don't think we can tell from this whether the branch breaking > was deliberate or accidental. Lily asks whether Snape *caused* the > branch to break, and the text states (or at least very clearly > implies) that Snape is lying when he says that he didn't cause it. > But, Lily never asks him if he broke the branch *intentionally.* So, > the "lie" was that he didn't cause the break at all, rather than that > he didn't do it intentionally. > Lanval: I think it would be a huge stretch to ask for a young child in this situation to choose the legally correct way of asking what happened. When Lily asks, "Did you make that happen?", she means :"Did you make that branch fall down to hurt my sister?" She's clearly upset, no? I see no evidence that she ever considers it 'just happened by accident', and that he did not mean to hurt Petunia. JMO, of course. Judy: > I would definitely agree with that claim that Snape has a bad temper, > and that watching his father quite likely made him think that getting > angry was acceptable. However, here we just have no way to know if > what happened was accidental, like some of Harry's wandless magic, or > intentional, like what Tom Riddle did. Tom Riddle did very cruel > magic intentionally even as a young, wandless child, but that doesn't > mean that as child Snape ever did, or even was able to. I like Snape > a lot, and I think canon states that he was an extremely powerful > wizard, but he wasn't in Voldemort's class magically. > Lanval: I would never compare young Severus to young Tom; there's no cruelty evident anywhere in Severus at that age. (That came later *eg*). And you're right, it was quite likely a gut reaction, something he couldn't control. He certainly has a problem with controlling his temper, even as an adult. So, I think this is inconclusive. He may have consciously wanted to hurt Petunia and saw the branch as the closest available weapon, or it was accidental, or a mix of both. We all have angry reactions from time to time where we act without thinking. I'd say that since he has no wand, and has not been formally trained, it was unconsciously done. Perhaps the more powerful the wizard, the more disastrous these uncontrolled bursts of wandless magic? Snape was quite gifted, IMO. May I just add that if we'd witnessed young James or Sirius dropping a branch on a Muggle child, my fingertips would be worn to the bone by now from typing responses to "See? See how bad he is? He might have KILLED her!" *veg* Judy: > While we are talking about Snape, Lily, and Petunia, let me say that > I don't read Snape as blaming himself for how much Petunia hated > magic. I think it would have been very hard on Petunia to see Lily > coming and going from Hogwarts each year, even if she had known > nothing at all about magic before Lily left. On the other hand, the > fact that Petunia's first exposure to the magical world was with > Snape gives me some more sympathy for her dislike of magic (although > it doesn't excuse her being awful to Harry.) Snapefan though I am, he > certainly does fit a very negative stereotype of magic users, > bubbling cauldron full of "eye of newt, toe of frog" and all. > > Lanval: I myself always found that aspect pretty fascinating, even as a child. I used to hide under the bushes in our garden, mixing my own 'magical' potions. No living creatures were ever harmed in those experiments, I must add. Now, about Petunia and Lily. I don't think it took Snape to drive the wedge between the sisters, he just helped (quite happily and consciously, IMO). If Lily had never met him, she would have still received the letter, Petunia would have still been uneasy with the magic thing, she would have still been separated from a sister she loved, and she would have still become resentful and envious of Lily. Who was not only the 'pretty one', compared to Petunia's plainer appearance, but also turned out to be extremely special, AND got to go to some very special school. It would have taken a saint to bear all this with a shrug and a smile, and Tuney is no saint. Just a little girl who likes order, and hates *sticking out* in any way, but who also already shows a good deal of spite and narrowmindedness. That letter she wrote to DD? Talk about heartbreaking. I almost cried. Yeah, Snape probably did confirm every worry Petunia had ever had when she saw Lily do magic. Weird little freaks, that's who her sister was going to associate with in the future. But not weird enough for Petunia to not desperately want to be part of it. > > Second Topic: Ambiguity > I see your point, houyhnhnm, but I think that the Harry Potter > characters (especially Snape) are a special case. Readers have spent > 10 years and 4000 pages being given all sorts of hints about Snape's > true character and motivations, and this topic has inspired tens of > thousands of posts on this list alone. With that big of a build- up, > people are going to look for resolution in the final book. > > It's surprising to me that JKR left Snape as ambiguous as she did. I > was expecting something much clearer as to his motivations. Instead, > we're left debating questions like: "Was Snape friends with > Dumbledore?" and "Did he care about saving the world from Voldemort, > or was he just doing penance for Lily's sake?" Amazingly, we don't > even get a statement, either way, as to whether Snape cared about > revenge on Voldemort. > > Did JKR intend to leave Snape so ambiguous? You know, I'm not at all > sure that she did. She's given some conflicting quotes in the post- > DH interviews. She says that she doesn't see Snape as a hero, and > then a few days later, she says that she does see him as a hero. I > think maybe she's not sure what to make of him herself. > Lanval: It probably won't come as a surprise to you that I love it. I absolutely adore the fact that she left so many things open, and I'm more grateful than I can say that she did not give us a sappy "Forgive me, Harry!" -- "Oh, Severus, how could I ever have doubted you!" scene. His death? I found it fitting in the extreme. Snape - Ambiguity. It's what makes him great. A true tragic character, brought down by his own flaws. I think JKR knows quite well what to make of him, but just as our opinions about people we live with often fluctuate with our moods, or circumstances, it could be the same for her and her characters, no? If you live with them for so long, they do become real in a way. So I see it as no big deal that she may look upon Sev more forgivingly on some days than on others. Judy: > > Third Topic: Love Life > > > Like some others here, I found this discussion in the middle of the > battle to be a bit amusing, or at least odd. "We interrupt this war > to bring you a special bulletin: Snape Loved Lily!" > > I imagined the conversation between Snape and Voldemort exactly as > Allie imagined it, complete with it being Snape's biggest challenge > at Occlumency. I figured it took place at the end of GoF. > > Oh, and the line where Voldemort said, "but when she had gone, he > agreed that there were other women, and of purer blood, worthier of > him"? I read that and thought, "Hey! Now we're going to get all > these fanfics where Snape tries to convince Voldemort that he's over > Lily by sleeping around." (Not that I see canon as is necessarily > implying this, just that the line will trigger fics.) > Lanval: Heh. Me too. Just like his scene with Narcissa in HBP. > Judy: > Forth Topic: Afterlife > > Ok, one more topic for this post. > > Regarding what happened to Snape in the afterlife, > lizzyben04 said: > > it's to JKR's credit that she created a character so vivid that I > > actually worried about his immortal soul. I even read fan-fic to > > find a happy ending! > > Me, too, except rather than looking for fanfic, I found it easier to > just imagine my own happy ending. I was really broken up by Snape > dying while looking into Harry's eyes, so I thought of Snape looking > into Harry's green, almond-shaped eyes, everything going black for a > moment, and then Snape finding himself in the afterlife, looking into > Lily's eyes and finally being forgiven and accepted by her. (No, they > can't get married since she has James, but then, I don't really > expect that there's marriage, child-bearing or sex in the afterlife -- > not because sex is evil, but because sex and child-bearing seem to > me to be very much part of the *physical* world.) > Lanval: Yes, that's a nice thought, Lily welcoming Snape after he dies. But I hope that after thanking him for protecting her son, she also whacks him over the head for being so mean to him. And then (after Snape has spent some time in some purgatory-ish corner thinking over his many sins) they can go floating off into the Great Beyond. Where Snape, James, Sirius, Remus and Peter can play 'Who's afraid of the Big Bad Werewolf' together, and then all fall over laughing. Eh, that's just how I like to imagine it in one of my sillier moments. Lanval, who can't abide adult Snape and loves little Severus, yet can't overlook the warning signs present even at that young age. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 17:24:56 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:24:56 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175481 lupinlore: > Why the fact that they like the ending? Well, I was in the Dark Snape > camp (i.e. a Snape who was not a good person but nevertheless was > probably working against Voldemort). The ending (and I assume we mean > the end of Snape, here) seems perfectly fitting on multiple levels as > numerous karmic arcs found their end. The nasty, cruel man ended up > dead and abandoned like a rag doll, a fitting symbol of the way he had > alienated himself from people during life. The venomous, bile- filled > man was killed by literal venom, thus ending his physical life in much > the same way he had ended his emotional life. The potions master, and > presumably master of poisons, was killed by poison. The man who spent > so much time showing favoritism to the House of the Snake was killed > by a snake. And Severus Snape, who brooded and nursed his > bitterness about the Prank for twenty years, ends up dead on the floor > of the Shrieking Shack after all. > > There are other karmic arcs as well, of course, that are better for > Snape. Most of them play out later, however. We are talking now > about Snapey-poo's end, and why "bad Snapers" find it satisfying. > > > Lupinlore > lizzyben: Yes, I agree about the "karmic arcs" inherent in Snape's death. Which is why I've earlier stated that he got a "villian's death", not a hero's death. The "good guys" do die quite often, but they don't get that ironic end that the bad guys get - essentially hoisted on their own petard. Just as crucioing Carrow is crucioed, cursing Crabbe is killed by his own curse, etc. Tragic irony or poetic justice? You be the judge. It's the way Snape died, more than anything else, that convinced me that JKR truly does loathe this character. And I can see why that would satisfy people who really disliked him too. As someone who mostly pitied him, it seems a little cruel to me, but that's how justice seems to be dispelled in these novels. From shirley2allie at hotmail.com Wed Aug 15 17:42:09 2007 From: shirley2allie at hotmail.com (Shirley) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:42:09 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175482 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mrs_sonofgib" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caryl Brown" wrote: > > > > I love this thread, too. > > > > One of my favorite moments is Harry's reaction after Ron's insecurities > > about Hermione are revealed as he's preparing to destroy the locket: > > -------- > > "After you left," he said in a low voice, grateful for the fact that > Ron's > > face was hidden, "she cried for a week. Probably longer, only she > didn't > > want me to see. There were loads of nights when we never even spoke > to each > > other. With you gone..." > > > > He could not finish; it was only now that Ron was here again that Harry > > fully realized how much his absence had cost them. > > > > "She's like my sister," he went on. "I love her like a sister and I > reckon > > she feels the same way about me. It's always been like that. I > thought you > > knew." > > (HPDH US pg. 378) > > --------- > > > > I think this shows the depth of their friendship -- Ron continuing > to be > > Harry's best friend in spite of the jealousy and insecurity he's > harbored > > for years, and Harry realizing for the first time what Ron means to him. > > > > clcb58 > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Tease your brain--play Clink! Win cool prizes! > > http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=clink_hotmailtextlink2 > > > One of my favorite moments happened during this same scene. I loved > Ron's feeling of regret or embarrassment when he notes that DD most > have known that he would leave thus given him the Deluminator. I > loved Harry that his reply was (semi-quote) 'DD knew you'd always want > to come back.' I thought that was so gracious of him yet true. > > On a lighter note, I really appreciated when the six other Potters > were changing that Harry was wishing they would show more modesty. > JKR is really inside that boy's head! I'm sure that's what I would be > thinking too. > > I really liked Aberforth when he was asking Harry if the task DD had > left him to do was nice and safe? Soemething appropriate for a 17 yo > wizard? He knew DD. He didn't quite have a handle on Harry's > determination though. > > It was gut-wrenching to read Ron's reaction to Hermione's being > tortured. Gah! It was so painful. It really brought me right into > the cellar. The feeling of helplessness and not being able to do a > thing to stop it. > > One more Ron moment: when he admits to staying with Bill and Fleur > instead of at the Burrow. He was so ashamed and I loved him for it! > > ~mrs_sonofgib, lover of all things Ron, apparently. > now Shirley: I'm right there with you, and it sort of snuck up on me, too. Ron was awesome in DH. I mean, I think I've always had a soft spot for him and his great lines/observations/goofiness, but he just rocked once he came back into the fold. I really liked how some things came full-circle, too. Ron and Hermione's exchanges of "Always the surprise" in the beginning of the book (his safe return from the 7 Potters; her looking so good at the wedding) was clever, but my favorite was Hermione yelling at Ron about "Are you a wizard or not?!" when he's wishing for Crookshanks to get them under the Whomping Willow. Echoing his line to Hermione from the end of the first book... I just loved it. Shirley, belatedly joining the Ron fanclub, too From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Aug 15 17:41:49 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:41:49 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175483 > lizzyben: > > Yes, I agree about the "karmic arcs" inherent in Snape's death. > Which is why I've earlier stated that he got a "villian's death", > not a hero's death. The "good guys" do die quite often, but they > don't get that ironic end that the bad guys get - essentially > hoisted on their own petard. Hickengruendler: I'm not sure. I found some of the "good guys" deaths pretty ironic as well, most notably Sirius'. He was killed by a family member on Ministry of Magic grounds, after all. By a member of the same family he seeked to escape and at the very place, where the people lived, who had put a death penalty on his head a few years ago. Similarly, Dobby being mortally wounded in Malfoy Manor of all places is darkly ironic, even though he lived long enough to die outside Shall Cottage. I also found it ironic, that Fred Weasley died, when something blew up, given that blowing up things was about his favourite hobby. I do have to admit, though, that I don't know how much of it is intended by JKR and how much is simply my reading of it. The only two deaths, where I'm absolutely sure, the irony is there on purpose, are Sirius and Snape's. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Aug 15 17:45:24 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:45:24 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: <46c2f4fe.14b48c0a.3c28.ffff97ba@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175484 Sherry: > Another such moment was right before Snape's death. I have never liked > Snape, never sympathized with him in any of the previous books except in one > scene. But when I realized that Voldemort was going to kill him, the person > he considered his right-hand man and most faithful servant, I was struck > speechless for a second and then began swearing violently! This was before > we saw Snape's memories, and though I'd long suspected that JKR was going to > redeem Snape somehow, I was still shocked and sickened at Voldemort's cold, > almost careless, way of disposing of someone he considered so faithful. Ceridwen: This was one of those few moments when Voldemort came off as evil as he's supposed to be, for me. So casual, so throwaway, just, it's in my best interest to kill you, thanks for the good years, ciao. Just... *silence*. So anticlmactic. So eerily perfect. So ordinary. Like shaking someone's hand at retirement. Ceridwen. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 17:50:25 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:50:25 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175485 > Hickengruendler: > > I'm not sure. I found some of the "good guys" deaths pretty ironic as > well, most notably Sirius'. He was killed by a family member on > Ministry of Magic grounds, after all. By a member of the same family > he seeked to escape and at the very place, where the people lived, > who had put a death penalty on his head a few years ago. Similarly, > Dobby being mortally wounded in Malfoy Manor of all places is darkly > ironic, even though he lived long enough to die outside Shall > Cottage. I also found it ironic, that Fred Weasley died, when > something blew up, given that blowing up things was about his > favourite hobby. I do have to admit, though, that I don't know how > much of it is intended by JKR and how much is simply my reading of > it. The only two deaths, where I'm absolutely sure, the irony is > there on purpose, are Sirius and Snape's. > Alla: Oh yes, definitely - agreed about deaths of good guys being ironic as well, some of them. I am wondering about Dobby now actually. Do you think his death in Malfoy manor symbolises that house elves cannot leave the clutches of the owners yet after all? That is why I do think that JKR made Snape life and death ambigious till the very end in essense that we can still come up with so many different interpretations. I would not be sure if she intended villain or hero death for him. maybe both? JMO, Alla From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 15 17:50:22 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:50:22 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175486 Geoff: > I'm a bit late coming back on this one but I'm > away from my own computer as I am staying with > my daughter, admiring our first grandchild and > having to fight my two teenage step-granddaughters > for computer time!! SSSusan: THAT'S where you've been!! I was beginning to worry about you! :) Geoff: > Eggplant, I have never forgotten you writing some > good while ago that you wanted something along the > lines of "murder, mayhem and b blood spilt." > > Now you can't have all your choices. That would be > plain greedy... > > Without publicising my thoughts, I had quietly > hoped for three outcomes in DH; I got, I suppose, > one and a half, one of them being that Harry lived > (Hooray!). SSSusan: Now, are you *sure* you won't publicize those thoughts, Geoff? You've aroused curiosity now! I'd love to know what the 1.5 out of three you got were, and what the 1.5 you didn't get were. In my case, I got so much that I'd hoped for! To wit: * Harry alive; in fact, I got that Harry's BELIEF that he had to sacrifice himself and his WILLINGNESS to do so out of love would somehow be 'enough' and that he'd not actually have to do so in the end [this was probably my biggest thing]. * OBHWF in the pairings of Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermy. * DDM!Snape, including that DD was weakening & dying throughout the year, that Snape & DD had talked in advance about Snape having to kill him, and the 'command' on the tower. * I even, though I didn't THINK I could like it terribly (but actually did), got LOLLIPOPS (or TEWWW EWWWW). What I didn't get were: * confirmation of what happened during the missing 24 hours (bother). * both twins alive * an ending which was 'elegantly simple,' a phrase I'd used many times over the years. I mean, with the elder wand complexity and that bundle under the chair at King's Cross and all of that, it was certainly NOT simple... though I suppose 'elegant' is still in the mix as an arguable point. Anyone else care to bite? Siriusly Snapey Susan From va32h at comcast.net Wed Aug 15 18:01:26 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:01:26 -0000 Subject: The Trio Alone (was Re: Hermione's Enchanted Coins WAS: Communication) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175487 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > Something that confunded me in DH was why Hermione, Harry, and Ron > didn't even have ONE SINGLE enchanted DA coin between the three of > them, for purposes of communicating with Neville and the rest of the > gang. Hermione had been so well-prepared for their leaving, so >thorough in > packing...I really think she would have had her coin. I mean, she's > the one who invented the danged things! And, if for some reason, she > did not, wouldn't Harry or Ron have had theirs? > > This seemed like something that could have been explained in one > simple line, but wasn't. va32h: I would imagine that the trio did not want or expect to be communicating with anyone else. They keep the purpose and details of their mission a complete secret, and Harry fears that anyone who is in contact with him is in danger. This brings up a larger question - was that a reasonable and necessary belief? Did the Trio have to complete this mission alone? Molly makes a very good point - why is Dumbledore giving this job to three teenagers with the whole Order at his disposal? I admit, my interpretation of Harry using the power of love to defeat Voldemort involved letting other people - lots of other people - aid in the journey. I thought Harry would get cursebreaking tips from Bill, and sneak into the Ministry with Arthur's help, and round up a beastly army with Hagrid's help and find out information on Horcruxes from Slughorn, or Lupin, or and old crone who lives on a mist- shrouded moor and only speaks in riddles. And there would be runes to translate and codes to break and great distances to travel with multiple safe houses and dozens of people helping along the way. It would be this great collective effort, embodied by Harry, but not just about Harry. And we did get some of those things - but not nearly on the scale I felt the previous books had been building toward. Harry is no Voldemort, working entirely alone, but he's depending on Ron and Hermione as exclusively as Voldemort is depending on his horcruxes. How do other readers feel? Did you expect/want it to be another Trio journey or would you have wanted more involvement from the other characters. Do you think Dumbledore's decision to put this task in the hands of *just* the trio was a wise one? va32h, longing desperately for topics that do not remotely involve Sirius or Snape. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 17:58:39 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:58:39 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175488 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Anyone else care to bite? Alla: With pleasure. So I wanted the story that I will read with the baiting breath and would not stop, and **nothing** will pull me out the story and I did, I did, I soooo did. I wanted Harry to live and he did with family and all that:) YAY. I wanted to see clearly that Slytherin house was the house of evil Ideology and I did. I wanted to see that Lupin was not ESE and I did, even if that meant that he died tragically. I wanted Trio to have more fun with magic and they did. I wanted for Harry to see Sirius again and he did ( even if I wanted more for Sirius to be alive, heheh). Oy, I will post again if I think of what else I wanted and it came true. Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 18:01:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:01:23 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's mangled soul (Was: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175489 Jen wrote: > I wondered why Dumbledore discouraged Harry's natural empathy to pain and suffering there, one of his greatest strengths according to Dumbledore. My preliminary answer while reading was they couldn't do anything because of their location, somewhere between the physical world and behind the Veil, and a greater presence would have to offer the healing if it was to happen. Still, why not have Harry walk over and try? He was repulsed but that never stops him from acting. > > Now I'm musing whether DD didn't want to encourage empathy for the live LV at that point, knowing Harry would choose to go back and face him in the flesh and empathy might cost Harry his life. That doesn't really fit with how Harry's heart saves him from LV, how his love protects him. Plus there's the whole Elder wand thing (grr, not happy about the conclusion coming down to the Elder wand). So, I'm not sure what to think! Confusing. Carol responds: I'm not sure what to think, either, except that I knew as I read the description that the horrible child was Voldemort's mutilated soul (not the soul bit in Harry's scar, which DD tells him has been destroyed, DH Am. ed. 708)). I was (and am) sure that DD was right--they really could do nothing to relieve the Voldie-creature's self-inflicted misery. Suppose that Harry had picked it up and tried to comfort it? What would it have done? Would it have screamed in fury and hatred, feeling even more agony from his touch? Voldemort can't endure love or anything related to it (pity, compassion, mercy, etc.). Pity might have increased rather than relieved its sufferings. Or what if Harry had looked into its face and felt the hatred and revulsion he had felt when Wormtail dropped Fetal!mort into the cauldron? ("Let it drown! Please, let it drown!" GoF Am. ed. 641). What would he have thought if he looked into the flayed child's face and saw a "flat and snakelike face with gleaming red eyes" (GoF 640) like those of both the adult Voldemort and the fetal form of GoF? The description of Voldemort's fetal form in GoF is virtually identical to that of the "creature" under the bench: "The thing that Wormtail had been carrying had the shape of a crouched human child, except that Harry had never seen anything less like a child. It was hairless and scaly-looking, a dark, raw, reddish black. Its arms and legs were thin and feeble, and its face--no child alive ever had a face like that [flat and snakelike with red eyes, as above]" (640). Compare: "It had the form of a small, naked child, curled on the ground, its skin raw and rough, flayed-looking, and it lay shuddering under a seat . . . struggling for breath. He was afraid of it. Small and fragile and wounded though it was, he did not want to approach it. . . . He ought to comfort it, but it repulsed him" (707). I think that, after his willing self-sacrifice and with his cleansed perception (no glasses), Harry was in the right frame of mind to deal with the resurrected and murderous adult Voldemort and to point out to him the fate that genuine remorse for his many crimes would save him from. Perhaps, touching the flayed creature or looking into its face would have destroyed that frame of mind, causing him to feel again the terror and revulsion and hatred he had felt in the graveyard for the thing that Wormtail dropped into the cauldron (another representation, IMO, of what LV had become through the willful mutiliation of his own soul, foreshadowing the "flayed child" under the bench at King's Cross). To touch it or look at it closely would certainly have been futils and might have been worse than futile. In any case, what could Harry have done, really? I think that if he had picked the thing up, he would have dropped it in horror if he looked into its face. Even Wormtail could hardly stand to pick up Fetal!mort (Harry sees the look of revulsion on Wormtail's "weak, pale face" as he carries "the creature" to the cauldron, GoF 641), and this flayed creature is even more helpless and revolting. It can only whimper and thump around in helpless agony, not issue orders or wield a wand. The creature under the bench is surely the embodiment of Voldemort's mangled and mutilated soul, or a vision of that future embodiment, perhaps existing at this point only in Harry's and Voldemort's minds, and neither pity nor revulsion will affect it in any way. But it's important for Harry to see it so that he can offer Voldemort a chance to feel remorse, the only chance to same himself from an eternity of helpless suffering, beyond mercy or comfort until, perhaps, the end of time, even though it's a foregone conclusion that Voldemort will reject the offer. Carol, who thinks that the creature simultaneously represents the loss of Voldemort's humanity, tied in with the self-imposed mangling of his soul, and the eternal hell he has created for himself ("Myself am hell," as Milton's Satan said) From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 18:21:51 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:21:51 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175490 > > > > lizzyben: > > Yes, I agree about the "karmic arcs" inherent in Snape's death. > Which is why I've earlier stated that he got a "villian's death", > not a hero's death. The "good guys" do die quite often, but they > don't get that ironic end that the bad guys get - essentially > hoisted on their own petard. Just as crucioing Carrow is crucioed, > cursing Crabbe is killed by his own curse, etc. Tragic irony or > poetic justice? You be the judge. It's the way Snape died, more than > anything else, that convinced me that JKR truly does loathe this > character. And I can see why that would satisfy people who really > disliked him too. Lanval: *g* were you around after Ootp, when Sirius died? lizzyben: As someone who mostly pitied him, it seems a > little cruel to me, but that's how justice seems to be dispelled in > these novels. Lanval: Er, Sirius, dead by drapery, because he chose to taunt and underestimate his opponent? James, dead in part because he trusted Peter, whom he he probably never considered very smart or creative, or ambitious? Snape got bit by a snake, James got blasted by a spell, the Longbottoms got far, far worse than anyone, they didn't even get to die. Nothing heroic there either; LV was already gone at that point. Lupin? Killed unceremoniously in battle, just a short time after he has overcome (at least partially) one of his worst flaws, his weakness and shying away from any sort of responsibility. He choses to do the right thing and -- bang. Dead. Did not live to see his son grow up, the son he never wanted, but fell in love with the moment he was born. Is that not irony at its cruelest? I agree that there's a streak of 'you get what you deserve' running through the books, but there are enough examples of characters either seemingly Getting Away With Things (Draco? Went bald.), or suffering far beyond what they could have ever deserved, to keep it from becoming the overwhelming message of the series. JMO. > From va32h at comcast.net Wed Aug 15 18:25:20 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:25:20 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175491 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Anyone else care to bite? va32h: You know it's funny. I have been very critical of DH since its release, and on other forums I was really taken to task for that. The main accusation being "you're just mad because you didn't get what you wanted." Except that I did get a lot of the things I wanted. Harry lived Ron and Hermione lived Hagrid lived R/Hr and H/G pairings Snape killed DD at his request DDM Snape Neville heroic Voldemort definitely, permanently dead And there were many things I suspected, but didn't have a strong feeling about, which did happen. A Weasley would die (just not Ron) RAB is Regulus Snape/Lily Moody would die Lupin would die Snape would die Harry visits the afterlife and talks to dead people And ironically, pre-DH I HATED the Harrycrux idea and really did not want it, but was actually pretty satisfied with the way JKR handled it. And yet I'm still deeply critical of the book, because (aside from Harrycrux) it wasn't what happened but the way it happened that mattered to me. JKR's ideas aren't what I disliked in DH, it was her execution. va32h From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 18:29:50 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:29:50 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175492 > Anyone else care to bite? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > ***Katie: What did I want? Hmmm....lotsa stuff. Harry, Hermione, and Ron to live - Got that one! Snape to live - Boo, hiss. Snape to be a good guy - Hmmm, not really. Hermione and Ron to get together - Yippee! Harry and Ginny to NOT get together - Blah. All the Weasleys to live - RIP Fred. Voldemort to get what was coming to him - Sort of. I wish he'd had a little bit more screen time, really. I wanted a long, drawn-out thing. Hogwarts to be the scene of the final battle - Like JKR was channeling my wishes, really! For the book to wrap up the series well - For me, it did, so Yippee! I'm sure I have more...I'll have to ponder it, Katie From mjanetd at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 14:20:56 2007 From: mjanetd at yahoo.com (mjanetd) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:20:56 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175493 > mrs_sonofgib: > One of my favorite moments happened during this same scene. I loved > Ron's feeling of regret or embarrassment when he notes that DD most > have known that he would leave thus given him the Deluminator. I > loved Harry that his reply was (semi-quote) 'DD knew you'd always want > to come back.' I thought that was so gracious of him yet true. mjanetd: I never liked Ron through the earlier books. I didn't dislike him either but I always thought he had an unpleasant mean streak (a trait Ginny shares). But the scene when he returns made me really like him for the first time. From rvink7 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 15 19:01:43 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:01:43 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175494 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > wrote: > > > Anyone else care to bite? > > Renee: Yes. Here's what I hoped to see: 1) a seriously flawed Dumbledore. I wanted that ever since the CoS scene where DD said that the appearance of Gryffindor's sword meant that Harry was loyal to him. My initial thought was: Who the heck does DD think he is - God? But at that point, I dismissed it, even tried to rationalise it as a kind of general HP-litmus test provided by the author. My doubts about him resurfaced at the glimpse of triumph in GoF, I found his talk to Harry at the end of OotP a bit questionable and I positively disliked the HBP chapter where he encouraged Harry to take revenge on Voldemort for his parents' deaths. (My daughter took the book along on vacation, so I can't check if my wording is correct here.) But stupidly, I let JKR's insistence that DD was the epitome of goodness lull me asleep, thinking that she just didn't see him the way I did - that she wouldn't lie in interviews (You said it once, Pippin, but I didn't believe you then...) So DH Dumbledore still came as a surprise. Reading the book, though, I felt immensely vindicated for having started to doubt him as early as CoS. I absolutely loved DD's storyline here, and that he admitted Harry was the better man in the end. One of the best things of the book. 2) Snape loving Lily. I got everything I wanted here, and more: like Dante loved Beatrice (who also had green eyes!), Snape loved Lily from the age of nine - an added bonus. 3) non ESE!Lupin. 4) Neville doing something immensely important. Renee From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 19:09:19 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:09:19 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0708151209g284571a5w1818236a789030fe@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175495 Lynda: OK, here goes: What I liked (and for the most part expected) Harry lives Harry and Ginny get back togeher Ron and Hermione get together finally Both Molly and Arthur Weasley live Tonks and Remus marry Snape was working for DD all along, just like I thought Only one Weasley is lost during the war. Harry needed to be willing to be the ultimate sacrifice to survive Neville (along with Harry's other gryffindor dorm mates) comes into his own What I would have liked to see done differently I was never a fan of Harry the horcrux. JKR did finally make it work for me, though. I would have liked to see Lupin and Tonks survive. Yes. Parents of young children die in wars. That's life. But the orphan child being raised by grandmother/godfather, etc has been done already by JKR--she got seven books out of it. Expelliarmus anyone? Hedwig's death got to me. She was caged and completely innocent. I also would have liked to have gotten a glimpse of Harry's new pet if he got one after the series completion. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 19:09:46 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:09:46 -0000 Subject: DH and PS/SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175496 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Okay, folks. We once had a whole set of theories about how the > Potterverse existed in a grand cycle with some books mirroring other > books. I believe it was set off by JKR's comment about GOF being > the "hinge" of the series. In this set of ideas, everything was > supposed to come round to the beginning, once again. > Annemehr: Talisman is the only one I know of who wrote such theories about that *particular* patterning (not that I can be sure I haven't missed something, of course). The original such, she ended up calling "Goblet Theory" -- events are mirrored in pairs of opposites in the books thusly: 1/7, 2/6, 3/5, *and* furthermore, each mirrored pair is represented by a skewed, or parodied, version in GoF. Unfortunately, though the search function has shown me a few oblique references to it, I can't find anywhere where she really expounds on it. Of course, right before DH, she did post a set of theories that grew out of the original Goblet idea: the Dark Mirror posts, wherein the DADA profs of books 1, 2, and 3 are variously reflected by Harry, DD, and the DADA profs of books 5, 6, and 7: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163728 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/172184 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/172210 **************************************************************** By the way, as I read DH, I was pleased to see that Snape does indeed represent the DADA here. Get it? He may not be the Defense Against the Dark Arts Teacher (cos there isn't one of those), but he most certainly *is* the defense against the Dark Arts Teacher (one Amycus Carrow). And he certainly mirrors Quirrell: Quirrell pretended to work for DD, but was really LV's man; Snape pretended to work for LV, but was really DD's man. Quirrell worked to kill Harry, but was ultimately unsuccessful; Snape worked to save Harry, and was ultimately successful. Harry was supportive of Quirrell until he found out he was an enemy; Harry had enmity for Snape until he found out he had been supporting him. LV told Harry, via Quirrell's head, to save himself ("Better save your own life and join me..."); DD told Harry, via Snape's head (the memories), to go to his death. Quirrell died when his master's plan was thwarted, and LV cared not; Snape died though his master's plan was successful, and DD expressed regret (okay, a pitiful sort of regret, when he had done NOTHING to warn Snape of the danger he was in, but there you are). ***************************************************************** I see that your examples involve things that are the *same* between 1 and 7, whereas Talisman's theory involves mirrored symmetry. I'll just point out that symmetry involves two main qualities, 1)a fundamental *sameness* between the two parts, but 2)they are reversed images of each other. A mirror image looks just like you, except for the one detail that right and left are reversed. In some of my comments on your examples, I note where I see mirror-images. Lupinlore: > I don't believe in the grand conception of these theories -- i.e. > that the series is some kind of fantastic palindrome where themes and > tropes are repeated in reverse order on either side of GOF. Annemehr: I'm not up for a thorough analysis of this now, but there's plenty of time, if I ever feel like it. ;) Meanwhile, the Dark Mirror posts themselves are good series-wide examples, and here's another for you: In 3, Sirius tries to protect Harry, but then Harry comes to Sirius's rescue: Sirius lives. In 5, Harry tries to protect Sirius, but then Sirius comes to Harry's rescue: Sirius dies. (Skewed/parody version in 4: each is worried for the other's safety throughout, but neither one can really *do* anything for the other.) Lupinlore: Still, > if we look just at the two extreme ENDS of the series, DH and PS/SS, > I think there might be something to the idea of a circle. In other > words, the two books, while different in many, many ways, had a > striking number of fundamentals in common: > 3) Both books turn on Harry coming into possession of an extremely > powerful magical tool he has no desire, ultimately, to use. > Annemehr: You can make this one stronger: in both, the purpose of the powerful magical tools is to defeat Death. In both, Dumbledore gave Harry the information he needed to find the objects. The mirror-symmetry: in PS/SS Harry tried to get the object before LV could; in DH Harry decided not to do so. (The corresponding magical object that Goblet Theory would posit for book 4 would be, in my opinion, the Goblet of Fire itself, which LV, instead of DD, gave Harry the information to find, through his agent Crouch!Moody. Another part of the "skew" involved is that the Goblet had led many contestants *to* their deaths -- as it was meant to do for Harry.) Lupinlore: > 4) Both books feature important objects protected at Gringott's. > Annemehr: Yep. And Gringott's was *burgled* for each of them -- vaults actually broken into, and the perps escaping -- but one foray was a mission for LV and was thwarted, while the other was a mission for DD and was successful (mirror image). The GoF parody: Harry is *suspected* of burgling Snape's private stores when in fact he did not. Lupinlore: > 6) Both books play on the rivalries among and between houses. Both > end with the expulsion of Slytherin House -- figuratively in PS/SS, > literally -- if temporarily -- in DH. > Annemehr: I join the ranks of people who think you nailed it here -- and in the further analysis at the end of your post (snipped). Lupinlore: > 7) In both books, Neville ends up showing depths of bravery that > save the day in the end (with points in PS/SS, literally in DH). Annemehr: Again, yep, with the mirror images being in who he stands up *to* -- his friends in 1, and his enemy in 7. I think the corresponding GoF image is his bravery in approaching (two of) his friends to get a date for the Yule Ball. And I'll add another biggie, in three parts: 8)(a)~In PS, LV is defeated by Lily's sacrificial death which has protective power; ~In DH, LV is defeated by Harry's sacrificial near-death which has protective power. I am one who forecast, long ago, that Harry would end the series by echoing Lily's sacrifice -- I just never thought LV would fall for the *exact same* magical mechanism a second time. To quote CoSMovie!Ron, how thick could you get? ~In GoF, the already-dead return (in a manner of speaking) to save Harry in the graveyard 8)(b)In both books, LV fires an AK which moves a bit of his own soul - - an unintentional Hx -- into or out of Harry (the mirror images). The book 4 skewed image is where LV intentionally takes a bit of Harry's blood into himself (and we see this blood is *like* a Hx for Harry as it keeps him from actually dying from the AK). 8)(c)Furthermore, in both books Harry gains or loses the ability to speak Parseltongue when the bit of LV goes into or out of Harry (mirror images). The book 4 skewed image is Dudley growing a *snaky tongue* when a bit of toffee goes into him (and his mother tries heroically to protect him, to boot). This is actually one of the first examples Talisman gave me, on another list, years ago before HBP was published, so it's cool to see it bear out in 7 so perfectly. And, another! 9)In 1, Harry saves a dragon by flying it (via Charlie's friends' brooms) out of Scotland to a dragon reserve; In 7, a dragon saves Harry by flying him to Scotland; In 4, Harry battles a dragon imported into Scotland for the purpose. Lupinlore: > I don't know how much of this was conscious on JKR's part. If I had > to guess at any of it being conscious, I would say it's the parts > about Neville, Snape, and Slytherin. I feel quite sure it was conscious -- there's just too much of it to be otherwise. Annemehr From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Aug 15 19:11:24 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:11:24 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175497 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Hickengruendler: > > > > I'm not sure. I found some of the "good guys" deaths pretty ironic as > > well, most notably Sirius'. He was killed by a family member on > > Ministry of Magic grounds, after all. By a member of the same family > > he seeked to escape and at the very place, where the people lived, > > who had put a death penalty on his head a few years ago. Similarly, > > Dobby being mortally wounded in Malfoy Manor of all places is darkly > > ironic, even though he lived long enough to die outside Shall > > Cottage. I also found it ironic, that Fred Weasley died, when > > something blew up, given that blowing up things was about his > > favourite hobby. I do have to admit, though, that I don't know how > > much of it is intended by JKR and how much is simply my reading of > > it. The only two deaths, where I'm absolutely sure, the irony is > > there on purpose, are Sirius and Snape's. > > > > > Alla: > > Oh yes, definitely - agreed about deaths of good guys being ironic as > well, some of them. > > I am wondering about Dobby now actually. Do you think his death in > Malfoy manor symbolises that house elves cannot leave the clutches of > the owners yet after all? Hickengruendler: I see Dobby's death in a row with some other characters (for example Sirius and Snape, but also Dumbledore, if we count him being cursed by the ring as the cause for him dying), who tried to leave a terrible past behind them, but whose past finally caught up with them. Of course there are some differences; Snape for example is to a great deal responsible for his bad past, while Dobby isn't at all. But it's the same theme. The characters died trying to face the demons of their past. Dobby surely wasn't happy to return to Malfoy Manor, but he did so willingly trying to safe Harry. Snape returned to his Death Eater "job" as a spy, even though he clearly wasn't happy about it either and even though he could have tried to run away like Karkaroff. Sirius went to the ministry trying to save Harry, and even though he knew, that there would be an extra danger for him at that place, since was a supposed criminal on the run. All of these decisions add IMO some grace for their deaths, which otherwise where cruel and almost random (as dead is in real life, as well). Dumbledore's death was in this regard even the least graceful of them all, since he got cursed, because he gave in to his weakness, but his motive was that strong, seeing the people he loved and lost again and wanting to apologize, that it is easily understandable. Harry would have been in big danger to make the same mistake here. Alla: > That is why I do think that JKR made Snape life and death ambigious > till the very end in essense that we can still come up with so many > different interpretations. > > I would not be sure if she intended villain or hero death for him. > maybe both? Hickengruendler: I don't think it has to be either. I mean, Cedric Diggory, for example, did not die a heroe's death, but definitely not a villain's death, either. He was a victim. Maybe Snape, in a completely different way, was in the end just a victim as well. I definitely don't think it was a villain's death, mainly because there was no satisfaction from any character. Harry, who at this time still detested Snape, was so shocked by it, that he showed himself to Snape, (which led to Snape fulfilling Dumbledore's final task). And judging by Sherry's post, at least some readers, who hated Snape prior to this, shared Harry's shock as well. There's a big difference between this scene and the recations after for example Bellatrix and Voldmeort's deaths from the other characters. I'm not sure, if it was a heroe's death, but I would say it was. I mean, in his way he died fulfilling his job in the fight against Voldemort the way Sirius, Lupin or Fred did, and as mentioned above, he managed to fulfill the last task given to , even if it was thanks to Harry. So, yes, I think it was pretty heroic IMO, even though the manner was certainly nasty, but so is ending up having a knife in your back, like Dobby did, which doesn't make Dobby's death less heroic. I think the nastiness was simply to show how horrid Voldemort can be even to those he considered his allies. I personally found Snape's Death scene pretty powerful, particularly in contrast with him being allowed to sit to the right of Voldemort in the first chapter. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Aug 15 19:17:10 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:17:10 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175498 > > Jen: I wondered why Dumbledore discouraged Harry's natural empathy to > pain and suffering there, one of his greatest strengths according to > Dumbledore. My preliminary answer while reading was they couldn't do > anything because of their location, somewhere between the physical > world and behind the Veil, and a greater presence would have to offer > the healing if it was to happen. Still, why not have Harry walk > over and try? He was repulsed but that never stops him from acting. Pippin: Because it would send the wrong message, IMO. I hope the world has seen enough misguided attempts to force salvation on the souls of others. And JKR shows clearly that if you are concerned about children, making sure they have food, comfort and scope to develop their talents will do more good than concern about their fate in the afterlife. I don't mind people finding negative messages in the book, but the concern of some seems to be about *other* people reading negative messages. I could take that more seriously if we were actually hearing from them. Is there anyone who has been persuaded that they shouldn't help needy children thanks to reading King's Cross? Jen: > Now I'm musing whether DD didn't want to encourage empathy for the > live LV at that point, knowing Harry would choose to go back and face > him in the flesh and empathy might cost Harry his life. Pippin: Actually it's Harry's empathy for LV that saves him. If LV had thought about it, I suspect he could have defeated Harry by non- magical means, the same way Harry defeated the troll back in PS/SS -- just levitate a house table (Slytherin by choice ) and drop it on potty wee Potter's head, for example. He still had his Death Eaters and his vast magical skills, he'd have been master of the Elder Wand for real, and I'm not sure the spell of protection that Harry put on the WW by trying to die would have held past Harry's actual death. But Harry's little speech is psychological warfare. Harry knows that Voldemort can't believe what Harry tells him without becoming something other than Voldemort. It wasn't Harry's ownership of the Elder Wand that defeated Voldemort, it was Voldemort's need to deny the truth of what Harry was saying. Pippin From rvink7 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 15 19:19:02 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:19:02 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175499 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lanval1015" wrote: > >> lizzyben: > As someone who mostly pitied him, it seems a > > little cruel to me, but that's how justice seems to be dispelled > in > > these novels. > > Lanval: > Er, Sirius, dead by drapery, because he chose to taunt and > underestimate his opponent? > > James, dead in part because he trusted Peter, whom he he probably > never considered very smart or creative, or ambitious? > > Snape got bit by a snake, James got blasted by a spell, the > Longbottoms got far, far worse than anyone, they didn't even get to > die. Nothing heroic there either; LV was already gone at that point. > > Lupin? Killed unceremoniously in battle, just a short time after he > has overcome (at least partially) one of his worst flaws, his > weakness and shying away from any sort of responsibility. He choses > to do the right thing and -- bang. Dead. Did not live to see his son > grow up, the son he never wanted, but fell in love with the moment > he was born. Is that not irony at its cruelest? Renee: Now that you mention Lupin, I wonder what to make of Tonks in this respect? Getting killed for relentlessly pursuing Lupin, even onto the battlefield, regardless of the fact that she had a baby at home who needed her more than her husband? Would that be her particular variety of karmic justice? I have to say hers is the only death in the book that really doesn't sit well with me; instead of making me sad in a cathartic way, it irritates me. Not that I can't see the other side of it: Tonks wanting to fight because in a Voldemort-dominated world her son would have no future. But what's the purpose of it, beyond JKR's decision that she wanted to show a happy orphan in the epilogue (and let me add, for those who know what I'm talking about, beyond any alchemical considerations). Renee From muellem at bc.edu Wed Aug 15 19:27:30 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:27:30 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175500 > > > Anyone else care to bite? > > > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > > colebiancardi: DDM!Snape, not L.I.L.Y!Snape or LOLLIPOPS or EWWWWWWW!Snape, which is what happened. sigh The Trio to live - yes Regulus Black - to be RAB (yes), to be a brave Slytherin(yes), and to be alive(no) Snape to live - well, I think JKR left that open :) For Voldemort to be dead - yes That DD told Snape to kill him - yes Neville to live - yes For House unification - no - bad, bad JKR for setting us up From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Aug 15 19:31:25 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:31:25 -0000 Subject: DH and PS/SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175501 > Lupinlore: > > 7) In both books, Neville ends up showing depths of bravery that > > save the day in the end (with points in PS/SS, literally in DH). > > Annemehr: > Again, yep, with the mirror images being in who he stands up *to* -- > his friends in 1, and his enemy in 7. I think the corresponding GoF > image is his bravery in approaching (two of) his friends to get a > date for the Yule Ball. Hickengruendler: And to add to his, in PS he was put under some Body-Binding spell by Hermione, in Deathly Hallows he was put under a Body-Binding spell by Voldemort, but in the end managed to break free of it. There's also a mirroring imagine, that the reason Snape saved in book 1, was because of his connection to James (or so Dumbledore tells Harry), and in the end we learn, that the reason for Snape being on the good side in general are rather because of his connection with Lily. Also the fact, that we learn in book 7, what Dumbledore would see in the Mirror of Erised, and that in fact his deepest desire was identical to Harry's. The centaurs (except Firenze) refuse to help in PS, but do help in DH in the end, if only maybe, becaus ethe Death Eaters insulted them. (Though the difference in the centaurs behaviour between DH and OotP is probably more powerful than between DH and PS.) In some ways Petunia's outburst could be paralleled with the Pensieve memory's, where we see her calling Lily a freak for probably the first time (chronologically, I mean), though that might really stretching it. From rvink7 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 15 19:39:55 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:39:55 -0000 Subject: DH and PS/SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175502 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" > wrote: > > > > Okay, folks. We once had a whole set of theories about how the > > Potterverse existed in a grand cycle with some books mirroring > other > > books. I believe it was set off by JKR's comment about GOF being > > the "hinge" of the series. In this set of ideas, everything was > > supposed to come round to the beginning, once again. > > Renee: Has someone already mentioned Hagrid carrying Harry as a baby in PS/SS and as a (fake) corpse in DH? A friend of mine came up with this in her blog, and I think it's a very good example. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 19:47:55 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:47:55 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175503 > lizzyben: > Yeah, that whole message about the Power of Love got lost somewhere > along the way, didn't it? It came down to whose wand had more power - > oh, and the only way to get a powerful wand is to take it from > another wizard by force. Might Makes Right might be the real message > here. zgirnius: The ending of the book had two major confrontations between Harry and Voldemort. The first (in "The Forest Again") had the Power of Love *all* over it. Snape's love for Lily, which motivated him to tell Harry what he needed to know to defeat Voldmeort, and Harry's self- sacrificing love for his friends which made him willing to do what it took. Harry and his deceased loved ones' love that helped give Harry the strength to do it. The blood protection thingy which explains why Harry survived it, which goes back to Lily's love for her child. And probably more love that I am forgetting or have not yet thought of. The second confrontation would not have been possible, were it not for Narcissa's love for Draco, which motivated her to betray Voldemort, so Love was not entirely absent from that scene either. From ken.fruit at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 20:00:18 2007 From: ken.fruit at gmail.com (rt11guru) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:00:18 -0000 Subject: The Virtues of Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175504 Melissa wrote: True Ron's broken wand didn't respond well to spell-o-tape but then Ron was at a disadvantage. His wand in COS was a hand me down and hadn't actually chosen him. guru: This brings up the question, how much of what Gilderoy Lockhart did to himself was caused by the broken wand and how much was caused by trying to use the broken wand on its owner? From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Aug 15 20:12:34 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:12:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of Sorting and Snape Message-ID: <16551466.1187208754487.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 175505 From: Zara >The second confrontation would not have been possible, were it not >for Narcissa's love for Draco, which motivated her to betray >Voldemort, so Love was not entirely absent from that scene either. Bart: Admittedly, it would have been completely impractical, but I still would have loved it if Harry's answer to Cissy's question about whether or not Draco was alive was, "He'd better be. I saved his butt twice!" But Ron's version was also fun. Bart From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Aug 15 20:18:41 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:18:41 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175506 > > > Anyone else care to bite? > > > > > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > Pippin: Harry lived Voldemort died Harry was a horcrux DDM!Snape Harry recognized Lupin's cowardice Harry recognized Snape's bravery Snape loved Lily The suits of armor were animated to defend the castle The House Elves clobbered the DE's Regulus was RAB One Big Happy Weasley Family (almost) Pippin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 20:20:08 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:20:08 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175507 > Hickengruendler: > I'm not sure. I found some of the "good guys" deaths pretty ironic as > well, most notably Sirius'. He was killed by a family member on > Ministry of Magic grounds, after all. By a member of the same family > he seeked to escape and at the very place, where the people lived, > who had put a death penalty on his head a few years ago. zgirnius: Oh, yes, definitely. Sirius for sure had an ironic death of being 'hoist on his own petard'. Let's not forget Kreacher's role while we are about it. A hopeless Pureblood supremacist there was no point for Sirius to even bother treating decently? Nope, turns out he just really needed his 'masters' to treat him nicely, like Sirius's pureblood supremacist brother had always done. Tragic and fitting in nice ways as well as ironoc, he was after all trying to protect Harry. But then Snape's death was as well. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 20:22:58 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:22:58 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175508 lizzyben: > > Yes, I agree about the "karmic arcs" inherent in Snape's death. Which is why I've earlier stated that he got a "villian's death", not a hero's death. The "good guys" do die quite often, but they > don't get that ironic end that the bad guys get - essentially > hoisted on their own petard. Just as crucioing Carrow is crucioed, > cursing Crabbe is killed by his own curse, etc. Tragic irony or > poetic justice? You be the judge. It's the way Snape died, more than > anything else, that convinced me that JKR truly does loathe this > character. And I can see why that would satisfy people who really > disliked him too. As someone who mostly pitied him, it seems a > little cruel to me, but that's how justice seems to be dispelled in > these novels. > Carol responds: But it isn't a villain's death. He's killed by Voldemort (technically by Nagini, on LV's orders) like so many good or innocent characters. Cedric is murdered on LV's orders just for being in the way. Charity Burbage is murdered by LV and then fed to Nagini for daring to state that Muggles are people just like wizards. It's ironic--and shocking to both Harry and the reader--that Voldemort would ruthlessly murder a man he thinks both loyal and extremely useful to him simply because of a wand (which, again ironically, he knows nothing about and is not master of). Snape dies accomplishing an extremely important task, at the same time making possible Harry's understanding of him in a way that no other death would allow. Harry even honors his dying wish to look into his eyes. I would much rather that Snape had lived, of course, or had turned on the DEs and Voldemort in the midst of battle, revealing both his powers and which side he was on, but this is Harry's book, not Snape's, and if Snape is an epic hero, he's Odyssus, not Achilles. His death is tragic, unbearably painful for those of us who care for him, ironic, and yet by no means ignoble. He strives in his death throes to give Harry not only the message he needs to defeat Voldemort but the other memories that will show that Snape is telling the truth. We know from other evidence in the books that the soul is eternal, that a wizard can choose to become a ghost or "go on," that "going on" (unless you're Voldemort) is less terrible than life on earth, which can be excruciatingly painful. Even Grindelwald, it seems, has a choice to repent at the end. Dead!DD says, "they say he showed remorse in later years, alone in his cell in Nurmengard. I hope that it is true. I would like to think he did feel the horror and shame of what he had done" (DH Am. ed. 719). If we combine these words with Hermione's comments on remorse having the power to destroy a Horcrux and piece a damaged soul back together and the soul being immortal (102-103), it seems likely that even a mass murderer and torturer like Grindelwald, the Hitler of the WW, can be saved from a fate like Voldemort's. And given Snape's seventeen years or so of anguished expiation for sins and crimes of much lesser magnitude and his final action, without which Harry would have died without destroying the soul bit, it seems highly likely that he died unredeemed or suffered a fate remotely resembling Voldemort's. Even his "murder" of Dumbledore, performed at DD's request as an act of mercy, would not have harmed his soul as I read that scene. Side note: Not all the deaths in JKR's books are karmic. Dobby dies as the result of a silver knife hurled by Bellatrix Lestrange. Dumbledore dies in part as the result of his own folly and in fault as the result of his own plan. There is nothing karmic in Colin Creevey's death as far as I can see. Wormtail, admittedly, dies ignominiously, the "gift" that Voldemort gave him punishing him for his small, unconscious impulse of mercy. Unlike Snape, he accomplishes nothing except to inadvertently aid in the escape of Harry and his friends through his inability to thwart them. Bellatrix, the woman warrior, goes out fighting, mirroring the death of her cousin, Sirius. Lupin and Tonks die off-page. Mad-Eye Moody is AKd by Voldemort in pursuit of the wrong Harry. Regulus dies both heroically and horribly. Death in these books as in life is ever-present and unpredictable. But death is worse for the survivors than it is for the dead, judging from DD and Harry's loved ones and Lupin, the last Marauder. Unless, of course, you're Voldemort, who feared death and tried to prevent it by murderous and unnatural means. Carol, thinking that if Snape had died in despair unheeded or unheard by Harry, his death would have been meaningless, but his own actions combined with Harry's response give it significance and scarcely bearable poignancy From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 15 20:23:24 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:23:24 -0000 Subject: Voldemort/Harry Showdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175509 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > In another thread entirely, Ceridwen said: > > I was more noticing the whole world stopping just to listen to Harry > playing Dumbledore to LV's Harry, and getting an earful of LOLLIPOPS > for their patience. > > va32h here: > This sent me off on another tangent. I agree that it seems odd for > Harry to monologue at this moment, and to bring up such a variety of > topics. > ... > > And yet, for Voldemort to die publicly, by Harry's hand, requires all > the witnesses to back off. Is that believable? Would the readership > accept and ending in which Voldemort is ganged up on by dozens of > people, or are we conditioned to expect a one-on-one, and does the > story require it? > > I have to admit, I'm stunned that Harry glossed over the whole "you > thought I was dead but I'm not" issue to talk about Snape, but I > suppose that we needed to know that Voldemort knew Snape wasn't his? > For Snape's sake? So that Snape's memory could be exonerated, as > Sirius' had been? > > Personally I would have liked Snape to be the one to reveal that > tidbit, even if he did die for it. But that's another topic. > > While I dislike the cliche of the hero-villain duelling monologues, I > am not sure an alternative would have worked. > > Your thoughts? > > va32h > Ken: I think that too many of these confrontations in the series have been overly Hollywoodized, or maybe it is overly pulp fictionalized. I've never been in a deadly confrontation but I suspect they more often are like poor Cedric's last moment: "kill the spare", and that's that. Personally I would have preferred to see dozens to hundreds of people hitting Tom and Bellatrix at once with so many spells that their combined effect was lethal. That would be more satisfying to me in the same way that having each horcrux destroyed by someone else was more satisfying than watching Harry get them all. Having the whole great hall participate at once would drive home the point that together we can take care of this evil, as we or our parents should have done long ago. In a way having the two chief villains die in personal combat gives their deaths a nobility they would have lacked in other circumstances. Crushing them like cockroaches under the combined weight of hundreds of boots would have been more appropriate ends for them. Riddle would have been just as publicly, irrevocably dead. The Harry/Tom ending does give Harry the chance to play Dumbledore for the reader. As far as the elder wand goes, Harry could have told us about that later on in the discussion with Dumbledore's portrait. The revelations about Snape were really only important at that point to allow Harry to mess with Tom's mind so that he could better guess/control when Tom was going to pounce. If it hadn't been single combat that would not have mattered. If it hadn't been said then I think that the WW for once would be willing to believe Harry when he told them about Snape later on. Two nice touches do come out of that final discussion though. One is Harry's suggestion to Tom that he try to heal his soul through remorse. The story would have been much the poorer without that and it would have been impossible if Riddle had gone down in a hail of wand fire during an intense battle. The other is of course the Dirty Harry Potter moment: It all comes down to this, do you feel lucky Riddle? Do you? I'll take the cliched good guy/bad guy taunting in order to get that! I guess it is a cliche in itself but one I still like. It does seem a little odd that no one is all that surprised that Harry is alive. I guess nothing that Harry could have done or survived would have surprised the WW at that point. I don't accept that Tom and Harry were both literally present in the King's Cross scene but Tom must have had a near death experience of his own during those moments. He must have had an inkling that Harry could have survived if he did. So Harry reasonably would have known that he did not have to explain that to Tom. On a tangent of my own, why Tom chose Narcissa to check Harry's apparent corpse for signs of life is beyond me. That she either lied to him or was fooled by Harry must not have been much of a shock to him. Of course the greatest Legilimens the world has ever known can't mentally probe a body and determine whether it is alive or not??? Oh well, some things you just have to ignore in order to enjoy the ride. Ken From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Wed Aug 15 20:11:49 2007 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:11:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Inconsistencies (Was: Hermione's parents) In-Reply-To: <829438.46448.qm@web30006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C9AD8FA5F98320-F0C-696F@mblk-d38.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175510 Sylvia wrote: As for his occupation, Harry, along with Ron, is working at the Auror Department at the Ministry of Magic. After all these years, Harry is now the department head. "Harry and Ron utterly revolutionized the Auror Department," Rowling said. "They are now the experts. It doesn't matter how old they are or what else they've done." Did Ron have two careers? Or is JKR making it up as she goes along? Melanie: I think that he probably had two careers. There is no reason why he couldn't help his brother with shop (I am going to take a guess in that George pretty much ran things and Ron helped in an advisory capacity). However, some of her answers seemed far to in depth to just be made up on the spot. I think she has given some thought to it. Oryomai: I think JKR just dropped the ball on this one.? She's making up the ending as she's going along.? I know I'll probably get flamed for saying this about JKR, but I think that she totally lost the plot and what she was doing in the final book.? I felt the book was sloppy, full of inconsistencies, and the worst HP book out of them all.? One of my good friends, who reads the books casually, said this to me last night: "I've always said that JK Rowling is incredible at creating fabulous characters and fascinating situation, but her plots sucks."? After DH, I must agree. Oryomai Snape lives. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Wed Aug 15 20:35:24 2007 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:35:24 -0400 Subject: Worrying about Unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C9AD92F1438C80-F0C-6B08@mblk-d38.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175511 The recent discussions on Harry and Co's use of the Unforgivables worries me.? I have seen *far* too many people using the rationale "This is war!? It was war!? They had to do what they had to in war!"? It makes me nervous because we're saying that it doesn't matter was Harry and the Order did or what spells they used or how they accomplished things because they were in a war.? It seems to me like some people are saying that the ends justify the means entirely in war, that the best way to fight an enemy is to sink to their level, and that there really is no problem with torturing people if you're in a war.? The even worse justification is the argument I have seen that says that it's okay that the good guys use them because they're the good guys -- whatever the good guys do is good because that's who they are.? I don't think we can give Harry and the Order a free pass because they're the "good guys"? A questionable wizard once said that it's our choices that make us who we are -- how far can the good guys go and remain unshakably good? Oryomai Snape Lives. --Also, I desperately tried to keep my personal opinions on current wars out of this post and I apologize if it leaked through. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 20:39:27 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:39:27 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175512 > SSSusan: > Anyone else care to bite? zgirnius: Things I wanted and got: 1) Harry thinking he had to die, but surviving. 2) DDM!Snape. 3) LOLLIPOPS done well. 4) The Trio and Harry surviving and pairing off to live happily ever after. I loved the Hermione/Ron relationship as depicted in DH. 5) A great moment for Molly Weasley. 6) A great moment for Neville. 7) Something good for Draco. I loved him trying to lug the unconscious Goyle out of the (burning) RoR. Things I did not know I wanted, but was delighted to get: 1) Dumbledore's backstory 2) Kreacher's Tale 3) Dobby. (Dobby?! Yes, I like Dobby now). Things I wanted, but did not get: 1) Snape to live. But I soooo knew I was not getting it anyway, and I thought his story was beautifully done. Snape's life and death is certainly the thing about the books that will stay with me the longest. 2) Minerva as Headmistress. Though I can ignore the interviews if I like, and keep my version of the stuff that happened after DH in my head the way I like it . I mean, WTF, *getting on in years*? She is HALF the age Dumbledore was when he died, in office. And she did a fine job leading the defense of Hogwarts. She is no Dumbledore, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. (And why does it have to be an unnamed MALE? *grumble*) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 20:37:51 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:37:51 -0000 Subject: This Moment - with Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175513 Sorry to delete everything, but this thread has gotten very complex, covering virtually all of the book. But as long as we are on the subject of Neville, I have to confess I felt a rush of pride when Neville stepped out of the portrait and into the Hogshead. He was so confident, and so causally brushed aside his injuries; 'ah, this, this is nothing'. Then when they return to Hogwarts, it's Neville that every one is looking to for leadership. Excellent. I also felt a bit of pride as Neville challenged Harry. What had they been fighting for? Why had the kept the DA going, if not to be ready to confront Voldemort and the DE's when the time came? Neville takes a stand. You go Neville! Steve/bboyminn From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Aug 15 20:34:35 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:34:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Wandlore, Harry's Death, redux Message-ID: <23805592.1187210075357.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 175514 Bart: OK, I've reread DH, carefully, and think I understand a few more things (especially since I was specifically looking for answers to what happened at the end). It seems to me that DD was using shorthand when he said Harry was a Horcrux; a better way would be to say that Harry was a SORT OF Horcrux, in that he was carrying the soul piece, but the soul-piece was not integrated with him (although there was a meeting point). This means that, unlike regular Horcruxes, the soul piece could be destroyed without killing Harry, and in particular without extraordinary magical means. That does not mean, however, that it was easy. It is clear to me that DD was trying to figure out how to destroy the Mortysoul piece without killing Harry; when Morty used Harry's blood to restore his body, DD saw his opportunity (the canonical gleam of triumph). Now, I am reasonably sure that DD had figured out that when Morty hit Harry with an AK blast, the shared blood tie would cause the Mortysoul to absorb the blast. Of course, the next one would hit Harry. But, with mastery the elder wand at stake, Harry had to freely allow Morty to try to kill him, so that he would not be defeated by Morty (much as Snape did not defeat DD). Now, here's how I read what happened, based on Ollie's explanation of wandlore: 1) Any wizard can get acceptable results out of any wand. 2) All things being equal, a wizard will eventually bond with his/her wand. 3) A wizard who has bonded with his/her wand will produce superior magic, to the point that the wand works in concert with the wizard. 4) If a wizard is defeated in combat, but keeps his/her wand, his wand will stay bonded to him/her. 5) If a wizard is defeated in battle, and does NOT keep his/her wand, the wand will become bonded with the winner. 6) Draco defeated DD in a duel. Since DD did not recover the elder wand, it bonded to Draco. 7) When Harry defeated Draco, since Draco never recovered the elder wand, it bonded to Harry. 8) When Morty AK'd Harry, since Harry allowed it, the elder wand did not switch sides, therefore was STILL Harry's wand. 9) Harry cast YAE to recover the Elder Wand; Morty cast YAAK, and, since the Elder Wand belonged to Harry, Harry won. Does this make sense? Bart From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Aug 15 20:48:13 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:48:13 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175515 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Wow! There's been a wide range of "moments" for a wide range of > reasons. I guess it's my turn. > Finally jumping into this thread, which I find very enjoyable, thanks Potioncat! I found it very touching when Harry was standing in the graveyard in Godric's Hollow, thinking about his parents lying beneath him, unaware that their living son stood so close by. It's one of the few times (maybe the only time?) that we actually see Harry cry for his parents. Suddenly I was standing in another graveyard over a very dear family member that we lost last year. Allie From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Wed Aug 15 20:55:06 2007 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:55:06 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Severus lives! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C9AD95B1C6B200-F0C-6C4B@mblk-d38.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175516 I've been putting Snape lives in my signature since the book.? I know all the reasons that having Severus die was for the plot -- it takes out the entire generation of Harry's parents and serves to show that none of them could move on.? But I still believe Severus didn't die.? It was too simple and quite frankly it wasn't a fitting death for this book.? Severus has fooled the Dark Lord before and I believe that he has done it again. I thought Severus would have appeared at the end if he was truly dead -- it was Harry's parents' generation coming to help him.? If Severus was really dead, having him appear to see Harry face death, the thing he has been protecting Harry from for all these years, would be a fitting scene. I think it would be a disservice to the books if Severus were actually dead.? JKR had created a character who was good, but was not nice.? Nice *is* different than good. Before DH came out I wrote a post about the characters not belonging only to JKR anymore (I don't remember if it was on this list or another one).? She has put the characters and their stories out into the world -- it is now up to us to interpret and believe what we wish.? I said that there was a possibility that would not agree with some of her endings, and I haven't.? I believe Severus lives.? And I always will. Oryomai Severus lives. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Aug 15 20:56:32 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:56:32 -0000 Subject: Why fly when you can apparate? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175517 I suppose this was just for the sake of the plot, but several times when Harry is somewhere that Voldemort is rushing to get, Harry pictures him flying over landscapes. Flying? Why fly? Apparition is much, much faster! Even for arguments' sake if he couldn't appareate INTO the house, he knew exactly where Nagini was, why not apparate outside the house and *then* fly? For that matter - do we know that Vodemort CAN appareate? The Death Eaters apprate to him when he presses the Dark Mark, but have we ever seen the reverse? Allie From rlpenar at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 21:04:59 2007 From: rlpenar at yahoo.com (R. Penar) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:04:59 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175518 > > Wow! There's been a wide range of "moments" for a wide range of > > reasons. I guess it's my turn. > > > Allie: > Finally jumping into this thread, which I find very enjoyable, thanks > Potioncat! > > I found it very touching when Harry was standing in the graveyard in Godric's Hollow, thinking about his parents lying beneath him, unaware that their living son stood so close by. It's one of the few times (maybe the only time?) that we actually see Harry cry for his parents. Suddenly I was standing in another graveyard over a very dear family member that we lost last year. > > Allie > Now Becky: Yes Allie, I agree, but also to go further, I loved, just loved, when Hermione came up and held his hand and he squeezed it. It was such a moment of maturity for both of them. Such an unspoken bond, and was one of the only times we see Harry allowing himself to feel the sadness emotion in front of his friends. Usually we find him trying hard to stuff it inside or looking away (DD's funeral) or just generally checking out in order to regain composure. But here, he finally allowed himself to *feel*, and Hermy was right there beside him and he did not push her away; rather, he accepted her and acknowledged her presence. As Harry would say, it brought me a 'great rush of affection' for both of them. And while I'm sure those H/H shippers still clinging to straws were hoping, I felt it so strongly as a brother/sister/friend bond, so much deeper than if it were teenage attraction. There was such love in that hand squeeze. Becky, who rarely succumbs to the mushy stuff, but melted at this moment From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 21:11:06 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:11:06 -0000 Subject: Worrying about Unforgivables In-Reply-To: <8C9AD92F1438C80-F0C-6B08@mblk-d38.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175519 --- SnapesSlytherin at ... wrote: > > The recent discussions on Harry and Co's use of the > Unforgivables worries me.? I have seen *far* too > many people using the rationale "This is war!? ..."? > It makes me nervous because we're saying that it > doesn't matter was Harry and the Order did or what > spells they used or how they accomplished things > because they were in a war.? It seems to me like some > people are saying that the ends justify the means > entirely in war, .. > > Oryomai > Snape Lives. bboyminn: I don't recall anyone saying that 'it's war' was the whole argument in favor of Harry actions, merely once aspect of the justification. War itself may not be an act of Terror, but it is without a doubt an act of horror. The very essence of war includes many horrible things. But even the most horrible and horrendous unrestrained aspect of war must have SOME /Restraint/. In war, it is NOT anything goes, merely horrible brutal things go frequently and routinely but with in certain boundaries of humanity. Laying /gut shot/ in the dirt is not a pleasant experience, but it occurs all the time in war. So, the question isn't in my mind, who did what to whom, but how far did they take it? I don't see Harry and Co. taking their action beyond the boundaries of humanity. I don't see them acting inhuman or with inhuman disregard. They are excesizing restraint and observing reasonable wartime limits. But I do often, with great regularity and in the extremes, see the DE's and Voldemort crossing the boundaries into the realm of inhumanity. In the current war going on in the real world, I don't think for a second that we should molly-coddle our prisoners. I think we should be downright impolite and even mean to them, they are trying to kill us after all. But the line of humanity is drawn at torture. There are some lines you do not step across. Partly because it is inhuman, and partly because it is ineffective and unreliable. And partly because doing it (torture) gives your enemy permission to do the same to you. So, my point is that the good guys DO exercise restraint, and do operate within the rules and bounds of war, but clearly the actions of DE's and Voldemort are marked by extreme excesses, and are bound by no rules of war or humanity. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. Steve/bboyminn From MorganAnnAdams at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 21:20:17 2007 From: MorganAnnAdams at yahoo.com (Morgan Adams) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:20:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry the author Message-ID: <345447.15551.qm@web32412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175520 >guru: I've been wondering why Severus hadn't already written that book or its equivalent. In PS/SS he introduces the class to the wonders of potions, and you can tell he is passionate about the subject. One would think that having figured out how to improve the art, he would have, at least, been teaching the class out of his annotated version of the text, if not having written his own. < Have you ever gotten a recipe from a friend or family member and when you make the dish it doesn't seem to come out just right? It seems like only that person is able make it perfectly? And then you wonder if maybe an ingredient or a process is missing from the recipe? It has happened to me several times, and I have given recipes and left out a process (without meaning to). I don't see Snape as an obvious person. He would relish the little bit of power he would have by knowing the "secret ingredient." Just like a famous chef would want to keep his recipes secret, Snape wouldn't want just anyone to be able to duplicate his potions. I also think some of his potion knowledge might have come from his family - passed down - and he might feel protective of it. --Morgan --------------------------------- Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 21:21:50 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:21:50 -0000 Subject: Why fly when you can apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175521 --- "allies426" wrote: > > I suppose this was just for the sake of the plot, > but several times when Harry is somewhere that > Voldemort is rushing to get, Harry pictures him > flying over landscapes. > > Flying? Why fly? > > Apparition is much, much faster! ... > > Allie > bboyminn: JKR indicated long ago that each form of magical travel had its limits. Though she never spells it out, it seems the limit to Apparation is how long you can hold your breath. Certainly you can travel far and fast, but not /that/ far and not /that/ fast. Let's assume that you can travel 100 miles in 30 seconds. That seems about right based on what I am seeing in the books. That means you can comfortably travel 150 miles in 45 seconds. If you really push it to the limits, you can travel 200 miles in 1 minute. Some might be able to stretch if farther, but it's getting difficult after that. Flying on the other hand is effortless. A little buffeting by the wind, and a bit of a chill, but otherwise comfortable and easy. If I recall, it is about 500 miles from the assumed location of Hogwarts to London, so that would be a extreme distance to try and Apparate in a single jump. Harry, Ron, and Hermione Apparating around the country, seem to be making hops within the one to one-and-a-half minute breath holding limit. Imagine how difficult it must be to Apparate to China? Just a guess. Steve/bboyminn From pam_rosen at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 21:18:30 2007 From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:18:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Inconsistencies (Was: Hermione's parents) Message-ID: <543149.32665.qm@web30814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175522 Oryomai: I think JKR just dropped the ball on this one.? She's making up the ending as she's going along.? I know I'll probably get flamed for saying this about JKR, but I think that she totally lost the plot and what she was doing in the final book.? I felt the book was sloppy, full of inconsistencies, and the worst HP book out of them all.? One of my good friends, who reads the books casually, said this to me last night: "I've always said that JK Rowling is incredible at creating fabulous characters and fascinating situation, but her plots sucks."? After DH, I must agree. Pam says: When my eight year old son knitted his brow and said, "but wait, polyjuice potion is only supposed to last an hour," I knew something was seriously wrong. I realize that when JKR introduced polyjuice potion in book 2, it was something like eight years ago for her, a trifling detail to remember when so much has happened in her own life. But both Bloomsbury and Scholastic have people employed there as continuity editors; it is these peoples' sole function to catch these kinds of errors. If a third grader is catching them on first read, surely they were not missed by not one, but several professional continuity editors. If that is the case, could it be that these inconsistencies were left in on purpose? That JKR's work went from being a manuscript of a novel to "canon"--something sacred, not to be touched too much by lesser writers? I've pondered that often in the last few weeks. Did they just let it go because she's JKR? But what bothers me the most is that these interviews she gave, where she explained and clarified things, told more about professions and futures, will not survive as part of the books. JKR could have made everything up on the spot and it wouldn't matter, because it's not in the books. I wonder if children 20 years in the future will be reading these books and saying "Wait a minute," and there's no author standing there saying, "Well, let me tell you what I meant...." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 21:34:33 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:34:33 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175523 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > SSSusan: > > Anyone else care to bite? > Lanval: With pleasure! Harry lived. Ron and Hermione lived. Ron/Hermione. Saw that coming since Book One. Neville! Leader of the Hogwarts Resistance, Slayer of Serpents. Even cooler than I had hoped. More Pensieve revelations. Snape was revealed to be on the Good Side, in a way that didn't make me gag. Sirius made an appearance. No ESE!Lupin. Regulus was R.A.B. Dudley got A Moment. Percy saw the light, and came back. We saw Godric's Hollow. Dumbledore was flawed, and became more likeable. While the Shrieking Shack was not revisited, we learned some important facts. There's probably more. From pair_0_docks at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 21:34:42 2007 From: pair_0_docks at yahoo.com (pair_0_docks) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:34:42 -0000 Subject: Wandlore, Harry's Death, redux In-Reply-To: <23805592.1187210075357.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175524 > Bart: > Now, here's how I read what happened, based on Ollie's > explanation of wandlore: > 7) When Harry defeated Draco, since Draco never recovered the > elder wand, it bonded to Harry. > 8) When Morty AK'd Harry, since Harry allowed it, the elder > wand did not switch sides, therefore was STILL Harry's wand. pair_0_docks: I still don't like the idea that essentially DD kills Snape because he does not know about the Elder Wand (and DD does not let him know about this part of his plan) and DD plan to have Elder Wand power end with him although does not exactly work out. (since Draco disarms so he becomes true Elder Wand owner) I suppose though this is like all the other "parallels" that can be drawn in the series...since Snape kills DD in HBP, isn't it fitting that DD (actions/choices) kill Snape in DH ... also it can be argued each was mercy killing? (DD going to die anyways and Snape wanted to die after Lily's death, but DD convinces him to live and act out of love for Lily) Again, I still have more trouble with DD choice/decision and how he treated Snape here ... pair_0_docks From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Aug 15 22:27:57 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:27:57 -0400 Subject: Another angle on Hermione's parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175525 JKR explained the inconsistency about Hermione doing memory spells in one of her interviews. Changing or removing a specific memory and implanting a false personality are two different spells. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 23:01:48 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:01:48 -0000 Subject: Lee Jordan! was: What things that you wanted did you get? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175526 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > > > SSSusan: > > > Anyone else care to bite? LEE JORDAN HOSTS POTTERWATCH! LEE JORDAN HOSTS POTTERWATCH! LEE JORDAN HOSTS POTTERWATCH! Ahem. Sorry. Sorry for that. I was just overcome. Most of the time, when I read a series, I tend to pick a character that's not a primary character, not a secondary character, maybe not even a tertiary character. But some little fun character that I root for. That I hope somehow becomes a bigger character, or at least doesn't get lost in the shuffle. In Harry Potter, that character was Lee Jordan. He was funny, and a student outside the trio given some real personality. His presence alone broadened the world of Hogwarts for me ? how often did we really get to see friendships between other characters? His friendship with the Weasley twins really opened them up for me. They didn't just have each other ? they too had their own lives and friends. (And it harkens back even to what I said about jocks vs the av club ? the Weaselys and Lee were both). I happily told everyone of my love of Lee. `Um ok. And, I love Angelina Johnson.' Fine, so no one is really going to care about a bit character, but for me There he was, a happy little presence in 5 books, even showing the kind of kid he was when he joined the DA. And then, in the 6th book nothing! Nary a word of poor Lee! Even Oliver Wood, after 3 books, got a cameo in Book 4. But Lee gets NOTHING. How can this be? I again told anyone who would listen how personally offended I was. How he could have at LEAST been helping out in the twins joke shop. But really, I had my own idea, which I also told everyone. If The Daily Prophet was almost a mouthpiece for the ministry, wouldn't it be something if Lee had a show on the WWN? A late night show, that not many people listened to, where he espoused the ideas of the Order to the true believers? Fought against the Prophets lies? Occasionally interviewed the Weird Sisters? But alas, it was not to be. JKR has too many characters and storylines to follow. My pet cause would likely never come to anything. Then this book Ron is hinting at something, playing with his radio, there's a show? A radio show?? Potterwatch??? It's Lee Jordan!!!!!!!! Really, she could do almost anything else with the series I was so happy to have that scene. It was fanfiction come to life for me. (You know, if I had actually written the fan fiction) Lee, on the radio, helping the order oh, Ms. Rowling, I forgive you for omitting Lee in Book 6. Thank you thank you thank you. :) Ok, I'm being absurd here, but man was that a great moment for me when reading the books. Perhaps I had an unhealthy and frightening amount of joy at it. There are a lot of great threads going on right now that I want to respond to ? more than time or posting limits will likely allow me to tonight. But for now Lee Jordan hosts Potterwatch!!! ~Adam From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Aug 15 23:17:15 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:17:15 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175527 Magpie: > Actually, just to clarify, I wasn't asking why Lily didn't go into > Slytherin. I was saying I didn't see why any kid should have to > follow his friend into any house. If Snape had wanted to be in > Ravenclaw, and after Lily got Sorted into Gryffindor he was still > Sorted into Ravenclaw (and I don't think it's just as simple as > requesting a house a friend is in--I think you do go in the house > you're suited to beyond that as well) I can't see why that would be > a problem. Students don't have to be in the same house to be > friends--unless you're in Slytherin, because that throws some > doubts on the kind of friend you'll probably be imo. (Not because > the Hat does something to you, but because it says something about > you by your choosing/being chosen by Slytherin.) Dana: I know and I had started to write a reply to the original post in which you mentioned this but it still sits in my concept box and starts to take a book sized form. I was not saying that Snape *should* have followed Lily by having himself been sorted into Gryffindor but just that the memories give me the feeling that Snape regretted not having done so and not because he should not have chosen to be a Slytherin but because he wanted to be with his friend. We see in the memory itself that he wanted Lily to be sorted into the same house he wanted to be in. He wanted it both but only could have either one. To me it says that he regretted not following his heart and nothing about him feeling that he would have been a better person if he would have been sorted into Gryffindor as a house. And yes, I agree with you that they did not have to be in the same house to remain friends and I was not actually trying to imply that they couldn't because they did. But that doesn't mean that he did not regret not chosing to follow his heart or that it could not be an indication that at that specific point in time his desire to be in Slytherin was bigger then his desire to be in the same house as Lily. The entire sorting and the way it is presented, does not give me the feeling that the hat is the deciding factor in where you end up or that it really says anything about who you are or who you will become. Some kids will not have a specific preference and the hat will make a decision for them but for what is shown to us (or just me), those with a strong preference are indeed sorted into the house they prefer. And technically the hat can never be wrong because all kids posses all qualities and being in a specific house is no guarantee that the quality the house represents will be the most dominant talent. If you look at Percy for instance then his dominant quality would make him more fitting for Slytherin house but he comes from a Gryffindor background and it seems to have played a far more dominant part of why he is sorted into Gryffindor then his personality actually represents. Another example is Hermione who to me does not specifically represent a Gryffindor personality as a dominant trait. She is pretty much all houses combined but with a predominant Ravenclaw outline. Remus is more Hufflepuff at the core as is Arthur but both were sorted into Gryffindor. Personally I do not look much at the house system to define a character's personality in my own mind and never thought about it specifically within this context until it was brought up in various posts. I have thought a lot about your posts and I do agree that the author's personal preferences to sort her good guys into Gryffindor while her bad guys are designated to Slytherin, is a little too obvious for comfort but I also see the need to have people shoved together out of a logistical need more then JKR really defining all her good characters as Gryffindor. To me the only characters she truly defined (as in her personal preference) as purely good are the trio, Hagrid, DD, Lily, Molly, Arthur and to some extent Ginny to function as the surrogate Lily. So I am trying to understand why she made this specific distinction within the houses, besides giving Harry an opponent within the confined space of the school territory and besides her personal preferences. I think personally that it has more to do with her wanting to set out the difference between prejudice/ intolerance and acceptance/ tolerance and defined the dominant houses, portrait within the story, accordingly. So Gryffindor represents tolerance where Slytherin represents prejudice (if not outright racism in some cases). But this is not by definition something that can't be interchangeable or that Gryffindors can't display intolerance or that Slytherin is not able to display tolerance within its boundaries. In both cases the human traits/ qualities these houses represent are used to support the opposite sides of this spectrum and to me the bad side of Slytherin does not so much lie within the individual quality of the kids sorted into this house. It is actually the adaptation of this house by people supporting a specific indoctrination that gives the house its bad name and what keeps it separated from the rest. If you both for instance look at Draco and Snape then before they were sorted already displayed susceptibility to prejudice views while the reasons for their views are in my opinion entirely different and so are in my opinion the reasons for wanting to be sorted into Slytherin. Where Draco is proud to follow family tradition and is a big supporter of his family's viewpoints, Snape just wants to be in the house because it is more open-minded to support his personal ambitions (well according to my personal interpretation of course). I have not seen any supporting canon that Snape's mother was in Slytherin so I do not agree that Snape just wanted to be in Slytherin house because his mother was in Slytherin. In the other post you mentioned that the Slytherin kids are expected (or a similar wording) to just rise above what gets them sorted into Slytherin house in the first place but I look at it differently. I think the only thing they should rise above is the prejudice viewpoints this house has been made to support or not let themselves be swept up by it. This also makes me think that the hat is not defining these kids in themselves by definition but that a lot of kids already had a bad start because of their family backgrounds. I find it interesting that many only seem to want to consider poverty and neglect as a disabling background while Draco's future was far more set in stone then for instance Snape's future was. Ron's family background and his position within his large family had a far bigger influence on his behavior then Harry being neglected by the Dursleys. And if I remember correctly it seems that this was DD's message both at the end of OotP when he tried to explain to Harry that he was better off because he had not been pampered like a little prince. In HBP DD points out to the Dursleys that the treatment of their son as done Dudley more damage then good. Most of the kids as it seems to me that are in Slytherin are not defined bad because they are in Slytherin but because the house is adopted by the pure-blood supremacists which is actually the disabling factor within that house and not the individual talents of these kids. Draco did not reject his family in canon nor does he need to as I do not think something as drastic as Sirius did would be needed for him to set his life on to a different course and although his progress in canon was not earth shaking, a journey of a thousands steps begins with one step. Magpie: > I'm also not sure why in your interpretation--unless I'm getting it > wrong--Snape suddenly has this death bed conversion to seeing that > it was all his fault and Harry is such a better person after a > lifetime of presumably seeing himself as more of a victim. Dana: Well I did not mean to make it sound so black and white and I did not mean it in the sense of Snape seeing that it was all his fault but more in the sense that he showed Harry that he regrets not having done things differently. That he could have made different choices in life that he acknowledges that a lot of the pains he had were a result of his own choices (that he took responsibility for the choices he made). That he understood that they shared the love and pain for the same person and that their relationship could have been different if Snape had acknowledge that it was neither James nor Harry that had contributed to his losses in life. I just think it is unfair to say that Harry was the only one that needed to resolve his hatred for Snape or that is was unreasonable just because Snape helped him in secret. There would not have been any hate if there had not been any secrets in the first place. The memory sequence just give me the feel that Snape wanted Harry to forgive him for not having reach out to him and that he had failed to see that Harry was as much Lily's son as he was James's. To me Snape had been the instigator by immediately rejecting Harry as a person when he arrived at Hogwarts for the first time. He was the adult and to me he therefore was responsible for the ever expending animosity existing between them and he did nothing to resolve it. I am still expending my understanding of the text and just give my interpretations within a specific moment and not as a ready set opinion. For instance Snape might have shared the memories about Petunia because he wanted to let Harry see that he knew why Petunia had such distaste for the WW and that he therefore knew what Harry had endured in his pre-Hogwarts years because of it without specifically claiming having contributed to Petunia viewpoints. Magpie: > -m (who thinks the superficial similarties between Harry and > Snape's lives for than anything point up how very fundamentally > different they are--Snape is Billy No Friends due to a combination > of his circumstances of birth and life and his personality (which > is influenced by same); Harry is a cool middle class kid > temporarily stuck living with idiots until he goes to Hogwarts.) Dana: Well I disagree because essentially many of us do not have loots of friendships in life that really count just one or two people that are truly our best friends and Snape did have a friendship that mattered that lasted for years until one desire clashed with another and he could not have it both ways. I also do not agree that your personality or the circumstances of your birth define your chances in life, they will always be an influence but you are not defined by it if you chose not to let it define you. Your personality grows by the many experiences you encounter in life and by learning from your mistakes you become a better person. Not facing your mistakes is what keeps you from moving on because you can't learn anything if you never acknowledge something as a mistake you made. If you make a mistake you reflect, learn, pick yourself up and start anew. JMHO Dana From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 23:19:56 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:19:56 -0000 Subject: DH and PS/SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175528 Annemehr wrote: > Talisman is the only one I know of who wrote such theories about that *particular* patterning (not that I can be sure I haven't missed something, of course). > > The original such, she ended up calling "Goblet Theory" -- events are mirrored in pairs of opposites in the books thusly: 1/7, 2/6, 3/5, *and* furthermore, each mirrored pair is represented by a skewed, or parodied, version in GoF. Unfortunately, though the search function has shown me a few oblique references to it, I can't find anywhere where she really expounds on it. > I see that your examples involve things that are the *same* between 1 and 7, whereas Talisman's theory involves mirrored symmetry. I'll just point out that symmetry involves two main qualities, 1)a fundamental *sameness* between the two parts, but 2)they are reversed images of each other. A mirror image looks just like you, except for the one detail that right and left are reversed. In some of my comments on your examples, I note where I see mirror-images. > I feel quite sure it was conscious -- there's just too much of it to > be otherwise. Carol responds: Leaving out GoF, a number of character arcs in DH mirror those in SS/PS, notably Hagrid carrying Harry in his arms (and Hagrid on Sirius's flying motorcycle, a nearly fatal "rescue" attempt) and my favorite, Snape looking into Harry's eyes in SS/PS and Harry looking into Snape's eyes in DH. Platform 9 3/4, though not a character, reflects the state of the WW before VW 2 and after it. Ollivander and Griphook reappear from book one as well. All of these instances seem to be attempts to bring the plot threads and character arcs full circle. Carol, thinking about eyes in the series and realizing that Snape's life would have been even shorter if his had been windows to his soul From va32h at comcast.net Wed Aug 15 23:23:29 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:23:29 -0000 Subject: This Moment - with Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175529 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > But as long as we are on the subject of Neville, I have > to confess I felt a rush of pride when Neville stepped > out of the portrait and into the Hogshead. He was so > confident, and so causally brushed aside his injuries; > 'ah, this, this is nothing'. > > Then when they return to Hogwarts, it's Neville that > every one is looking to for leadership. Excellent. > > I also felt a bit of pride as Neville challenged Harry. > What had they been fighting for? Why had the kept the > DA going, if not to be ready to confront Voldemort > and the DE's when the time came? Neville takes a stand. > > You go Neville! va32h: Oh I second that! I loved Neville - well, I've loved him for a long time. He goes on much more of the "hero's journey" than Harry does, IMO. Oh I love Harry too, of course, but let's face it: Harry has been willing to sacrifice himself at the end of every book. I'm sure it's a Hogwart's tradition by now. "Oh you can always tell when summer's coming," they tell the first years, "because that's when Harry Potter nearly kills himself trying to rescue someone from You Know Who." Neville really changed, he really grew, he really had something to struggle with. I know a lot of people wanted Neville to kill Bellatrix, but I much preferred the role JKR gave him. Neville is Harry's natural successor; *he* became the voice of the resistance, he carried out the mission left by Dumbledore. Since Harry took the time to recognize Snape, in his final discussion/taunting of Voldemort, he could have taken the time to honor Neville as well. And he should have said "looks like it didn't matter which boy you chose that Halloween 17 years ago, Tom - either one of us could kicked your ass!" va32h From dezice at yahoo.com.ar Wed Aug 15 22:41:24 2007 From: dezice at yahoo.com.ar (Desire Moravenik) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:41:24 -0300 (ART) Subject: Why fly when you can apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <551297.77187.qm@web56209.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175530 Steve / bboyminn: > If I recall, it is about 500 miles from the assumed location > of Hogwarts to London, so that would be a extreme distance > to try and Apparate in a single jump. DesiVivi: I don't remember exactly, but didn't Dumbledore and Harry apparated in the cave (to get the horcrux) from Hogwarts? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 15 23:42:47 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:42:47 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175531 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Geoff: > > I'm a bit late coming back on this one but I'm > > away from my own computer as I am staying with > > my daughter, admiring our first grandchild and > > having to fight my two teenage step-granddaughters > > for computer time!! > > SSSusan: > THAT'S where you've been!! I was beginning to worry about you! :) > > > Geoff: > > Eggplant, I have never forgotten you writing some > > good while ago that you wanted something along the > > lines of "murder, mayhem and b blood spilt." > > > > Now you can't have all your choices. That would be > > plain greedy... > > > > Without publicising my thoughts, I had quietly > > hoped for three outcomes in DH; I got, I suppose, > > one and a half, one of them being that Harry lived > > (Hooray!). > > SSSusan: > Now, are you *sure* you won't publicize those thoughts, Geoff? You've > aroused curiosity now! I'd love to know what the 1.5 out of three > you got were, and what the 1.5 you didn't get were. Geoff: Well, just promise that you won't laugh.... The 1.0 was that I really didn't feel that Harry should hook up with Ginny. I'm not a huge fan of her - she always seems a bit pushy and I feel that she takes after Molly a lot. I could see Harry becoming a bit henpecked, although I think he's got more backbone that Arthur to try to fight his own corner. I have also said that I felt I would like to be able to envy Harry as a deep, enigmatic mystery with hordes of fantasising girls trailing forlornly in his wake. Marry in due course, yes, but be like many of the present younger generation who may not marry until their late twenties or early thirties which lets him have some time as a free agent. The 0.5 was Draco. I always argued that Draco was not beyond redemption and hoped that, after the uncertainty he displayed at the Tower in HBP that he might be tempted into moving more obviously towards the side of light. I feel that he did move up to a point and Narcissa also helped Harry - although I suspect it was not out of altruism in any way. His curt nod to Harry at the railway station in the epilogue gave me some encouragement, but I would have valued a little more - hence 0.5. From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 23:44:16 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:44:16 -0000 Subject: DH and PS/SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175532 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" wrote: > (The corresponding magical object that Goblet Theory would posit for > book 4 would be, in my opinion, the Goblet of Fire itself, which LV, > instead of DD, gave Harry the information to find, through his agent > Crouch!Moody. Another part of the "skew" involved is that the Goblet > had led many contestants *to* their deaths -- as it was meant to do > for Harry.) Annemehr: Dang it, I meant the Triwizard Cup. Sheesh. And as long as I'm here, I can't resist adding to this one: > 8)(c)Furthermore, in both books Harry gains or loses the ability to > speak Parseltongue when the bit of LV goes into or out of Harry > (mirror images). The book 4 skewed image is Dudley growing a *snaky > tongue* when a bit of toffee goes into him (and his mother tries > heroically to protect him, to boot). There's also the fact that each of these involves damage to the building where they happened. Annemehr, stopping now...really From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Aug 15 23:53:20 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:53:20 -0000 Subject: Why fly when you can apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175533 Allie: > > I suppose this was just for the sake of the plot, > > but several times when Harry is somewhere that > > Voldemort is rushing to get, Harry pictures him > > flying over landscapes. > > Flying? Why fly? > > Apparition is much, much faster! .. bboyminn: > JKR indicated long ago that each form of magical > travel had its limits. Though she never spells it > out, it seems the limit to Apparation is how long > you can hold your breath. Certainly you can travel > far and fast, but not /that/ far and not /that/fast. > Let's assume that you can travel 100 miles in 30 > seconds. That seems about right based on what I am > seeing in the books. That means you can comfortably > travel 150 miles in 45 seconds. If you really push > it to the limits, you can travel 200 miles in 1 minute. > Some might be able to stretch if farther, but it's > getting difficult after that. houyhnhnm: Voldemort was on his way back from Nurmengard to Malfoy Manor when Harry saw him "flying through the sky from far away, over a dark and stormy sea [snort], and soon he would be close enough to Apparate . . . ." Between Central Europe and Wiltshire, the only body of water that would be passed over is the English Channel. In fact, a straight line from Nuremburg (some have noted the similarity in names) to Wiltshire would pass more or less over Calais and intersect the the English coast a little south of Dover. So, Calais to Salisbury=440 miles, too far to Apparate. Dover to Salisbury=171 miles, not too far to Apparate. I can see the advantage of flying on short hops, too, especially if you are a paranoid evil Dark Lord. It's possible to see what's going on on the ground. What I don't see is the advantage of flying under your own power over flying on a broom. I guess it's that you don't have to carry it around once you land. Having the maximum Apparition range dependent on the time one can hold one's breath makes a lot of sense to me. There was a question about distance limits to Apparition on the W.O.M.B.A.T. Grade 3. I think I missed it. From aceworker at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 23:58:57 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Ravenclaw common room/The Question at the door? Message-ID: <123774.19815.qm@web30214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175534 Here''s my question about the Ravenclaw common room, what keeps the intelligent of other houses out? Mcgonagall is able to get in easy enough. Sure it keeps out the Crabbes and Goyles and Carrows of Hogwarts out and I could see Ron having a tough time. But Malfoy would be smart enough to get in, wouldn't he? Or are all the questions and answers related to Ravenclaw maxims like: "Wit beyond measure is mans greatest pleasure." That only a Ravenclaw would know. What I'm asking is could Hermione have bluffed her way into that room? (BTW DID JKR make that one up or was that already a famous saying or quote from elsewhere?) The location is secret, like the other rooms, but anyone who could answer the question could get in. Did Rowena Ravenclaw just asume that all evil doers are dumb (or was that just JKR LOL!)? Or is the location of the knock Luna used secret? Do you have to knock in the right place to get the Eaglehead knocker to speak to you? In other words, do Ravenclaws have a secret knock? What do you think? -------------------------- DA Jones --------------------------------- Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Aug 16 00:12:50 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:12:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Killing Harry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C39682.4080900@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175535 va32h: > I never believed that Harry should die. Not because "it's a > children's book" and not because "the fans would hate it" but because > I really believed that Harry's story was one of hope, and progress. > Dying at 17 isn't progress, no not even if you are dying for the > whole wide wizarding world. Actually, in Japanese literature, it's not at all uncommon for the hero to fail in the impossible task. The key is to go further than anybody thought he might. If the HP series was Japanese, Harry would have killed Nagini, Morty would have laughed, and told Harry that he was a Horcrux, and the only way that Morty can be defeated is if Harry dies, and Harry cutting off his own head with the Sword of Gryffindor. Bart Bart From aceworker at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 00:41:17 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Is Harry Potter an Anti-Royalist Tract? Message-ID: <826281.9291.qm@web30206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175536 I feel a bit sheepish saying this, as I'm an American; but I have a big interest in British history and politics and I just love history and politics in general and even though I was able to see the various other themes in the work; such as anti-bigotry; moral and religious themes and the importance of friendship and love I also saw the 'civil war' in the book as very much a war of the non-privileged against the privileged; as a war betwixt those of 'noble-blood (and wealthy blood) against the serfs. As the people against those who see themselves as born to rule as a result of privilege. I start with the fact that in HBP Hermione says that (I'm paraphrasing): 'There are no wizarding princes in Britain'. Which implies that there are probably no noble wizards (and witches?) in the wizarding world. And no student is mentioned as being 'noble' at Hogwarts. Then you can add in the fact, that the noble and mostly evil house of black is referred to as the 'noble-house'. Add in Snape, who is half-blood but whose mother much like Tom's came from an ancient house, but poor one. Those with title only via name. The landless Lords. Both seek power and glory; so they may take the place in society that there sense of privilege would otherwise give them. Add in the fact that all the Slytherins leave the table and fight for Voldemort. They can't fight for Harry, because they would be fighting against their own benefit. Add in the fact that few of the upper class pure bloods are known to fight for Harry except for Ernie (and possibly Cho, but we don't know her families social status or wealth (she doesn't have the best broom so she is not inordinately wealthy)). And Ernie could be read in subtext to be doing so only for political gain. He character seems a parody of the privileged but rich and liberal, and pompous proper Protestant Politician (albeit one who has the courage to risk his life in battle amongst the crazy and the Irish (Luna and Seamus) LOL! Add in that most of the Death Eaters except the Car rows, and Greyback and Snape himself are depicted as upper-class pure-bloods. Z. Smith a rich pure-blood supposedly on Harry's side runs away. Add in the fact that the one wealthy muggle born (Justin F-F is strangely absent). Add in the fact that the Weasley's are notoriously poor. Add in the fact that the Slytherins are depicted as conservative and feudal as royalists and tories tend to be. What else are house-elves but serfs? Add all this together and how can any British child read the Harry Potter books and not think that having power or privilege determined by an unimportant an arbiter as noble or royal blood is a good thing? Harry Potter screams that it is not. Harry Potter thank you very much is the anti-Harry Windsor. --------------------------------- Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 00:49:25 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:49:25 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A Defense of James Potter(Whose flaws are bigger) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <46c39f1b.05578c0a.2e19.ffffce1a@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175537 Mim; And I must say I'm not terribly impressed with their choice of godfather either. The idea in times of war is that the guy can keep it together enough to take care of your kid and Sirius messed up quite spectacularly there. Of course, no one knows what their reaction to such guilt and pain would be until it happens to them but Sirius definitely wasn't the most reliable guy. He did try once he broke out of Azkaban but he was too damaged to the point that eventually it was Harry who had to worry about him and take care of him and not the other way around. Sherry now: We have absolutely *no* canon telling us what Sirius was like when the potters died, except that in his grief and rage he went after peter. I can think of many people who might go after the person who betrayed the family they loved to an evil dictator or something similar. We do not know if Sirius would have been a good godfather/guardian if he had not been sent to Azkaban for 12 years for a crime he did not commit. In my opinion, we really can't judge Sirius' behavior or child raising that could have been if only he hadn't been sent off to Azkaban. How he was after those 12 hellish years doesn't have anything to do with who he could have been if that had not happened. Sherry From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Aug 16 01:09:06 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:09:06 -0000 Subject: Why fly when you can apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175538 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > Allie: > > > Flying? Why fly? > > > > Apparition is much, much faster! .. > > bboyminn: > > > JKR indicated long ago that each form of magical > > travel had its limits. Though she never spells it > > out, it seems the limit to Apparation is how long > > you can hold your breath. Certainly you can travel > > far and fast, but not /that/ far and not /that/fast. > > houyhnhnm: > > Voldemort was on his way back from Nurmengard to Malfoy > Manor when Harry saw him "flying through the sky from far > away, over a dark and stormy sea [snort], and soon he > would be close enough to Apparate . . . ." > > Between Central Europe and Wiltshire, the only body > of water that would be passed over is the English Channel. > In fact, a straight line from Nuremburg (some have noted > the similarity in names) to Wiltshire would pass more or > less over Calais and intersect the the English coast a > little south of Dover. So, Calais to Salisbury=440 miles, > too far to Apparate. Dover to Salisbury=171 miles, not > too far to Apparate. > Allie again: The holding-one's-breath limitation does make sense, although I must be dense, I never made that connection from the canon. I thought the horrible squeezing feeling was from compressing mass into nothingness. Maybe that's why Lily couldn't apparate away with baby Harry, how could a baby hold its breath long enough to get anywhere? Apparation could kill it. (I think I've seen that theory here before, but not the holding breath part of it.) (And I think we're told that Lily didn't have her wand, do you need a wand to apparate?) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Aug 16 01:15:14 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:15:14 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175539 > Magpie: > > -m (who thinks the superficial similarties between Harry and > > Snape's lives for than anything point up how very fundamentally > > different they are--Snape is Billy No Friends due to a combination > > of his circumstances of birth and life and his personality (which > > is influenced by same); Harry is a cool middle class kid > > temporarily stuck living with idiots until he goes to Hogwarts.) > > Dana: > Well I disagree because essentially many of us do not have loots of > friendships in life that really count just one or two people that are > truly our best friends and Snape did have a friendship that mattered > that lasted for years until one desire clashed with another and he > could not have it both ways. I also do not agree that your > personality or the circumstances of your birth define your chances in > life, they will always be an influence but you are not defined by it > if you chose not to let it define you. Your personality grows by the > many experiences you encounter in life and by learning from your > mistakes you become a better person. Not facing your mistakes is what > keeps you from moving on because you can't learn anything if you > never acknowledge something as a mistake you made. If you make a > mistake you reflect, learn, pick yourself up and start anew. Magpie: I may have given the wrong impression with my sig line. I agree that everyone has the opportunities for change--Snape systematically made choices that made him more miserable. He had a lot of opportunities for better relationships that he rejected. My point at the end was just that when people talk about the characters being alike because of certain similarities in their lives, they just don't see alike at all because of the way they're characterized. Harry and Snape are both uncared for as kids, apparently, but a big part of the appeal of Harry is that while he might be living in a fairy tale awful situation, he's also fairy tale resiliant. He deals with his life like a normal kid who knows he's in a bad situation. (I was fascinated going back and reading the opening chapters where you can see that despite his worse circumstances, Harry's complaints about the Dursleys are practically designed as just an exaggerated version of a healthy kids' complaints.) Once he gets to Hogwarts he's the normal kid he is. He's not handicapped at all socially. So I just meant I can't look at stuff like Harry feeling embarassed or us being told he's dressed in baggy clothes and is kept from having friends by Dudley and say that's like Snape. I don't feel a bond over that the way some people seem to see it. This is not to say that Snape couldn't have made better choices or that he was doomed by his background. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 01:37:07 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:37:07 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter an Anti-Royalist Tract? In-Reply-To: <826281.9291.qm@web30206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175540 career advisor wrote: > > Add in the fact that all the Slytherins leave the table and fight for Voldemort. Carol responds: My apologies for snipping almost your whole post, but are you sure that this is a fact? I thought it was one of Voldemort's lies (telling Lucius that his son is the only Slytherin not fighting for the Dark Lord) when in fact Draco is one of only three Slytherins who stayed behind in the castle, apparently trying to take matters into their own hands. (I won't discuss Draco's motives here, but only Crabbe seems to be openly siding with Voldemort in the Snatcherlike hope of receiving a reward. Goyle, IIRC, is just following the leader as usual, but the leader seems to have changed.) At any rate, after Pansy Parkinson's outburst, Professor McGonagall orders the entire House to follow Filch to safety. Most of them apparently sit out the battle, along with the younger students from all the Houses and the less courageous older students from Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, and even Gryffindor. (I don't think any currently enrolled students outside the DA were fighting, but please correct me if I'm wrong.) Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle sneak out of the line of evacuees, ostensibly to hunt for Harry (Draco, the son of a DE, (albeit a disgraced and wandless one, seems to be trying, Snape-style, to protect Harry) and end up in the RoR with HRH and the "die-dum." It's interesting, IMO, that Crabbe and Goyle are the only students, Slytherin or otherwise, mentioned as having used the Cruciatus Curse on fellow students in detention, apt pupils of the Carrows (especially Crabbe, who tries to kill Harry and pays with his life). Draco is not mentioned as casting Crucios on his fellow students (a switch from his IS days when he delighted in working for Umbridge and probably would have enjoyed watching he torture Harry). Nor are Blaise Zabini and Theo Nott, the latter another son of a Death Eater (whom I was disappointed not to find any mention of in DH). Even Pansy, despite her utterly stupid outcry (which pretty much made it impossible for any Slytherins to fight on the good side as their intentions would have been mistaken) seems not to have participated in the fight. She was, IMO, displaying cowardice rather than pro-Voldie sentiments (though I supppose it could have been both). Slughorn's attitude before the battle, that it's futile to fight and surrendering will save lives (DH 601, broadly paraphrased), seems to me to represent the prevailing Slytherin attitude. At the end of the book, we see the students in the Great Hall, not sitting according to House, but I can't tell whether only the students who fought in the battle are being referred to or whether the students who were evacuated (including the Slytherins and at least 5/7 of the other Houses) are included in the number. Apropos of nothing, I wonder if the buttoned-up black coat Draco wears in the epilogue is an allusion to movie!Snape. And even less relevantly but I still feel compelled to mention it, I think I accidentally said in another post that Snape was "unredeemed." That was a typo, as I hope the context (and my previous posts) made clear. Again, please forgive me for not responding to your main idea, but I don't really see VW2 as a class war. Fenrir Greyback, for example, is pretty clearly regarded as scum by Bellatrix and the Malfoys yet he's on the same side (or at least, the side the Malfoys would have faithfully fought for if it weren't for their son's danger and Lucius's humiliation). Wealth has less to do with being a Voldie supporter than blood, and blood is less important than self-interest or lust for power or blood-lust or even, possibly, fear. It's a mistake, however, to equate the DEs, all of them adults except a few junior recruits, with Slytherin House, especially the Slytherins who just spent a year with Snape as their headmaster and the, erm, noncombative slughorn as their HoH. (Only two seem to have succumbed to the lure of violence presented by the Carrows.) Carol, pretty sure that the claim that the Slytherins were fighting for the Dark Lord is one of several lies that Voldie tells in the last few chapter but welcoming canon-supported opposing views From tomcogburn at earthlink.net Thu Aug 16 01:33:28 2007 From: tomcogburn at earthlink.net (Tom Cogburn) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:33:28 -0000 Subject: Why fly when you can apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175541 > Allie: > I suppose this was just for the sake of the plot, but several > times when Harry is somewhere that Voldemort is rushing to get, > Harry pictures him flying over landscapes. > Flying? Why fly? Tom: Well, I suppose you can say the same thing about any of the wizards or witches that use brooms to fly ... What's the use when they can just disapparate? I think it adds to the depth of the story. Specifically, everyone seems to be impressed that Voldemort can fly without a broom. I think it just goes to show how powerful Voldemort had gotten. When I envision Voldemort flying I imagine him using the time to think about what he's going to do when he reaches his destination. I liked the flying aspect. Tom From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Aug 16 01:51:24 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:51:24 -0400 Subject: Why fly when you can apparate? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175542 Steve: "JKR indicated long ago that each form of magical travel had its limits. Though she never spells it out, it seems the limit to Apparation is how long you can hold your breath. Certainly you can travel far and fast, but not /that/ far and not /that/ fast." In "Quiddich Through the Ages", she says that one can't Apparate across the ocean from Britain to America, and on her website she said that nobody flew a broomstick all the way across the Atlantic until sometime in the 1940s. Hence, wizards who want to travel transcontinental or transoceanic distances must use Muggle means or go by hops. (No mention of how the Weasleys got to Egypt.) Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 02:19:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:19:22 -0000 Subject: Percy instead of Fred In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175543 JennyPenny wrote: > > > Percy should have been the one who died not Fred. Reason being, Percy had only recently made ammends with the Weasleys and was forgiven. His death would have been the ultimate sacrifice for his years of traitorous abandonment. > > Hickengruendler: > > IMO, Fred is just the right victim, if any of the Weasleys has to die at all. What would be the point in killing of Percy, other than half (or maybe more) of the readership saying: "Yeah, that's what he deserves". I always rather liked Percy, but he is not very beloved among the fans, and in the last two books (prior to DH, I mean), he was portrayed mostly in a negative light, so his death would not have much impact. On the other hand, he hasn't done anything truly evil, like Voldemort or Bellatrix, so that one could feel some real satisfaction about his death. IMO, killing off Percy would have been a pretty easy way out for JKR and not achieving much, killing one of the Twins is a much more daring move. And for me, it was a pretty logical end to the end. Carol responds: I 'gree with Hickengruendler, if not exactly for the same reasons. I may be one of the few readers who prefer George to Fred--he always seemed to me to be the more sensitive and psychologically astute of the Twins, and a little too willing to follow Fred's lead, but Fred is usually funnier, and his death out of nowhere, in the midst of a laugh shared with his newly reconciled brother, is just painful to Harry and the reader, and even someone like me who didn't approve of half the things the Weasley Twins did (ton-tongue toffee, the Montague incident) feels the stunning blow. "The world had ended, so why had the battle not ceased, the castle fallen silent in horror . . .? Harry's mind was in free fall, spinning out of control, unable to grasp the impossibility, because Fred Weasley could not be dead" (638). JKR needs a death that Harry and the reader can feel together (other than Hedwig's), a human loss that is greater than the loss of Mad-Eye or even of Lupin, someone close to his own age whom he had loved almost as a brother, someone whose death (unlike Mrs. Weasley) he had never for a moment feared or anticipated, someone whose loss he shares with Ron and, of all people, Percy. The loss is all the more poignant since Fred, whose last encounter with Percy involved parsnip flinging and contemptuous words (along with George's and Ginny's) is the last person the reader would expect to extend the hand of forgiveness to Percy the Prat (whose crimes consist primarily of quarrelling with his family, returning his Christmas jumper, and mistaking Delores Umbridge for a "lovely woman--probably seeing the light when she became the the Head of the Muggle-born Registration Commission if not before). Pompous Percy stumbling into the RoR, confessing his foolishness, and Fred first teasing and then forgiving him, is one of my favorite moments in the book. "'I was an idiot. I was a pompous prat. I was a--a--' "'Ministry-loving, family-disowning, power-hungry moron,' said Fred. "Percy swallowed. 'Yes, I was!' "'Well, you can't say fairer than that,' said Fred, holding out his hand to Percy" (606). And you can't. Remorse, redemption, forgiveness, and humor all in one lovely scene. And then, in a few short hours, Fred and Percy sharing a joke and a second later, Percy lying across fred's body, shielding it from further harm, refusing to move until Harry pulls himself together and silently persuades Percy to help him move Fred's body out of sight. I xan hardly bear to type it. This is life. This is death. This is war. Suddenly reconciliation; sudden loss. Irony and poignancy. I like Percy, the pompous prat who lost his dignity to wade out in the water to Ron after the Second Task, who placed pride over the love of his family and found his way back, but his death could never have evoked the emotional reaction in either Harry or the reader that Fred's did. Of course, the first time around, I was too devastated by Snape's very different but equally sudden and ironic death to feel the poignancy of this one. But from a literary perspective, in terms of emotional and thematic impact, Fred, not Percy, was surely the right choice. And having Percy rather than George be his first mourner is also exactly right. Carol, who despite approving the death from a literary standpoint nevertheless feels deep sympathy for the Weasleys, especially Molly and Ron and poor St. George From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Aug 16 02:23:42 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:23:42 -0000 Subject: Why fly when you can apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175544 Allie: > Maybe that's why Lily couldn't apparate away with > baby Harry, how could a baby hold its breath long > enough to get anywhere?Apparation could kill it. > (I think I've seen that theory herebefore, but not > the holding breath part of it.) (And I think we're > told that Lily didn't have her wand, do you need a > wand to apparate?) houyhnhnm: When HRH and Griphook disapparated from Shell Cottage they had to go beyond the boundary wall, where the Fidelius Charm stopped working. Lily could probably have disapparated with baby Harry if she could have gotten outside, but not from within the house. If she'd had a wand maybe she could have used magic to get out of the house in the time it took her to pile boxes up against the door. Where was her wand? I can't find any mention of wands in the Apparition lesson in HBP. Harry disapparated from Godric's Hollow without a wand with Hermione but since he was in Voldyland at the time, she probably used Side-Along-Apparition and she had her wand. They didn't move their campsite again until after Ron brought Harrry the blackthorn wand. I don't know. I always picture Apparition as being done without a wand, but wizards in the Potterverse don't seem to be able to do much without one. From marion11111 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 02:49:44 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:49:44 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175545 > > > > > Anyone else care to bite? > > > > > > > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > > > marion11111: Predicted, wanted and got:: Snape did it all for Lily Ron and Hermione live RAB = Regulus (honestly, was *anyone* surprised by this? - I mean apart from HRH) Neville is amazing Horcrux!Tiara in the RoR An attack at the wedding DD was dying and Snape killed him by request Horcrux!Harry Ollivander held hostage by LV Aberforth doing something important Sirius' mirror makes a reappearance Predicted and didn't get: Snape dying while heroically saving Harry or some other student Harry dies (I like that he didn't, but I really thought he would) Final battle would be at MoM with either the Veil or the Love Room finishing off LV Everyone but Harry back at Hogwarts for Year 7 Lots of scenes of students and professors helping Harry as he comes back off and on Hagrid dies heroically in battle DD was dying from that stuff he drank Snape on the run Draco and Narcissa in hiding (possibly with Snape) Someone - anyone! - hiding at Godric's Hollow who saw and heard what happened Luna's smarts being significant in finding/destroying a horcrux Weasley's Wizard Wheezes being more important and useful in fighting Death Eaters than just puking Wormtail's silver hand kills Greyback (corny yes, but I thought she'd do it) Lily's importance being something more than just a motivation for Snape (I thought she was possibly working on the Love/Afterlife connection in the Dept of Mysteries) LV offering to spare Lily for some reason other than Snape (see above) Something significant about Petunia's communications with DD Krum as DADA teacher Absolutely surprised by: Ministry's quick and complete take-over of Hogwarts Snape as headmaster LV moving in with the Malfoys The Deathly Hallows DD being buddies with Grindelwald DD being such a B****** Lupin being such a B****** Kreacher being cute Dudley being cute Harry using a Crucio (not a pleasant surprise) The horrifying snake in Bathilda - still causing nightmares All the Polyjuice - I thought she was done with that plot device So, I didn't do so well in the predictions! I liked that I was surprised so often. -marion11111 From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Thu Aug 16 03:23:52 2007 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:23:52 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C9ADCC012C1284-F0C-7D0E@mblk-d38.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175546 I think my moment of the book was when James and Sirius started bullying Severus before he did anything to them.? The idea that Severus was hated by them for who he was (a poor child who expressed interest in Slytherin) really strikes a chord with me.? (I'm actually *not* trying to make this a Severus thread!) The death of Dobby was terrible for me.? I put the book down and cried for about twenty minutes.? I guess it was about the fact that Dobby broke from tradition and fought for what he believed.? I started to cry again when Aberforth asked where Dobby was. Oryomai Snape lives. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 03:40:58 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 03:40:58 -0000 Subject: Why fly when you can apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175547 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > I don't know. I always picture Apparition as being done > without a wand, but wizards in the Potterverse don't seem to be > able to do much without one. Wands were never mentioned in Apparition scenes in previous books, and I, just like you, thought that Apparition doesn't require a wand. However, it turned out in DH that wizards need their wands to Apparate after all :-). When HRH were caught and locked up in Malfoy Manor, Ron was "trying to Disapparate without a wand" (p.466 US). I think the connection between wands and Apparition was mentioned in some other chapter too, but can't remember where. It doesn't look like they need to actually use a wand to Apparate though, just to have one. zanooda From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 16 03:42:31 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 03:42:31 -0000 Subject: Worrying about Unforgivables In-Reply-To: <8C9AD92F1438C80-F0C-6B08@mblk-d38.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175548 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, SnapesSlytherin at ... wrote: > > The recent discussions on Harry and Co's use of the Unforgivables worries me.? I have seen *far* too many people using the rationale "This is war!? It was war!? They had to do what they had to in war!"? It makes me nervous because we're saying that it doesn't matter was Harry and the Order did or what spells they used or how they accomplished things because they were in a war.? It seems to me like some people are saying that the ends justify the means entirely in war, that the best way to fight an enemy is to sink to their level, and that there really is no problem with torturing people if you're in a war.? The even worse justification is the argument I have seen that says that it's okay that the good guys use them because they're the good guys -- whatever the good guys do is good because that's who they are.? I don't think we can give Harry and the Order a free pass because they're the "good guys"? A questionable wizard once said that it's our choices that make us who we are -- how far can the good guys go and remain unshakably good? > Ken: I guess I see things far differently. The good guys are acting with extreme restraint. The bad guys are throwing AK's around as fast as they can say the words (and non verbal spells seem to have gone almost entirely out the window haven't they?) but do we see one of the good guys use even one? I can't recall one, maybe there were a few. Fenrir just kept coming back and back and even at the end I see no certainty that he is dead. I *so* much wanted to see Grawp use his corpse as a snot rag but it never happened. In this story the good guys are acting like cops, not warriors. Lupin berates Harry for his curse choice but I see little evidence that anyone else on the good side uses anything lethal. Too bad Mr. Genius Werewolf didn't have the notion to tell *all* seven Harrys to use expelliarmus before they took off, eh? You see crucio as torture because that is how Bellatrix uses it. Harry tortures no one. He used crucio one time out of anger to stop someone instantly by causing extreme pain. That was an excellent choice of a non-lethal weapon if you ask me. Imperio could also be an effective non-lethal weapon. Would that we had such tools in the real world to settle confrontations that turn violent. I'm not saying it is fun to be crucioed but it sure beats what happens on real battlefields millions upon millions of times. I don't think that any of the "unforgivables" are unforgivable on the battlefield. It is part of war to do these things and that is why war is so horrible. I will agree with anyone who says we should do every thing we can to avoid war. I will disagree with every fiber of my being with anyone who trys to say that all wars can be avoided. Sometimes war and violent circumstances are thrust on you. The unforgivable curses are all equivalent to things that are allowed under the Geneva conventions, or would be if they were technically feasible. Actually something like crucio may be possible and may already be in the process of deployment. As long as it is used to avoid killing the enemy while stopping him from killing you I have to applaud it. Even though they are imaginary let us show some respect for the 50 dead good guys laying on the floor of Hogwarts at the end of DH. Probably at least 40 of them died because of the constraint they and the other good guys showed while trying to stop the bad guys who were using lethal force against them. Time and time again Fenrir went down only to reappear later causing more mayhem. If the first good guy who brought him down had AK'd him, how many lives and limbs would he or she have saved? In this novel the good guys were exceedingly brave and strongly committed to the noble notion that the bad guys were to be brought to justice and not just slaughtered on the field of battle. The good guys gave the last full measure of devotion to this ideal. I am going to say to them "well done". To do any less to the living or the dead is to spit on the finest people in the Potterverse. Ken From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 03:56:45 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 03:56:45 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175549 > houyhnhnm: > > This is your perception and you certainly have the > right to your own psychological reaction to the story, > but I don't see anything in the entire series to support > it and a great deal to contradict such a reading. lizzyben: Well, each individual person will have individual interpretations - especially of a chapter that seems so laden w/metaphors. I don't think that it's literally supposed to be Snape. It's supposed to be LV, I totally agree. But IMO, on a symbolic level, it's much more than that. Basically, I think the "baby" is the shadow, that has been rejected & purged. That shadow also takes the shape of Snape & the other Slytherins that were also purged from the novel. This is just my (possibly baseless) interpretation here. houyhnhnm: > I did find the presence of the baby confusing on the > first read. I thought at first it was the soul piece > liberated from Harry by the AK. > And Voldemort didn't have to end up as a helpless, > suffering, moaning creature for eternity. He could > still have avoided his fate, even after the terrible > things he'd done, even after shredding his soul into > pieces, if he had been able to feel remorse. lizzyben: But he couldn't. Psychopaths can't feel remorse. houyhnhnm: > So, if Voldemort with all his grievous sins could still > avoid damnation by feeling remorse, how could there be > any doubt of Snape's fate in the afterlife. Snape whose > face looked "as though he was in as much pain as the > yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house". Snape, > wringing his hands, promising "anything" to Dumbledore, > "looking like a man who had lived a hundred years of > misery", wishing he were dead and then summoning the > courage to see his way forward, protect Lily's child, > and evolve even beyond that to see no one die "whom I > could not save", and finally to remain faithful to > Dumbledore even after DD was gone. lizzyben: Yes, Snape the character finds a measure of redemption. Snape the shadow, not so much. I've finally figured out why the "baby" made me think of Snape, & why the descriptions seem so similar.(They're both described as "wounded", "shuddering", in pain, etc.) Both Snape & the "baby" are different representations of Harry's shadow. Description of the Jungian shadow: "We will feel highly uncomfortable when we are around someone that is carrying a part of our Shadow. As I said before, and it bears repeating, there will often be a repulsive element to it. We will be repulsed by that person and whatever they stand for. To gain access and awareness of one's shadow, one should carefully consider those qualities in another that repulse or disgust oneself." http://www.shadowdance.com/shadow/theshadow.html Harry in King's Cross: "He was afraid of it. Small & fragile & wounded though it was, he did not want to approach it... Soon he felt near enough to touch it, yet he could not bring himself to do so. He ought to comfort it, but it repulsed him." Yeah, on one level it's LV, but in a Jungian interpretation, that's Harry's shadow - the part of his personality DD tells him to reject & ignore. And hey, it sort of sounds like DD telling Snape "you disgust me", doesn't it? Snape is DD's shadow, LV is Harry's shadow, and Slytherins in general are Gryfindors' shadow. houyhnhnm > I, too, am made uncomfortable by the imagery of the > small maimed, creature, trembling under the chair. > It reminds me a little too much of the child in the > closet in Ursula LeGuin's short story, "The Ones Who > Walk Away From Omelas". I tend towards Universalism > in my vague, uncertain notions of the afterlife. But > even I am willing to admit that if anyone deserves > damnation, it was Voldemort. And it has nothing to do > with Severus Snape. lizzyben: Yes, that story is a good comparison. Or the way it reminded me of "The Lottery". Both stories involve appointed scapegoats that everyone else can oppress & fling stones at in order to maintain their society. And that makes sense too. Because shadows work on both an individual & a collective level. On an individual level, if we don't recognize the shadow, if we don't integrate it into our personality, we'll project those qualities onto other people instead & hate them for it. But societies do that too. On a collective level, sometimes an entire society will project their shadow onto some "other" group, which becomes the recipient of all the flaws that society cannot admit to having - and the society will then seek to punish or purge that "other" group. That group becomes the society's appointed scapegoat that can safely hate & revile. In turn, the "other" group can project its own shadow onto the first group, creating a cycle of mutual destruction & hatred. This is how wars & genocides begin. This is sort of standard Jungian stuff. It's also a perfect description of the relationship between Gryffindor & Slytherin houses. Slytherins are the Gryffindors' scapegoat & collective shadow that they can project all their unacknowledged faults onto. And there's a whole lot of faults for them to project. They really *need* Slytherins around to function as this scapegoat for their society, which is why we don't see the house disintegrated or reformed. Or integrated. Just like, in King's Cross, the "shadow baby" is figuratively rejected & repulsed as something totally inhuman, totally monstrous, totally alien. DD is encouraging Harry to reject a part of himself, & see it as an "other" instead - that's classic shadow projection. On both an individual & collective level, Harry & the Gryffindors are caught in a deep cycle of shadow projection that almost guarantees more hatred, scapegoating, dehumanization, violence & conflict. IMO, this is why so many people feel uneasy about this chapter & the ultimate ending of the novel. lizzyben From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 04:06:15 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A Defense of Sirius (was A Defense of James Potter(Whose flaws are bigger)) In-Reply-To: <46c39f1b.05578c0a.2e19.ffffce1a@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <964873.42095.qm@web55010.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175550 Mim; >And I must say I'm not terribly impressed with their choice of >godfather either. The idea in times of war is that the guy can keep >it together enough to take care of your kid and Sirius messed up >quite spectacularly there. Of course, no one knows what their >reaction to such guilt and pain would be until it happens to them >but Sirius definitely wasn't the most reliable guy. He did try once >he broke out of Azkaban but he was too damaged to the point that >eventually it was Harry who had to worry about him and take care of >him and not the other way around. Sherry: >We have absolutely *no* canon telling us what Sirius was like when the >potters died, except that in his grief and rage he went after peter. I can >think of many people who might go after the person who betrayed the family >they loved to an evil dictator or something similar. We do not know if >Sirius would have been a good godfather/guardian if he had not been sent to >Azkaban for 12 years for a crime he did not commit. In my opinion, we >really can't judge Sirius' behavior or child raising that could have been if >only he hadn't been sent off to Azkaban. How he was after those 12 hellish >years doesn't have anything to do with who he could have been if that had >not happened. Very true, Sherry. If we look at POA, at the conversation between McGonagall, Fudge, Hagrid, and Rosmerta, we know that Sirius wanted to take Harry, but Hagrid had orders from Dumbledore to take him to the Dursleys. I believe that had he been given custody of Harry, Sirius would honored his friends by being the best parent he could be and certainly would not have gone after Peter as he did. Of course, Dumbledore believed Sirius was the Potter's Secret Keeper and probably would have kept Harry away from Sirius despite the necessity to send Harry to Petunia to ensure the protection his mother's blood gave him. When Sirius offers his motorcycle to Hagrid in Godric's Hollow saying, "I won't need it anymore," I hear defeat and despair in that statement -- despair over Lily's and James's deaths, over Peter's betrayal and the fact that it was his idea to use him as Secret Keeper, over the loss of Harry. At this point, I get the impression that he feels that he has little to live for and would have willingly died avenging the Potters' deaths (I think he expected to). Plus, as the Potter's supposed Secret Keeper he would be a 'wanted' man and he had to know that -- image having to face everyone -- your friends and comrades -- trying to explain that you switched Secret Keepers and why, admitting that it was your idea; imagine running from those some people or trying to defend yourself against them because one of them might want to avenge the Potters' deaths. Barty Crouch, Sr. sent him to Azkaban without a trial for the murders Peter committed, so it appears he might not have been given much of a chance to explain in any case. James was loyal to his friends and expected loyalty from them. Even though it apparently was common knowledge that there was a spy in the Order, I think James "who wold have regarded it as the height of dishonor to mistrust his friends" (DH, p 81) would consider it outside the realm of possibly that the spy would one of his friends... Imagine instead of James, Sirius, and Peter, we were talking about Harry, Ron, and Hermione -- could anyone imagine Ron or Hermione betraying Harry? Christy >From POA: "I met him!" growled Hagrid. "I musta bin the last ter see him before he killed all them people! It was me what rescued Harry form Lily an' James's house after they was killed! Jus' got him outta the ruins, poor little thing, with a great slash across his forehead, an' his parents dead ... an' Sirius Black turns up, on that flying' motorbike he used ter ride. Never occurred ter me what he was doin' there. I didn' know he'd bin Lily an' James's Secret-Keeper. Thought he'd jus' heard the news o' You-Know-Who's attack an' come ter see what he could do. White an' shakin', he was. An' yeh know what I did? I COMFORTED THE MURDERIN' TRAITOR!" Hagrid roared.... "How was I ter know he wasn' upset abou' Lily an' James? It was You-Know-Who he cared abou"! an' then he says, 'Give Harry ter me, Hagrid, I'm his godfather, I'll look after him--' Ha! But I'd had me orders from Dumbledore, an' I told Black no, Dumbledore said Harry was ter go ter his aunt an' uncle's. Black argued, but in the end he gave in. Told me ter take his motorbike ter get Harry there. 'I won't need it anymore,' he says. (p. 206 - 207) --------------------------------- Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 04:16:12 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 04:16:12 -0000 Subject: Worrying about Unforgivables In-Reply-To: <8C9AD92F1438C80-F0C-6B08@mblk-d38.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175551 > Oryomai: > I don't think we can give Harry and the Order a free pass because they're the "good guys"? A questionable wizard once said that it's our choices that make us who we are -- how far can the good guys go and remain unshakably good? zgirnius: For me, the answer to this question is found in "The Prince's Tale", in which Dumbledore attempts to convince Snape to kill him. The relevant snippet of conversation: > Deathly Hallows: > "And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?" > "You alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man > avoid pain and humiliation," said Dumbledore. zgirnius: As we know, Snape consented, and went on to kill Dubledore with the (Unforgivable) Avada Kedavra curse. In my own opinion, Snape acted ethically in this instance, for the reasons outlined by Dumbledore. That he used one spell and not another does not make his action any more or less wrong. So to me, it is incorrect to make a blanket condemnation of the "good guys'" use of these spells, or to give a blanket defense of such use. The use of these spells is right or wrong based on exactly when, why, and how they were used. For example, McGonagall's use of the Imperius Curse on the Carrows I find entirely acceptable. She needed to do something to immobilize them, as they posed a danger to her and the students. She has a right to self-defense and to defend innocents from the danger they posed, and the Imperius Curse achieved that in this case, without directly causing the Carrows lasting harm. Harry's use of Crucio on Amycus is less justifiable to me, because he is clearly using it in anger. On the other hand, he stops quickly, and he has really, really good reasons to be angry at that moment. I'd class it as wrong, but understandable. The use of some form of violence at that moment was fine, but to the extent that Harry chose Crucio over other options because he wanted to hurt Amycus, he was in the wrong. But not nearly as much as Amycus himself, when he forced students to use that same spell on other students as a punishment, a cold blooded decision undertaken for his own enjoyment and to intimidate the students, or even worse, Bellatrix, who used the spell so excessively she caused her victims permanent and terrible harm. From sonjaaiston at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 04:24:00 2007 From: sonjaaiston at yahoo.com (sonjaaiston) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 04:24:00 -0000 Subject: Why fly when you can apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175552 Snip: > Allie : > Maybe that's why Lily couldn't apparate away with baby Harry, how > could a baby hold its breath long enough to get anywhere? > Apparation could kill it. (I think I've seen that theory here > before, but not the holding breath part of it.) (And I think we're > told that Lily didn't have her wand, do you need a wand to apparate?) Me: At first, I didn't think you needed a wand to apparate. Then, when Harry, Ron, and Hermione were at the MOM and helped the Muggle-borns escape, Harry said, "Who's got wands?" Then, "Okay, all of you who haven't got wands need to attach yourself to somebody who has. We'll need to be fast before they stop us." Soon after going through the lifts and the toilets, they apparated. I took this to mean they needed a wand to apparate. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 04:29:19 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 04:29:19 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175553 > Carol responds: > Death in these books as in life is ever-present and unpredictable. But > death is worse for the survivors than it is for the dead, judging from > DD and Harry's loved ones and Lupin, the last Marauder. Unless, of > course, you're Voldemort, who feared death and tried to prevent it by > murderous and unnatural means. Montavilla47: You know, I just noticed something weird about death in these books: The *only* natural death that takes place within the books is the death of Aragog. Every other death *within* the books (as opposed to the deaths of Harry's grandparents) involves murder. From judy at judyshapiro.com Thu Aug 16 05:18:04 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:18:04 -0000 Subject: Snape: Childhood, Ambiguity, Love Life, and Afterlife (was: Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175554 Lanval said, about the part where young Snape is watching Lily: > IMO, there's no denying the sexual overtones, and the author meant > for them not to be overlooked. Yes, I know, he's nine or ten, but > kids that age have crushes and fall in love, even if they're not > aware of *why* they're feeling this way. I'm not suggesting he's > imagining her without her clothes here, or anything as overt. But > it is her beauty that gets to him. Not just the magical powers. I do think Snape is supposed to find Lily pretty; that's how I took the line "His black eyes, eager in the greenish gloom, moved over the pale face, the dark red hair." So, I agree with you that there is an overtone of romantic attraction here. But, I don't think an extreme stalkerish interpretation fits, given his age. (Not that you were making such an interpretation, but it seemed to me that some people were.) Interestingly, Snape never makes any insults about Petunia's looks, even though she insults his clothes. He seems to find her lack of magical ability a bigger deal than her plain appearance. This is another factor that makes me think Lily's magical ability is very important to Snape. However, her beauty is presumably also a reason why he likes her, even when they are quite young. About what it meant that Snape lied about making the branch break, I said: > > Lily never asks him if he broke the branch *intentionally.* > > So, the "lie" was that he didn't cause the break at all, rather > > than that he didn't do it intentionally. Lanval replied: > I think it would be a huge stretch to ask for a young child in this > situation to choose the legally correct way of asking what happened. Well, I don't think she'd actually use the word "intentionally." But she could have asked something like, "Did you mean to do that?" or "Were you trying to hurt my sister?" On the same topic, Lanval said: > And you're right, it was quite likely a gut reaction, something he > couldn't control. He certainly has a problem with controlling his > temper, even as an adult. So, I think this is inconclusive. He may > have consciously wanted to hurt Petunia and saw the branch as the > closest available weapon, or it was accidental, or a mix of both. > We all have angry reactions from time to time where we act without > thinking. I'd say that since he has no wand, and has not been > formally trained, it was unconsciously done. Perhaps the more > powerful the wizard, the more disastrous these uncontrolled bursts > of wandless magic? Snape was quite gifted, IMO. I think we agree here. On Snape's ambiguity, Lanval said: > It probably won't come as a surprise to you that I love it. I > absolutely adore the fact that she left so many things open, and > I'm more grateful than I can say that she did not give us a > sappy "Forgive me, Harry!" -- "Oh, Severus, how could I ever have > doubted you!" scene. I wasn't necessarily expecting a face-to-face reconciliation between Snape & Harry, because I figured that Harry would likely not find out that Snape was on his side until after Snape died, or just as Snape died. But, I was surprised that JKR left Snape's motivations so unspecified; I don't know if she had really intended that or not. I can see how some fans would prefer Snape's motivations left ambiguous, though. Lanval: > Yes, that's a nice thought, Lily welcoming Snape after he dies. But > I hope that after thanking him for protecting her son, she also > whacks him over the head for being so mean to him. And then (after > Snape has spent some time in some purgatory-ish corner thinking > over his many sins) they can go floating off into the Great Beyond. Well, I think we'll have to just agree to disagree as to whether Snape has already done enough penance; I see him as having done plenty. Lanval: > as I've said before, I find him for the > *most* part heartwrenchingly adorable in those early memories. The > way he flaps around like a little bat, his blushing, his eagerness > and the way he just can't seem to help Messing Things Up...), and signed off as: > Lanval, who can't abide adult Snape and loves little Severus, yet > can't overlook the warning signs present even at that young age. I'm surprised that you liked Severus as a child, Lanval! I really saw him as not that different from the adult Snape. But, I suppose that means I see adult Snape quite differently from how you see him. Lanval asked, earlier: Are we cool? :) Yeah, we're cool. :-) -- JudySerenity From Meliss9900 at aol.com Thu Aug 16 06:02:35 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:02:35 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry the author Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175555 In a message dated 8/15/2007 6:29:43 A.M. Central Daylight Time, muellem at bc.edu writes: My apologies but I haven't really been following this thread > but . . . are we sure it is Snape who wrote the additions? At one > point we are told that the book is 50 years old, well before Harry's > father and thus Snape's time. The book must have been Snape's > mother's book before it became his and thus it is likely that it was > she who made the changes - Well the book could have been his mother's book given the age but that doesn't mean that the notes made in it were made by her. He simply was using a hand me down school book. Interesting though that they were using one that was 50 years out of date. I would have thought that a few new potions would have been thought up/improved upon enough to warrant a newer edition being printed. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From witherwing at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 16 06:05:31 2007 From: witherwing at sbcglobal.net (Rebecca Scalf) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:05:31 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: <477752.98874.qm@web55007.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175556 > Potioncat: > > > Is there a moment in DH where you really identify with a character, > > or the character's situation? It doesn't even have to be a character > > you generally identify with---just a moment that particularly speaks > > to you. > > Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald: > SNIP >I had to > >put the book down stand up and walk away for a while. She's going to > >do it I thought, she's really going to do it, JKR is going to murder > >Harry Potter! For years I'd been saying that's exactly what she should > >do, but now when I actually saw JKR with a gun pointed at Harry's head > >just a moment before she's going to pull the trigger, well, all I can > >say is it took me some time to work up the courage to continue reading. > > >Christy wrote: >My reaction to the bottom of page 686 ("So the boy ... the boy must die?" asked Snape >quite calmly. "And Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential.") was very >similar to Eggplant's reaction to the bottom of page 687. However, I had never really >considered that Harry would die. (I assumed he was called the Boy Who Lived for more >than one reason -- that the title of the very first chapter of the very first book was the >ultimate in foreshadowing.) The exchange between Snape and Dumbledore shocked me. >And I felt so betrayed by and so angry at Dumbledore -- all this time he knew; and >Snape knew ... I too had to walk away for a moment. Witherwing now: Like both of you I thought to myself, JKR is really going to kill him! And I had to stop reading. Like you, Christy, I had never really thought he would die, but after page 686, I was sure he would have to. I closed the book and thought I can not read any more. To tell the truth, I had promised my daughter before the release of Deathly Hallows that I would not read ahead, but once the book was in my hands, I could not help staying up into the night reading on - but I reached the end of The Prince's Tale and could not continue. So the next day I went back to where I'd left off reading aloud to my daughter the day before, and reread the previous 28 chapters with my daughter, which took two days, and then we read through to the end. I wanted my daughter to be with me for what came at the end. And I think rereading the book gave me hope that there would be a way out. With regards to Potioncat's original post, one moment I really identified with a character is on p.202 US ed., from the chapter titled The Bribe. Hermione is frustrated that Ron keeps clicking his Deluminator, while she's trying to read The Tales of Beedle the Bard, and she says: "Well, can't you find something useful to occupy yourself?" to which Ron responds "What, like reading kids' stories?" -Witherwing, who is off to continue a very useful occupation - rereading Deathly Hallows for a third time... From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 07:08:50 2007 From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:08:50 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175557 > Siriusly Snapey Susan > Anyone else care to bite? zeldaricdeau: Isn't it funny that, in this thread, one person can write about something that happened in the book that they wanted to see and someone else can write about the same thing as something that they wanted to see but which did *not* happen (or vice versa)? I never expected a book which would hinge so much on interpretation :). Anyway on to my response. What I got that I both expected and wanted: A flawed but ultimately heroic DDM!Snape A flawed but good DD A DD who was dying through HBP and asked Snape to kill him A Snape who loved Lily and eventually became a better person because of it. A horcrux!Harry who was willing to die to destroy the horcrux inside him. A defeated Voldemort What I got that I didn't expect but still wanted: A living Harry (torn on this one because part of me thinks it would have been interesting, if terribly heartbreaking, for him to have died) A living Hagrid (YAY!) A living Ron AND Hermione (I was convinced that if she didn't kill Harry she'd kill one of them) A brave and important Neville A more believable Harry/Ginny A return to the issues of House Elf rights A redeemed Percy What I didn't get and didn't expect but still wanted: A glimpse of House Unity or some semblance thereof A return to the Dept of Mysteries and the locked door A chance at Harry/Luna A living Snape (*cry*) What I wanted, expected, and didn't get: A satisfying Hermione character arc (*grumpy mumble*) A conclusion not tied up with a bunch of magical artifacts we've never heard of before -ZR From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 10:43:48 2007 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:43:48 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175558 lizzyben: > Well, each individual person will have individual interpretations - > especially of a chapter that seems so laden w/metaphors. I don't think > that it's literally supposed to be Snape. It's supposed to be LV, I > totally agree. But IMO, on a symbolic level, it's much more than that. > Basically, I think the "baby" is the shadow, that has been rejected & > purged. Sydney: Jumping in here because I had the exact same reaction as Lizzyben, so it's not just her. The symbolism in that scene was all kinds of weird-- two guys congratulating each other on their love and compassion while ignoring a crying wounded baby?! If that baby is the soul-piece that Voldemort put in Harry, it gets all kind of messed up. Because, okay, this is a crying wounded baby that's been inside Harry since his parents were murdered. Inner child, right? I mean on the symbolic level of course-- surely that was pretty explicit in OoP that Harry's rages and connection to Voldemort are symbolic of teen angst and hormones or whatever? I mean, that's what I thought it was. I thought it was really clever. Don't all teenagers act like their possessed at some point? So, even at that point in the book when I was grasping at straws I was thinking.. okay, here's the part where Harry comes to terms with the darkness inside him, even if its.. uh.. nothing to do with him actually in plot terms... because that piece randomly disappeared and this is a whole other piece... whatever. To me: symbolic afterlife land, Harry, crying wounded child bit like the bits that got put in Harry the night his parents died. So what should you do with your wounded inner child? IGNORE IT. Ignore the crying and the pain! It's disgusting! It's not a part of you. Do you hear me Harry? The flayed thing in agony that's been inside you for 16 years has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. When the crying gets too much, just beat the crap out of some Bad People. It'll make you feel better!! And that's when I thought, "This series is WHACKED." houyhnhnm: > > And Voldemort didn't have to end up as a helpless, > > suffering, moaning creature for eternity. He could > > still have avoided his fate, even after the terrible > > things he'd done, even after shredding his soul into > > pieces, if he had been able to feel remorse. Sydney: But Voldemort never could take Harry up on the offer to feel remorse-- he's a psychopath. We spent half the last book establishing that. That's why the offer was so easy to make. There's no suggestion that Harry would ever have to do something about it, just like he never had to have a normal conversation with Draco or come to terms with a Snape who wasn't safetly dead. I really hated that 'remorse' bit in the Harry/Voldemort convo because it actually came out like a taunt.. 'ha ha you're a psycopath and can't feel remorse and you're going to hell. Die sucka!' I can roll with that stuff in R-rated action movies (especially when the hero kicks ass on account of his hard work and mad ass-kicking skills, not through some random technicality). But in a children's book that's back-slapping itself about how it's all about love and compassion it's just revolting. I totally wanted to fall into sentimental goo and instead I just found myself in this big bucket of bile. "Aren't those people awful? Aren't I great person for hating those awful people? I'm soooo much better than.... a cross between Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler! Go Me!" *backslaps!* Why did I not see it coming?! Didn't Dumbledore's big speech about Harry's power of love specifically say that 'power' was that it would drive him towards vengeance? lizzyben: > Description of the Jungian shadow: > "We will feel highly uncomfortable when we are around someone that is > carrying a part of our Shadow. As I said before, and it bears > repeating, there will often be a repulsive element to it. We will be > repulsed by that person and whatever they stand for. To gain access > and awareness of one's shadow, one should carefully consider those > qualities in another that repulse or disgust oneself." > > http://www.shadowdance.com/shadow/theshadow.html > > Harry in King's Cross: > > "He was afraid of it. Small & fragile & wounded though it was, he did > not want to approach it... Soon he felt near enough to touch it, yet > he could not bring himself to do so. He ought to comfort it, but it > repulsed him." > > Yeah, on one level it's LV, but in a Jungian interpretation, that's > Harry's shadow - the part of his personality DD tells him to reject & > ignore. And hey, it sort of sounds like DD telling Snape "you disgust > me", doesn't it? Snape is DD's shadow, LV is Harry's shadow, and > Slytherins in general are Gryfindors' shadow. Sydney: Left this unsnipped because, yeah. And reading that bit again, I'm every kind of confused. Because.. okay, it's reaaally hard to read that as anything other than a conscious decision from a clued-up writer about Shadow-imagery. And then she kicks under a chair and says 'that's what you should do with that awful Shadow thing!' Which.. okay... is that a school of psychological thought these days? *scans JK's bookshelf* I see a lot of Freud.. I really don't like Freud so I don't know what he thought about this sort of thing. > houyhnhnm > > I, too, am made uncomfortable by the imagery of the > > small maimed, creature, trembling under the chair. > > It reminds me a little too much of the child in the > > closet in Ursula LeGuin's short story, "The Ones Who > > Walk Away From Omelas". Sydney: I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to Ursula LeGuin, who muttered something in an interview a while back about being happy about their success but thinking the HP series was a bit mean-spirited. I was like, 'No, no! She's going to turn it around! Just wait!'. Sorry Ursula. You were right, I was wrong. lizzyben: >On an individual level, if we don't recognize the > shadow, if we don't integrate it into our personality, we'll project > those qualities onto other people instead & hate them for it. But > societies do that too. On a collective level, sometimes an entire > society will project their shadow onto some "other" group, which > becomes the recipient of all the flaws that society cannot admit to > having - and the society will then seek to punish or purge that > "other" group. That group becomes the society's appointed scapegoat > that can safely hate & revile. In turn, the "other" group can project > its own shadow onto the first group, creating a cycle of mutual > destruction & hatred....DD is encouraging Harry to reject a part of himself, & > see it as an "other" instead - that's classic shadow projection. On > both an individual & collective level, Harry & the Gryffindors are > caught in a deep cycle of shadow projection that almost guarantees > more hatred, scapegoating, dehumanization, violence & conflict. IMO, > this is why so many people feel uneasy about this chapter & the > ultimate ending of the novel. Sydney: Yeah, that's why it just seems so cracked to me, this whole series. This is a world that's going to convulse in civil war like clockwork every fifty years, because there's just no self-reflection or attempt to say, 'hey, mistakes were made, we need to look at what we have in common as human beings here'. And now it seems yeah, there's no turning around the child's version of Brave Perfect Anachronistic-notions-of-human-rights Gryffindor and how he was betrayed by that total loser Slytherin, and Our Side was totally right and Their Side was totally wrong forever. That was the one thing I was ready to lay money on was going to get reversed.. "Little White Horse" being the obvious reason why. Oh, and all of human history. That too. "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown" is a message I can respect if I'm settling down for a bleak, fatalistic look at the irretrievably corrupt nature of humanity. From book about children I find it pretty appalling, especially as it turns out only a quarter of humanity is irretrievably corrupt and don't worry, it's Not You. It's fascinating at the same time, because it's a wonderful portrait of one whopping un-dealt-with Shadow issue but it seems to be entirely unconscious. It's not like JK doesn't know about this Shadow thing-- she said somewhere that , 'yeah, dehumanizing the Other is terrible! That's what Voldemort does!' Ummmm... talk about missing the point! It's like... it's a series where.. dehumanizing and projecting the Shadow.. is something THOSE AWFUL PEOPLE DO. Nothing to do with us! Let's congratulate ourselves on how we don't do that and that's why it's cool when We beat people up with our Good magic and totally different when They beat people up with their Dark Magic. I keep going back to her list of favorite books.. they all GET this. Pip has to cope with the fact that all his money came from Magwich, making him not exactly as 'better than those people' as he had thought-- why didn't she do something like this with Gryffindor? Elizabeth has to go through a thing where, oh, yeah, that pride and prejudice stuff turns out to not just be something other people do. Frodo in the end ISN'T sufficiently pure of heart. He succumbed like Gollum did and felt their kinship. And of course, "Little White Horse", which somehow managed to read at a much younger level but come out far more mature and realistic about our myths about other people and how we use them to soothe our egos. I still feel like I *have* to have missed something. This is a series that answers the question "What would Jesus do?" not with, love thy enemy, judge not, turn the other cheek, heal the sick, (and render unto Ceasar, one of the wisest ones IMO), but with 'allow your enemies to kill you so you can come back to life and confer some bizarre magical protection on your exclusive club of followers.' It's so weird. IT'S SO WEIRD. -- Sydney, who swore she wouldn't get drawn back in, but who had to support Lizzyben on this point From caleksandrova at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 11:47:39 2007 From: caleksandrova at gmail.com (Karina Aleksandrova) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:47:39 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175559 > Anyone else care to bite? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > DDM!Snape, who killed Dumbledore because of their prior agreement, to protect Draco's soul, and because DD was dying. I feel vindicated. Dumbledore and Grindelwald backhistory. I didn't expect that they were friends, but I did want something, and I'm glad of how it turned out to be. Petunia really wanted to be a witch and turned against magic from bitterness. This was the last theory I made, and it came true. Harry lived and Voldemort died, and Harry didn't use Avada Kedavra (I wished there'd be more to it than a backfired spell again, but it works for me). House-elves joining the fight (though with kitchen utensils? where's their innate magic that we've heard so much about?) -- Didn't know I wanted, but liked Everything about Neville, but particularly going against Voldemort/Nagini himself, when it was believed Harry was dead, and getting the sword out of the Sorting Hat. How awesome is that. -- Didn't get Inter-house unity (or at least once I got to the part where Voldemort sets Sorting Hat aflame - no more Sorting). Nothing about the twelve uses of dragon blood... and they even were mentioned again, at the start of the book, giving me such hopes! From guzuguzu at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 12:47:40 2007 From: guzuguzu at yahoo.com (guzuguzu) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:47:40 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175560 On a somewhat tangent, here's something that I really expected, and really didn't want to happen, and was glad NOT to have happened: With the inferi guarding the locket in HBP, I thought that in DH Harry would have to face more, possibly including someone he recognized (someone like Cedric). When Voldemort cracked Dumbledore's tomb, I was afraid it was going to be him, foreshadowed by the dust-dolly Dumbledore that was guarding Grimmauld Place. I was happy that was all just my imagination running wild, because that would have been monumentally creepy! guzu From elfundeb at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 14:04:05 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:04:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708160704n59052bbbyfd0a40b882e9a4b2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175561 > Anyone else care to bite? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Debbie: What I wanted and got -- Ron overcame his insecurities, showed he was not inferior to the rest of the Trio, and got the girl Neville proved himself worthy without killing Bellatrix Lestrange or anyone else Snape was DDM! with a touch of OFH! (though not completely satisfied with "I did it all for Lily") Percy returned to the Weasleys Dumbledore was really dead by prearrangement with Snape Regulus had a compelling backstory Petunia had a sympathetic backstory Harry sacrificed himself (vindicating my steadfast two-year campaign for Harrycrux) but survived anyway (and Geoff gets all the credit for convincing me that Harry should not die) What floored me but pleased me all the same -- Narcissa's betrayal of Voldemort Dumbledore's shady past Kreacher! What I wanted but didn't get -- Some indication that James ceased to be an arrogant toerag (no surprise) The Good Slytherin student (I must be satisfied, I suppose, with Draco's ambiguity) Debbie who will think of more the moment after hitting 'send' [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Aug 16 14:09:43 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:09:43 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why fly when you can apparate? Message-ID: <30181186.1187273383914.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 175562 Bruce: >In "Quiddich Through the Ages", she says that one can't Apparate across the >ocean from Britain to America, and on her website she said that nobody flew a >broomstick all the way across the Atlantic until sometime in the 1940s. Hence, >wizards who want to travel transcontinental or transoceanic distances must use >Muggle means or go by hops. (No mention of how the Weasleys got to Egypt.) Bart: Where in canon does it say that drinking beer makes apparation easier? Are you confusing JKR with Douglas Adams? Bart PS: if you don't understand, re-read what you wrote, carefully From p_yanna at hotmail.com Thu Aug 16 14:18:09 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:18:09 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175563 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > >> Actually, though, I don't get how Lupin would let the Marauders keep > tormenting Snape when Snape knew his secret. It seems just too > likely that the secret would slip out "under duress" whether Snape > wanted it to or not. Maybe this is just a plot hole, another > situation where the timeline is off? (*cough*missing24hours*cough*) > [snip]. > > -- JudySerenity > Finding out that the Prank had been before Snape's Worst Memory I was also surprised that the Marauders didn't worry about Snape revealing Lupin's status. But the thing is, it is canon that Dumbledore had made Snape promise not to tell, presumably under threat of expulsion. So now the school, incl. Lily who might then subconscioulsy have started to get her hots for brave James saving her slimy friend, has a vague idea that James did something noble and heroic to save Snape. Snape knows that there were nothing noble about it though I'll give you possibly heroic and that it was James trying to save his own hide and his friends. Sirius is not really punished. (anything short of expulsion is a JOKE) Snape is made to keep the secret, threatened or possibly magically bound so that he is not even able to utter it. And on top of everything, the Marauders gang up on him and pants him. He obviously can't do much there, he went to Dumbledore accusing them of murder and got punished himself. I'm not surprised that Remus didn't stop his friends from bullying Snape. He didn't have any control over them really. They are completely callous about reveavling his secret in SWM, out in public. Sirius says he's bored and wished it was the full moon... i mean, lycanthropy is supposed to be this curse, right and Sirius is saying how he would like his friend to be suffering it at the moment. After he has tried to use said friend as a murder weapon. Lupin is completely pathetic, only a notch above Peter and I have serious concerns about his morality. What if he had gotten someone in one of his many close turns while Marauding around with the others? It was a joke to the others but he knew what Lycanthropy was like and didn't stop. And I can't really blame Snape for trying to give hints to Lily. He knows James is sniffing after Lily. He knows what Sirius is capable of doing and treating as a mere joke. He knows that Remus is dangerous. They are Gryffindors, charming, good in sports and the rest. They have much better access to his friend and the House divide is already taking her away from him. Is he a jerk for not dropping Mulciber and Avery on the spot once she complains? Perhaps but he's only a kid and friends are important esp. with enemies like her oh, so brave housemates around. Mim From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Aug 16 11:17:16 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:17:16 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of Sorting and Snape Message-ID: <580232.49893.qm@web86211.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175564 Sydney wrote: I totally wanted to fall into sentimental goo and instead I just found myself in this big bucket of bile. "Aren't those people awful? Aren't I great person for hating those awful people? I'm soooo much better than.... a cross between Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler! Go Me!" *backslaps!* Irene: I know that you are talking about Harry in the above, but it also rings true for me about Dumbledore. I was completely disgusted about him in the King's Cross chapter. All he cared about was to get reassurance from Harry (a child! That he is sent out to die!) that he is better than Voldemort. OK, Albus, you are. And Stalin was better than Hitler. Sleep well, Albus. And BTW, Harry was very quick to absolve Albus of any blame in his parents' death. I'm not so quick. These two people are hiding from the most horrible wizard ever, they need all the protection they can get. And Dumbledore takes away the invisibility cloak, to play with it. "My precious". Harry reassures him that it didn't matter, that Voldemort could see through it. First of all, it's not true - Nagini could, but we don't know that about Voldemort. And most important - even if Voldie could see through it, Dumbledore didn't know it at the time! The only thing that makes his part in Potters death quite small after all is that James was too careless to use the cloak when he went to open the door. > houyhnhnm > > I, too, am made uncomfortable by the imagery of the > > small maimed, creature, trembling under the chair. > > It reminds me a little too much of the child in the > > closet in Ursula LeGuin's short story, "The Ones Who > > Walk Away From Omelas". Sydney: I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to Ursula LeGuin, who muttered something in an interview a while back about being happy about their success but thinking the HP series was a bit mean-spirited. I was like, 'No, no! She's going to turn it around! Just wait!'. Sorry Ursula. You were right, I was wrong. Irene: Yes to both. I thought immediately about Omelas, and recently I've remebered that quote from LeGuin and thought - well done, you've recognised that mean streak that we were all deluded about. Irene From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 14:33:24 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:33:24 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175565 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > > Absolutely, those are exactly my reasons why I loved the ending of > Snape as well. > > I may add Dumbledore treating Snape sometimes, well... sort of > similarly to how Snape treated Harry, hehe. That was another irony, was it not? Or, at least, it adds an interesting wrinkle to things. I would not say that the Dumbledore/Snape relationship was like the Snape/Harry relationship, in that I don't think DD ever hated Snape, except, maybe, at the very beginning when Snape first came to him for help. However, the relationship changed over time and comprised much more compassion and respect than was found between Snape and Harry. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Dumbledore/Snape relationship was not what many had assumed. It was by no means all positive or approving or loving or nurturing. It certainly had a different quality than the Dumbledore/Harry relationship. And, let's face it, it is true that some of Dumbledore's more human side, even dare we say it his darker side, came out in his relationship with Snape. He certainly was not above pettiness and even sharp cruelty in his dealings with the potions master. It turns out, for instance, that his goading of Snape in PoA was probably not some sort of "lesson" or "amiable ribbing" as some interpreted, but due to the fact that he just didn't approve of Snape's attitude and couldn't resist getting in a few knocks (rather like Kreacher, "one more for luck.") All in all, the behavior of DD and Snape toward each other mirrors very well the behavior of people forced for some greater cause to work together even though they don't entirely like or approve of one another. Over time respect and even compassion develops, but there is always tension, frustration, and "acting out" due to the fact that one has to constantly put up with things you really, really don't want to deal with (in DD's case Snape's bitterness and inability to get over the past, in Snape's case DD's secretive nature and tendency to manipulate). And, as in most such relationships, they each feed off the other in a negative cycle. The more bitter and petty Snape acts, the more secretive and withdrawn DD is likely to be. The more secretive and manipulative DD is, the more bitter Snape becomes. And around the rosey we go. > > It is so funny that JKR managed to make myself, who hated Snape so > much so very happy with his end **and** many Snape fans as well. > I go back to something Sydney said on this subject: everybody, or rather a lot of people win to an extent. DDM!folks got what they wanted, but with enough OFH! and Grey!Snape that those camps can feel vindicated as well. Snape lovers got Snape as crucial to the fall of Voldemort. Snape haters got a satisfying and karmic end for the potions master. The LOLLIPOPS people were by and large pleased. I guess the people left out would be the Ethical!Snape folks, who wanted Snape to be motivated purely by his own choices concerning right and wrong, the Living!Snape folks, who wanted Snape to live, and the Repentant!Harry folks, who wanted some sort of reconciliation between a living Snape and a living Harry. Lupinlore From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 14:52:50 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:52:50 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175566 > Sydney wrote: > This is a series that answers the question "What would Jesus do?" not > with, love thy enemy, judge not, turn the other cheek, heal the sick, > (and render unto Ceasar, one of the wisest ones IMO), but with 'allow > your enemies to kill you so you can come back to life and confer some > bizarre magical protection on your exclusive club of followers.' It's > so weird. IT'S SO WEIRD. > > -- Sydney, who swore she wouldn't get drawn back in, but who had to > support Lizzyben on this point I guess it depends on your view of Christianity, to an extent. Many people, both inside and outside of Christian churches, do have a view of Jesus as primarily an Ethical figure, and equate Christianity largely with a certain moral code. That is all very well, and it's certainly true that Jesus propagated a certain morality (although it is by know means always clear how it should be applied in specific circumstances, of course). However, many people, indeed entire groups of Christians, have a different emphasis on Jesus, seeing him as primarily a Metaphysical figure, i.e. as a figure who's life, death, and resurrection create a profound change in the very nature of reality by altering forever the relationship between God and the Created World. For instance my own church, the Greek Orthodox, strongly supports such a view. In that view, what is truly important and unique is not the moral message of Christianity (which after all has echoes in a lot of other places, including the Pharisee movement from which modern Rabbinic Judaism is ultimately descended). Rather what is important is precisely the events mirrored in the last part of DH, namely the voluntary death and resurrection, which leads to a different mode of reality both for the Resurrected One and the rest of Creation, albeit a mode most fully realized by those who are conscious followers of the Resurrected Savior. Of particular import to the ethics of the Potterverse is that many groups across the Christian spectrum see in this Metaphysical Christ an expression of the Absolute Sovereignty of God. That is, humanity cannot hope to ascend to the Godhead, but for its salvation must depend on the free and sovereign act of God in lifting humanity up to a level that humans can never attain through their own worth, effort, or choices. The effect of this process, i.e. the signs of the touch of God, are manifested in the outward character and behavior of the one so favored (this being the majority theological view, although certain extreme brands of Calvinism would dispute it). Thus, good people are good people in that they in some way, consciously or not, participate in the saving action of God which is manifested temporally in the Resurrected Savior. Bad people are bad people, and ACT like bad people, in that they do not. Thus good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell, not as a reward for behavior and following the rules, but because good people are touched by salvation and display this in their character and behavior, whereas bad people are not and display THIS in their character and behavior. Or, to put it in terms of the Potterverse, Gryffindors, along with many Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs, are good because they participate in the essence of goodness which is temporally embodied by Harry, the Boy Who Lived and Who Was Resurrected. They display this participation in the essence of goodness in their character and behavior. Slytherins do not participate in this essence. They are essentially empty (evil having no essence or reality of its own to impart). They display their emptiness through their character and behavior. It all works out very well, given a certain understanding of what Jesus was all about. Lupinlore From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 16 15:50:16 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:50:16 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175567 SSSusan: >> Anyone else care to bite? marion11111: > Predicted, wanted and got:: > > Horcrux!Tiara in the RoR SSSusan: I forgot to put that in my list yesterday! This was one of the things I did get down in TK's prediction contest and hoped would come to fruition. :) marion11111: > Horcrux!Harry SSSusan: This was one I decidedly did NOT want, going in. The way she did it, though, I found that I didn't mind it. (Well, other than DD's role in predicting/interpreting it but not sharing that!) marion11111: > Ollivander held hostage by LV SSSusan: I thought he had been taken by Voldy, too, though I thought it was because he owned Rowena Ravenclaw's wand. Whooops. And I can't believe I forgot to mention something else that I *really* hoped for and got: NO MORE TIME-TURNING. Yippee!! I so didn't want that to come back. Polyjuice potion, I could live with. TT! gives me headaches and reads so much more like deus ex machina (even if it's not) than PJP, etc. Marion11111: > Absolutely surprised by: > DD being such a B****** > Lupin being such a B****** > Kreacher being cute > Dudley being cute SSSusan: Hee. Have to love how you presented these! marion11111: > Ministry's quick and complete take-over of Hogwarts > Snape as headmaster SSSusan: I didn't see this coming at all either! In fact, I'm dying to see the results of TK's contest, because I'm curious if *anyone* predicted Snape as Headmaster. I really thought he'd be on the run at the start of the book. marion11111: > The horrifying snake in Bathilda - still causing nightmares SSSusan: Man, that creeped me out. The first time I read the scene, I wasn't even sure what was happening. JKR made that scene awfully visceral, imo: the stench of the place (including the bedpan, ick!), the dust, the body falling away as Nagini emerged from the neck... just, gross! Siriusly Snapey Susan From elfundeb at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 16:02:31 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:02:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708160902x44dbcd80hede4f38b2cf7f76c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175568 Lupinlore: I go back to something Sydney said on this subject: everybody, or rather a lot of people win to an extent. DDM!folks got what they wanted, but with enough OFH! and Grey!Snape that those camps can feel vindicated as well. Snape lovers got Snape as crucial to the fall of Voldemort. Snape haters got a satisfying and karmic end for the potions master. The LOLLIPOPS people were by and large pleased. I guess the people left out would be the Ethical!Snape folks, who wanted Snape to be motivated purely by his own choices concerning right and wrong, the Living!Snape folks, who wanted Snape to live, and the Repentant!Harry folks, who wanted some sort of reconciliation between a living Snape and a living Harry. Debbie: Even the ethical Snape folks (I count myself among them) get some vindication. Granted, Snape did not have a moment whereby he came to realize intellectually that Voldemort's agenda was evil and he could no longer support it and therefore chose to work undercover to overthrow him. L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. can seem a bit trite, but it had a transforming power. Snape may have come to Dumbledore initially solely to save Lily, without any disregard for James or his son, but he's not the same Snape any more. That Snape would not watch "only those whom I could not save" die, nor would he chastise Phineas Black for using the word 'mudblood' to refer to someone other than Lily, especially the friend of the hated Potter. Something happened in those intervening years to make Snape understand why Lily rejected him. There is little consolation for those who needed a reconciliation scene. However, a look may say more than a thousand words, and I read Snape's last look at Harry as a realization, finally, through the power of Lily's eyes that Harry is not James Potter reincarnated, and therefore he has no reason to hate him. Snape's redemption is finally complete at that moment. Other Diana/Georgians might disagree, but that's how I've come to view it. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 16:15:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:15:52 -0000 Subject: The Prince's potions improvements (Was: Harry the author) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175569 muellem@ wrote: > > My apologies but I haven't really been following this thread but . . . are we sure it is Snape who wrote the additions? At one > > point we are told that the book is 50 years old, well before Harry's father and thus Snape's time. The book must have been Snape's mother's book before it became his and thus it is likely that it was > she who made the changes - > Melissa replied: > Well the book could have been his mother's book given the age but that doesn't mean that the notes made in it were made by her. He simply was using a hand me down school book. Interesting though that they were using one that was 50 years out of date. I would have thought that a few new potions would have been thought up/improved upon enough to warrant a newer edition being printed. > > Melissa Carol responds: I agree with Melissa. There is never any suggestion in the books that the potions hints and the spells, which we know to be Snape's own, are not the creations of the same person. Both are in the same small, cramped handwriting that Hermione thinks looks like a girl's (perhaps because it resembles hers) but which is identical to the small, cramped writing with which the teenage Severus fills his DADA OWL in OoP. Eileen Snape is both a red herring as to the identity of the Prince (disputed by Harry, who is rightly convinced that the Prince is male from both his personality and his nickname) and a teasing hint at Snape's background (for which we received other hints in the Occlumency lessons and Spinner's End itself). Professor Snape recognizes the Potions book in Harry's mind and knows perfectly well that Harry is using and taking credit for *his* Potions improvements. He later yells at him for trying to use his own spells against him and identifies himself definitively as the Half-Blood Prince. Two chapter titles, "Flight of the Prince" in HBP and "The Prince's Tale" in DH reinforce his identity. There is only one Half-Blood Prince, inventor of Muffliato and Levicorpus and, alas, Sectumsempra, and improver of the potions recipes in his sixth-year Potions book (though he must have been studying the book and improving the Potions, perhaps over the holidays, before sixth year unless Levicorpus in the SWM is a Flint). We've known for ages that Snape is a Potions genius who knows exactly which step or steps have been performed incorrectly by his students; who writes his improved recipes on the board with his wand rather than assigning potions from the book as Slughorn does; who is one of the few wizards in the WW who can make Wolfsbane Potion. It could serve no purpose for the plot to give the credit for young Severus's potions improvements to his mother and would take away all the delicious irony of Harry learning from and identifying with Snape if both the spells and the Potions hints were not his. As for the age of the book, that's Slughorn's fault. He seems to have used the same sixth-year Potions book during Eileen Prince's time as Severus Snape's, which explains why he would have and be writing in her old book, and again in Harry's time. The man is old, lazy, and set in his ways. But the handwriting is teen!Snape's, the bezoar hint is written in his voice, and there's no indication whatever that Eileen Prince, the gobstones champion cowed by her Muggle husband, was a Potions genius like her son. Snape is the Half-Blood Prince; it's his book; the spells are his; the potions hints are his. That mystery was solved in HBP. And I really liked having his shortened title used again in "The Prince's Tale." It was like a little gesture of affection from JKR to her "gift of a character." I also liked having him simultaneously point his wand at DD's injured hand, muttering incantations, and pouring a golden potion down his throat with his other hand. Healer!Snape, the DADA *and* Potions genius, in a nutshell. Carol, wondering why people are still pondering an officially solved mystery and/or doubting his manifest talents at this point From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Aug 16 16:17:32 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:17:32 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter an Anti-Royalist Tract? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175570 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > career advisor wrote: > > > > Add in the fact that all the Slytherins leave the table and fight > for Voldemort. > > Carol responds: > > My apologies for snipping almost your whole post, but are you sure > that this is a fact? Hickengruendler: It isn't. Voldemort at the very least failed to mention Crabbe and Goyle. Not to mention, that I don't think even Voldemort would know this for sure, since I don't see, how anyone, who isn't Head of Slytherin would know exactly, how many Slytherin students are in the house and how many of them joined him. I suppose several Slytherins did, though. From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Aug 16 15:54:29 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:54:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Virtues of Hagrid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C47335.6080302@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 175571 Meliss9900 at aol.com wrote: > I'm sorry but claiming a character lied to prove a point is an easy out. > Anyone can claim anything about any character and simply say "they lied." Well, here we _know_ Hagrid lied. He lies, at least, about not using whatever form of his wand remains. That he lied is not in dispute, the only question is how much he lied about. -- Random832 From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Aug 16 16:26:17 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:26:17 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: Levels of Wizardry and Snape's style Message-ID: <1710128.1187281578094.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 175572 Ken: >I guess I see things far differently. The good guys are acting with extreme >restraint. The bad guys are throwing AK's around as fast as they can say >the words (and non verbal spells seem to have gone almost entirely out >the window haven't they?) This is an interesting aspect of the books. There are definitely levels of skill of wizardry, but they don't seem to QUITE match up to a bell curve. We have a few super-geniuses, like DD, Morty, Grindy, and Snape (yes, Snape; DD comes to him for advice on things he can't handle, you have the HBP notebook which shows a tremendous understanding of the underlying theory of magic, something which does not seem to be heavily taught, he is the only one of the DE's who picks up the ability to fly without a broom, just to name a few items. Also note that DD, when Snape comes to him, treats him with a harshness that we have never seen DD use against another DE, a kind of harshness generally reserved for when we see ourselves in others, and don't like it). Professor Snape is quite obnoxious in his teaching style. However, one might look at it in a different light. One of my own experiences comes to mind. I went to what might be called a public high school for nerds (there are three of them in New York City). My first year there, I had a math teacher who had a reputation quite similar to that of Professor Snape. Yet, with my class, he was often in a good mood, and seemed like a rather nice fellow. I later found out why: my class was exceptional (I was one of the lesser students in the class, and dropped mathematics after 3rd semester calculus in college). Several of the students in my class became some of the top mathematical minds in the country (one leads the human genome project). What I see is that, in the WW, on levels above those like Hermoine, or the Weasley twins, or Mad-Eye Moody, there is a gap. You have super-wizards, and you have excellent wizards, and not much in between. Professor Snape, although he often goes overboard, has a style where he expects all the students to be as good as he is. With some students, it works (take a look at Harry, who received an E on his OWLS in spite of hating Potions). When teaching DADA, Snape is no different. What he is teaching is not the basic OWL level; he is trying to teach the students to be at HIS level. Harry, for an ordinary wizard, is on the top of the DADA class, yet he is far below Professor Snape. Considering what stumblebums the Snatchers are, one wonders why wizards weren't setting traps, and saying "Voldemort", whacking the Snatchers when they show up (me, I would have had a few pounds of dynamite ready to go, say "Voldemort", and apparate right out of there; there's plenty of evidence that wizards are quite vulnerable to physical damage unless prepared). Or, perhaps a few OOP members in a wide circle, with a house-elf in the center with instructions to say, "Voldemort" and vamoose (I say house-elf because they seem to be capable of reflexive apparation). When the Snatchers show up, batter them with AK's, cut them into pieces, and send the body parts via owl mail to Malfoy Manner. Hell, for all we know, JKR envisioned this happening, she just doesn't write about it. The best of the ordinary wizards, working in concert, can't even touch DD, Morty, or Grindy (Snape was smart enough not to make himself a target). One notable result of the DH is that all the super-wizards are dead by the end, which is probably just as well, because there seems to be a tendency on the part of the super-wizards to try and use their power to take over (note that DD and Snape were only stopped by the fact that their actions resulted in the death of a loved one; I will admit that I interpret Snape's love for Lily not as a romantic love, but as a love for the only real friend he ever had). But Snape's teaching style is to have too-high expectations of the students, and using negative incentive to convince them to try to meet them. He did it in potions, and he does it in DADA. Parenthetically, in the realm of "what if?", has anybody ever noticed that people whom everybody loves tend to choose as best friends people who are, at best, very hard to like? A couple of better known cases that occur to me are Benjamin Franklin's deep friendship with John Adams, and, getting more modern, the late Isaac Asimov's devotion to the talented but thoroughly obnoxious Harlan Ellison. I've seen it happen close-up, and it is logical (the reason why somebody is well-loved is frequently because they can see people for who they really are, and obnoxiousness is very often a defensive shell around a very sensitive person). I could see what might have happened had Snape considered his friendship with Lily more important than acceptance by the DE's ("Aren't we inviting Lily to the party?" "But then she'll bring Severus!" "Yeah, but Lily's worth it!" "Oh, alright!"). Even among the OOP, the only reason why Snape seems to be accepted at all is because he's DD's best friend. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 16:55:02 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:55:02 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175573 Sydney wrote: > > Jumping in here because I had the exact same reaction as Lizzyben, so it's not just her. The symbolism in that scene was all kinds of weird-- two guys congratulating each other on their love and compassion while ignoring a crying wounded baby?! > > If that baby is the soul-piece that Voldemort put in Harry, it gets > all kind of messed up. Because, okay, this is a crying wounded baby > that's been inside Harry since his parents were murdered. Inner child, > right? I mean on the symbolic level of course-- surely that was pretty > explicit in OoP that Harry's rages and connection to Voldemort are > symbolic of teen angst and hormones or whatever? > > So what should you do with your wounded inner child? IGNORE IT. Ignore > the crying and the pain! It's disgusting! It's not a part of you. Do > you hear me Harry? The flayed thing in agony that's been inside you > for 16 years has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. When the crying gets too > much, just beat the crap out of some Bad People. It'll make you feel > better!! Carol responds: But the flayed child is *not* the soul bit that was in Harry and therefore cannot represent his "inner child." I've already posted on this topic several times, so I'll just give the most important points here. 1) The soul bit, like those in the deliberately created Horcruxes, is destroyed. "So the part of his soul that was in me," asks Harry, "has it gone?" "Oh, yes!" answers DD. "Yes, he *destroyed* it. Your soul is whole, and completely your own, Harry." Harry glances over at the thing under the chair and asks, "But then, what is that, Professor?" And DD answers only, "Something that is beyond our help" (DH Am. ed. 708, action paraphrased, dialogue exact). So, the creature under the chair is not the soul bit, which has been destroyed. 2) The thing under the chair is the future state of Voldemort's mangled soul, which can only be prevented by his remorse. "But before you try to kill me, I'd advise you to think about what you've done," says Harry. "Think, and try for some remorse, Riddle. . . . It's your one last chance. It's all you've got left. *I've seen what you'll become otherwise*" (741). Now, whether Voldemort, like Harry, had an out-of-body, near-death experience (I think he did, given that he seems to have been unconscious like Harry) or whether Harry merely saw a vision of what happens to a self-mangled soul, 7/8 of which have been destroyed, does not matter. Canon indicates that the flayed child is *not* the soul bit that was in Harry; it's what remains of the mangled soul that was in Voldemort. And the only chance for a restored soul (assuming that's still possible given the destroyed soul bits--maybe the one in Nagini could be put back, at least) is remorse for his many crimes. Otherwise, Voldemort will spend eternity as a flayed, helpless, repulsive child beyond the reach of love or mercy or compassion. Even Grindelwald, it seems, could be saved from a similar fate if he showed remorse. But he, of course, did not creste six Horcruxes, not counting the accidental one. Voldemort has sealed his own fate through his unnatural mangling of his own immortal soul and his failure to repent his many and monstrous crimes. He has lost his humanity; he has come close to destroying his own soul. I'm not going to argue for or against a Jungian interpretation, though the Christian interpretation is far more obvious to me even in the title of the chapter. But everything from the quotes I've cited to Hermione's information on the immortality of the soul and the differences between soul bits in Horcruxes and souls within human beings (DH Am. ed. 103-105) argues that the flayed baby (so similar to the fetal form of Voldemort in GoF) is Voldemort's mangled soul, not the soul bit from Harry's scar, and that it really is beyond their help. See my other posts on this topic, among them http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/173668 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174001 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175489 for further arguments and evidence supporting this position. Carol, thinking that perhaps she should quote Hermione (in "The Ghoul in Pajamas") in more detail next time to illustrate the difference between souls and soul bits in DH From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Aug 16 17:17:07 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:17:07 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175574 Carol: > I'm not going to argue for or against a Jungian interpretation, though > the Christian interpretation is far more obvious to me even in the > title of the chapter. But everything from the quotes I've cited to > Hermione's information on the immortality of the soul and the > differences between soul bits in Horcruxes and souls within human > beings (DH Am. ed. 103-105) argues that the flayed baby (so similar to > the fetal form of Voldemort in GoF) is Voldemort's mangled soul, not > the soul bit from Harry's scar, and that it really is beyond their help. Ceridwen: I thought the soul or soul bit characterized by a child-like form was beyond help because of where they are in this scene. At this point, Harry is dead, Dumbledore is dead, and if the soul, soul-bit, shadow side character is there at the heavenly King's Cross station, then it too is dead. Redemption is for the living. There is absolutely nothing which can be done for a soul etc. which lacks redemption once it has passed on, according to many Protestant denominations. Calvanism is a Protestant denomination which sees even redemption in life as out of the question if the soul has not been preordained redeemed. At least one version I've read suggests that working very hard might bring one to redemption, but overall, Calvanism states that the ordinary unredeemed soul remains unredeemed and beyond help. Ceridwen. From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 17:17:50 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:17:50 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175575 Mim: > Finding out that the Prank had been before Snape's Worst Memory I > was also surprised that the Marauders didn't worry about Snape > revealing Lupin's status. > Lanval: Ah, back to the Shrieking Shack. :) I admit I was surprised too to have the infamous prank happen before SWM. I'm moreover having a hard time finding anything definitve in the books that made us all believe it was a sixth year event? Anyone find it yet? But I'm rather glad. For one thing it tells us without doubt that what happened in the SS was no life-shattering moment, no turning point for anyone. Snape? A mere couple of weeks, if at all, after it happened, he's no traumatized lamb. He seems more upset about Lily defending James (and calling Snape 'ungrateful'. Ouch. *g*) than about the danger he was in. No, it's all about exposing James & Co for not being 'as wonderful as everyone thinks', about James fancying Lily. Remus, the other victim? In SWM, we see a calm boy, worried about his OWLS. He jokes with his friends about werewolf questions. When Sirius wishes it was full moon, he says, 'darkly': "You might," and asks him to test him on some stuff. That is all. No estrangement, no near-hatred, no unforgiving anguish. Seems like Fandom and fanfic writers got that one SO wrong. I did too. (On an interesting side note, being that 99.9% of fanfic writers and readers seem to be women... maybe we really, really don't understand how the minds of teenage boys work?) To come back to your question, maybe we overestimate the power of the secret, too? Snape, while not telling Lily "I was right! He IS a werewolf!" nevertheless presses his 'theory', as he has repeatedly done before. Lily? Is just not interested, even though Lupin lives in her House. Her reaction is rather: So? Why are you so obsessed with them? After all they don't use Dark Magic, like your friends do! Clearly Lily sees this as a worse offense than sneaking out at night, and being friends with a werewolf. Perhaps the Marauders felt that since the staff was already in on the secret, it would not have too much of an impact if students found out? The adults knew, Lupin's presence was officially sanctioned, what could the other kids possibly do about it? The Marauders are already familiar with Werewolf!Lupin, they themselves were never all that aghast when they found out (I assume), why would anyone go into convulsions over it? Again, keeping in mind what a dangerous place Hogwarts & surroundings is, even without the presence of a single young werewolf in their midst. There's worse out in the Forbidden Forest. Mim: > But the thing is, it is canon that Dumbledore had made Snape promise > not to tell, presumably under threat of expulsion. So now the > school, incl. Lily who might then subconscioulsy have started to get > her hots for brave James saving her slimy friend, has a vague idea > that James did something noble and heroic to save Snape. Snape knows > that there were nothing noble about it though I'll give you possibly > heroic and that it was James trying to save his own hide and his > friends. Lanval: Someone, please explain that one to me. I've heard this argument for so long. How, if James had no idea that Sirius had told Snape (and Sirius would have never lied about this), and if DD/the staff had no idea that there was some sneaking out at night taking place during fifth year... did James 'save his own hide'? He was quite simply NOT involved, not responsible, not part of it in any way. No, Snape does not *know* this, and neither do we. It's Snape's interpretation of what happened. James, according to canon, saved Snape, and Remus. Something just occurred to me, and maybe my mind's just in complete confusion right now... how exactly did DD find out about the prank? Mim: Sirius is not really punished. (anything short of expulsion > is a JOKE) Snape is made to keep the secret, threatened or possibly > magically bound so that he is not even able to utter it. And on top > of everything, the Marauders gang up on him and pants him. He > obviously can't do much there, he went to Dumbledore accusing them > of murder and got punished himself. Lanval: Let's keep in mind, shall we, that Snape was not punished. Not for 1. sneaking out at night, breaking school rules 2. sticking his nose in and interfering with school-approved business 3. Entering a tunnel that was clearly, absolutely, without a doubt off limits to all students save Remus Lupin 4. Endangering himself, and another student Remind me again what Sirius did that DD knew about, that was against school rules and required expulsion? He told Snape how to get past the WW. Had Snape been bitten, injured, perhaps killed, then yes, Sirius would have been in trouble, simply because of the gravity of the event. But since nothing happened, why should Sirius be expelled? When does "you were reckless and may have killed someone" EVER get punished as harshly as "you were reckles and killed someone?" If you want to argue this from a moral standpoint, yes, it was reckless, stupid, and dangerous... and Snape was even MORE stupid and reckless to actually follow Sirius' advice, *knowing* there was a WEREWOLF lurking inside!! Which has now become canon, yay. I didn't type my fingers to shreds for nothing, arguing for it. *g* Mim: > I'm not surprised that Remus didn't stop his friends from bullying > Snape. He didn't have any control over them really. They are > completely callous about reveavling his secret in SWM, out in > public. Lanval: Huh? Canon, please, that they are 'revealing it in public'? They are sitting together, no one else is near, save Pensieve!Harry. Mim: Sirius says he's bored and wished it was the full moon... i > mean, lycanthropy is supposed to be this curse, right and Sirius is > saying how he would like his friend to be suffering it at the > moment. Lanval: PoA, Scholastic edition, p.354: "And they didn't desert me at all. Instead, they did something for me that would make my transformations not only bearable, but the best times of my life...." No further comment. Mim: After he has tried to use said friend as a murder weapon. Lanval: Canon, please? "Murder"? Mim: > Lupin is completely pathetic, only a notch above Peter and I have > serious concerns about his morality. What if he had gotten someone > in one of his many close turns while Marauding around with the > others? It was a joke to the others but he knew what Lycanthropy was > like and didn't stop. > Lanval: He did not, and admits that it was wrong. Why do teenagers drive too fast, experiment with drugs, have unsafe sex, play stupid games, etc? Why do teenagers think they are in complete control, and immortal on top of it? Sad. All these morally questionable kids in this world. Mim: > And I can't really blame Snape for trying to give hints to Lily. He > knows James is sniffing after Lily. Lanval: The audacity of it! How dare he! :) Mim: He knows what Sirius is capable > of doing and treating as a mere joke. He knows that Remus is > dangerous. They are Gryffindors, charming, good in sports and the > rest. They have much better access to his friend and the House > divide is already taking her away from him. Is he a jerk for not > dropping Mulciber and Avery on the spot once she complains? Perhaps > but he's only a kid and friends are important esp. with enemies like > her oh, so brave housemates around. > Lanval: If Snape's *only a kid* then so are Sirius, James, and Remus. Whether Remus was ever "good at sports" remains inconclusive. Snape knows that Remus is dangerous? yes, if one, say, sneaked out on full moon nights, and followed secret instructions how to get past the WW. He only mentions that Potter and his friends sneak out at night; there is no evidence he knows that they regularly take Lupin for a stroll as Animagi. So much for Snape trying to expose them out of concern for other students' safety. If James, Sirius and Remus and other Gryffindors have better *access* to Lily, how is that THEIR fault? And yes, he is a bit of a jerk, for defending Mulciber and Avery, who have performed Dark Magic on a girl. Which Lily finds MUCH worse than the prank (and it probably was). According to her it was "...evil.*Evil*, Sev!" From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Aug 16 17:17:19 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:17:19 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175576 Sydney: > I keep going back to her list of favorite books.. > they all GET this. Pip has to cope with the fact > that all his money came from Magwich, making him > not exactly as 'better than those people' as he > had thought-- why didn't she do something like this > with Gryffindor? Elizabeth has to go through a > thing where, oh, yeah, that pride and prejudice > stuff turns out to not just be something other > people do. Frodo in the end ISN'T sufficiently > pure of heart. He succumbed like Gollum did and > felt their kinship. And of course, "Little White > Horse", which somehow managed to read at a much > younger level but come out far more mature and > realistic about our myths about other people and > how we use them to soothe our egos. I still feel > like I *have* to have missed something. houyhnhnm: JK: When it comes to writing the books, I operate to a different set of rules. In fact, I write what I want to write. . . when I'm writing I do not sit down and think of it like, there's my line, and here's the moral lessons we are going to teach our children. None of that ever enters my head. I write what I want to write. For real. I think Rowling doesn't really get it. On a superficial level the themes contained in her favorites list books appeal to her, but they are not internalized. That's why I don't see the HP series as a rejection of Jung in favor of Calvin. I see it as schizophrenic and schizophrenics can be interesting. One is free to pick and choose. Rowling does occasionally have her characters do and say interesting things that I find pleasing. What is offensive, I simply reject. Maybe the books appeal to my inner schizophrenic. I *don't* see a connection between the suffering child and Severus Snape. I don't think it was intended as the soul bit in Harry, either, but I agree that there is something very mean in that image. I had not read Ursula LeGuin's comments about HP, but I think they are dead on. (I have frequently turned to LeGuin to get the bad smell of the Potterverse out of my nose. Edith Pargeter/Ellis Peters is another efficacious light fiction palate cleanser.) There *is* something mean spirited in the books. The stories appeal to the mean in readers and for some they are not nearly mean enough, as we have ample evidence. So in the spirit of mean, here's a thought. While I think there is much merit in lizzyben's argument that Snape is Rowling's shadow self, I think he may also have been her rival. JKR is Petunia. The Potter saga is being told by the bitter, less pretty, rejected Muggle elder sister, and of course parts of it are ugly. Petunia sees the Potterverse through dirt-colored glasses. That doesn't stop me from attempting to extrapolate, find things that I like, and imagine them from my own point of view. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 17:49:43 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:49:43 -0000 Subject: Levels of Wizardry and Snape's style In-Reply-To: <1710128.1187281578094.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175577 Bart wrote: > Even among the OOP, the only reason why Snape seems to be accepted at all is because he's DD's best friend. Carol responds: Sorry to snip your post, which I thoroughly enjoyed and mostly agreed with, but I think "best friend" is an exaggeration. DD trusted him, with good reason, and until Snape reveals his Dark Mark in GoF, McGonagall and the others have no reason *not* to trust him. He's a highly competent colleague and DD's right-hand man. But there's a huge age difference between snape and DD and, even though snape sometimes questions or stands up to DD, no question who's in charge. (Snape could, of course, run off and hide somewhere like Karkaroff, but to his great credit, he doesn't do so.) I loved what you said about DD's harshness to DE!Snape, in contrast to the "manners" that he shows the Carrows and even Fenrir Greyback, reflecting his seeing himself in the young Snape and not liking it. And we see his attitude changing as Snape earns his trust, even before the Patronus incident. He becomes more patient, more trusting, occasionally even praising him or speaking words of affection. The tears in his eyes when he sees the doe Patronus, followed by complete trust in Snape to do what no one else can do (kill the dying DD to save Draco and allow DD a pinless death), and the apprehension on his face as snape leaves to return to LV in GoF do show, I think, a real affection and appreciation for him, as does "I am fortunate to have you, Severus. Very fortunate" when Snape saves him, however temporarily, from the ring curse. But DD has never had a best friend, a full equal, since the Grindelwald disaster. He is, as Aberforth says, used to keeping his own secrets and sharing them only selectively. (Snape, of course, is already concealing many of those secrets, along with his own, through his superb Occlumency. It would be a great burden, and increase his already grave peril, to tell him about the Horcruxes, too.) As for the Order, they know what DD know: only Snape could obtain information about the Dark Lord's plans (see the meeting in OoP where everyone except Sirius Black surrounds him, chattering excitedly as he leaves 12 GP). Surely, the information about the plans to seize the Prophecy orb comes from Snape, just as the information that LV has ordered Draco to try to kill DD (as an attempt to punish Lucius Malfoy) comes from Snape (though it's for DD's ears alone). And the Order probably knows that Snape alone can leak what appears to be valuable information to LV while "hoodwinking" the Dark Lord through "superb" Occlumency. No one else can do Snape's job, seeming to spy on DD while really spying on LV. Even Sirius Black knows that Snape is risking his life every time he goes near Voldemort. Only the seeming murder of Dumbledore, related from Harry's limited and biased perspective, changes their view of him. And somehow, even the password to the office being "Dumbledore" and his retaining of the core staff to counter the Carrows can't remove their blindfolds. They see what they want to see, just as DD did with Sirius Black sixteen years before. With regard to someone's question of why fly when you can Apparate, flying came in handy for Snape, who knows quite well that you can't Apparate on Hogwarts grounds. Too bad neither that superpower nor his brilliant mind could save him from Nagini. Carol, agreeing with your characterization of Snape with regard to both his powers/genius and his teaching philosophy, which does not suffer fools gladly, or rather, does not suffer fools at all From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Thu Aug 16 17:46:59 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:46:59 -0000 Subject: Levels of Wizardry and Snape's style In-Reply-To: <1710128.1187281578094.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175578 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: Bart: I will admit that I interpret Snape's love for Lily not as a romantic love, but as a love for the only real friend he ever had). Rowena: I am inclined to agree with this. Call Lily Snape's Hermione. He never had a Ginny, sadly for him. *though I know a lot of female fans would happily volunteer for the job ;) Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 18:00:10 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:00:10 -0000 Subject: Potter's Teacher's Edition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175579 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Snape vomits up his memories and then dies. There's not one > > scene where Harry has to deal with an unpleasant man who's not > > evil. > > > >>Pippin: > "The longer they spent together, the more Harry realized he did not > like the goblin." -DH ch 25 > > Then there's the trio being deeply unpleasant to each other under > the influence of the locket, to the point where Ron almost kills > Harry. Not to mention that Dumbledore's twinkly niceness turned > out to be more of a facade than Harry ever knew. > > The important thing about this, IMO, is that Harry puts up with > it as best he can, and doesn't assume that these people were > hateful because they wouldn't be sorry if he was dead or because > they're secretly allied with Voldemort. > Betsy Hp: This doesn't do it for me. Harry and Snape have had a relationship for six books and I'm supposed to be satisfied at the climax of the relationship with some wimpy stand-ins? Elizabeth (from Pride & Prejudice fame) didn't turn to Mr. "Hi, we've just met" when her sister went all scandalous on her. Luke Skywalker didn't plead with Han Solo to show him his good side. Griphook, Hermione, Ron and Dumbledore do not cut it, as far as I'm concerned, as Snape want-to-be's. If JKR wasn't wanting to deal with the relationship she created between Harry and Snape, she shouldn't have written it in the first place. > >>Pippin: > And if you don't see Harry giving up the Elder Wand in spite of > Ron and Hermione thinking he's mental as proof that his > self-satisfaction has taken a pretty deep hit, and he's not happy > about everything they did to win, then I don't know what would > convince you. Betsy Hp: A scene where Harry is humbled would have been nice. > >>Pippin: > He says he's had enough trouble for a life time. Jo says > there's not going to be another HP book, meaning she doesn't > envision him doing anything thrilling, IMO. He spends nineteen > years not doing anything thrilling. What more proof do you need? Betsy Hp: Hm... I don't think you're getting what I was wanting and missed so desperately. I wanted to see Harry's world view get shaken. I wanted Harry to be pushed out of his complacent and bigoted view of "how things are" and take a good look at the world around him and see the things that are so horribly wrong with it. That Harry settles into his complacent little life is actually proof for me that nothing changed. Voldemort died of course; Harry achieved the vengence he wanted. But his view of the world is pretty much the same as it was way back in PS/SS. That lame little speech about "I knew a brave Slytherin once" was not enough for me. It smacked too much of "there are honest negros out there" for me. IOWs, praise that reveals the inner bigotry. An "honest negro" is strange enough to remark on, just as a brave (or worthy) Slytherin is a one in a million thing. > >>Pippin: > Do you need some kind of soapy scene where Harry decides > to bury Snape somewhere in Godric's Hollow near Lily and > Dumbledore's family, with the vial of memories in the grave? > (Though I think that's what happened, I don't need to read it.) > Betsy Hp: No, no, no. I was wanting Harry to deal with a *live* Snape. One that would snark and judge and be something real that Harry actually had to wrestle with. Instead we got the soapy scene of dead Snape's memories. Which proved to not be a challenge for Harry at all. > >>Pippin: > How realistic would it be for a seventeen year old, whose > emotional depth is, well, a teacup to Ron's teaspoon, to > demonstrate deep insight into the mind of someone who's something > like twenty years older and far more complex? > > I suppose she could have had Harry dive into the pensieve again > as a thirty year old, but that'd be kind of dull and way over the > heads of half the audience. Betsy Hp: Or, she could have gone with the more exciting option of having Harry deal with Snape while Snape was still alive. As it was, practically the entirety of HBP was wasted. Why set up the conflict between Harry's best friend, the half-blood Prince, and Harry's bone-deep rage towards his professor Snape when the conflict is never delt with? > >>Betsy Hp: > > Harry is beautiful, athletic, rich, and a Gryffindor with the > > strength of the almighty Dumbledore behind him. Any suggestion > > that Harry knows how Snape feels is laughable, IMO. > >>Pippin: > So...he was feeling all those things when he was out in the forest, > on the edge of starvation, believed to be a murderer, with no clear > idea how he was going to get out of the mess he was in? Canon > please? Betsy Hp: Eep, well I'm at work so no quotes for you. But Harry's normal feeling of vicitmized self-righteousness wasn't shaken. Life was hard for him, sure, but Harry was pretty pleased with his own ability to suffer. IIRC, there's even a bit where Harry notes that Ron is so spoiled by having parents that love him he can't cut it. > >>Pippin: > And is he supposed to have entirely forgotten how it felt before he > knew he was any of those things, when he was living in a cupboard? > Betsy Hp: Goodness, no! Why, Harry hardly lets a moment pass that he doesn't remind himself (and others) about the horrible hardship he went through before age eleven. (I'm, um, not all that sympathetic towards Harry's "suffering" anymore. He's made too much of it, IMO.) > >>Pippin: > I just don't recognize the Harry you're talking about. Stupid with > very little natural compassion or empathy makes him sound like > Voldemort. Betsy Hp: IMO, Harry is a lot like Voldemort actually. Except that he's a Gryffindor and is therefore blessed. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I honestly cannot think of one thing about the Trio that I find > > admirable. Even within their own universe they're remarkably > > lacking. > >>Pippin: > Compared to who? > Betsy Hp: James, Sirius, Peter, Lupin, Dumbledore and Snape. Oh, and Tom Riddle himself, of course. (Personally, I've always felt Draco showed more true grit than Harry ever did. But then, Draco had to work harder, so there you are.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > Their flaws actually make me tremble for *JKR's* humanity because > > I get the impression she doesn't see them as flaws. > >>Pippin: > > I think her interview comments are sensitive to the needs of her > younger readers, who indeed will not see Harry as deeply flawed, or > Snape as good even when he's giving Harry a hard time, because > they aren't equipped to see things in shades of gray. But that > doesn't mean that JKR can't or that grown up readers aren't > supposed to. Betsy Hp: I was going by what's in the books, not JKR's interviews. None of the Trio really have to face and deal with their flaws. Not in any meaningful way that I've seen. Those they judge unworthy are always shown unworthy. That's not a realistic or healthy way of going through life, IMO. Betsy Hp (again, posting from work, so here's hoping! ) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 18:08:30 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:08:30 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175580 > Mim: > Sirius is not really punished. (anything short of expulsion > > is a JOKE) Snape is made to keep the secret, threatened or > possibly > > magically bound so that he is not even able to utter it. And on > top > > of everything, the Marauders gang up on him and pants him. He > > obviously can't do much there, he went to Dumbledore accusing them > > of murder and got punished himself. > > Lanval: > Let's keep in mind, shall we, that Snape was not punished. Not for > 1. sneaking out at night, breaking school rules > 2. sticking his nose in and interfering with school-approved business > 3. Entering a tunnel that was clearly, absolutely, without a doubt > off limits to all students save Remus Lupin > 4. Endangering himself, and another student > > Remind me again what Sirius did that DD knew about, that was against > school rules and required expulsion? He told Snape how to get past > the WW. Had Snape been bitten, injured, perhaps killed, then yes, > Sirius would have been in trouble, simply because of the > gravity of the event. But since nothing happened, why should Sirius > be expelled? When does "you were reckless and may have killed > someone" EVER get punished as harshly as "you were reckles and > killed someone?" Alla: Agreed with every word you said Lanval, but I also want to ask for canon support, that "anything short of expulsion is a joke" argument. For example the detention in Forbidden forest say similar to what Harry had in PS is a joke too? I think we saw plenty serious punishments short of expulsion, which was probably given to Sirius, no? I mean, expulsion is the **ultimate** punishment that's for sure, but maybe what Sirius did was punished in proportion to what the offence actually was? And on that I am in 100% agreement with Lanval. The fact that Snape dear thought that Sirius needed to be expelled does not mean that he really was in my view. I was also wondering ( I think it was Pippin in another thread, but I think it is relevant here) - how exactly the fact that Snape is being quiet about the secret somehow makes it extra moral burden for Remus to interfere for him. It is not like Snape **wants** to be quiet and it is not like Remus is somehow guilty of anything? It is **bad** that he did not interfere, I just do not see how the fact that Snape was being silent makes Remus silence to be worse IMO. Lanval: > If you want to argue this from a moral standpoint, yes, it was > reckless, stupid, and dangerous... and Snape was even MORE stupid > and reckless to actually follow Sirius' advice, *knowing* there was > a WEREWOLF lurking inside!! Which has now become canon, yay. I > didn't type my fingers to shreds for nothing, arguing for it. *g* Alla: Oh yes. I did not even think about it originally, but then I was like - he knew he knew he totally KNEW and went **anyway**. I was very happy. Alla. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Aug 16 18:16:55 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:16:55 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175581 houyhnhnm: > There *is* something mean spirited in the books. The stories > appeal to the mean in readers and for some they are not nearly > mean enough, as we have ample evidence. Jen: What do you mean here, houhnhnm? I'm intepreting it as a pretty negative message about readers who like the story but don't want to go any further if I'm misinterpreting or reading more into it than you intended. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 18:39:29 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:39:29 -0000 Subject: Appeal of the story to the reader WAS: Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175582 > houyhnhnm: > > There *is* something mean spirited in the books. The stories > > appeal to the mean in readers and for some they are not nearly > > mean enough, as we have ample evidence. > > Jen: What do you mean here, houhnhnm? I'm intepreting it as a pretty > negative message about readers who like the story but don't want to go > any further if I'm misinterpreting or reading more into it than you > intended. > Alla: This story appeals to me as a story of good triumphing over evil and enormous courage good had to display for that. This story appeals to me as a story of sacrifice, remorse, redemption. This story appeals to me as the story of one of the most touching friendships I had **ever** read in literature. This story appeals to me as for the most part well done "Love will save the world". This story appeals to me as story, which does not go for redemption of all evil, because just as in RL I do not find all evil to be redeemable. This story appeals to me on so many levels, but appeals to the **mean in readers**? Eh, NO, not for this reader. Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 18:52:32 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:52:32 -0000 Subject: Potter's Teacher's Edition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175583 Betsy Hp wrote: > Harry and Snape have had a relationship for six books and I'm supposed to be satisfied at the climax of the relationship with some wimpy stand-ins? If JKR wasn't wanting to deal with the relationship she created between Harry and Snape, she shouldn't have written it in the first place. Carol responds: The problem, I think is that JKR wants a reversal/recognition scene near the end of the book in which Harry has an epiphany about Snape that not only enables him to understand Snape but allows him to make the love-based self-sacrifice that would not have been possible had he still hated and sought vengeance against Snape. At the same time, the scene enables Snape to perform one last amazing feat for the good side and die (IMO) redeemed. To set up such a scene, she can only give us glimpses of Snape, one big scene in which he appears to be evil and bits and pieces (clues like the "terrible" detention with Hagrid and red herrings like George's ear). We also see his DADA skills (defensive magic and, whoop! the ability to fly) in the scene with ESS (Ever so Deluded) McGonagall. But Harry can't see what Snape is really doing at Hogwarts. He can only misinterpret it as Snape supporting rather than undermining the Carrows and LV. Harry's stated intention of wanting nothing more than to meet Snape and, he thinks, beat him in a duel or even kill him, and his view of Snape as the snake on the tower whose crimes (the eavesdropping and the "murder" of Dumbledore) are somehow on the same level as Voldemort's, is reinforced by Harry's isolation from Hogwarts. The overheard conversations serve, as always, as misdirection, to reinforce Harry's wrong-headed view of snape, shared by Hermione and Ron (and Flitwick and McGonagall). His one close encounter with Snape before Snape's death is also filtered by the view that Snape is Voldemort's man. Harry's horror and shock at Snape's death and his willingness to collect the memories and look into Snape's eyes, fulfilling Snape's last request (whatever the reason for it) is a huge step forward for Harry, who until that moment had wanted to kill Snape and still thinks that he hates him (though perhaps that hatred is tinged at last, and too late, with something like compassion or pity; cf. his feeling for Draco after the events on the Astronomy tower in HBP). And by the time he finishes seeing the "truth" in the Pensieve, the hatred is wholly gone, replaced by understanding. His public vindication of the once-hated Snape was one of my hurrah! moments, and his naming of his second son Albus Severus was my favorite moment of all. A scene in which Harry actually talked to Snape, still hating him and seeing him as DD's murderer, is simply unrealistic. Snape would probably have had to lure him with the doe Patronus, extremely dangerous given all the DEs on the scene, tied him up and forced him to listen. Would Harry have believed him? I think not. Much as I'd rather have had Snape convince Harry of his loyalty to DD and go out heroically defeating Bellatrix or killing Nagini or even surviving the battle, that's not the story JKR had to tell, and it probably wouldn't have been as effective. (Neville killing Nagini was another of my hurrah! moments). The relationship between Harry and Snape comes full circle in DH, with Snape briefly seeing Lily rather than James in Harry's eyes (before, all he's seen is arrogance and rule-breaking and lies) and Harry at last understanding Snape. It's unrealistic to expect them to be friends, and Snape *was* a very important ally to Harry though Harry didn't know it, providing hope and help and a weapon to destroy the locket Horcrux. They couldn't have obtained the cup Horcrux without the Sword of Gryffindor, either. And Snape's last message to Harry makes the destruction of the scar Horcrux possible. And, of course, he Confunds Mundungus to plant the poly-juiced Potters idea, without which Harry would assuredly be dead. Snape alone of the adults in the Order gives Harry truly indispensable help in the Horcrux hunt and he, along with the others, helps to save Harry's life (and the ungrateful Lupin's) in the escape from 4 Privet Drive. He may be off-page for most of the book, but he's the man. > Betsy Hp: > A scene where Harry is humbled would have been nice. Carol: How about a scene in which he faces a death in which he can't fight back, along with his own insecurities and doubts about Dumbledore ("the Forest Again")? Or if you just want to see Snape beat the pants off Harry, showing off his Legilimency and reflexes and DADA skills and nonverbal spells, may I recommend "The Flight of the Prince"? We already know that Snape can outduel Harry any day of the week. We don't need to see that again. What we need to see, and get to see, is Harry at last understanding Snape, empathizing with his neglected childhood and admiring his courage, acknowledging his love (not desire) for Harry's mother, his loyalty to Dumbledore, and his opposition to LV. Carol, hoping that Betsy can bring herself to reread the book and noting that it's a very different experience the second (or third) time around than it was the first time From Meliss9900 at aol.com Thu Aug 16 18:52:51 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:52:51 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Virtues of Hagrid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175584 In a message dated 8/16/2007 11:31:04 A.M. Central Daylight Time, random832 at fastmail.us writes: Well, here we _know_ Hagrid lied. He lies, at least, about not using whatever form of his wand remains. That he lied is not in dispute, the only question is how much he lied about. -- Random832 So it would correct to say that when Ollivander asked, he lied about using the broken pieces. That quite a bit different IMO at least, to claiming that he lied about it being broken from the beginning. Especially when it is implied throughout the books that the broken pieces are hidden in the umbrella. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Aug 16 19:12:18 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:12:18 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175585 > houyhnhnm: > > > > And Voldemort didn't have to end up as a helpless, > > > suffering, moaning creature for eternity. He could > > > still have avoided his fate, even after the terrible > > > things he'd done, even after shredding his soul into > > > pieces, if he had been able to feel remorse. > > Sydney: > > But Voldemort never could take Harry up on the offer to feel remorse-- > he's a psychopath. Pippin: Psychopaths can't feel for other people, but Voldemort could have felt remorse for what he'd done to *himself*. Voldemort was not interested in the welfare of his own soul, the part of himself that could survive beyond death, because he intended and expected that he would never have to die. But that wasn't a function of his pathology -- he simply decided, when he learned that there were wizards, that being a wizard should mean that you don't have to die. He thought his mother must have been a Muggle, because she died. Later he learned differently, and it seems he immediately turned to making horcruxes, ignoring the warnings that no wizard had ever found existence in such a form desireable. Remember also that if he'd been returned to vapor form he would have existed in constant pain, from his description far more agony than we saw in King's Cross, (he is only whimpering, not experiencing pain beyond imagination) and Harry, alive or dead, still would not have been able to do anything for him. Funny, people pray for the serenity to accept the things they cannot change, and yet it's disturbing to see it. We're used to seeing Hollywood heroes who are never presented with a challenge that can't be overcome, I guess. I didn't initally see the shadow reading, but even so, Harry decides to go back to Earth and embrace the shadow. He's the one who brings the Slytherins back to Hogwarts, which enables their second chance. Dumbledore does not return, but Dumbledore is depicted in a more damaged state than Harry, broken nose, halfmoon glasses and weeping for the wrongs he did. Sydney: > I totally wanted to fall into sentimental goo and instead I just found > myself in this big bucket of bile. "Aren't those people awful? Aren't > I great person for hating those awful people? I'm soooo much better > than.... a cross between Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler! Go Me!" > *backslaps!* Pippin: Wow, I didn't get that at all. I was overwhelmed with pity for Voldemort and dismayed that there was nothing Harry or DD could do for him. Actually it sounds like you were too, only you didn't think you were supposed to be, because the sentimentality wasn't played up. Of course you're entitled to your reaction, but I really think it is okay to feel pity here despite JKR's seeming cold-heartedness. You know, like it's okay to think that Jonathan Swift doesn't really want you to think eating babies would be a serious solution to the Irish problem > Sydney: > > Yeah, that's why it just seems so cracked to me, this whole series. > This is a world that's going to convulse in civil war like clockwork > every fifty years, because there's just no self-reflection or attempt > to say, 'hey, mistakes were made, we need to look at what we have in > common as human beings here' And now it seems yeah, there's no > turning around the child's version of Brave Perfect > Anachronistic-notions-of-human-rights Gryffindor and how he was > betrayed by that total loser Slytherin, and Our Side was totally right > and Their Side was totally wrong forever. That was the one thing I > was ready to lay money on was going to get reversed.. "Little White > Horse" being the obvious reason why. Oh, and all of human history. > That too. Pippin: The thing is, I think we're supposed to see that Harry grew out of his childish innocence and received in exchange the power to help make the changes you want to see. But JKR didn't show him doing it, because that's not a big adventure about fighting evil. That's a life like Arthur Weasley's, going to the office and trying to convince people that it's wrong to take advantage of Muggles etc one day at a time. It's not about forgetting it, but it's not about thinking that you can wave your wand, or kill one baddie, and the WW's problems are all going to disappear. I thought the Fiendfyre was supposed to show us the folly of trying to make cataclysmic changes. I think that JKR's biggest mistake was giving the epilogue a heroine's ending, because people don't understand that's what she did. The hero is supposed to get a kingdom, dammit, and it's disturbing that JKR *only* shows us Harry, Ginny, Draco, Ron and Hermione with their happy families. Good enough for Psyche but not for Prince Charming, you see? Pippin From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 19:10:08 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:10:08 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175586 Regarding the "Prank", Lanval noted: > Let's keep in mind, shall we, that Snape was not punished. Not for > 1. sneaking out at night, breaking school rules > 2. sticking his nose in and interfering with school-approved business > 3. Entering a tunnel that was clearly, absolutely, without a doubt > off limits to all students save Remus Lupin > 4. Endangering himself, and another student How odd. That's exactly the same things that Harry wasn't for in PS/SS. After all, when the Trio went down the corridor on the third floor, they were 1. Sneaking out at night, breaking school rules (after having been caught before!) 2. Sticking their noses in and interfering with school-approved business (after multiple warnings from Hagrid!) 3. Entering an area (not exactly a tunnel) that was clearly, absolutely, without a doubt off-limites to all students, including any stray werewolves 4. Endangering themselves (three students). Clearly, breaking school rules and interfering with school business isn't that big a deal at Hogwarts. Neither is endangering fellow students, as we don't hear about any punishment for Sirius--who endangered two fellow students to Snape's one. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 16 19:16:26 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:16:26 -0000 Subject: Appeal of the story to the reader WAS: Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175587 houyhnhnm: > > > There *is* something mean spirited in the books. The stories > > > appeal to the mean in readers and for some they are not nearly > > > mean enough, as we have ample evidence. > > Jen: What do you mean here, houhnhnm? I'm intepreting it as a > > pretty negative message about readers who like the story but > > don't want to go any further if I'm misinterpreting or reading > > more into it than you intended. SSSusan: Wow. I hope there was a different meaning behind this statement, too, than how I read it. :( I am a lot of things, but mean is a thing I don't recall ever having been accused of being (other than from the mouths of my own small children, natch, and other parents out there know what I mean about that, heh). Nor is meanness something I would ever identify as a characteristic of myself. And yet I still adore this series as a whole and appreciate what DH gave me, even if it wasn't exactly enough in a couple of areas. Appeals to the meanness in people? Wow. I mean... I don't know how else to react to that. They just DON'T appeal to me in that way. So I do hope I've misunderstood your remark, Houyhnhnm, I surely do. > Alla: > This story appeals to me as a story of good triumphing over evil > and enormous courage good had to display for that. > > This story appeals to me as a story of sacrifice, remorse, > redemption. > > This story appeals to me as the story of one of the most touching > friendships I had **ever** read in literature. > > This story appeals to me as for the most part well done "Love will > save the world". > > This story appeals to me as story, which does not go for redemption > of all evil, because just as in RL I do not find all evil to be > redeemable. > > This story appeals to me on so many levels, but appeals to the > **mean in readers**? SSSusan: I like where Alla took this. So even if Houyhnhnm's words didn't mean what a couple of us interpreted them to mean, I'm still going to build on this part because it won't hurt anything. Alla, your list is a pretty great start in terms of matching what appeals to me as well, and I couldn't bear to cut any of it. To that, I would add: This story appeals to me because IMO it was written by an author who deeply understands & could convey what matters to a child of 11, 13, 15.... So much so that she took me right back to those ages and I *felt* them all over again. This story appeals to me as a story about growing up. Not growing up perfectly or to perfection, not growing up all the way to a fully self-actualized person, perhaps, but seeing the process itself. Making mistakes, learning, trusting, getting burned, dealing with danger & evil & being trapped by life, love, laughter, tears, annoyances, irrationalities, stupidity, glimpses of wisdom... the WHOLE kit & kaboodle. This story appeals to me because it is infused with humor. I read the Narnia series (multiple times), I read His Dark Materials, I read LOTR. They are wonderful, creative, inventive adventures. But man oh man, after having read 6 of the HPs when I picked up LOTR, did I **ever** miss the humor JKR gives us throughout the HPs! This story appeals to me because it is filled with gray. Yes, yes, yes, in places I wish she'd have taken a stronger stance (re: house unity & 'good' Slytherin children & Draco) or made her 'position' clearer (re: goblins or house elves for instance), but as a whole, I love that so many things & so many characters are NOT B&W. This story appeals to me because I love Harry. What can I say? I just do. I see so much to admire. I know some do not, but this is my turn, I guess. ::polishes up D'oH shield:: This story appeals to me because JKR was able to maintain a mystery across SEVEN freaking books re: Severus Snape -- his background, his loyalties, his motivations -- so much so that very, very intelligent people landed all over the spectrum of possibilities for the ultimate revelation. That was brilliant to me!! This story appeals to me because JKR put forth for children the ideas that friendship, bravery, love, watching out for others in need, well- placed loyalty, making difficult choices over easy ones, and standing up for what you believe to be right are NOBLE things. No, these wasn't perfectly drawn, nor was she wholly consistent in those messages -- I GET that -- but for me I can consider those imperfections, discuss them with my own children, work through them, and still hold on to what lifts me up in the story. Siriusly Snapey Susan From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 19:22:37 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:22:37 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175588 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > > lizzyben: > > > Well, each individual person will have individual interpretations - > > especially of a chapter that seems so laden w/metaphors. I don't think > > that it's literally supposed to be Snape. It's supposed to be LV, I > > totally agree. But IMO, on a symbolic level, it's much more than that. > > Basically, I think the "baby" is the shadow, that has been rejected & > > purged. > > Sydney: > > Jumping in here because I had the exact same reaction as Lizzyben, so > it's not just her. The symbolism in that scene was all kinds of > weird-- two guys congratulating each other on their love and > compassion while ignoring a crying wounded baby?! > Lanval: One of those guys is dead and knows precisely *what* the creature described as a small wounded child represents, and states that neither he nor Harry can help. Sydney: > If that baby is the soul-piece that Voldemort put in Harry, it gets > all kind of messed up. Because, okay, this is a crying wounded baby > that's been inside Harry since his parents were murdered. Lanval: Which has everything to do with LV's curse, nothing whatsoever with his parent's murder. Sydney: Inner child, > right? I mean on the symbolic level of course-- surely that was pretty > explicit in OoP that Harry's rages and connection to Voldemort are > symbolic of teen angst and hormones or whatever? Lanval: Wasn't explicit to me. Harry's rage was teenage angst and hormones, and Harry's rages when his scar hurt was LV's rage coming through. Sydney: I mean, that's what > I thought it was. I thought it was really clever. Don't all > teenagers act like their possessed at some point? So, even at that > point in the book when I was grasping at straws I was thinking.. okay, > here's the part where Harry comes to terms with the darkness inside > him, even if its.. uh.. nothing to do with him actually in plot > terms... because that piece randomly disappeared and this is a whole > other piece... whatever. To me: symbolic afterlife land, Harry, > crying wounded child bit like the bits that got put in Harry the night > his parents died. > Lanval: Again, what does his parents dying have to do with LV's damaged soul that broke apart without him intending it? Sydney: > So what should you do with your wounded inner child? IGNORE IT. Lanval: Correct. Because it wasn't Harry's Inner Child. At all. Sydney: Ignore > the crying and the pain! It's disgusting! It's not a part of you. Do > you hear me Harry? The flayed thing in agony that's been inside you > for 16 years has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. Lanval: It doesn't. Sydney: When the crying gets too > much, just beat the crap out of some Bad People. It'll make you feel > better!! Lanval: Bzuh? come again? "Pity the living, and above all, those who live without love." > Sydney: > And that's when I thought, "This series is WHACKED." > Lanval: Oh well... > houyhnhnm: > > > > And Voldemort didn't have to end up as a helpless, > > > suffering, moaning creature for eternity. He could > > > still have avoided his fate, even after the terrible > > > things he'd done, even after shredding his soul into > > > pieces, if he had been able to feel remorse. > > Sydney: > > But Voldemort never could take Harry up on the offer to feel remorse-- > he's a psychopath. We spent half the last book establishing that. > That's why the offer was so easy to make. There's no suggestion that > Harry would ever have to do something about it, just like he never had > to have a normal conversation with Draco or come to terms with a Snape > who wasn't safetly dead. > Lanval: And Harry owes Draco a 'normal conversation' because...? He did come to terms with Snape. Very much so. Whether he would have done so with a living Snape depends entirely on whether Snape would have still revealed his secrets, no? Sydney: > I really hated that 'remorse' bit in the Harry/Voldemort convo because > it actually came out like a taunt.. 'ha ha you're a psycopath and > can't feel remorse and you're going to hell. Die sucka!' I can roll > with that stuff in R-rated action movies (especially when the hero > kicks ass on account of his hard work and mad ass-kicking skills, not > through some random technicality). But in a children's book that's > back-slapping itself about how it's all about love and compassion it's > just revolting. > Lanval: Sure, if you're going to merrily ignore what Harry says. DH, Bloomsbury Ed. p.594: "It's your one last chance", said Harry, "it's all you're got left...I've seen what you'll be otherwise... be a man... try...try for some remorse." It's still open. Tom Riddle still has a chance. There's still a choice, even now. That this point *shocks* him, "beyond any revelation or taunt" is there in solid black print. He knows this is no taunt. Oh well, if you for some reason associate this with mad ass-kicking skills in R-rated action movies, so be it. > lizzyben: > > >On an individual level, if we don't recognize the > > shadow, if we don't integrate it into our personality, we'll project > > those qualities onto other people instead & hate them for it. > But > > societies do that too. On a collective level, sometimes an entire > > society will project their shadow onto some "other" group, which > > becomes the recipient of all the flaws that society cannot admit to > > having - and the society will then seek to punish or purge that > > "other" group. That group becomes the society's appointed scapegoat > > that can safely hate & revile. In turn, the "other" group can project > > its own shadow onto the first group, creating a cycle of mutual > > destruction & hatred....DD is encouraging Harry to reject a part of > himself, & > > see it as an "other" instead - that's classic shadow projection. Lanval: Indeed, if you take the *flayed-looking child* to be a part of Harry, or a metaphor of Snape, or whatever. If you take it as Voldemort's damaged soul, then all this Jungian analyzing and Shadow- dancing stuff just sort of... falls apart. lizzyben: On > > both an individual & collective level, Harry & the Gryffindors are > > caught in a deep cycle of shadow projection that almost guarantees > > more hatred, scapegoating, dehumanization, violence & conflict. IMO, > > this is why so many people feel uneasy about this chapter & the > > ultimate ending of the novel. > > Lanval: What's you suggestion? I've heard much about "feeling uneasy", I'd really like to hear some clear, definite examples of how this series *should* have ended. > Sydney: > > Yeah, that's why it just seems so cracked to me, this whole series. > This is a world that's going to convulse in civil war like clockwork > every fifty years, because there's just no self-reflection or attempt > to say, 'hey, mistakes were made, we need to look at what we have in > common as human beings here'. And now it seems yeah, there's no > turning around the child's version of Brave Perfect > Anachronistic-notions-of-human-rights Gryffindor and how he was > betrayed by that total loser Slytherin, and Our Side was totally right > and Their Side was totally wrong forever. Lanval: Are we still talking about a fanatical pureblood supremacist who decided to take over the WW by means of torture and murder, and who damaged his soul to the point where there's very little help for it, when you write "total loser Slytherin"? Just trying to clarify. Sydney: > "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown" is a message I can respect if I'm > settling down for a bleak, fatalistic look at the irretrievably > corrupt nature of humanity. From book about children I find it pretty > appalling, especially as it turns out only a quarter of humanity is > irretrievably corrupt and don't worry, it's Not You. It's fascinating > at the same time, because it's a wonderful portrait of one whopping > un-dealt-with Shadow issue but it seems to be entirely unconscious. > It's not like JK doesn't know about this Shadow thing-- she said > somewhere that , 'yeah, dehumanizing the Other is terrible! That's > what Voldemort does!' Ummmm... talk about missing the point! > Lanval: 'kay, for the non-psychology majors among us: by "this Shadow thing" you mean Jungian Shadow theory which can be summarized as "dehumanizing the Other is terrible"? A referral to the precise quote of what JKR said would be helpful too. Sydney: > It's like... it's a series where.. dehumanizing and projecting the > Shadow.. is something THOSE AWFUL PEOPLE DO. Nothing to do with us! > Let's congratulate ourselves on how we don't do that and that's why > it's cool when We beat people up with our Good magic and totally > different when They beat people up with their Dark Magic. > Lanval: This is getting very intriguing! Can you point me to the specific parts where: 1. "The Shadow" (which appears to be A Fact regarding human existence? Yes?) is dehumanized and projected by AWFUL PEOPLE 2. NOT AWFUL PEOPLE congratulate themselves on not dehumanizing and projecting The Shadow Sydney: > This is a series that answers the question "What would Jesus do?" not > with, love thy enemy, judge not, turn the other cheek, heal the sick, > (and render unto Ceasar, one of the wisest ones IMO), but with 'allow > your enemies to kill you so you can come back to life and confer some > bizarre magical protection on your exclusive club of followers.' It's > so weird. IT'S SO WEIRD. > > -- Sydney, who swore she wouldn't get drawn back in, but who had to > support Lizzyben on this point > Lanval: I'll just give up here; Carol argued it so much more beautifully and eloquently anyway. So did Pippin in another thread; thanks to both. houyhnhnm: There *is* something mean spirited in the books. The stories appeal to the mean in readers and for some they are not nearly mean enough, as we have ample evidence. Lanval: *is clearly a mean person* Sigh. There really isn't much to add, is there. From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Thu Aug 16 18:09:39 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:09:39 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175589 > > Magpie: > > And yet every single person reading the book is a Muggle and can > > understand. Muggles actually aren't that stupid, and Hermione's > > parents have been nothing but supportive of her being a witch. To > > me this comes across just the way it does in canon--that Muggles > > are like children so Wizards can make decisions for them. > muscatel1988 > Bizarrely, the Dursleys got not only an explanation but also a > choice. Rowena: Of course Harry doesn't care much for the Durseley's and Hermione cares quite a lot about her parents - which might have made her a good deal less willing to accept a 'no'. Mind you I think the Grangers are going to be seriously angry with their daughter when she looks them up in Australia. Parents are supposed to look after their children not vice-versa! Even when said parents are dentists and the child a witch facing a magical war to the death. In short Hermione did disrespect her parents' rights and autonomy by enforcing 'safety' upon them while she went into danger *BUT* can you seriously say you would have the guts, the moral courage to do any different? Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 19:56:15 2007 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:56:15 -0000 Subject: Appeal of the story to the reader WAS: Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175590 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > houyhnhnm: > > > > There *is* something mean spirited in the books. The stories > > > > appeal to the mean in readers and for some they are not nearly > > > > mean enough, as we have ample evidence. > > > > Jen: What do you mean here, houhnhnm? I'm intepreting it as a > > > pretty negative message about readers who like the story but > > > don't want to go any further if I'm misinterpreting or reading > > > more into it than you intended. > > SSSusan: > Wow. I hope there was a different meaning behind this statement, too, > than how I read it. :( > > I am a lot of things, but mean is a thing I don't recall ever having > been accused of being Sydney: Goodness, this is certainly the board for immediately putting the worst possible construction on someone's posting. I doubt houyhnhnm meant that the meaness was the ONLY pleasure in the books-- she herself (or he himself?) made a list of various other things she enjoyed in them I believe. But the appeal to.. if not meanness, payback? vengeance? what some call 'karmic justice'? .. is pretty blatantly a large, almost a controlling part of the books. Loads of people have commented on it both to like and to dislike it. I think the word 'mean-spirited' came from both of us commenting on Ursula LeGuin's remarking on how she didn't like that particular strain, and that's the word she used. In any event, it's a pleasure in watching people suffer because they are the people they are, and what to me feels like a decided lack of generosity on who those people who deserve to suffer are. I myself obviously find a huge amount of stuff to enjoy in this series or I wouldn't be this obsessed with it! But the strain of, well, meanness crossed a line that I could no longer ignore it as I had for the rest of the series. -- Sydney From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 20:06:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:06:09 -0000 Subject: Appeal of the story to the reader WAS: Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175591 Alla wrote: > This story appeals to me as a story of good triumphing over evil and enormous courage good had to display for that. > > This story appeals to me as a story of sacrifice, remorse, redemption. > > This story appeals to me as the story of one of the most touching friendships I had **ever** read in literature. > > This story appeals to me as for the most part well done "Love will save the world". > > This story appeals to me as story, which does not go for redemption of all evil, because just as in RL I do not find all evil to be redeemable. > > This story appeals to me on so many levels, but appeals to the **mean in readers**? > > Eh, NO, not for this reader. Carol responds: Nor for this one. I'll concede that I don't like certain elements in the books, notably Hermione's penchant for revenge and JKR's apparent confusion over the concept of Unforgiveable Curses, but I see almost exactly the same things you do in DH: the power of sacrificial love, the importance of friendship and, I would add, teamwork (which Harry learns belatedly and DD, perhaps, not till after his death), redemption and forgiveness, a distinction between forgiveable and unforgiveable evil, with remorse being the key. The Malfoys, isolated in the common room, are left with only themselves, chastened and indifferent to the fate of Voldemort. Lucius is still as slippery as ever, I'm sure, but Narcissa has done what is probably the first good deed of her life for love of her son, lying to the Dark Lord (admittedly, not looking into his eyes but still defying him). I like the idea of the Grey!Malfoys, not as evil as they, or we, thought they were, but aren't wholly good or brave or altruistic, either. That they don't become full-fledged heroes but don't fight in the battle (and consequently survive) is a nice little ironic touch and realistic as well. DH Draco, learning what it's like to be a DE (and seeing his father humiliated and wandless) is a different person from the Draco of the earlier books, who worshipped Lucius and thought he could do whatever he wanted with impunity through influence, money, and threats. I'm quite sure Draco is a better person as the result of his suffering and observations in HBP and DH, if not quite worthy of naming your son after. I see nothing "mean-spirited" in the Malfoy's fate or in having Harry and Draco curtly acknowledge each other in the epilogue. Certainly, it was not "mean-spirited" of Harry to save Draco or Draco to save Goyle. I count Draco, and perhaps Narcissa, as semi-redeemed characters. (Lucius gets his comeuppance. Whether he learns anything from it, we don't know.) And look at all the fully redeemed characters, Snape, of course, at the top of the list. Dudley acknowledges that Harry is not "a waste of space" and sees him as part of the family, wondering why he's not going into hiding with them and grateful for having his "life" saved. Kreacher becomes an over-aged Boy Scout (clean, brave, obedient to Harry, and reverent toward Master Regulus, defender of house-elves) through kindness and understanding. Regulus, a DE and pure-blood supremacist, performs the most heroic and horrifying self-sacrifice in the book to avenge a house-elf and help to bring down Voldemort. Slughorn overcomes his cowardice and joins the battle. Even Phineas Nigellus, admittedly a portrait, helps the good side and accepts Snape's correction when he calls Hermione a "Mudblood." Percy acknowledges that he's been a "Ministry-loving, family disowning, power-hungry moron" and Fred and George, the parsnip-flingers, extend the hand of forgiveness. And Percy mourns Fred, who had previously been so unforgiving and at last understands and appreciates him. (Side note: I love the brief reference to Percy in the epilogue talking about broomstick regulations. He's still a rule-loving Ministry employee, but he's on the right side again, on good terms with his family, and able, I hope, to accept George's teasing at family gatherings with good grace.) Love. Redemption. Forgiveness. Andd, I forgot to mention, Family. That's what it's all about, at least to me and to some other readers. (Alla, so nice to see you on the same side of the fence even if we don't agree on all counts!) That Yaxley and Bellatrix and Umbridge and Fenrir Greyback and Voldemort don't repent and share in the forgiveness is only to be expected. That Umbridge is "only" sent to Azkaban rather than dying in battle is also to be expected. She's a manipulator and a thoroughly corrupt bureaucrat, not a warrior. She'd have been trounced in battle. Though I would have loved, come to think of it, to see her hit in the head with one of Trelawney's crystal balls. It was, IMO, a foregone conclusion that HRH would survive, but for the book to feel real, some good characters have to die--and some bad ones have to survive (otherwise, there would be no need for Aurors). Harry saves the WW from Voldemort, but he doesn't do it alone. There's more teamwork in this book (not only HRH but Severus Snape and Portrait!DD behind the scenes and the Order doing whatever it can to protect the innocent and keep the public informed) than we've seen in any other book, and the DA comes through brilliantly in the end, especially Neville with his vegetable warfare and the Sword of Gryffindor. I think, too, that the books celebrate hope and faith, with the immortality of the soul as an essential element of JKR's vision. DH is a flawed book, with many inconsistencies and plot holes and occasional improbabilities, not to mention good guys doing things that some of us would rather they didn't do, but it also has its moments of beauty and power, of laughter and despair, of joy and anguish, and it deals with important philosophical questions (love, death, the soul, redemption, sacrifice, the "greater good" vs. the individual, truth, etc.) without attempting to answer the unanswerable. To call the books or JKR "mean-spirited" is, I think, a mistake. To extend that epithet to those of us who love them, flaws and all, is I think, a grave injustice. Carol, who forgot to include "enormous courage" in her list of the virtues that DH celebrates but thinks that one is a given, whether we're speaking of HRH or Neville or Regulus or Severus Snape, who is "porbably the bravest man" that Harry has ever known From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 20:07:28 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:07:28 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175592 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: montavilla: > > How odd. That's exactly the same things that Harry wasn't > for in PS/SS. After all, when the Trio went down the corridor > on the third floor, they were > 1. Sneaking out at night, breaking school rules (after having > been caught before!) > 2. Sticking their noses in and interfering with school-approved > business (after multiple warnings from Hagrid!) > 3. Entering an area (not exactly a tunnel) that was clearly, > absolutely, without a doubt off-limites to all students, including > any stray werewolves > 4. Endangering themselves (three students). > Lanval: The did get punished another time, though, when they were out getting rid of Norbert. As to the Third Floor adventure. PS/SS, Scholastic Ed. p.260: "Snape wants the stone for Voldemort... and Voldemort's waiting in the forest... and all this time we thought Snape just wanted to get rich..." [...] "So all I've got to wait for now is Snape to steal the stone," Harry went on feverishly, "then Voldemort will be able to come and finish me off..." p.268: "Professor, I think -- I *know* --that Sn--that someone's going to try and steal the Stone. I've got to talk to Professor Dumbledore." [...] "It's tonight," said Harry, once he was sure Professor McGonagall was out of earshot. "Snape's going through the trapdoor tonight. He's found out everything he needs, and now he's got Dumbledore out of the way...." Never mind that he was wrong about Snape, the rest happened exactly as Harry predicted. So, yeah. Intent. Urgency. Averting a disaster. What's Snape's excuse again for sneaking out to the Shack? :) > Montavilla: > Clearly, breaking school rules and interfering with school > business isn't that big a deal at Hogwarts. Lanval: I agree about breaking school rules not being a huge deal at Hogwarts, or at least not considered a deep moral flaw. As to the SS incident, we have no idea who got punished and for what exactly. My post referred to the statement that Sirius should have been expelled, and since he wasn't, he clearly did not get punished, and to the assertion that Snape got punished instead by Sirius NOT getting punished. Confusing, I know, but that's how I understood it. > Montavilla: > Neither is endangering fellow students, as we don't hear > about any punishment for Sirius--who endangered two > fellow students to Snape's one. > Lanval: Sirius didn't endanger anyone, legally speaking. He only gave Snape information. Snape made the choice all by himself. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 20:21:52 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:21:52 -0000 Subject: Appeal of the story to the reader WAS: Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175593 houyhnhnm: There *is* something mean spirited in the books. The stories appeal to the mean in readers and for some they are not nearly mean enough, as we have ample evidence. Montavilla47: I don't want to put words in houyhnhnm's mouth, but I do agree that there is a certain amount of mean-spiritedness. Not as much as Roald Dahl, perhaps, but a bit. To give an example: I think we are expected to enjoy the various punishments and humiliations that are heaped on the Dursleys through- out the series. I could go through the litany, but we're all familiar with it: Pig tail on Dudley, ruined business dinner, blown-up Marge, etc., etc. We're encouraged to enjoy this because the Dursley's are such hideous people. We're also encouraged to enjoy the various painful and humiliating hexes that are visited upon Draco Malfoy and the other Slytherins, including tentacles sprouting from their faces and turning into giant slugs. (I wonder--did they have to take Skele-Gro to get their bones back after that particular hex session?) We're encouraged to enjoy the punishments inflicted on the petty villains of the Wizarding World. We're supposed to applaud Hermione's cleverness when she kidnaps and blackmails Rita Skeeter, or disfigures Marietta's face, or leads Umbridge out to the Centaurs. We're supposed to laugh along with the kids when they imitate the sound of hoofbeats near the traumatized Umbridge. We're intended to find satisfaction in Dumbledore's lecture to the Dursleys. These are the moments that seem, to me, to appeal to what is mean-spirited in the readers. Some of these moments I enjoyed. Some I did not. I may not have gotten them all, considering other, similar moments to be merely amusing, or poetic justice or whatever. And some of the moments I mention above will not strike all readers as mean-- but may be, to others, merely amusing, poetic justice or whatever. Montavilla47 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 20:36:18 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:36:18 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175594 Pippin wrote: > I think that JKR's biggest mistake was giving the epilogue a heroine's ending, because people don't understand that's what she did. The hero is supposed to get a kingdom, dammit, and it's disturbing that JKR *only* shows us Harry, Ginny, Draco, Ron and Hermione with their happy families. Good enough for Psyche but not for Prince Charming, you see? > Carol responds: Interesting perspective. I saw it as a Victorian-style happy ending. Instead of the Romantic Bildungsroman, which moves from Innocence through Experience to Wisdom, the more practical and disillusioned Victorians moved their heroes and heroines from Innocence through Experience to Domestic bliss. (The best examples I can think of at the moment are "Jane Eyre" and "David Copperfield.") We see something of the same thing in LOTR (admittedly not a Victorian work), with Sam's returning to Rosie and the babies representing domestic bliss as the (secondary) hero's reward. Just an aside and not a point worth developing at length. But I also saw the epilogue as representing the improved but not perfect WW (where going to Hogwarts is fun and exciting rather than life-threatening) and progress is being made but not all problems have been solved (which is humanly impossible). (Cf. "The Scouring of the Shire" representing the new normality in LOTR). I agree with your (snipped) remark that Hogwarts and, specifically, Slytherin, is being given a second chance. What Scorpius Malfoy and the other little Slytherins make of that chance is up to them. Carol, irrelevantly wondering whether the afterlife (minus the possibility of becoming a ghost) is the same for Muggles as for Wizards in JKR's imagined Potterverse From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 20:40:50 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:40:50 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Inconsistencies (Was: Hermione's parents) In-Reply-To: <543149.32665.qm@web30814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <543149.32665.qm@web30814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0708161340i2ac9afcuefef7396ba17241@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175595 Pam says: When my eight year old son knitted his brow and said, "but wait, polyjuice potion is only supposed to last an hour," I knew something was seriously wrong. I realize that when JKR introduced polyjuice potion in book 2, it was something like eight years ago for her, a trifling detail to remember when so much has happened in her own life. But both Bloomsbury and Scholastic have people employed there as continuity editors; it is these peoples' sole function to catch these kinds of errors. Lynda: I have a pretty good imagination, and have read a lot of books that give various levels of description. I do not have to be told that the people who are taking polyjuice potion to maintain an altered physical description are doing so every hour. I know that the potion needs to be swallowed every hour for them to maintain their altered appearances and those appearances were maintained throughout the timeperiod required, so I simply extrapolate that they did so. Just as I extrapolate that they, eat, sleep, bathe, without having to be told the minute details of everything they do. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 20:54:27 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:54:27 -0000 Subject: Appeal of the story to the reader/ some stuff from A Few Good Men In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175596 > houyhnhnm: > There *is* something mean spirited in the books. The stories > appeal to the mean in readers and for some they are not nearly > mean enough, as we have ample evidence. > > Montavilla47: > I don't want to put words in houyhnhnm's mouth, but I do > agree that there is a certain amount of mean-spiritedness. > Not as much as Roald Dahl, perhaps, but a bit. > I may not have gotten them all, considering other, > similar moments to be merely amusing, or poetic > justice or whatever. And some of the moments I > mention above will not strike all readers as mean-- > but may be, to others, merely amusing, poetic > justice or whatever. Alla: That's the thing though. NOT all readers would consider those moments mean. Some will consider them **just** and to me it is a huge difference, you know? Second thing is that whether supposed meanness whether one consider it as such, or not is the primary appeal or not. Because I think nicest people **often** want to see unrepentant evil punished both in RL and the books, you know? Definitions of evil will differ for everybody of course, but I just disagree with story appeals to meanness in people. If one would say that story appeals to reader's sense of justice - carmic or any - then **sure** that would be part of it for me, but certainly not the only part and for most times not even the main one. Because when I read books like this (fantasy I mean), I always cheer for good to prevail, always, always. I just do not think it means those stories appeal to the mean part of me. It is like, I do not know, reading fairy tales. I never expected evil to feel remorse in them. I always knew that Kotchey Besmertniy or Baba Yaga would die, for example (russian fairy tale villain) and was all the happiest for it. But like even with Snape, whom I totally wanted to be punished, I enjoyed his end when I thought about it, but I find his death to be well, rather gruesome upon reread and do not find compelled to reread it, you know? I meant I did not cheer when Nagini bite him. Again, found his end to be satisfying, but not felt joy of Snape hurting, if that makes sense. I mean to me saying that story appeals to the mean in people is like comparing it with the appeal of horror movies, I guess. I do not watch them, period and not planning to after watching one or two in my life, hehe. Oy, I do not know probably to make another movie comparison ( NOT on substance at all, just on being emotionally satisfied with the end) would be what I felt after **A few good men**. I was so pleased that Jack Nicholson's character is going to get all that he deserves. Come to think of it, Tom Cruse's character taunted him just as Harry taunted Voldemort at the end. I did not think for one second that Nicholson's character deserved redemption, because he still felt he is **right** to do what he did to that poor soldier. Just as Voldemort does not get it or does not want to get what Harry is telling him. IMO. I do not think that makes me a mean person or that story appeals to the mean in me, I think it appeals **among other things already listed** to my sense of justice. Opinions can differ of course. Alla From va32h at comcast.net Thu Aug 16 21:45:53 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:45:53 -0000 Subject: Appeal of the story to the reader/ some stuff from A Few Good Men In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175597 To sum up" > > houyhnhnm: > > There *is* something mean spirited in the books. The stories > > appeal to the mean in readers and for some they are not nearly > > mean enough, as we have ample evidence. > > Then Montavilla47: > > I don't want to put words in houyhnhnm's mouth, but I do > > agree that there is a certain amount of mean-spiritedness. > > Not as much as Roald Dahl, perhaps, but a bit. > > > I may not have gotten them all, considering other, > > similar moments to be merely amusing, or poetic > > justice or whatever. And some of the moments I > > mention above will not strike all readers as mean-- > > but may be, to others, merely amusing, poetic > > justice or whatever. Then Alla: > > That's the thing though. NOT all readers would consider those moments > mean. Some will consider them **just** and to me it is a huge > difference, you know? va32h: I think the huge difference is what side of the conflict you happen to be on. If you are Draco's allies, then yes, turning him into a slug (or a ferret, or punching him in the nose) is mean. I doubt Umbridge has any fans in the HP universe or in the reader universe, but if she did, I'm sure they would consider throwing her into a nest of centaurs and then triggering her PTSD by mimicking hoofbeats to be terribly mean. Now I happen to loathe Umbridge, so I don't care if it is mean to torment her, she deserves it. And I think that's what houyhnhm was getting at. JKR creates these detestable characters who do despicable things, and then lets her audience have the vicarious thrill of glorying in their richly deserved comeuppance. We don't get to do this in real life. If we try, we usually end up in a great deal of trouble. I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about the people in real life who break the rules or are otherwise just nasty, and always "get away" with it. My personal grudge is people who park in no parking zones. Every weekday morning from August to May, I sit in a long line of cars, waiting to drop my children off at school. Even though this is a clearly marked "no parking" zone, and even though a dozen letters about this issue go home every year, there are always those parents who insist on parking in the drop off lane, and walking their child into the school, because heaven forbid little Johnny try to maneuver his way 20 feet in a straight line from the curb to the front door all by his precious little own self. So I creep along in this long line of cars, wasting gas, trying not to hit the children who are now running loose in the parking lot because their parents can't afford to waste time waiting in the dropoff line because they have to go to work so they just let the kids out in the middle of the street. Sometimes I am positioned directly behind the person whose selfish, entitled attitude has caused all this mess. And I fantasize about ramming into the back of her car, backing it up, and doing it again and again until I have reduced it to a hulk of steaming metal. And in my fantasy, each blow is accompanied by a chant that is echoed by all the other parents who know exactly how I feel. "DO-NOT-PARK-IN-THE- DROP-OFF-LANE!" But of course I would never do such a thing. I'm not a mean person at heart. I'm just a human person, who is able to release my human frustrations through my imagination. And through reading books in which other nasty people do indeed get what they deserve. va32h From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 21:51:21 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:51:21 -0000 Subject: The deaths of Tonks and Lupin (was: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175598 > > Lanval: > > Lupin? Killed unceremoniously in battle, just a short time after he > > has overcome (at least partially) one of his worst flaws, his > > weakness and shying away from any sort of responsibility. He choses > > to do the right thing and -- bang. Dead. Did not live to see his son > > grow up, the son he never wanted, but fell in love with the moment > > he was born. Is that not irony at its cruelest? > > Renee: > > Now that you mention Lupin, I wonder what to make of Tonks in this > respect? Getting killed for relentlessly pursuing Lupin, even onto the > battlefield, regardless of the fact that she had a baby at home who > needed her more than her husband? Would that be her particular variety > of karmic justice? > > I have to say hers is the only death in the book that really doesn't > sit well with me; instead of making me sad in a cathartic way, it > irritates me. Not that I can't see the other side of it: Tonks wanting > to fight because in a Voldemort-dominated world her son would have no > future. But what's the purpose of it, beyond JKR's decision that she > wanted to show a happy orphan in the epilogue (and let me add, for > those who know what I'm talking about, beyond any alchemical > considerations). Lanval: You got me at a total loss there. I neither know what to make of Tonks's death, nor of the purpose named by JKR. If she wanted to show a happy orphan (maybe that was important to her? did she feel she had showed orphans, or rather the people who adopt/raise them, in a a bit too negative a light?) she didn't have too many choices; it was either Teddy, or for Bill and Fleur to have a child and then die. There aren't too many young couples around that we've *met*. But -- still. I never cared much for Tonks either way; she was entertaining, sometimes grating. I may have a personal problem with people who engage in this relentless pursuing (once I got into a long argument with a friend, and found we were worlds apart on this issue; what she thought would be welcomed as flattering attention, a display of loyalty and real devotion by the 'pursued', I considered outright stalking. *g*) so perhaps that's why I never warmed to them as a couple. Can Tonks be blamed for leaving her child, and is her death in battle karmic justice? I can't say. As a mother, my first reaction would have been for one of them to stay with Teddy. Then again, she was an Auror, Lupin was also in the Order, both knew this was IT, the all-important battle, and Teddy wasn't left alone (I do hope they got Andromeda's consent on the issue). Teddy was also still an infant. To leave an older child would have been worse, IMO. Still, as you say, it doesn't leave me with a feeling of the story being the better, or richer, for it. And of course, on a side note, this also raises some interesting questions about WW family planning. Really. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 22:02:09 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:02:09 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Worrying about Unforgivables In-Reply-To: References: <8C9AD92F1438C80-F0C-6B08@mblk-d38.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0708161502i56bbc103pe154406162eb818c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175599 Lynda: I did say that the unforgivables used by the "good guys" during the battle scene were excusable. I still think so. As an example, if someone were to come inside my house and threaten my possessions and myself, or my family, I would be within my rights to draw a gun on them and even, if necessary use it to defend myself. When I was in the military, a good friend of mine was on duty when he was approached by a solitary figure. The figure did not call out and was very obviously attempting to catch my friend goofing off. What they found when they got close enough was that they had a rifle barrel aimed directly at them and a very alert soldier ready to fire if he did not receive the correct password and did not halt his progress. I do not mean that going outside the bounds of self-defense or defense of others is exscusable, but I do not see that what any of the members of the Order did went beyond those bounds. JMHO Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Aug 16 22:02:29 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:02:29 -0000 Subject: The deaths of Tonks and Lupin (was: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175600 > Lanval: > You got me at a total loss there. I neither know what to make of > Tonks's death, nor of the purpose named by JKR. If she wanted to > show a happy orphan (maybe that was important to her? did she feel > she had showed orphans, or rather the people who adopt/raise them, > in a a bit too negative a light?) she didn't have too many choices; > it was either Teddy, or for Bill and Fleur to have a child and then > die. There aren't too many young couples around that we've *met*. > But -- still. Potioncat JKR said in her Dateline interview that she considered every death carefully. She wanted to mirror Harry's state in this case (IRRC). She was going to kill Arthur, but he was the last of Harry's father figures and she felt that was too much. I don't know if there is a link for this interview, but I felt a lot better after seeing it. Knowing why she wrote some of the scenes gave a different perspective. > Lanval > > Can Tonks be blamed for leaving her child, and is her death in > battle karmic justice? I can't say. As a mother, my first reaction > would have been for one of them to stay with Teddy. Then again, she > was an Auror, Lupin was also in the Order, both knew this was IT, > the all-important battle, and Teddy wasn't left alone (I do hope > they got Andromeda's consent on the issue). Teddy was also still an > infant. To leave an older child would have been worse, IMO. Potioncat: Her son was as safe as he could be with his grandmother. Tonks had a more urgent role in helping to bring down LV. If LV won, Tonks's being alive wouldn't be so much help to Teddy. Today we have couples in the military that find themselves deployed at the same time, leaving children with relatives. It's not an easy decision at any time, but I can fully understand why Tonks felt her place was to fight. > From prep0strus at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 22:24:06 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:24:06 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape (+others) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175601 Some little responses to Snape-related postings over the last few days. Irene Basically, I've just been trying to figure out if Snape gets to go to heaven. And based on the cosmology of the Potterverse, it seems like the answer is no. That breaks my heart, for real. Prep0strus: I disagree. I think he does. To me, that's the point of joining the good guys team. I mean, I still don't like him. But there is good and bad, and he ends up on the side of good, so I think he gets a pass. I just don't know what heaven could be, for him. Even posthumous forgiveness from Lily won't make her love him in the afterlife. And it seems a little too hard to believe that even there he would be able to rekindle a friendship with her, and by association, James and Sirius. So Heaven appears it will be as lonely as life was. Maybe he'll join a club or something. Lanval: He told Snape how to get past > the WW. Had Snape been bitten, injured, perhaps killed, then yes, > Sirius would have been in trouble, simply because of the > gravity of the event. But since nothing happened, why should Sirius > be expelled? Lanval: Sirius didn't endanger anyone, legally speaking. He only gave Snape information. Snape made the choice all by himself. Prep0strus: Seriously. What happened to personal choice? If this situation were reversed, and the Marauders were stalking Snape, and he laid a trap for them, I think we'd be seeing a lot of `Bullies got what was coming to `em.' and `Clever Snape outwit the brutes'. I'm not saying I wouldn't feel badly if Snape got chomped, but I honestly think I would feel worse for the guilt Lupin would feel, as well as James and even Sirius would feel (at least, I think he would). In that exchange, I think Snape comes off worse than anyone. Lupin doesn't bear any responsibility. Neither does James. Sirius certainly doesn't come off very well, and I think it shows a real difference between James and Sirius that helps us to distinguish the two considering that we never see James alive, but why in the world isn't Snape responsible for his own choice here? I'm thinking of a lot of clich?s. Hoist by your own petard. Don't play with fire if you can't handle the heat. Mind your own business. Snitches get what's coming to them. Suck it, Snape. Ok, maybe they're not all very COMMON clich?s, but I think appropriate here. Betsy Hp: That Harry settles into his complacent little life is actually proof for me that nothing changed. Voldemort died of course; Harry achieved the vengence he wanted. But his view of the world is pretty much the same as it was way back in PS/SS. That lame little speech about "I knew a brave Slytherin once" was not enough for me. It smacked too much of "there are honest negros out there" for me. IOWs, praise that reveals the inner bigotry. An "honest negro" is strange enough to remark on, just as a brave (or worthy) Slytherin is a one in a million thing. Prep0strus: Except that, in the world of JKR, it seems to me that a brave or worthy Slytherin IS a one in a million thing. Not exactly what I wanted to see, and I too would've liked to see some more growth from Harry. But I don't see him as being condescendingly prejudiced or, at least, not without good reason. Dana: I assume with bullying kids who rejected him because he's different you mean James and Sirius (correct me if I understood you wrong here). They did not reject him because he was different. Snape had already changed into his school robes and neither of them responded or made comments about his hair. They all rejected each other for their preferences for a specific house. James responds to Severus mentioning/ idealizing Slytherin, Severus responds to James idealizing Gryffindor and Sirius responds to James rejection of Slytherin because his entire family has been in Slytherin. James did not reject Severus in that moment, he rejected Slytherin house and it only became personally directed at Snape himself when Snape sneers that wanting to be in Gryffindor is stupid and that Slytherin is a superior choice because he rather be brainy than brawny. Prep0strus: What a great observation. Many of us read the story and just assume Snape was disliked because of his appearance and mannerisms. And if the choices made later on in school are pointed out, this scene is often shown that Snape was bullied before those later choices were evident. But really the only canon-supported theory is the one you espouse here ? that the choice of Slytherin makes all the difference. Severus is just as snotty in his defense of it. And while I know it doesn't make much difference to those who have made up their minds, I still believe that Slytherin has a meaning in the WW to these kids, that they are aware of more than the house and family loyalties. I also absolutely loved the rest of this post ? I thought it was clear, well thought out and intelligently presented, with a unique presentation. I agree that many choices were presented, and to attribute the way those choices were made to things other than the individual characters only takes away from the character, it doesn't enhance them. ~Adam (Prep0strus), who is going to try to formulate a Snape-as-a-character based post to try to better articulate his feelings From judy at judyshapiro.com Thu Aug 16 22:30:18 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:30:18 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175602 Frumenta said: > Finding out that the Prank had been before Snape's Worst Memory I > was also surprised that the Marauders didn't worry about Snape > revealing Lupin's status. > But the thing is, it is canon that Dumbledore had made Snape > promise not to tell, presumably under threat of expulsion.... > Snape is made to keep the secret, threatened or possibly > magically bound so that he is not even able to utter it. And on top > of everything, the Marauders gang up on him and pants him. He > obviously can't do much there, he went to Dumbledore accusing them > of murder and got punished himself. I considered the possibility that Snape was magically bound to prevent him from revealing Lupin's lycantrophy, but I rejected it. In PoA, Snape *does* reveal that Lupin is a werewolf. If Snape had a spell on him that prevented him from revealing that Lupin was a werewolf, he wouldn't have been able to reveal the secret in PoA, not unless Dumbledore had lifted the spell. And, I don't see why Dumbledore would have lifted the spell. So, I assume it was never there in the first place. We know that Snape has trouble controlling his temper, and things (like "filthy little Mudblood") just slip out. So, the Marauders are running one heck of a risk in tormenting him after the Prank. Frankly, I think JKR just didn't think this one out. Lanval: > If you want to argue this from a moral standpoint, yes, it was > reckless, stupid, and dangerous... and Snape was even MORE stupid > and reckless to actually follow Sirius' advice, *knowing* there was > a WEREWOLF lurking inside!! Which has now become canon, yay. I > didn't type my fingers to shreds for nothing, arguing for it. *g* It's not canon that Snape knew Lupin was a werewolf. He had SOME theory as to why Lupin was ill at the full moon, but we were never told what that theory was. I argued for another possibility in post #175440: "Maybe there are illicit potions (illegal drugs?) that can only be brewed at the full moon; we've seen plants that can only be harvested at the full moon. Maybe Snape never considered that Lupin could be a werewolf, because the idea of inviting a *werewolf* into a school full of children seemed just too outrageous. (Think of Draco's horror in HBP when he realizes he's let Fenrir Greyback into the school, even though he's happy to let other Death Eaters in.) Maybe Snape thought Lupin was either pretending to be sick so he could slip out and make illicit potions, or was actually sick as a result of using them. Madame Pomfrey walking with Lupin to the Whomping Willow could have been interpreted as her bringing an antidote for someone who had overdosed -- we know Madame Pomfrey's supposed to be good about not reporting illegal magic use. Frankly, Snape's suspecting that Lupin was a werewolf doesn't make sense to me. If Snape suspected that, then going into the Willow would be really dumb -- and whatever else Snape is, he isn't dumb." Frumneta said that Snape: > knows what Sirius is capable > of doing and treating as a mere joke. He knows that Remus is > dangerous. They are Gryffindors, charming, good in sports and the > rest. They have much better access to his friend and the House > divide is already taking her away from him. Is he a jerk for not > dropping Mulciber and Avery on the spot once she complains? Perhaps > but he's only a kid and friends are important esp. with enemies > like her oh, so brave housemates around. Interesting point. I was sympathetic to Snape's not wanting to drop his friends, because he'd be so socially isolated if he did. But, this is another good reason for him to keep Avery and Mulciber around -- he's be more vulnerable to bullying if he had no friends in Slytherin. Still, I think Snape would have dropped his Slytherin friends if he had realized he had to choose between them and Lily. But, I think he didn't realize this until it was too late and Lily had already given up on him. -- JudySerenity From prep0strus at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 22:42:32 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:42:32 -0000 Subject: The Trio Alone (was Re: Hermione's Enchanted Coins WAS: Communication) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175603 How do other readers feel? Did you expect/want it to be another Trio journey or would you have wanted more involvement from the other characters. Do you think Dumbledore's decision to put this task in the hands of *just* the trio was a wise one? va32h This is an interesting question. I think that it's possible I could have enjoyed a Trio journey, but I didn't really the way it was presented. Instead, I really really wanted more involvement from the other characters. Never have the trio been SO alone. We always got at least some glimpses of what was going on with other people around them. That was fun, added flavor. Also, it's the end of the series ? we all have a lot of characters we've cared about for six books, and want to see them grow into their own as well in this final book. While it's nice to get a cameo appearance from everyone from to Neville's Gran to Oliver Wood, I'd prefer to have had some more time with some of our secondary characters. I got fairly antsy during the camping sequence. I enjoyed a lot of the dialogue, but I started to want a chapter from someone else's perspective. Snape, Neville, Luna, Draco I didn't really care who. And there's been some talk of how the frustration, boredom, lack of knowledge all mimicked how the trio was feeling, but I'm the reader, and I guess I just wanted more. I got really excited when I thought Lupin was going to join the trio, but that's mostly because I wanted Lupin as a central character again. The confrontation between Harry and Remus and the result of the Trio being alone made more sense, but I can't say I wasn't tempted. The trio just didn't grow enough for me to be interested in them without more outside influence. I had very high hopes that in this book we would see the young adult trio, not the petty kids that rear their heads every book. In HBP, I enjoyed the confident, adult Harry often seen in the out of Hogwarts scenes. I wanted that in this book. I wanted a Hermione that had become more accepting. I wanted a Ron that served a purpose. I gave up a while ago on General Ron, which I had hoped for based on his chess skills, but instead I hoped for `glue that holds it all together ron'. But, no, once again I got jealous, less steadfast, most pointless ron. If Harry is the hero, and Hermione the brains, can't Ron at least be the heart? But he's not. He's the flawed one, the one who fails in strength and loyalty, as well as having no defining magical capabilities. I HATED that Dumbledore somehow predicted he would leave and need to come back. It seems more absurd than most of his not-really-propheticness, and I hate even more that he was RIGHT. And so, maybe if I had really enjoyed the Trio's interactions, I would've loved their final journey alone together. Instead, I was starved for interaction with other characters, desperate for information and growth in our secondary heroes, as I gave up on seeing it in the Trio. And, truth be told I missed Hogwarts. As for Dumbledore's wisdom well, it worked, didn't it? That's often how it seems we have to judge Dumbledore. No, I think he should have had a backup plan. I think they could have used help. I think he should have shared more with Harry so that there wasn't so much aimless wandering. But, in the end, it worked, so go Dumbledore? ~Adam (Prep0strus) From p_yanna at hotmail.com Thu Aug 16 22:57:09 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:57:09 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175604 Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) Lanval: Ah, back to the Shrieking Shack. :) I admit I was surprised too to have the infamous prank happen before SWM. I'm moreover having a hard time finding anything definitve in the books that made us all believe it was a sixth year event? Anyone find it yet? Mim: I think that this guess has hinged on Snape saying that Sirius was capable of murder at the age of sixteen in PoA. So Sirius was 16 in his fifth year or JKR had an "Oh, maths" moment. Either is possible. Lanval But I'm rather glad. For one thing it tells us without doubt that what happened in the SS was no life-shattering moment, no turning point for anyone. Snape? A mere couple of weeks, if at all, after it happened, he's no traumatized lamb. He seems more upset about Lily defending James (and calling Snape 'ungrateful'. Ouch. *g*) than about the danger he was in. No, it's all about exposing James & Co for not being 'as wonderful as everyone thinks', about James fancying Lily. Mim: And Snape knowing that Sirius tried to feed him to a werewolf might have some reason to think that Lily needs the heads up. For this and for James fancying her which I'm sure she has noticed. And because Snape is able to speak to his friend about this event and not cowering in a corner in a fetal position, or something... how exactly does this translate to you that Snape was not traumatised? Lily says she doesn't like his friends. He tries to tell her what her housemates are up to and he has to listen to the added insult of how James saved him from the monster in the Shrieking Shack. Lanval: Remus, the other victim? In SWM, we see a calm boy, worried about his OWLS. He jokes with his friends about werewolf questions. When Sirius wishes it was full moon, he says, 'darkly': "You might," and asks him to test him on some stuff. That is all. No estrangement, no near-hatred, no unforgiving anguish. Seems like Fandom and fanfic writers got that one SO wrong. I did too. (On an interesting side note, being that 99.9% of fanfic writers and readers seem to be women... maybe we really, really don't understand how the minds of teenage boys work?) [snip] If you want to argue this from a moral standpoint, yes, it was reckless, stupid, and dangerous... and Snape was even MORE stupid and reckless to actually follow Sirius' advice, *knowing* there was a WEREWOLF lurking inside!! Which has now become canon, yay. I didn't type my fingers to shreds for nothing, arguing for it. *g* Mim: I'm often in doubt about JKR knowing how any minds might work but that's a gripe for another day. In SWM I see Remus as a coward (a theme with him in the books) who doesn't do what is right because he wants to be liked. And he is worried about his secret. When James calls Peter thick for not getting the signs of a werewolf right, Remus implores him to keep his voice down. Snape already knows his secret because of Sirius and NO there is no definitive proof that Snape absolutely 100% knew that at the end of the tunnel he would meet a transformed werewolf. He might have thought that Remus was restrained. Or that his werewolf theory was wrong. There are many things that Snape might be in the books but stupid is not one of them and there are pranks and there are criminal acts. To use an analogy from the new generation that I think might somewhat cover this, do you really see Ron sending Draco to meet Aragog for fun? Or Grawp? Without the added dimension that Remus was Sirius' friend and he could have killed someone. Lanvan: To come back to your question, maybe we overestimate the power of the secret, too? Snape, while not telling Lily "I was right! He IS a werewolf!" nevertheless presses his 'theory', as he has repeatedly done before. Lily? Is just not interested, even though Lupin lives in her House. Her reaction is rather: So? Why are you so obsessed with them? After all they don't use Dark Magic, like your friends do! Clearly Lily sees this as a worse offense than sneaking out at night, and being friends with a werewolf. Mim: Lily doesn't know at the time that Remus is a werewolf. There is no canonical evidence of that at all. And you've really misunderstood me here. I'm not saying that Snape thinks Lily should disapprove of the Marauders, she already does anyway. But he does mention his theory once more and my theory here is that his motivation is to protect Lily. It might not be, maybe he's just being defensive because she thinks his friends are jerks and he wants to whine to someone about that Lupin who gets away with everything. But as far as he knows Lily doesn't know Remus is a werewolf and he doesn't want his friend to become werewolf food. Lanvan: Perhaps the Marauders felt that since the staff was already in on the secret, it would not have too much of an impact if students found out? The adults knew, Lupin's presence was officially sanctioned, what could the other kids possibly do about it? The Marauders are already familiar with Werewolf!Lupin, they themselves were never all that aghast when they found out (I assume), why would anyone go into convulsions over it? Again, keeping in mind what a dangerous place Hogwarts & surroundings is, even without the presence of a single young werewolf in their midst. There's worse out in the Forbidden Forest. Mim: So the Marauders said, oh, well, let's just tell everybody that Remus here is a werewolf? Somehow seeing everyday wizard Ron's (a Gryffindor, no less) reaction to Remus being a werewolf, even though he was someone he liked I don't think that everyone would have been ok with it. And it would only take an owl home or a casual mention to mom and dad and Dumbledore would be in deep ish and Remus out of school. Somehow I really don't think they shared that little secret. And I don't see why the Marauders had to add to all the dangerous things in the Forbidden Forest. Yes, it's a tale of a great friendship, all for one and one for all. Lupin had endured transformations since his fifth year, did they have to become fun too? I have a serious problem with them as I really don't think they viewed anyone outside their little group as worthy of even being alive. Or not getting mauled. But I guess most Marauders fans fancy themselves as part of their little gang rather than Lupin-food so it's good. Lanval: Someone, please explain that one to me. I've heard this argument for so long. How, if James had no idea that Sirius had told Snape (and Sirius would have never lied about this), and if DD/the staff had no idea that there was some sneaking out at night taking place during fifth year... did James 'save his own hide'? He was quite simply NOT involved, not responsible, not part of it in any way. Mim: Not part of it in any way? James had heard what Sirius had done. If he did nothing and it came out that he knew and if Remus did indeed maul Snape how on earth would he not share even some responsibility? Lanvan: Something just occurred to me, and maybe my mind's just in complete confusion right now... how exactly did DD find out about the prank? Mim: I'm guessing Snape went to him and told him. Or news traveled, how on earth did Lily know anything about James saving Snape? I don't have the best opinion of Dumbledore but I would guess he had some idea of what was going on in his own school, even missing how Remus had repayed his kindness when he let him study in Hogwarts by running around with his friends doing... well... fun animal stuff that was totally the bestest time ever for him. I always wondered how come Moony and Padfoot never saw Prongs and said "Yum, dinner, we can take him," but that's my mind being a little funny... Lanval: Let's keep in mind, shall we, that Snape was not punished. Not for 1. sneaking out at night, breaking school rules 2. sticking his nose in and interfering with school-approved business 3. Entering a tunnel that was clearly, absolutely, without a doubt off limits to all students save Remus Lupin 4. Endangering himself, and another student Mim: Using "punished" in a general sense here in that Dumbledore made him promise not to tell and that was it. And... I'll give you that the attempted murder charge for Sirius is a little iffy. Snape didn't have to listen to him. But Dumbledore never tells Snape that he should get over himself and no one tried to kill him. And saying that Snape endangered another student is just nuts. James didn't have to save him. Mim: > I'm not surprised that Remus didn't stop his friends from bullying > Snape. He didn't have any control over them really. They are > completely callous about reveavling his secret in SWM, out in > public. Lanval: Huh? Canon, please, that they are 'revealing it in public'? They are sitting together, no one else is near, save Pensieve!Harry. Mim: Again, Remus implores James to be quiet. I'm guessing it's not because of Pensieve!Harry. Mim: Sirius says he's bored and wished it was the full moon... i > mean, lycanthropy is supposed to be this curse, right and Sirius is > saying how he would like his friend to be suffering it at the > moment. Lanval: PoA, Scholastic edition, p.354: "And they didn't desert me at all. Instead, they did something for me that would make my transformations not only bearable, but the best times of my life...." No further comment. Mim: Fair enough. I took Remus' "You might", said darkly, no less as a sign of disapproval in that particular moment. That he might had found Sirius just a little callous right then. Mim: After he has tried to use said friend as a murder weapon. Lanval: Canon, please? "Murder"? Mim: Canon says that Sirius wanted to get rid of Snape. Maybe he just wanted to scare him but he never says "What the hell, I just wanted to scare him" but that it served Snape right. James saw it for what it was, whatever Sirius might have called it. Mim: > Lupin is completely pathetic, only a notch above Peter and I have > serious concerns about his morality. What if he had gotten someone > in one of his many close turns while Marauding around with the > others? It was a joke to the others but he knew what Lycanthropy was > like and didn't stop. > Lanval: He did not, and admits that it was wrong. Why do teenagers drive too fast, experiment with drugs, have unsafe sex, play stupid games, etc? Why do teenagers think they are in complete control, and immortal on top of it? Sad. All these morally questionable kids in this world. Mim: I don't know what kind of kids you know and the wizarding world is definitely one notch above ours in terms of danger but I find it somewhat sociopathic that every month for 2 and a half years he would just go out and do this, regardless of who he might kill or infect. But JKR seems to think it's the height of cool so I'll leave it alone. Mim: He knows what Sirius is capable > of doing and treating as a mere joke. He knows that Remus is > dangerous. They are Gryffindors, charming, good in sports and the > rest. They have much better access to his friend and the House > divide is already taking her away from him. Is he a jerk for not > dropping Mulciber and Avery on the spot once she complains? Perhaps > but he's only a kid and friends are important esp. with enemies like > her oh, so brave housemates around. > Lanval: If Snape's *only a kid* then so are Sirius, James, and Remus. Mim: And so is Harry but at Sirius, James and Remus age he wouldn't have pulled half of the crap they had. Unless I missed all the times he put everyone around him in danger just to get his jollies or the time he tried to feed his enemies to monsters or how he has ganged up on people and bullied them for existing Lanval: And yes, he is a bit of a jerk, for defending Mulciber and Avery, who have performed Dark Magic on a girl. Which Lily finds MUCH worse than the prank (and it probably was). According to her it was "...evil.*Evil*, Sev!" Mim: Lily isn't operating with full information here about the Prank. She did get more of an idea of the Marauders once married, that's for sure. Remus who the others thought might be the spy, Peter who delivered them to Voldemort, James who did such a fantastic job protecting his family and Sirius who took off in a suicide mission after Peter instead of protecting Harry and who had such a spectacular meltdown he let everyone think he had betrayed his best friend. Believe it or not I'm not gloating about this as only a deranged Snapefan might. I felt truly sorry for them, for Sirius' recklessness, James' blind faith to his friends bordering on stupidity, Remus' cowardice and even Peter's duplicity. None of them ever really grew up. From nitalynx at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 23:04:12 2007 From: nitalynx at yahoo.com (nitalynx) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 23:04:12 -0000 Subject: Appeal of the story to the reader/ some stuff from A Few Good Men In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175605 Alla wrote: > It is like, I do not know, reading fairy tales. I never expected evil > to feel remorse in them. I always knew that Kotchey Besmertniy or > Baba Yaga would die, for example (russian fairy tale villain) and was > all the happiest for it. Nita replies: I'd like to linger on this point a bit (probably just because I like fairy tales). Summary of an example tale for the non-Russian-cultured: There's this evil immortal guy, and the hero has to kill him to free his beloved or whatever. During his long journey, the hero gets hungry. He sees an animal (alternatively: a mother animal with babies) every once in a while and wants to shoot it, but every one of them asks for mercy, and he spares the animal every time (note: this means starving!). In the end, the hero wins only due to getting help from the grateful animals. ( http://feb-web.ru/feb/skazki/texts/af0/af2/af2-264-.htm ) Here, I can clearly see why the hero is Good: his acts of kindness cost him comfort and precious energy, but he keeps doing them anyway. The poor guy just can't shut down his compassion. In Potterverse, things are the other way around. Either it's just OK to shut down compassion (Ginny is so much better than Cho because she doesn't cry! Let's double-cross the goblin! Crucio!), or even it's The Right Thing To Do (ignoring the baby-soul, gloating over various stuff). Oh, and in the fairy tale, the hag - Baba Yaga - helps :) And the hero's beloved happens to be the villain's daughter he'd turned into a frog out of jealousy. It's a lovely story! :) Another thing I like about such fairy tales is that the awesomeness is usually divided between the Pretty and Clever, yet vulnerable Witch and the Brave and Kind, yet sometimes blundering Hero. Yeah, the gender roles are old and rigid (and, curiously, not that different from JKR's), but at least there's some balance. > But like even with Snape, whom I totally wanted to be punished, I > enjoyed his end when I thought about it, but I find his death to be > well, rather gruesome upon reread and do not find compelled to reread > it, you know? > > I meant I did not cheer when Nagini bite him. Again, found his end to > be satisfying, but not felt joy of Snape hurting, if that makes sense. Well, thanks for that. I hope JKR really didn't intend any gloating there. > I mean to me saying that story appeals to the mean in people is like > comparing it with the appeal of horror movies, I guess. > > I do not watch them, period and not planning to after watching one or > two in my life, hehe. Wow, I've never even considered the possibility of watching horror movies for the sake of gloating... That's an interesting idea. I don't watch them either, but I've always thought that people watch them to a) get scared, b) laugh at the plot, c) yell at the protagonists not to do whatever they're going to do. > Just as Voldemort does not get it or does not want to get what Harry > is telling him. IMO. Well, I don't know. We've practically seen Voldie grow up. We've concluded that he's probably a sociopath (i.e., not right in the head, incapable of empathy or remorse). We've been told by DD to pity him. And then we should enjoy taunting him, that emotionally stunted wretch? It didn't work for me :/ > I do not think that makes me a mean person or that story appeals to > the mean in me, I think it appeals **among other things already > listed** to my sense of justice. > > Opinions can differ of course. I suppose you read it as a different kind of story. As houyhnhnm said, one is free to pick and choose in this series :) Nita From judy at judyshapiro.com Thu Aug 16 23:22:26 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 23:22:26 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? (was Re: Appeal of the story ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175606 I wrote the following post a few days ago. I held off posting it, because the debate over the book's message had died down, and I felt that the topic had been upsetting some people. But, since the topic has come up again, here is my post. I have made very few changes to it in the past few days, so it isn't directly a response to things posted here today. I love the Harry Potter series, and I enjoyed reading Book 7. But, I have to agree that when I reached the end of the book, I was disappointed by the moral message that JKR seemed to be pushing. And, the more it gets discussed here, the more dismayed I feel, because I'm starting to feel that the only way to get even a slightly uplifting message out of the book is to really dig for it. Like many of the other posters here, I found that the ending of the book had a lot more revenge and a lot less redemption that I had expected. After Dumbledore's very moving speech to Draco at the end of HBP, I was expecting that at least Draco and Narcissa, if not Lucius, would see the error of their ways, be sorry, and be rescued at some point by the Order or the Trio. Instead, it just seemed that the Malfoys accidentally ended up helping Harry's side, without any real sort of reconciliation. I had also expected that Moaning Myrtle would somehow play an instrumental role in the defeat of her murderer and therefore be able to finally leave her toilet and move on to "the next great adventure." I was never comfortable with how Myrtle's misery was presented as a joke. I mean, she's a little girl who was murdered! Doesn't she ever get to rest in peace? But her situation never gets resolved. Then, the story of the Grey Lady is introduced, but after she confesses her faults and helps Harry, he just runs off and leaves her and we never hear from her again. Couldn't she somehow move on, if for no other reason than that her mother could finally see her again? What bothered me most, though, was Dumbledore. I actually wasn't bothered at all by the fact that he had been teenaged friends with Grindelwald, resulting in tragic consequences. It seemed pretty realistic to me that a 17-year-old might fall in with a bad friend and show poor judgment. Frankly, with the horrible things that had happened to Dumbledore's family and the fact that he had no parents to guide him, I would have been surprised if everything had gone RIGHT n his life. I also wasn't that bothered about the part where Dumbledore says has Harry has to die, because I didn't expect Harry to die. (My reasoning was simple ? there were a lot of pages left to fill, and I just couldn't see JKR writing 60 pages of Harry walking to his own execution. I assumed that Dumbledore didn't expect Harry to die, either, but that would take too long to explain here.) No, what bothered me about Dumbledore was how he treated Snape. Now, I'm saying this as a disappointed Dumbledore fan, not as a Snape fan. Friends, Snape-haters, countrymen, lend me your ears ? I come not to praise Snape, but to criticize Dumbledore. Dumbledore said, "Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who seek it." He also made a big speech at the end of GoF, right after Voldemort came back. Here is part of this speech: "'Every guest in this Hall,' said Dumbledore, and his eyes lingered upon the Durmstrang students, 'will be welcomed back here at any time, should they wish to come.'" (GoF, US edition, p. 723.) Well, I assumed that Dumbledore was saying in both quotes that he would help anyone who sincerely asked him, and was emphasizing that this meant even Dark Wizards ? I mean, otherwise, what was the point of "his eyes lingered upon the Durmstrang students"? I thought this meant that if someone on the Dark side showed remorse, they would be welcomed back. Yet, in Book 7, we find Snape, on his knees, begging for help, and Dumbledore says, "You disgust me." And then, even though Snape has already voluntarily given Dumbledore vital information about Voldemort's plans, Dumbledore demands payment from Snape before he will agree to help someone on Dumbledore's OWN side. (I know Snape wasn't literally asking for help while at Hogwarts, but Dumbledore represents Hogwarts.) Worse, after Snape does what Dumbledore asks, and Dumbledore fails to deliver on his side of the deal, Dumbledore practically ridicules Snape's grief; when Snape says he wants to die, Dumbledore asks, coldly, "What use would that be to anyone?" And then, we don't see any kindness from Dumbledore to Snape until Snape's been working for him for 14 years. Sheesh, if this is Dumbledore's idea of being welcoming, I'd hate to see what he's like when he's unwelcoming. Lily, who is presented as practically a saint, isn't much better. I've wondered ever since Book 5 whether Snape ever apologized for calling her a Mudblood. I never would have dreamed that he did apologize and in response Lily slammed the door in his face, but that's pretty much how it happened. Now, my point here isn't to say that Snape *deserved* Dumbledore's help, or that he was *entitled* to Lily's forgiveness. That's a separate issue (and Snape's moral status has been debated a LOT here lately.) My point is, what sort of message is the book sending about forgiveness, when even the most moral characters in the story refuse to forgive? JKR has said that Dumbledore is supposed to be "goodness personaified," and he did often seem, in the first 6 books, to be presented a very moral message of kindness and forgiveness. In Book 7, though, that seemed to go out the window. I do realize that there are other interpretations of Dumbledore's behavior towards Snape -- maybe he's only acting angry at Snape to try to manipulate him into helping Harry, maybe Dumbledore sees himself in Snape -- but as I said, you have to dig for these alternate interpretations. I think a lot of readers will be left with just the surface reading, that if someone who's done evil wants to make amends, you should punish them instead instead of welcoming them back. I have to say, over the years when I've seen members of the Christian Right criticize the books, I had this sort of smug feeling: "They just don't get it. The books DO promote the values that the Christian Right says it wants ? forgiveness, love, kindness, and self- sacrifice." Now I'm wondering ? do they? I know that some people here say they enjoyed the way the good guys got revenge in Book 7. But to my mind, that is a HUGE problem. Here we have the world's best selling fiction series, and it's leading some readers to ENJOY the idea of revenge. Don't we already have enough entertainment pushing the idea that violence and revenge are good things? (And if I may interject a note as a psychologist here, the evidence is overwhelming that when violence is presented as a good thing in entertainment, it makes people more likely to see violence as a good thing in real life.) I find it very sad that millions of children will read a story that could have ended with an uplifting message of forgiveness, conciliation, and redemption, but instead ended in a message of vengeance. And then, there's the whole issue of predestination and "the Elect": lizzyben: > Those memories pounded in, again & again, that no, Snape actually > had no inherent moral compass at all. And the break-up of the > friendship was totally his own fault. And his love was obsessive and > weird, because Slyths can't have normal relationships. And he hated > Harry for no reason! And the only morals he ever got were from Lily > & DD - his exposure to the golden glow of Gryffindor goodness > diverted him from his natural selfish slimy Slytherin ways. And, > most importantly, he didn't really change. Because people can't > really change in this universe. I think there are other ways of reading Snape's memories, and I'm not sure that this is the reading that JKR intended. Unfortunately, though, I do suspect that this is the message the story will give to at least some readers. And from Montavilla47: > I guess I should have seen that coming since HBP, when we are > shown that Voldemort was damned from before he was born, > because of the way he was conceived. > What tripped me up was that statement by Dumbledore that > "it is our choices that show who we are." > But I should have realized it. Choices "show" who we are. . . > They don't "make" us who we are. They only "show" it. > So, we already are who we are *before* > we make the choices, and therefore we cannot choose to > become someone else. Montavilla, I have to agree that the Harry Potter series sends the message, on at least some levels, that people are either born good or born bad. And, I feel really cheated by this. I mean, if people are just BORN good or evil, then there really isn't such a thing as *choice* in the first place, is there? So, why did JKR keep talking about choices? Now, I'm not convinced that, in the real world, there is actually such a thing as free will. Perhaps all of our actions are determined by some combination of biology, environment, and sheer random chance. (Eggplant, I LOVED your line, "I don't believe any concept in philosophy has caused more confusion or been more unproductive than that of free will; an idea so bad it's not even wrong.) But, I also don't think there's any actual magic in the real world either. So, free will in a STORY is fine by me ? in fact, a story showing how one could freely choose to do good might be just the environmental influence that someone needs to do the right thing instead of the wrong thing. But, "anyone can freely choose to be good" doesn't seem to be the message that the books are sending. Consider, for example, that the Slytherins mostly wind up being good accidentally while trying to be selfish or while actively OPPOSING the good; when Slytherins actually try to help, they can't. Draco helps out Harry a lot, but only by fighting Harry and getting his wand stolen. Crabbe helps out by attacking the Trio, destroying a Horcrux (and himself) in the process. Narcissa conceals that Harry is alive, but only to help Draco. Slughorn tries to help ? he fights but doesn't accomplish anything much. Regulus winds up worst of all. A Death Eater driven mad by remorse, he tries to destroy Voldemort's invulnerability and ends up just making these worse; the Trio would have saved months of work if Regulus had just gone about his merry way and left the Locket in the Cave. (Actually, when reading about what happened to Regulus, I kept thinking, "Why didn't he have Kreacher apparate him out of the Cave, go straight to Dumbledore, and have Dumbledore destroy the Horcrux?" But now that I know what reception Snape got when he went to Dumbledore with vital information, I'm thinking that Dumbledore probably would have just told him, "You disgust me, Regulus. Now, what will you GIVE ME to destroy this Horcrux for you?") Snape does help the side of good, but it is mostly off-page. Anyway, Dumbledore has already said that maybe Snape should have been in Gryffindor. So, it doesn't really change the message that whether you are good or not is pre-ordained. So, take the fact that Snape's redemption is not as complete as it could be. (I really, really wish Harry had said to someone, after Voldemort was defeated, "PROFESSOR Snape's body is in the Shrieking Shack.") Combine with the knowledge that Regulus's remorse accomplished nothing (and that Regulus is still presumably a water- logged Inferus.) Add in the fact that no other putative "Bad guys" seem to have been redeemed at all. Now, pour in the fact that the House system is still intact and Slytherin House still is viewed negatively (by at least some). Sift in the observation that so many of the Good Guys are Gryffindors and that so few (if any) Slytherins are, and sprinkle with the sad outcome that there seems to be no major improvement in the status of elves, giants, and centaurs (even though many of them fought bravely in a war that HUMANS started). Stir this mixture seven times counterclockwise, once clockwise, and you wind up with a very unpleasant philosophy indeed Now, I'm hoping that following was NOT the philosophy that JKR was intending to promote, but one reading of the books is: "There is a Superior side and an inferior side. (Plus a bunch of people in the middle who don't really matter much either way.) You can't choose to join the Superior side; you have to be born into it, and it is mostly dependent on who your parents were. Those who belong to the Superior side will be rewarded. Those inferiors who assist the Superior side MAY be rewarded, if the Superior side gets around to it. Those who harm the cause of the Superior side will be punished, so matter how truly, sincerely sorry they are for the harm they have done." Yeah, reading Book 7, one could come away with that as the philosophy that JKR is pushing. But isn't that VOLDEMORT's philosophy? So, maybe he got the last laugh after all? This leaves me wondering, if maybe JKR just wasn't all that clear, in her own mind, of what message she wanted to convey, and how she should convey it. At least, I hope she just wasn't clear. I would be even more upset if "Revenge is a good thing," and "You can't be a good person unless you're born that way," were really the messages she wanted to communicate. Anyone feel like re-writing the ending to the book? :-) -- JudySerenity, long-time fan of the Harry Potter books, but very very disappointed in the message they seem to be sending. From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Aug 16 23:16:38 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:16:38 -0400 Subject: The Virtues of Hagrid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175607 Hagrid's putting the wand in his umbrella isn't so much a lie as an obfuscation. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From p_yanna at hotmail.com Thu Aug 16 23:32:36 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 23:32:36 -0000 Subject: A Defense of Sirius (was A Defense of James Potter(Whose flaws are bigger)) In-Reply-To: <964873.42095.qm@web55010.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175608 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Christine Maupin wrote: > >> James was loyal to his friends and expected loyalty from them. Even though it apparently was common knowledge that there was a spy in the Order, I think James "who wold have regarded it as the height of dishonor to mistrust his friends" (DH, p 81) would consider it outside the realm of possibly that the spy would one of his friends... Imagine instead of James, Sirius, and Peter, we were talking about Harry, Ron, and Hermione -- could anyone imagine Ron or Hermione betraying Harry? > > Christy > But I don't understand... I don't think James didn't mistrust his friends. He didn't trust Lupin enough to tell him there had been a change in Secret Keeper. So he considered it the height of dishonor to mistrust his friends except for Lupin? JKR really doesn't make sense here... Mim From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Aug 16 23:26:04 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:26:04 -0400 Subject: Is Harry Potter an Anti-Royalist Tract? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175609 Career advisor: "I start with the fact that in HBP Hermione says that (I'm paraphrasing): 'There are no wizarding princes in Britain'. Which implies that there are probably no noble wizards (and witches?) in the wizarding world. And no student is mentioned as being 'noble' at Hogwarts." Justin Fitch-Fetchly, who chose between Eaton and Hogwarts would be at least minor nobility or gentry, wouldn't he? Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From va32h at comcast.net Fri Aug 17 00:01:46 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:01:46 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? (was Re: Appeal of the story ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175610 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: *snipped everything but this* Anyone feel like re-writing the ending to the book? :-) va32h: Yes, I do, and I am, Judy! Actually, I'm writing my own entire version, because, like you, I really cannot stomach the one that we've been given. I'll admit, I am one of the naughty people who read the leaked version online. And I spent at least 3 days insisting it was merely an elaborate fraud by someone who knew enough about Jo's world to put together a pastiche of her earlier books, but fundamentally misunderstood Jo's message. And then July 17 came, and I heard from HP fans in the UK who verified that it was real, and it turns out that the joke was on me - I was the one who had fundamentally misunderstood Jo's message. Or had assumed that their was a message. And I was furious. I thought she'd deceived us, and in some ways was mocking us. "Oh you stupid fans who pore over the books looking for alchemy and allusions and motifs and some great treatise on the nature of love. Get a life! They're just books and here I'm going to prove it by creating the most hackenyed, contrived book possible." It reminded me of the skit on Saturday Night Live, when William Shatner attends an ST convention and finally explodes at the fans "Look at you, you're grown men, in costumes! Have you ever even kissed a girl!" And I was mad at myself too. For wasting so many hours and so much energy on this....this....pile of word vomit. It was a very emotional period. I had promised my daughter and her best friend that I would take them to a midnight party; and I'd made these elaborate costumes, and I'd even let my daughter temporarily dye her hair red, as she was Ginny. (as an aside - I was the "coolest mom ever" that week, a title I shall cherish forever!") Well I couldn't bring myself to don my own Mrs. Figg costume, but I took the girls, and within ten minutes of arriving at our Barnes and Noble, I felt...healed. Our B&N did an amazing job. They must have had volunteers from a local fan group, because the detail and the care was just incredible. We all received Marauder's Maps detailing the activities. The store was transformed into various teachers' offices and other parts of Hogwarts and Diagon Alley. The crowd was huge, included all ages, and most in costume. I saw a resplendent Dumbledore, a *perfect* teen Snape, an older gentleman who must have been at least 70, dressed as the conductor of the Hogwart's Express and engaging in a lively conversation with a little girl in Gryffindor robes. "Trust Snape" and "Snape is a Bad Man" contigents staged debates throughout the store (and everyone politely ignored that it was the Borders promo materials they were using!). Oh it was wonderful. And my faith was restored. Not in JKR - but in us. We are the ones who made the magic, we fans, we readers. JKR built a wonderful house, but we are the ones who live in it. We are the ones who make it alive. Well I have re-read the book, and I am no longer angry about it. Still irritated, but that sense of outrage has faded away. There are parts that I actually quite like. The Forest Again, The Silver Doe. But I also firmly believe that JKR lost sight of her own series. Either it got away from her or she just became tired of it - but I don't believe that Deathly Hallows is a fitting end to the series. I don't believe it captures the spirit of Harry Potter as I have come to know it, and I don't care what JKR says about her series anymore. Her story is not just *her* story, she's shared it with us and it's ours now too. So, just for me, to give me peace of mind, I am writing my own personal version of Deathly Hallows. And to prove (to myself, I suppose) that it isn't about characters dying or pet theories not being right, I am not completely reimagining it. Everyone who died in the real DH with die in my version, and I will even keep the two theories I hated the most (LOLLIPOPS and Harrycrux). But I am going to fix what I think went terribly, terribly wrong. Sure, it will only happen inside *my* head, but why should that mean it is not real? Anyway, if you are similiary unhappy with DH, I suggest you try writing your own version too. It's very cathartic. va32h From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Aug 17 00:14:33 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:14:33 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175611 Jen: > What do you mean here, houhnhnm? I'm intepreting it > as a pretty negative message about readers who like > the story but don't want to go any further if I'm > misinterpreting or reading more into it than you intended. houyhnhnm: I'm simply astonished, Jen, that you took my remarks personally. My comment was not directed at anyone personally. I didn't even realize I was casting an aspersion, merely stating a fact. Look, not at this discussion group, but at the billions of words that have been written by fans about the Harry Potter series (not to mention fanfiction). Can anyone deny that a great part of the appeal of these books is the enjoyment of violence, punishment, revenge, inflicting pain, watching other people suffer? Of course it's on bad guys. Those who are on the receiving end of vengeance are always "the bad guys". I find it disturbing. I'm not interested in debating whether or not vengeance is really a good thing. To me it is not. Between "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" there is no common ground. What is worth debating, in my opinion, is whether or not this really is the message of the books and if not, why are these elements in there. I don't know what to think of these stories. The conflicting messages are downright weird, as someone else said. There were a lot of things I liked about DH. I really liked Harry, better than in any book since CoS. I liked the backstories on Snape and Dumbledore. I liked the reprochment between Harry and Kreacher. But some other things, I just don't know what to make of them. Like the miserable creature in the train station and the injunction not to pity or comfort it. Repeated over and over. Once might not have been so bad, but it was just hammered in. I've been bothered by the mean-spirited undercurrent in the books all the way along, the Appeal to the Crowd, and trying to deny to myself that I see what I see. Learning that an author I really admire (who's worth twelve of Rowling) had come right out and said it was kind of a tipping point. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 00:37:07 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:37:07 -0000 Subject: Levels of Wizardry and Snape's style In-Reply-To: <1710128.1187281578094.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175612 Bart: > What I see is that, in the WW, on levels above those like Hermoine, or the Weasley twins, or Mad-Eye Moody, there is a gap. You have super-wizards, and you have excellent wizards, and not much in between. Juli: I wouldn't consider Hermione an excellent witch, a good one, yes, but not excellent. Before you take aim for my head let me explain. Hermione is a book lover (remember what amorentia smells like to her?...), library rats (no offense) often don't have above average intelligence, they just like to study, and when you study, you get good grades. We have never seen Hermione invent anything on her own, or use any spell that she hadn't learned in a book. I remember her first flying lesson, she was scared to death because for once there was something she couldn't learn in books. I consider her very smart, but she's book-smart. She just studies (a lot) and gets good results. Now the Twins, I think they truly are well above average, they take a basic knowledge and apply it to the practice in ways never thought before. Take for instance the invisibility hats, Hermione does mention that she doesn't know how they did it, if she doesn't know, there isn't a spell in books on how to do it. Mad-Eye: we don't have any canon of whether he went beyond ordinary magic, but I'm sure he did. Otherwise how could he have filled half the cells in Azkaban? > Professor Snape, although he often goes overboard, has a style where he expects all the students to be as good as he is. I've never even considered that, but I believe you're right. He *thinks* everyone to be as smart as him, therefore, he pushes them (in a good way) further than any other teacher. > The best of the ordinary wizards, working in concert, can't even touch DD, Morty, or Grindy (Snape was smart enough not to make himself a target). I agree, Harry only defeated Voldemort because of the attenuating circumstances. He had the Brother Wands, then he *has* > Even among the OOP, the only reason why Snape seems to be accepted at all is because he's DD's best friend. Dumbledore's best friend? I think you've gone a bit too far. They were good friends, and very close, but I don't think Dumbledore ever had a best friend. He had too much knowledge and power to become one of us, to have an ordinary life with a best friend and a girlfriend. I don't think he ever truly confied in anyone in a way we usually do with our BFs, he confided different things in different people, but *work* stuff, never his personal life. Even Elphias Dodge, his best friend from Hogwarts didn't know even the tip of the iceberg that is Dumbledore. I think Harry came close in the end. Juli - Glad to see a *nicer* tone on the list From juli17 at aol.com Fri Aug 17 01:00:19 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:00:19 EDT Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175613 Lanval: And yes, he is a bit of a jerk, for defending Mulciber and Avery, who have performed Dark Magic on a girl. Which Lily finds MUCH worse than the prank (and it probably was). According to her it was "...evil.*Evil*, Sev!" Julie: The biggest problem with defending either side of this argument is that it is just like so many others in the HP world. We don't have enough real information about the Prank, or about what Dark Arts are and why they are so much worse than your run of the mill just normally nasty ones like Hermione's pustules on Marietta's face (that remain uncurable for at least several months), or a levicorpus lifted high enough to let a wizard fall to his death when released from it. (No, I don't recall seeing the latter happen in the books, but like any curse that takes a Wizard's motor control away, you could easily put a Wizard in mortal danger and then just let nature or gravity or whatever take its course.) So what makes a Dark curse dark, and makes for instance, Snape's mildly applied Sectumsempra to James face (if that's what it was) dark even though it did no real damage to James, while hexes James and Sirius performed in the hallways that must have hurt and humiliated as much as some of the darker ones Mulciber performed on students? (I say the latter because if the students were getting away with Dark curses, they much have been able to contain them as mild versions of such, since they weren't getting expelled for using them--or if they weren't so mild, that leaves us with another apparent inconsistency of Hogwarts staff looking the other way when it comes to these Dark curses.) Switching over to the Prank, we still don't know how Sirius clued Snape in about the Shrieking Shack entrance, or how James found out about it, or how much Snape actually knew versus how what he actually expected to find. So again we're all making our best guesses. From the canon words of adult Sirius and Lupin, and Dumbledore, and from Snape's pensieve memories, here's my final theory: Snape suspected Lupin was a werewolf. He went to the Shack hoping to get evidence to support his suspicion. He probably expected the evidence would lead to the Marauders getting into some sort of trouble, preferrably expelled. He probably didn't suspect Lupin would be "loose" to attack him, though he still acted surprisingly rashly. His desire to get one up on the Marauders no doubt overrode his good sense. Sirius resented Snape's nosiness. He found a way to "tell" Snape how to get into the Shrieking Shack, at a time when he knew Lupin would be transforming. His state of mind isn't clear, though I'll assume he expected Snape to get the fright of his life, but possibly didn't think about Snape being turned/killed, as this would be horrible for Lupin (there would be no way to hide his werewolf status at that point, and if Snape died, probably no way Lupin would emotionally recover). Sirius gave as little forethought to how this all would play out as he did to most everything else. (And as an adult, when he said "Snape deserved it" I do believe he meant Snape deserved what he *got*, which was a scare and a threat to his life, not what Snape *might* have gotten--turned or killed. Or I chose to believe it, as there's little to go on about Sirius's true meaning here.) James found out what was going down, presumably because Sirius told him. ("I told Snivellus how to get into the Shrieking Shack, and when he sees a full grown werewolf, he's going to soil his dirty knickers!" "Sirius, you didn't! What were you thinking? Moony will bite him, or Merlin forbid, kill him!" "Gee, that'll be a great loss..." "What about Moony? You're about to make him a murderer!") After some such conversation (and I suspect it was more about Moony's fate than Snape's to get through to Sirius, though James surely didn't want to be a party to any turning or killing, nor see even a student he hated killed), James went after Snape, and pulled him back out of the tunnel, proabably about the time Snape got a glimpse of Moony as a full werewolf. We also know that no one got expelled over the Prank though Sirius deliberately enticed Snape into a potentially lethal confrontation, and Snape was out of bounds against school rules (as was James, but I'd assume his purpose was enough to exonerate him). So there likely were punishments involved, though we don't know if they were of different degrees for Sirius versus for Snape-- Sirius getting detention for the rest of the year, Snape for a month, for instance. Adults Snape and Sirius are too busy hating each other (Snape certain Sirius wanted to kill him, Sirius still believing Snape deserved it) to worry about those niggling details. One more thing we do know is that it *was* a deadly situation. The werewolf could have killed Snape, as it nearly did later in PoA with adult Sirius/Padfoot out of rage. We also know because Dumbledore said James saved Snape's life, and about that kind of thing I don't think Dumbledore would lie (though he could use "saved Snape's life" in the broader sense to include Snape being turned as well as Snape dying). So, now here is my opinion of who is more guilty. Both Sirius and Snape acted with malice, Sirius wanting to at least scare Snape (and possibly not much caring if Snape was at least turned) and deliberately enticing him into a harmful situation, Snape wanting to get evidence against the Marauders, who he'd already seen getting away scot free from various misdemeanors. I will also submit here that I don't see any evidence at all that Snape wanted to kill Lupin, as he went in unarmed (beyond his wand) and unprepared to defend himself against a werewolf, let alone take one out, given that James had to "save" him. Given the climate between the Marauders and Snape however, it is harder for me to blame Snape as much for wanting to get his tormenters expelled than it is to blame Sirius for setting up Snape deliberately to be harmed/killed (even if Sirius wasn't thinking too much about all the potential consequences). What Sirius did is more grave to me, and whether Snape took the bait or not, Sirius deliberately laid the bait, knowing something bad would happen (less bad or more bad will depend upon each individual's interpretation). Finally, what did Dumbledore say to Snape to convince him never to reveal that Lupin was a werewolf? The only thing that makes sense is that Dumbledore told Snape he would be expelled if he told. That's the only threat that would work with teenage Snape, I think. Though I originally thought Dumbledore might have appealed to Snape on some personal level, after DH I'm pretty sure he just laid down the law. They were both breaking school rules (assuming there is something in the rules against deliberately goading another student into harm's way), and either violation could get a student expelled, so Dumbledore just called it even. Except that he added the "no telling" restriction on Snape. I have to add that I can see how Snape wouldn't view it as "all even." (And here is one of those moments where I had expected that JKR would further illuminate Snape's complex character, by making it clear that this perceived favoritism--or quite honestly, real favoritism--of Gryffindors on Dumbledore's part was what gave Snape the final push to throw his lot in with Voldemort, as why keep fighting futilely against a system that always favors Gryffindors?) To Snape attempted murder doesn't equal attempted explusion, and while JKR didn't make it clear, I still think this was one more factor that did ultimately push Snape to join the DEs. Finally, I do think the Prank was worse than the Dark curses. At least in so far as the information we actually have. Again, I'm assuming the Dark curses didn't cause serious permanent damage or death, or we would have heard of students being expelled for using them. Yet Snape could have died from the Prank, or been turned into a werewolf, even if Lily doesn't know that (and Snape can't actually tell her what happened as he would be revealing that Lupin is definitely a werewolf). So I take Dumbledore's assertion that James saved Snape's life as more relevant than Lily's easy dismissal of the Prank as opposed to her condemnation of the "evil" Dark curses (or even that they are so much worse on/to their victims than James and Sirius's not "dark" hexes in the hallways.) In the end it all comes down to individual interpretation though, since there is so little definitive information, and a lot of inconsistency in the canon we do have, that we will never *know* the all the facts of the Prank and its aftermath, beyond what we each believe. Er, IMO, of course ;-) Julie, who does wish JKR had been a little more consistent with some of these things. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From urghiggi at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 01:12:14 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:12:14 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175614 > > houyhnhnm: > I don't know what to think > of these stories. The conflicting messages are downright > weird, as someone else said. > > There were a lot of things I liked about DH. snip> > But some other things, I just don't know what to make of > them. Julie H: Right there with ya. The 'crucio' NOT cast in the heat of battle (nor regretted in any way), I still have a lot of trouble with. The implication (OK, at least some of us read it that way) that the 'good guys' are the elect and that the slytherins are pretty much irredeemable and doomed to badness (except for a precious few exceptions), that's a problem for me after all that talk about unity. The comeuppances sometimes seemed extreme to me. (I hated umbridge as much as the next person... but that Centaur thing in OoP was creepy... what did they DO to her out there? As an adult of course I probably am imagining much more warped stuff than the average 11 year old...) The somewhat muddled 'theology' of the whole thing, I still struggle with after 3 readings of DH and multiple readings of the other 6. Is Harry Jesus? (No, I don't think so, but there sure is a lot of 'sacrificial death' thrown around here.) Is Dumbledore God to Harry's everyman 'seeker'? No, again, or Dumbledore wouldn't be so flawed -- or maybe, like Pullman, JKR thinks God IS flawed? No, I don't think so -- but what does he represent, if anything, in Harry's own spiritual universe? Certainly he is Godlike to Harry in stages ... then God falls down, hard ... this does actually mirror the Christian experience for many who struggle with doubt ... you doubt, but you choose to do what you think God wants, anyway, not knowing. The theme is provocative, but ... you can only go so far with that, in terms of the parallels, because they are not perfect. (Unless JKR really DOES think God is flawed and possibly nonexistent, in which case the parallels might be closer to the mark.) I wasn't looking for allegory (would've preferred that it NOT be there actually) but if so much Christian theme is going to be batted about, more clarity would've been appreciated. OTOH -- I continue to very much like what JKR's accomplished in terms of getting people to ponder the concepts of soul and death. What is your soul ... is it everlasting? (Hermione at least affirms it is in the "ghoul" chapter of DH, where she says that you can't kill the soul by killing a body, and that this should be a comfort.) Can repentance fix even very bad 'soul damage' caused by sin? (Yes, apparently, again, at least in theory -- though I agree that LV has never been painted as a character remotely capable of such. Snape could/did repent, but ... his degree of redemption is open to interpretation.) What happens to our beloved dead? Do they retain personalities? Are they forever lost to us... or are they supporting us, just in some way we can't always perceive? The answers to these questions from DH are the kind that would be of comfort to those who grieve, and presumably comforted the author as well. So -- good & bad. Beyond the entertainment value, of course, which (despite some writing/editing shortcomings) remains substantial. I think a lot of us wanted this saga to be MORE than entertaining... indeed it was perceived by many as such... and on that level I don't think in the end it was wholly satisfying. (But what piece of fiction could be wholly satisfying, universally? I bring my biases/beliefs/hopes to it, you bring yours....) There's enough discordant stuff in HP7 to really give me pause, and stop me from a wholehearted endorsement. There's enough good stuff remaining to stop me from a wholesale rejection. I didn't want to finish the series feeling ambivalent about it, but I guess that's where I am, for now. However, I DO acknowledge that keeping so many fans entertained, engaged, and passionate for so many years (and probably years to come) is a considerable achievement that shouldn't be denied. Julie H, chicago From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Aug 17 01:05:35 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:05:35 -0400 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? (was Re: Appeal of the st Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175615 Judy: "And then, there's the whole issue of predestination and "the Elect":" Well, JKR is a Presbyterian. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 01:26:00 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:26:00 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175616 > Nita replies: > In Potterverse, things are the other way around. Either it's just OK > to shut down compassion (Ginny is so much better than Cho because she > doesn't cry! Let's double-cross the goblin! Crucio!), or even it's The > Right Thing To Do (ignoring the baby-soul, gloating over various stuff). zgirnius: Not my main point, but I did not want to let it pass - Ginny's lack of crying does not have to do with a lack of compassion. She does not cry *for herself*. The young man she loves is going to war, and she does not get all weepy and woe is me-ish about it, and Harry appreciates that. I think he figures if he was still with Cho, he would be treated to a hysterical display about her being left alone, yadda yadda (probably a bit unfair to Cho, but Harry is busy thinking nice thoughts about the girl of his dreams , I would be pleased if my guy thought about his ex a bit unfairly in a similar manner). But in DH, the hero is compassionate just like the guy in the Russian folk tale you cite, and the recipients of this compassion come to his aid, just as the animals do in the fairy tale. Kreacher is a notable example. When Harry manages to be compassionate to him, he learns valuable information and gains a useful ally who provides material aid in the Horcrux hunt and joins the final battle on Harry's side. Snape is another example. If Harry had walked away like Voldemort, or had gloated from afar, he would never have gotten the information he needed that only Snape had. Instead, he went to the dying Snape, and was duly rewarded. (Snape, of course, had already helped Harry in other ways he did not then at all know about, for other reasons - but his final act for Harry was made possible by Harry's compassionate instincts). Harry did plan to double-cross Griphook, but to be in a position to do so, he first needed to get him on his side! His rescue of the goblin initially, and the grief and respect Harry showed for the dead House-Elf Dobby, impressed Griphook enough to make him a temporary, if not totally reliable, ally, without whose aid the break-in at Gringotts would have failed. Harry shows compassion for the Malfoys (most notably, by saving Draco's life). Draco's mother returns the favor. Just the examples that come to mind... > Nita: > Another thing I like about such fairy tales is that the awesomeness is > usually divided between the Pretty and Clever, yet vulnerable Witch > and the Brave and Kind, yet sometimes blundering Hero. Yeah, the > gender roles are old and rigid (and, curiously, not that different > from JKR's), but at least there's some balance. zgirnius: Are you saying this is lacking in DH? Hermione seems Clever enough for me, Harry is Brave and Kind, and we also have Ron for more Brave, and also Vulnerable, with both males managing to blunder. (And hey, this mixes up the gender roles! ) > Nita: > Well, thanks for that. I hope JKR really didn't intend any gloating there. zgirnius: Nah, she did not. I admit my reaction is probably not indicative...but if even Alla did not gloat, we were *not* meant to. From juli17 at aol.com Fri Aug 17 01:30:40 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:30:40 -0000 Subject: Appeal of the story to the reader WAS: Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175617 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > houyhnhnm: > > > > There *is* something mean spirited in the books. The stories > > > > appeal to the mean in readers and for some they are not nearly > > > > mean enough, as we have ample evidence. > > > > Jen: What do you mean here, houhnhnm? I'm intepreting it as a > > > pretty negative message about readers who like the story but > > > don't want to go any further if I'm misinterpreting or reading > > > more into it than you intended. > > SSSusan: > Wow. I hope there was a different meaning behind this statement, too, > than how I read it. :( > > I am a lot of things, but mean is a thing I don't recall ever having > been accused of being (other than from the mouths of my own small > children, natch, and other parents out there know what I mean about > that, heh). Nor is meanness something I would ever identify as a > characteristic of myself. And yet I still adore this series as a > whole and appreciate what DH gave me, even if it wasn't exactly > enough in a couple of areas. > > Appeals to the meanness in people? Wow. I mean... I don't know how > else to react to that. They just DON'T appeal to me in that way. So > I do hope I've misunderstood your remark, Houyhnhnm, I surely do. Julie: I assumed Houyhnhnm was referring to the meanness inherent in our human natures, which to me is similar to vindictiveness or vengefulness. I think we all have a bit of that in us, and we've all had moments where we've been angry and said or done something just to be mean. And don't we all feel vengeful at times against those who have wronged us, even if we usually don't act on it. I know I have, and I do not consider myself a mean or vindictive person at all. But I have had my moments, and I think Houyhnhnm meant the books appeal to that part of us. My expectation throughout the first six books is that the inherent "message" in JKR's books was one of forgiveness and love, of tolerance and the need to see and value our commonalities rather than our differences...to love our enemies, as it were. It's something I believe in and I think the world needs to believe in if we are all ever going to live together without constant violence and war. And, like Houyhnhnm, I don't think this is the message JKR delivered in the end. Which is completely her right, BTW. There were signs in earlier books, that righteous vengeance was a theme too (and I think someone pointed out how DH ended more with an Old Testament vibe of smiting evil with righteous vengeance than the forgiving and loving your enemies message of Jesus in the New Testament). I expected the forgiveness/tolerance/love theme to prevail but I do feel that a more divisive righteous vengeance/ you're with us or you're against us theme took precedence. It wasn't what I expected, but it is what it is, so I accept it. And I still like the books for what they are, even if I wished they'd been a little more. Julie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 01:42:03 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:42:03 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf/ Appeal of the story to the reader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175618 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: > Finally, I do think the Prank was worse than the Dark curses. At least in so > far as the information we actually have. Again, I'm assuming the Dark curses > didn't cause serious permanent damage or death, or we would have heard of > students being expelled for using them. Alla: leaving aside the ambiguousness of the Dark Magic definition in Potterverse, I was convinced that the horror with which Lily spoke about them doing something to her friend meant that some sort of permanent damage was done. And if permanent damage was done to the girl, I would consider it to be worse - this particular incident, not Dark curses in general, which I agree ambiguous. JMO. Nita: > Well, thanks for that. I hope JKR really didn't intend any gloating there. Alla: I do not know whether she intended or not, but for me satisfaction came later when I realised how fitting Snape's death was ( IMO). I am just saying that I did not feel like gloating when I read the scene. Nita: >> Wow, I've never even considered the possibility of watching horror > movies for the sake of gloating... That's an interesting idea. I don't > watch them either, but I've always thought that people watch them to > a) get scared, b) laugh at the plot, c) yell at the protagonists not > to do whatever they're going to do. Alla: Not for the sake of gloating per se, but basically for what va32h said ( I guess I should add action movies here - some of them) - to imagine doing to mean people what you cannot do in RL. I do not think I do that when I read about Potterverse. Alla: > > > Just as Voldemort does not get it or does not want to get what Harry > > is telling him. IMO. > Nita: > Well, I don't know. We've practically seen Voldie grow up. We've > concluded that he's probably a sociopath (i.e., not right in the head, > incapable of empathy or remorse). We've been told by DD to pity him. > And then we should enjoy taunting him, that emotionally stunted > wretch? It didn't work for me :/ Alla: I enjoyed watching him getting his just deserts and how Harry gets there. It definitely worked for me. As I said, my point is that I do not think that enjoying reading about villains being punished appeals to my inner meanness, that's all. Nita: > I suppose you read it as a different kind of story. As houyhnhnm said, > one is free to pick and choose in this series :) Alla: Different from what? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175616 Alla: What Zara said ;) ( in non-Snape parts :) > Then Alla: > > > > That's the thing though. NOT all readers would consider those > moments > > mean. Some will consider them **just** and to me it is a huge > > difference, you know? > > va32h: > > I think the huge difference is what side of the conflict you happen > to be on. If you are Draco's allies, then yes, turning him into a > slug (or a ferret, or punching him in the nose) is mean. > > I doubt Umbridge has any fans in the HP universe or in the reader > universe, but if she did, I'm sure they would consider throwing her > into a nest of centaurs and then triggering her PTSD by mimicking > hoofbeats to be terribly mean. > > Now I happen to loathe Umbridge, so I don't care if it is mean to > torment her, she deserves it. And I think that's what houyhnhm was > getting at. JKR creates these detestable characters who do despicable > things, and then lets her audience have the vicarious thrill of > glorying in their richly deserved comeuppance. > > We don't get to do this in real life. If we try, we usually end up in > a great deal of trouble. Alla: See above what I wrote to Nita, but I also want to add - of course it matters to a degree - that is why I put that our definitions of evil differ sometimes. But IMO only to a degree. Putting aside Draco and some other examples, which we may disagree on, I think Umbridge is a perfect one. You said it yourself - Umbridge is unlikely to have many fans if any ( sorry to the fans of the character if they exist). She is a torturing sadist, isn't she? We can agree on that? I do not think I want her to get what is coming because I cannot do it in RL. In RL I would report somebody like her, testify, do everything I can to make sure she ends up in jail. That would be RL justice. But this is not the story about conventional types of justice, no? So, whatever Umbridge gets - wrath of the centaurs or anything, I think is justice and of course I am glad that she does, you know? From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 01:14:13 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Link to JKR Dateline Interview (was Re: The deaths of Tonks and Lupin (was: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape )) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <97593.12144.qm@web55008.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175619 Lanval: > You got me at a total loss there. I neither know what to make of > Tonks's death, nor of the purpose named by JKR. If she wanted to > show a happy orphan (maybe that was important to her? did she feel > she had showed orphans, or rather the people who adopt/raise them, > in a a bit too negative a light?) she didn't have too many choices; > it was either Teddy, or for Bill and Fleur to have a child and then > die. There aren't too many young couples around that we've *met*. > But -- still. Potioncat >JKR said in her Dateline interview that she considered every death >carefully. She wanted to mirror Harry's state in this case (IRRC). >She was going to kill Arthur, but he was the last of Harry's father >figures and she felt that was too much. >I don't know if there is a link for this interview, but I felt a lot >better after seeing it. Knowing why she wrote some of the scenes gave >a different perspective. Here's a link to MSNBC's webpage that has the interview and links to other NBC/JKR stuff. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20001720 Christy --------------------------------- Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at gmail.com Fri Aug 17 02:04:24 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:04:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708161904j75b418d4i6b2851b73897feeb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175621 Lanval: Ah, back to the Shrieking Shack. :) I admit I was surprised too to have the infamous prank happen before SWM. I'm moreover having a hard time finding anything definitve in the books that made us all believe it was a sixth year event? Anyone find it yet? But I'm rather glad. For one thing it tells us without doubt that what happened in the SS was no life-shattering moment, no turning point for anyone. Snape? A mere couple of weeks, if at all, after it happened, he's no traumatized lamb. He seems more upset about Lily defending James (and calling Snape 'ungrateful'. Ouch. *g*) than about the danger he was in. No, it's all about exposing James & Co for not being 'as wonderful as everyone thinks', about James fancying Lily. Remus, the other victim? In SWM, we see a calm boy, worried about his OWLS. He jokes with his friends about werewolf questions. When Sirius wishes it was full moon, he says, 'darkly': "You might," and asks him to test him on some stuff. That is all. No estrangement, no near-hatred, no unforgiving anguish. Seems like Fandom and fanfic writers got that one SO wrong. I did too. (On an interesting side note, being that 99.9% of fanfic writers and readers seem to be women... maybe we really, really don't understand how the minds of teenage boys work?) Debbie: I don't believe that we can draw any conclusions about the effect of the Prank on the participants from their demeanor during SWM. Lupin behaves much differently from the rest of the Marauders in that scene. He at least pretends to ignore all the goings-on, including James' snitch-catching demonstration and Peter's adoration as well as the tormenting of Snape. The only thing that makes Lupin actually look up from his book is Sirius' expression of his desire for the full moon. Lupin quickly changes the subject by asking for testing assistance, but the use of the word 'darkly' to describe his reaction suggests to me that there is lingering concern in his mind. Considering how their last adventure turned out, Lupin doesn't seem nearly so keen on going on the next month's adventure, which he usually eagerly looked forward to. I never thought there was a big falling out, between Sirius and Lupin, just a little more wariness on Lupin's part. Lupin is clearly an introvert, and Lupin may have been just quiet enough to make it plausible for Sirius to believe -- since they knew someone was passing information -- that it might have been Lupin. Lupin remained close enough to them to know that Sirius was supposed to be secret keeper, yet there was just enough doubt to make either a credible traitor to the other. Lanval: To come back to your question, maybe we overestimate the power of the secret, too? Snape, while not telling Lily "I was right! He IS a werewolf!" nevertheless presses his 'theory', as he has repeatedly done before. Lily? Is just not interested, even though Lupin lives in her House. Her reaction is rather: So? Why are you so obsessed with them? After all they don't use Dark Magic, like your friends do! Debbie: Snape was still quite obsessed with the Marauders and their escapades, as he continues to press his 'theory' on Lily despite having been forbidden to reveal the secret. I'm sure he thought his sneaking out at night was legitimate (as Draco undoubtedly did in PS/SS) because he was sussing out wrongdoers, and it backfired on him. like so many things do, because there really was a dangerous werewolf at the end of the tunnel, and instead of catching James Potter in wrongdoing, Snape managed to make a lifesaver out of him. We have no idea how, or if, punishments were meted out, but we know that Snape attributed the worst motives to Sirius ("attempted murder") on the basis that he knew what Snape would find. Based on that assessment, it doesn't matter to our understanding whether anyone was punished. Whatever those punishments might have been, they would not have been enough for Snape. The characters who seemed completely unaffected by the Prank and its aftermath were James and Sirius. They felt free to torment Snape (perhaps as payback) only a few days later. The implication is that the Prank had a significant impact on at least Lupin and Snape. We didn't even mention Lily, whose opinion of James' lifesaving act must have raised him several levels in her estimation. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Aug 17 02:20:55 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:20:55 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175622 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rowena_grunnionffitch" wrote: > > Mind you I think the Grangers are going to be seriously angry with > their daughter when she looks them up in Australia. Parents are > supposed to look after their children not vice-versa! Even when said > parents are dentists and the child a witch facing a magical war to the > death. > Allie: Nah. She'll just modify their memories, so that they think they DID discuss the matter and they DID agree to go to Australia. Memory modification seems like something that ought to be immensely complex (on the order of Polyjuice Potion), yet it seems Hermione had no problem modifying the **lifelong** memories of TWO people. I realize she's the brightest witch of her age, but come on... From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Aug 16 23:23:17 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:23:17 -0400 Subject: Why fly when you can apparate? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175623 "sonjaaiston: At first, I didn't think you needed a wand to apparate. Then, when Harry, Ron, and Hermione were at the MOM and helped the Muggle-borns escape, Harry said, "Who's got wands?" Then, "Okay, all of you who haven't got wands need to attach yourself to somebody who has. We'll need to be fast before they stop us." Soon after going through the lifts and the toilets, they apparated. I took this to mean they needed a wand to apparate." I took that to mean that if they got caught the ones with wands could defend those without. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Meliss9900 at aol.com Fri Aug 17 02:25:52 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:25:52 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry the author (wrongly credited passage) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175624 When I wrote my original reply to this thread I inadvertently credited the quoted passage to colebiancardi. I apologize. The person whose passage I quoting (and replying to) was kennclark. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Aug 17 02:41:34 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:41:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What things that you wanted did you get? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C50ADE.4070604@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175625 guzuguzu wrote: > With the inferi guarding the locket in HBP, I thought that in DH Harry > would have to face more, possibly including someone he recognized > (someone like Cedric). When Voldemort cracked Dumbledore's tomb, I was > afraid it was going to be him, foreshadowed by the dust-dolly > Dumbledore that was guarding Grimmauld Place. Bart: Although it was not mentioned in the epilogue, I suspect that soon after Morty's death, Umbridge becomes a dust Dolly. Bart From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Aug 17 02:44:18 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:44:18 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175626 > > Geoff: > > > I'm a bit late coming back on this one but I'm > > > away from my own computer as I am staying with > > > my daughter, admiring our first grandchild and > > > having to fight my two teenage step-granddaughters > > > for computer time!! Potioncat: Congratulations on becoming a grandfather!!!!!! I'm impressed that with two teens in the house, you got any computer time at all. > > Geoff: Marry in due course, yes, but be > like many of the present younger generation who may not > marry until their late twenties or early thirties which > lets him have some time as a free agent. Potioncat: None of the shipping was of any interest to me at all and I'm still a bit surprised that JKR has so many characters match up in school. Luna's marrying later in life seems more on target than all these kids setting up housekeeping. >Geoff: > The 0.5 was Draco. I always argued that Draco was not > beyond redemption and hoped that, after the uncertainty > he displayed at the Tower in HBP that he might be > tempted into moving more obviously towards the side of > light. I feel that he did move up to a point and Narcissa > also helped Harry - although I suspect it was not out > of altruism in any way. His curt nod to Harry at the > railway station in the epilogue gave me some > encouragement, but I would have valued a little more - > hence 0.5. Potioncat: I thought the whole Tower scene was a set up for Draco's redemption. DD's "mercy" speech made me feel guilty that I had only thought of Draco as a toerag and had never given any consideration to him. I was sure he would make an important change. DH left me conpletely confused about him. I don't think he knew which side he was on. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Aug 17 02:54:31 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:54:31 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175627 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "guzuguzu" wrote: > > On a somewhat tangent, here's something that I really expected, and > really didn't want to happen, and was glad NOT to have happened: > > With the inferi guarding the locket in HBP, I thought that in DH Harry > would have to face more, possibly including someone he recognized > (someone like Cedric). When Voldemort cracked Dumbledore's tomb, I was > afraid it was going to be him, foreshadowed by the dust-dolly > Dumbledore that was guarding Grimmauld Place. I was happy that was all > just my imagination running wild, because that would have been > monumentally creepy! Potioncat: Me too! I was really afraid we'd see Inferi Moody since they didn't find his body. And, like you, I thought LV might have done something with DD'S body. I was very glad it didn't happen. I thought we might see RAB, since I was sure he was in the lake. So what was up with all the talk about Inferi in HBP? Why did JKR give us that DADA lesson about Inferi? I thought it'd be very important for someone to know that the animated body wasn't the person at all. From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Aug 17 02:55:21 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:55:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175628 PS page 300 canon: < I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt that would make him and your father even. Then he could go back to hating your father's memory in peace.>> WHAT???? If you believe (and I do) that JKR had the whole thing mapped out from the beginning, this makes no sense. Dumbledore clearly knew that Snape was protecting Harry out of love for Lily, and the promise he made Dumbledore after she died. We have seen Dumbledore redirect Harry, and lie via omission, but I can't recall another outright lie like that. We have NO REASON to think that Snape felt anything of the sort. Allie (who still worships the old man, but finds this a little disappointing) From va32h at comcast.net Fri Aug 17 03:05:54 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:05:54 -0000 Subject: Inferi (was Re: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175629 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "guzuguzu" wrote: With the inferi guarding the locket in HBP, I thought that in DH Harry would have to face more, possibly including someone he recognized(someone like Cedric). When Voldemort cracked Dumbledore's tomb, I was afraid it was going to be him, foreshadowed by the dust- dolly Dumbledore that was guarding Grimmauld Place. I was happy that was all just my imagination running wild, because that would have been monumentally creepy! va32h: Monumentally creepy or incredibly awesome? I think both. One of JKR's strengths is her ability to come up with some truly terrifying imagery. Voldemort's eyeballs in the locket? Nagini emerging from Bathilda's rotting corpse? I absolutely hate horror movies, but I found those passages both fascinating and sickening. That's what I imagined Dark Magic to be. > Potioncat: > Me too! I was really afraid we'd see Inferi Moody since they didn't find his body. And, like you, I thought LV might have done something with DD'S body. I was very glad it didn't happen. I thought we might see RAB, since I was sure he was in the lake. > > So what was up with all the talk about Inferi in HBP? Why did JKR give us that DADA lesson about Inferi? I thought it'd be very important for someone to know that the animated body wasn't the person at all. va32h: I wondered that too (why bother bringing up Inferi if she wasn't going to use them). Maybe she just had too many action packed escapes already. Despite the lengthy camping scenes, I really think DH has more action and dramatic escapades than any other book. Still - she could have slipped one in the Battle of Hogwarts - every other type of creature was in there, why not? va32h From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 03:07:06 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:07:06 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175630 > Mim: > > I think that this guess has hinged on Snape saying that Sirius was > capable of murder at the age of sixteen in PoA. So Sirius was 16 in > his fifth year or JKR had an "Oh, maths" moment. Mike: Since 10/12 of the student population (assuming uniform distribution of birthdays) turn 16 during their fifth year at Hogwarts, I think JKR got this one right. > Lanval > > He seems more upset about Lily defending James (and > calling Snape 'ungrateful'. Ouch. *g*) than about the danger he > was in. No, it's all about exposing James & Co for not being 'as > wonderful as everyone thinks', about James fancying Lily. > > Mim: > And Snape knowing that Sirius tried to feed him to a werewolf might > have some reason to think that Lily needs the heads up. Mike: "Feed him to a werewolf"? The way I read DH, and it seems many others, Snape knew what was waiting for him. Snape: "There's something weird about that Lupin. Where does he keep going?" and Every month at the full moon?" Lily: "I know your theory." As precedent, what else "weird" happens to people during a full moon besides turning into a werewolf, in the Potterverse? I'm sorry, picking certain plants?! I think not. What was Sirius' crime? How did he feed Snape to a werewolf? "Sirius thought it would be -- er -- amusing, to tell Snape all he had to do was prod the knot ..." And this qualifies as feeding does it? About the only thing fed was Snape's desire to get the Marauders expelled, imo. We all shuddered at Sirius' cold-heartedness when he said, "It served him right... Sneaking around, trying to find out what we were up to ..." Well, it comes off in a different light after Snape's saying: "What about the stuff Potter and his mates get up to?" and "They sneak out at night." and "I'm just trying to show you they're not as wonderful as everyone seems to think they are." Apparently, Snape was sneaking out himself, was trying to catch the Marauders, and got caught by his own hubris. > Lanval: > > (On an interesting side note, being that 99.9% of fanfic writers > and readers seem to be women... maybe we really, really don't > understand how the minds of teenage boys work?) Mike: Nope, you don't. But take solace, we don't get you between the ages of, ohh I'd say, 2 to 92. Before and after those years, however, we have you gals down cold. > Mim: > > Snape already knows his secret because of Sirius and NO there is > no definitive proof that Snape absolutely 100% knew that at the end > of the tunnel he would meet a transformed werewolf. He might have > thought that Remus was restrained. Or that his werewolf theory was > wrong. Mike: I find none of these alternative explanations credible, not just yours, also including some others put forward upthread. Per the canon quotes above, I've no doubt what Sev's theory was. And excuse me, 'he might have thought...that his werewolf theory was wrong'. Then how would it be his theory? I.e. who proposes a theory they think is wrong? > Mim: > There are many things that Snape might be in the books but > stupid is not one of them and there are pranks and there are > criminal acts. Mike: Seems he was both stupid and gullible regarding this prank, this time. Besides, we're not talking about intelligence here. We're talking about a lack of social awareness and some naivete, combined with some hubris, that allows Snape to believe that Sirius isn't sharp enough to pull a prank on him. You know what? He *did* deserve it. LOL. > Mim: > Lily doesn't know at the time that Remus is a werewolf. There is no > canonical evidence of that at all. Mike: Umm, yes there is, I quoted it above. > Mim: > I'm not saying that Snape thinks Lily should disapprove of > the Marauders, she already does anyway. But he does mention his > theory once more and my theory here is that his motivation is to > protect Lily. It might not be, maybe he's just being defensive > because she thinks his friends are jerks and he wants to whine to > someone about that Lupin who gets away with everything. But as far > as he knows Lily doesn't know Remus is a werewolf and he doesn't > want his friend to become werewolf food. Mike: IMO, this theory sounds like excuse making on Snape's behalf. It sounds like Snape has told Lily about his werewolf theory and more than once. Whether Lily believes him is a different story. But that whole exchange doesn't read like Snape trying to protect Lily. It reads like Snape trying to put down the Marauders in Lily's eyes. IMO, of course. > Mim: > > And I don't see why the Marauders had to add to all the dangerous > things in the Forbidden Forest. Yes, it's a tale of a great > friendship, all for one and one for all. Lupin had endured > transformations since his fifth year, did they have to become fun > too? I have a serious problem with them as I really don't think > they viewed anyone outside their little group as worthy of even > being alive. Or not getting mauled. But I guess most Marauders fans > fancy themselves as part of their little gang rather than Lupin- > food so it's good. Mike: Oh, you bet. I've posted before that I would so have run with the Marauders in my teen years. And that I had my own adventures in the RW when I was a teen. It's like Lanval said above, you don't get the mind of a teenage boy, "of a certain caliber". (A phrase I've used before) I see the other side of the coin, I know it was dangerous and "wrong". But that's not in the mind of a teenage boy, and Lupin confirmed it in PoA. I read the HP series as action-adventure-fantasy series, so I have no problem enjoying the Marauders having their fun. YMMV. > Mim: > > Not part of it in any way? James had heard what Sirius had done. If > he did nothing and it came out that he knew and if Remus did indeed > maul Snape how on earth would he not share even some responsibility? Mike: S'okay if I let you answer this? I'm pulling this up from further in this post: > Mim: > And saying that Snape endangered another student is just nuts. > James didn't have to save him. Mike again: Seems James was damned if he did and damned if he didn't in this scenario, doesn't it? > Mim: > After he has tried to use said friend as a murder weapon. > > > Lanval: > Canon, please? "Murder"? > > Mim: > > Canon says that Sirius wanted to get rid of Snape. Mike: I'll repeat Lanval's request: Canon, please? Where did you read "Sirius wanted to get rid of Snape."? > Mim: > > I don't know what kind of kids you know and the wizarding world is > definitely one notch above ours in terms of danger but I find it > somewhat sociopathic that every month for 2 and a half years he > would just go out and do this, regardless of who he might kill or > infect. > > But JKR seems to think it's the height of cool so I'll leave it > alone. Mike: Except you didn't "leave it alone". And, yeah, the Marauders thought they were the Height of Cool. And many teenage boys would read it that way. And, ostensibly, that was half of JKR's target audience. This series may have morphed from children stories to teen/young adult stories, but I really don't think JKR ever envisioned a "Harry Potter for Grownups" when she began this series. > Lanval: > And yes, he [Snape] is a bit of a jerk, for defending Mulciber and > Avery, who have performed Dark Magic on a girl. Which Lily finds > MUCH worse than the prank (and it probably was). According to her it > was "...evil.*Evil*, Sev!" Mike: Right! And Sev doesn't hear her. "Harry doubted Snape had even heard her strictures on Mulciber and Avery. The moment she insulted James Potter, his whole body had relaxed, ..." It all follows the theme of this conversation, Snape deflecting everything about his mates into reflection on "Potter and his mates". Remember, we're talking about a teenage boy here. > Mim: > > Remus who the others thought might be the spy, Peter who > delivered them to Voldemort, James who did such a fantastic job > protecting his family and Sirius who took off in a suicide mission > after Peter instead of protecting Harry and who had such a > spectacular meltdown he let everyone think he had betrayed his best > friend. Mike: I agree with you on the probable Remus-the-spy angle, although I don't remember any canon that assures us this was the case. And Peter, yeah, uhh... yeah. I don't buy the sarcastic remark about James. Both he and Lily must have thought the Fidelius was the ultimate protection as neither was carrying their wand around. But could you give me another example wherein someone was able to fend off Voldemort after he had decided their lives needed to be over? Not counting Harry, of course. Because, until you can, I'll go with Hagrids words: "No one ever lived after he decided ter kill 'em, no one except you, an' he'd killed some o' the best witches an' wizards of the age..." Sirius - suicide mission? Going after Peter? Could you explain that reasoning? > Mim: > Believe it or not I'm not gloating about this as only a deranged > Snapefan might. I felt truly sorry for them, for Sirius' > recklessness, James' blind faith to his friends bordering on > stupidity, Remus' cowardice and even Peter's duplicity. None of > them ever really grew up. Mike: Yeah, Sirius got such a good deal from Barty Crouch Sr., because it was all his fault that the Potters got killed, wasn't it? But how was going after Peter reckless? In fact, how was his idea to switch the SK to Peter reckless? Bad,... yes in hindsight, but reckless? "You need your friends, Harry" What makes you think James had "blind faith"? Being fooled by Peter does not qualify as blind faith in my opinion. Besides, Sirius was every bit as faithful to James as to vindicate blind faith in him. It seems the same could have been said about Remus. Remus may be weak, but his weakness has usually been couched in terms of his desire to keep his friends and by extension, keep his friends trust. Growing up? James didn't get much chance to disprove your assertion. Sirius got 12 years in the company of Dementors, that he didn't deserve. You don't have to cut him some slack for that, I do. And I just plain don't buy that this assertion applies to Remus. You can say what you like about Peter, I don't care about him. I will continue to defend three out of the four Marauders to my dying day. Were they ideal role models, hell no. But I don't and won't agree that they were anywhere near as bad as fandom has painted them. Mike From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Aug 17 03:56:33 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 23:56:33 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Inconsistencies (Was: Hermione's parents) In-Reply-To: <2795713f0708161340i2ac9afcuefef7396ba17241@mail.gmail.com> References: <543149.32665.qm@web30814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <2795713f0708161340i2ac9afcuefef7396ba17241@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46C51C71.6080105@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175631 Lynda Cordova wrote: > they did so. Just as I extrapolate that they, eat, sleep, bathe, without > having to be told the minute details of everything they do. Bart: But, according to canon, the only time they go to the bathroom is to make potions and invade the Chamber of Secrets. And Harry only bathes once in seven years!!!! Bart From marion11111 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 04:08:13 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:08:13 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175632 > Potioncat: > None of the shipping was of any interest to me at all and I'm still a > bit surprised that JKR has so many characters match up in school. > Luna's marrying later in life seems more on target than all these > kids setting up housekeeping. > > marion11111: Now that I think about it, I don't personally know anyone who married their high school sweetheart. Of course, with only one wizard high school per country, i guess you'd pretty much have to marry someone from school. Or go abroad to find love. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 04:12:23 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:12:23 -0000 Subject: Draco in DH (WAS Re: What things that you wanted did you get?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175633 > Potioncat: > I thought the whole Tower scene was a set up for Draco's redemption. > DD's "mercy" speech made me feel guilty that I had only thought of > Draco as a toerag and had never given any consideration to him. I was > sure he would make an important change. DH left me conpletely > confused about him. I don't think he knew which side he was on. zgirnius I had similar thoughts, though I am nonetheless happy with Draco's character arc in DH on reread. (I did not trust my initial reading for this because in the most important parts of the book for Draco, so much else was happening that had me on the edge of my seat that I ignored him a bit; I paid special attention to him my second time through). It seems to me that Rowling had something different in mind than Draco 'changing sides' for his redemption. He doesn't. He is not on Harry/ the Order's/ the Good Guys' side in DH. Nor, however, is he on Voldemort's anymore, in his heart. He is *with* Voldemort, but then Voldemort has taken over the home of Draco's parents as his HQ and holds them hostage, so Draco hardly has a choice in the matter. This does put him in a different (and worse) position than, say, our heroes, who know that their loved ones are in danger and might be killed, because for Draco this is a certainty if he steps over the line. He does try to help the Trio on one occasion ("Malfoy Manor") when he pretends not to recognize them. But he does show himself to be in some ways a good and brave person (or at least, better and braver than the first 5 books would have led most readers to believe) - in the Room of Requirement scene of "The Battle of Hogwarts". Not because he does anything to further the side of 'good', but because, in the face of a deadly danger to himself, he nonetheless tries to save his helpless friend, a choice which would have cost him his life had Harry and Ron not saved him and Goyle from the flames. I see two points to the Malfoy story in DH. First, that even in an epic confrontation of Good and Evil, the enemy has a human face. The bad guys love their families, their friends, etc. and are capable of brave and good acts even while remaining on the 'wrong' side. Narcissa's action at the end of DH is similar. She does it for Draco, of course, not for the victory of the Good Side. But that is hardly an evil motive. These actions make these characters stand in contrast to characters like the Carrows or Bellatrix Lestrange. The second point is Love. The Malfoys take actions out of love for one another that contribute to the victory of the good side. For which the author rewards them with survival, and a return to normalcy (Draco's appearance in the Epilogue, a family man like our hero). From marion11111 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 04:15:14 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:15:14 -0000 Subject: Inconsistencies (Was: Hermione's parents) In-Reply-To: <46C51C71.6080105@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175634 > Lynda Cordova wrote: > > they did so. Just as I extrapolate that they, eat, sleep, bathe, without > > having to be told the minute details of everything they do. > > Bart: > But, according to canon, the only time they go to the bathroom is to > make potions and invade the Chamber of Secrets. And Harry only bathes > once in seven years!!!! > marion11111: Well, I guess we can thank Moaning Myrtle for that. I would have run out to the woods everytime I needed to "go" rather than have her popping in. From cbroer51 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 03:43:17 2007 From: cbroer51 at yahoo.com (cbroer51) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:43:17 -0000 Subject: Harry lives... OK? In-Reply-To: <368138.90084.qm@web32501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175635 > argentumangela's sig: > > "Fairytales are are more than real. Not because they tell us that > dragons exist but because they tell us that they can be defeated." > [GK Chesterton] Love the quote! In my opinion it can be quite true too. Love the book, and thought parts of the Epilogue was okay - in parts. The interaction between Harry and Albus was interesting, but also gave some information as to how Harry saw things that had occured, I liked that. But I felt it need more work. I would have like that part to give a bit of how the following year changed things for the group. [:)] cbroer51 From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Fri Aug 17 05:12:13 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:12:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C9AEA44EA0D338-2A0-3624@FWM-M15.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175636 SSSusan: In my case, I got so much that I'd hoped for! To wit: * Harry alive; in fact, I got that Harry's BELIEF that he had to sacrifice himself and his WILLINGNESS to do so out of love would somehow be 'enough' and that he'd not actually have to do so in the end [this was probably my biggest thing]. * OBHWF in the pairings of Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermy. * DDM!Snape, including that DD was weakening & dying throughout the year, that Snape & DD had talked in advance about Snape having to kill him, and the 'command' on the tower. * I even, though I didn't THINK I could like it terribly (but actually did), got LOLLIPOPS (or TEWWW EWWWW). What I didn't get were: * confirmation of what happened during the missing 24 hours (bother). * both twins alive * an ending which was 'elegantly simple,' a phrase I'd used many times over the years. I mean, with the elder wand complexity and that bundle under the chair at King's Cross and all of that, it was certainly NOT simple... though I suppose 'elegant' is still in the mix as an arguable point. Anyone else care to bite? ? Sandy: I'll bite. I got the three things I wanted the most. Harry ALIVE, Voldy DEAD and OBHWF, meaning Harry and Ginny and Ron and Hermione. What I didn't get was Harry NOT being a Horcrux, although it wound up working out okay, and the Weasley twins together. It was my hope that they would both survive, but if she felt like she had to kill one I wish she had killed both. Even after reading the book twice I still can't reconcile myself to George without Fred:-( Sandy . ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Fri Aug 17 05:26:44 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:26:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Trio Alone (was Re: Hermione's Enchanted Coins WAS: Communication) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C9AEA655820940-2A0-3651@FWM-M15.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175637 va32h: How do other readers feel? Did you expect/want it to be another Trio journey or would you have wanted more involvement from the other characters. Do you think Dumbledore's decision to put this task in the hands of *just* the trio was a wise one? Sandy: My daughter-in-law and I were talking about this just tonight. I never really gave it much thought at first, but as the search drug on and on I felt that they should have sought help. How nice of DD to leave the Trio with this gargantuan task without so much as a hint of how and where to do it. And then, just for kicks, he adds to the confusion by throwing the Hallows into the mix. I am very angry with DD and he has lost my high esteem. It took me a while to come to this conclusion but my daughter-in-law felt that way from the get-go. She feels it was totally stupid to put all of this on the Trio alone. va32h, longing desperately for topics that do not remotely involve Sirius or Snape. Sandy: Amen, sister! Sandy ? ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 05:28:23 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:28:23 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175638 > Sydney: > > Jumping in here because I had the exact same reaction as Lizzyben, so > it's not just her. The symbolism in that scene was all kinds of > weird-- two guys congratulating each other on their love and > compassion while ignoring a crying wounded baby?! > > If that baby is the soul-piece that Voldemort put in Harry, it gets > all kind of messed up. Because, okay, this is a crying wounded baby > that's been inside Harry since his parents were murdered. Inner child, > right? I mean on the symbolic level of course-- surely that was pretty > explicit in OoP that Harry's rages and connection to Voldemort are > symbolic of teen angst and hormones or whatever? I mean, that's what > I thought it was. > So what should you do with your wounded inner child? IGNORE IT. Ignore > the crying and the pain! It's disgusting! It's not a part of you. Do > you hear me Harry? The flayed thing in agony that's been inside you > for 16 years has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. When the crying gets too > much, just beat the crap out of some Bad People. It'll make you feel > better!! > > And that's when I thought, "This series is WHACKED." lizzyben: Sydney, thanks for bringing up yet another level of symbolic weirdness. Yeah, that's totally what DD seems to be saying - ignore that pain! Stuff it under the chair! Don't cry! And this seems to also connect w/the message that expressing emotions or sadness is just wrong. Other people have brought up that Slytherins like Draco & Snape cry and become emotional under stress, while Gryffindors tend to get angry & explosive. Slytherin is the house of "water" & emotion, and it's also the house of evil? Emotions are evil? And even though "love" is supposed to be a central message, it's actually never handled in a healthy way - and Slytherins also are assigned all the unhealthy aspects of love. Love is evil? Empathy is evil? If JKR just wanted to make a house for bad guys, she should've just called it that. But when she starts assigning elemental traits & emotions to a house of bad guys, it starts associating certain normal human qualities with something evil & wrong. And the worst part is, symbolically this means that the Bad People *are also* the "wounded inner child" too - and the best way to stop them from crying is to beat them up. It's so whacked on so many levels. It's like an explosion of awful. > Sydney: > > But Voldemort never could take Harry up on the offer to feel remorse-- > he's a psychopath. We spent half the last book establishing that. > That's why the offer was so easy to make. There's no suggestion that > Harry would ever have to do something about it, just like he never had > to have a normal conversation with Draco or come to terms with a Snape > who wasn't safetly dead. lizzyben: Well, this also seems to tie into the way that the Shadow house was simply purged from the narrative. It's almost like JKR was trying to make sure Harry never really had to interact w/these characters or actually integrate the Houses. This seemed to be very important, for whatever reason. Sending the message that Slytherin=evil was more important than character development or even plot. Sydney: > I really hated that 'remorse' bit in the Harry/Voldemort convo because > it actually came out like a taunt.. 'ha ha you're a psycopath and > can't feel remorse and you're going to hell. Die sucka!' I can roll > with that stuff in R-rated action movies (especially when the hero > kicks ass on account of his hard work and mad ass-kicking skills, not > through some random technicality). But in a children's book that's > back-slapping itself about how it's all about love and compassion it's > just revolting. > Why did I not see it coming?! Didn't Dumbledore's big speech about > Harry's power of love specifically say that 'power' was that it would > drive him towards vengeance? lizzyben: I didn't even think about it as a taunt, but you're right. Harry knows as well as we do that LV is totally incapable of remorse. It was a quip, sort of like "Bellatrix was right, you really have to mean it." *shudders* Where I think many of us went wrong was in seeing this as a Bildungsroman or a traditional "coming of age" series, when it is not. It's not a Jungian integration fairy tale, either. It's a straight-up revenge narrative, set in a fantasy setting. Harry is a magical Count of Monte Cristo - and his enemies all get karmic justice. Although it's actually even worse than that book, because the Count eventually learns that you can take revenge too far, regrets his actions, and offers forgiveness to his enemies. Harry & co. never get a similar heads-up. > Sydney: > > Left this unsnipped because, yeah. And reading that bit again, I'm > every kind of confused. Because.. okay, it's reaaally hard to read > that as anything other than a conscious decision from a clued-up > writer about Shadow-imagery. And then she kicks under a chair and > says 'that's what you should do with that awful Shadow thing!' > Which.. okay... is that a school of psychological thought these days? > *scans JK's bookshelf* I see a lot of Freud.. I really don't like > Freud so I don't know what he thought about this sort of thing. lizzyben: I don't like Freud, either, so I don't what he'd make of it either - maybe the baby as id, w/Harry as ego, & Dumbledore as superego? Though I'd have a hard time buying DD as anyone's conscience. The shadow imagery is so blatant and obvious to me that I can't believe it wasn't intentional, but it has to be. JKR knows about "the other" - didn't it ever once occur to her what she was doing here? And the Houses seemed to be built around the four Jungian temperaments - w/Idealists (Gryffindors), Rationals (Ravenclaws), Guardians (Hufflepuff), and Artisans (Slytherin). So it seems like JKR was working w/Jungian concepts w/the Houses. Except I guess she thinks all Artisan types are evil? Ah, I can't make sense of it. > Sydney: > > I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to Ursula LeGuin, > who muttered something in an interview a while back about being happy > about their success but thinking the HP series was a bit > mean-spirited. I was like, 'No, no! She's going to turn it around! > Just wait!'. Sorry Ursula. You were right, I was wrong. lizzyben: Yeah, seconded. > Sydney: > > Yeah, that's why it just seems so cracked to me, this whole series. > This is a world that's going to convulse in civil war like clockwork > every fifty years, because there's just no self-reflection or attempt > to say, 'hey, mistakes were made, we need to look at what we have in > common as human beings here'. And now it seems yeah, there's no > turning around the child's version of Brave Perfect > Anachronistic-notions-of-human-rights Gryffindor and how he was > betrayed by that total loser Slytherin, and Our Side was totally right > and Their Side was totally wrong forever. That was the one thing I > was ready to lay money on was going to get reversed.. "Little White > Horse" being the obvious reason why. Oh, and all of human history. > That too. lizzyben: Pretty much. I compared it to an alternate ending of Romeo & Juliet where the Capulets just decided to blame the Montagues for the whole thing. One reason I find this book fascinating is that it's actually a brilliant examination of exactly how & why these types of feuds, ethnic hatreds & civil wars perpetuate themselves. And how bigotry works. Like you've said, Harry is basically indoctrinated into bigotry from an early age. He's sorted into a clear "us & them", and constantly told by authority figures how awful "they" are. So he looks over at the Slytherin table & thinks they do look sort of mean & surly. And pretty soon Gryffindor society begins to assign everything bad & evil onto the other group - until Harry becomes unable to see these people as individuals & can just dismiss as a mass of "them" who are all the same. Until eventually, he starts to see them as almost inhuman - the adjectives get monstrous: Slytherins are "troll-like", greedy, ugly, animalistic, evil. Until the reader starts to think that maybe the best way to get rid of evil is to get rid of this group of people. Readers are made to think like a bigot, as well. Readers keep asking JKR why Slytherin House is allowed to exist. This is a series where we're put into a mindset that thinks that eradicating & purging a group of people just might be a good idea, since they're all so evil & ugly & inhuman and not Like Us. This figuratively puts readers at about stage three of the eight stages of genocide. (classification, symbolization, dehumanization) And it's never reversed, that message is never reversed. Readers are left thinking that members of the "other" group are almost less human, less deserving of salvation, than our group. And they just might be more deserving of hatred & violence. OMG. I can't think of many other books, less a children's series, that seem to endorse dehumanization like that. Sydney: > "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown" is a message I can respect if I'm > settling down for a bleak, fatalistic look at the irretrievably > corrupt nature of humanity. From book about children I find it pretty > appalling, especially as it turns out only a quarter of humanity is > irretrievably corrupt and don't worry, it's Not You. It's fascinating > at the same time, because it's a wonderful portrait of one whopping > un-dealt-with Shadow issue but it seems to be entirely unconscious. > It's not like JK doesn't know about this Shadow thing-- she said > somewhere that , 'yeah, dehumanizing the Other is terrible! That's > what Voldemort does!' Ummmm... talk about missing the point! lizzyben: It's a bit mind boggling. Dehumanizing the other is something the other group does! Because they're less noble, less human! Talk about shadow projection. I almost hate to go there, because it really isn't our business to psychoanalyze the author, but it's the only way I can see to really understand the direction that this book took. It's a totally undealt-with Shadow issue that the author had to stuff out of sight in various different ways - projecting the Shadow onto the other, silencing the Shadow figure, kicking the Shadow under a chair, insisting that the Shadow isn't a part of the whole, isn't a part of who we are. But that's unnatural - and when the Shadow is repressed, cut off, & projected outward, that's when things start to get weird. Sydney: > It's like... it's a series where.. dehumanizing and projecting the > Shadow.. is something THOSE AWFUL PEOPLE DO. Nothing to do with us! > Let's congratulate ourselves on how we don't do that and that's why > it's cool when We beat people up with our Good magic and totally > different when They beat people up with their Dark Magic. lizzyben: I've always wondered what makes "Dark Magic" so very awful in these novels. It's never really defined or explained - it's just very very bad. And it turns out, it's just Dark Magic because it's what "they" do. When "we" do the same spells, it's not Dark at all! The whole "it's Dark magic because the Shadow house does it" seems to go back to the deep shadow projection that the Gryffindors engage in. Sydney: > I keep going back to her list of favorite books.. they all GET this. > Pip has to cope with the fact that all his money came from Magwich, > making him not exactly as 'better than those people' as he had > thought-- why didn't she do something like this with Gryffindor? > Elizabeth has to go through a thing where, oh, yeah, that pride and > prejudice stuff turns out to not just be something other people do. > Frodo in the end ISN'T sufficiently pure of heart. He succumbed like > Gollum did and felt their kinship. And of course, "Little White > Horse", which somehow managed to read at a much younger level but come > out far more mature and realistic about our myths about other people > and how we use them to soothe our egos. I still feel like I *have* > to have missed something. lizzyben: And Jane Austen is JKR's favorite novelist. She said once that Emma is one of her favorite novels because of the "self-delusion" in it. And she's right - Emma is totally self-deluded, which causes her to misinterpret the actions of almost everyone around her, and herself. She finally matures when she's forced to confront the truth about herself - just like Elizabeth is forced to confront some unpleasant truths about who she is. Elizabeth has projected her own faults of pride & prejudice (her own shadow?) onto Darcy, and she has an epiphany when she realizes that ("Till this moment, I never knew myself!") That's why I kept patiently waiting for Harry to face a similar internal crisis & maturation - and it never happened. You get the feeling that the myths about other people are allowed to remain in place in order to sooth his ego - so Harry never has to be really wrong ever. He never has to face his flaws or self-reflect. He never has to *grow* or change. How can a book have a protagonist who doesn't change? It seems to keep coming back to this Calvinist conception of the "Elect", who are already superior & perfect, and so don't need to change. Sydney: > This is a series that answers the question "What would Jesus do?" not > with, love thy enemy, judge not, turn the other cheek, heal the sick, > (and render unto Ceasar, one of the wisest ones IMO), but with 'allow > your enemies to kill you so you can come back to life and confer some > bizarre magical protection on your exclusive club of followers.' lizzyben: Well, actually that's a tenant of strict Calvinism, isn't it? "Limited atonement" - Christ died for our sins, but his sacrifice only extends to and protects "The Elect". All else are damned. The magical protection & salvation only extends to an exclusive club. I'm starting to wonder if JKR intentionally wrote this series as a Calvinist allegory (w/the Jungian stuff sneaking in unconsciously). Sydney: It's > so weird. IT'S SO WEIRD. > -- Sydney, who swore she wouldn't get drawn back in, but who had to > support Lizzyben on this point lizzyben: Thanks for the support & the insights! I keep trying these different interpretations - is it a Calvinist allegory, revenge narrative, failed Jungian integration? - but I also just keep coming back to that same word. It's so WEIRD. I've been less disturbed by Stephen King novels. lizzyben From Meliss9900 at aol.com Fri Aug 17 05:29:29 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:29:29 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175639 In a message dated 8/16/2007 10:01:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time, AllieS426 at aol.com writes: WHAT???? If you believe (and I do) that JKR had the whole thing mapped out from the beginning, this makes no sense. Dumbledore clearly knew that Snape was protecting Harry out of love for Lily, and the promise he made Dumbledore after she died. We have seen Dumbledore redirect Harry, and lie via omission, but I can't recall another outright lie like that. We have NO REASON to think that Snape felt anything of the sort. Allie (who still worships the old man, but finds this a little disappointing True, but I'm going to cut the old guy a little slack here. He had promised Snape to never reveal the reason that he [Snape] agreed to spy on LV and the deatheaters. Harry wanted/needed an explanation of some sort and this juggling of the truth was better than betraying Snape's trust. And I do think a part (a very small almost invisible part) of Snape hating/saving Harry was also due to the life debt to James. .no matter how loath Snape would have been to admit it. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 05:42:36 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:42:36 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175640 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > PS page 300 canon: > > < Harry: What? > DD: He saved his life. I do believe he worked so hard to > protect you this year because he felt that would make him and your > father even. Then he could go back to hating your father's memory > in peace.>> > > WHAT???? If you believe (and I do) that JKR had the whole thing > mapped out from the beginning, this makes no sense. Dumbledore > clearly knew that Snape was protecting Harry out of love for Lily, > and the promise he made Dumbledore after she died. We have seen > Dumbledore redirect Harry, and lie via omission, but I can't recall > another outright lie like that. We have NO REASON to think that > Snape felt anything of the sort. > > Allie (who still worships the old man, but finds this a little > disappointing) > Annemehr: Way beyond the fact that he lied, he also killed any chance of Harry rethinking his ideas of Snape. In asking why Snape had saved his life, Harry was, for the first and only time until he viewed Snape's memories in the Pensieve, open to a new understanding of him. And what did DD do? He closed that door right back up and padlocked it. Don't worry, Harry, he's still the hateful man you thought he was, no need to be grateful or anything. I mean, imagine the difference if he had actually said "He saved your life because he once was friends with your mother." Annemehr, beginning to wonder if DD's motto was "Get thou behind me, Slytherin" From p_yanna at hotmail.com Fri Aug 17 06:16:45 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:16:45 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175641 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > > Mim: > > > > Remus who the others thought might be the spy, Peter who > > delivered them to Voldemort, James who did such a fantastic job > > protecting his family and Sirius who took off in a suicide mission > > after Peter instead of protecting Harry and who had such a > > spectacular meltdown he let everyone think he had betrayed his best > > friend. > > Mike: > I agree with you on the probable Remus-the-spy angle, although I > don't remember any canon that assures us this was the case. Mim: "Remus!" Pettigrew squeaked, turning to Lupin instead, writhing imploringly in front of him. "You don't believe this wouldn't Sirius have told you they'd changed the plan?" "Not if he thought I was the spy, Peter," said Lupin. "I assume that's why you didn't tell me, Sirius?" he said casually over Pettigrews head. "Forgive me, Remus," said Black. (and forgive me for not providing exact page here). But I think that this exchange leaves no doubt. Sirius definitely thought Remus might be the traitor and James probably suspects too to go along with the change and with not telling Remus). Mike: > Peter, yeah, uhh... yeah. (snip) You can > say what you like about Peter, I don't care about him. Mim: But does it really work this way? He was a Marauder in school. He was their friend and as much a member and a product of their little gang as any of them. And perhaps if James had tried a little harder he might have seen just how much Peter resented him. But he encouraged the hero worship and the fawning not really seeing how Peter felt. Peter is still a monster for betraying him but to some extent James should have seen it coming and didn't. > Mike: > I don't buy the sarcastic remark about James. Both he and Lily must > have thought the Fidelius was the ultimate protection as neither was > carrying their wand around. > Mim: That's where you and JKR lose me. The Fidelius Charm is the ultimate protection because James trusts his friends. But he knows that someone may go after the Secret Keeper and that's why Sirius decides to change. So as they would go after Sirius and possibly murder him torture him and the rest they could go to Peter too and murder him torture him and the rest. Peter doesn't have to betray him for the Secret Keeper business not to be full proof. And since it hinges on James' blind trust to his friends, then how can he blindly trust them and at the same time suspect Remus? So he blindly trusts the others and not Remus? And there is trust and there's mind-boggling stupidity. Now, unless it's canon that when James' friends came over for a visit they'd blast his door open I just don't see why James would sprint to the hall wandless to see what the hell just happened. It sucks that the ended up in this situation and it sucks that he died but I just don't see WTF he was thinking. Mike: > But could you give me another example wherein someone was able to > fend off Voldemort after he had decided their lives needed to be > over? Not counting Harry, of course. Because, until you can, I'll go > with Hagrids words: "No one ever lived after he decided ter kill 'em, > no one except you, an' he'd killed some o' the best witches an' > wizards of the age..." > Mim: No, he probably didn't stand a chance. But his death could have been a little less ridiculous, is all. And they definitely needed a backup plan as to getting out of there besides the whole Secret Keeper crap. Ever heard of portkeys? Apparition? Oh, well... JKR needed her sacrifice and all but there are more holes in that plot than swiss cheese. Mike: > Sirius - suicide mission? Going after Peter? Could you explain that > reasoning? > > Mim: He tells Hagrid he won't be needing his motorcycle anymore. It doesn't sound to me like a man who sees any future ahead.He does not alert the authorities about Peter thinking that he can take him. And big surprise, he couldn't. > > Mim: > > None of > > them ever really grew up. > > Mike: > Yeah, Sirius got such a good deal from Barty Crouch Sr., because it > was all his fault that the Potters got killed, wasn't it? But how was > going after Peter reckless? In fact, how was his idea to switch the > SK to Peter reckless? Bad,... yes in hindsight, but reckless? Mim: Going after Peter by himself was reckless because he didn't tell anyone else what Peter had done. He might have stood more of a chance if he hadn't gone off half-cocked like that. He was under extreme emotional duress at the time and obviously not really thinking. But the boy they had laughed at and obviously considered inferior in their little gang outsmarted him. That's just all sorts of ironic. > Mike: > "You need your friends, Harry" What makes you > think James had "blind faith"? Being fooled by Peter does not qualify > as blind faith in my opinion. Besides, Sirius was every bit as > faithful to James as to vindicate blind faith in him. It seems the > same could have been said about Remus. Remus may be weak, but his > weakness has usually been couched in terms of his desire to keep his > friends and by extension, keep his friends trust. > Mim: Again, James didn't trust Remus. And after the fact, Remus didn't trust Sirius. In PoA he truly believed that Sirius had been the traitor. Until he sees the dot in the Map he has no doubt and yet he lets Sirius come in the Castle again and again, just as Snape accused him of. So it's ok that he's endangering Harry and all other students in Hogwarts because he's nice to them and soft-spoken and gives them chocolate. This is a serious failing and even if Snape hadn't let slip his werewolf status I'm pretty sure D. would have sacked him if he didn't have the grace to resign by himself. It really doesn't look like Dumbledore intended to keep Remus around anyway, he gave him a cursed teaching posiiton. So there was Remus all worried about telling Dumbledore that 15 years ago he betrayed his trust and letting his derranged friend come and go as he pleased in a castle full of students in his care. It goes way beyond people pleasing here. It's criminal indifference, even to James' kid. Remus isn't a coward in everything he does. He goes undercover in Fenrir's gang an that can't have been fun. And yet he does it even though unlike Snape he had never joined them but because it's right. Yet in his private life the cowardice is there and his immaturity. Marrying Tonks and getting her pregnant (this is the guy who forgot his potion in PoA...) even though there was a serious chance the kid would be like him and then being such an incredible jerk about it. And he hit Harry when Harry goaded him. He's the adult and at that moment he acted like a child himself. I think that he didn't really grow that much either. He was somewhat more mature than the others to begin with but as an adult he doesn't seem to be over repeating some patterns. Mike: > I will continue to defend three out of the four Marauders to my dying > day. Were they ideal role models, hell no. But I don't and won't > agree that they were anywhere near as bad as fandom has painted them. > Mim: I think that fandom gives them a hell of a lot of slack, myself. But I guess it depends also on where you place yourself in regards to them, a bully or a victim? A cool animagus or some random guy in the street getting attacked and barely escaping with his life because they are out having their fun? Harry who didn't really know them and adored them or Dumbledore who knew them and let Sirius rot in jail and Remus be miserable until he could find some use for them again. It's complicated. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 17 06:52:51 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:52:51 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter an Anti-Royalist Tract? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175642 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > Career advisor: > "I start with the fact that in HBP Hermione says that (I'm > paraphrasing): 'There are no wizarding princes in Britain'. > Which implies that there are probably no noble wizards (and > witches?) in the wizarding world. And no student is mentioned > as being 'noble' at Hogwarts." Bruce Alan Wilson: > Justin Fitch-Fetchly, who chose between Eaton and Hogwarts > would be at least minor nobility or gentry, wouldn't he? Geoff: If you mean because Justin could have gone to Eton then, no. In times past, public schools such as Eton, Harrow or Rugby - to name just a handful - would have been the preserve of the nobility or gentry simply because they had the money. Today, there are enough people prepared to find the money to send their children to a fee-paying school who are from otber social backgrounds. Some times, this may be done by making financial sacrifices in other areas, because a fair number of people send their children to private schools because they are not happy with the state system. Presumably, for a family without Muggle links, this point would not arise. From natashacarpina at yahoo.com.ph Fri Aug 17 08:24:54 2007 From: natashacarpina at yahoo.com.ph (tassy carpina) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Baby in King's Cross chapter of HP7 Message-ID: <789665.24598.qm@web57308.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175643 Yeah, that baby is part of Voldemort that was extracted from Harry. natasha From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Aug 17 10:04:45 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:04:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of Sorting and Snape Message-ID: <183485.79586.qm@web86203.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175644 lizzyben wrote: Where I think many of us went wrong was in seeing this as a Bildungsroman or a traditional "coming of age" series, when it is not. It's not a Jungian integration fairy tale, either. It's a straight-up revenge narrative, set in a fantasy setting. Harry is a magical Count of Monte Cristo - and his enemies all get karmic justice. Although it's actually even worse than that book, because the Count eventually learns that you can take revenge too far, regrets his actions, and offers forgiveness to his enemies. Harry & co. never get a similar heads-up. Irene: I kept hoping (not up to book 7, but quite for a long time) that JKR is taking Gryffindor vs Slytherin issue somewhere in the direction of Musketeers vs. Cardinal's Guards. Where two groups recognised that their rivalry is just a game after all, the allocations are quite random (even though it's very important to be loyal to your regiment after the "Sorting"), and both sides are human. Even d'Artagnan and Rochefort can become friends in the end. Alas, that was not to be. Dumas was writing a jolly good adventure, for money and pleasure. And JKR was writing apparently a well thought out book with important messages for children and adults. And somehow there is more humanity in the first one. Weird. Irene From nitalynx at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 10:25:54 2007 From: nitalynx at yahoo.com (nitalynx) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:25:54 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175645 zgirnius wrote: > Not my main point, but I did not want to let it pass - Ginny's lack > of crying does not have to do with a lack of compassion. She does not > cry *for herself*. The young man she loves is going to war, and she > does not get all weepy and woe is me-ish about it, and Harry > appreciates that. Nita: Well, the young man is not dead yet, is he? Would Harry appreciate her "toughness" if it prevented her from reacting to his death at all? And if he died, and she did end up crying, would he want someone to comfort her, or to look down on her "weakness"? Not that Harry thinks about such things, of course... > I think he figures if he was still with Cho, he > would be treated to a hysterical display about her being left alone, > yadda yadda (probably a bit unfair to Cho, but Harry is busy thinking > nice thoughts about the girl of his dreams , I would be pleased if > my guy thought about his ex a bit unfairly in a similar manner). I wouldn't. I'd rather be liked for my own merit than because I'm not as bad as someone else. Actually, I feel a bit sorry for Ginny. I wonder how supportive Harry will be when her parents die. > But in DH, the hero is compassionate just like the guy in the Russian > folk tale you cite, and the recipients of this compassion come to his > aid, just as the animals do in the fairy tale. Kreacher is a notable > example. When Harry manages to be compassionate to him, he learns > valuable information and gains a useful ally who provides material > aid in the Horcrux hunt and joins the final battle on Harry's side. Er, that's not how it happened in my book. *First* Harry learns valuable information, including that Kreacher was still loyal to Regulus, LV's enemy. *Then*, with a lot of encouragement from Hermione, he manages some compassion. > Snape is another example. If Harry had walked away like Voldemort, or > had gloated from afar, he would never have gotten the information he > needed that only Snape had. Instead, he went to the dying Snape, and > was duly rewarded. (Snape, of course, had already helped Harry in > other ways he did not then at all know about, for other reasons - but > his final act for Harry was made possible by Harry's compassionate > instincts). Watching someone die is an act of compassion now? Well, I don't know. I don't think so. > Harry did plan to double-cross Griphook, but to be in a position to > do so, he first needed to get him on his side! His rescue of the > goblin initially, and the grief and respect Harry showed for the dead > House-Elf Dobby, impressed Griphook enough to make him a temporary, > if not totally reliable, ally, without whose aid the break-in at > Gringotts would have failed. Again, let's look at the sequence of events here. First, Harry asks Griphook to lie for them. Without any reward or explanation, the goblin does so. Under torture. Then, Harry buries Dobby, his devoted follower who had just saved Harry at the cost of his own life. Griphook is impressed, and agrees to help them further, in return for Harry observing goblins' inheritance laws instead of wizards', for once. Harry uses his semi-trust. > Harry shows compassion for the Malfoys (most notably, by saving > Draco's life). Draco's mother returns the favor. Just the examples > that come to mind... Well, I don't think Harry did it out of compassion. Do you? I think he (rightly) sees himself as someone who wouldn't leave non-Evil people to die, and acts accordingly. It's a good self-perpetuating cycle. Oh, and by the way, Draco tries to save Harry by pretending not to recognize him first. Nita earlier: > > Another thing I like about such fairy tales is that the awesomeness > is > > usually divided between the Pretty and Clever, yet vulnerable Witch > > and the Brave and Kind, yet sometimes blundering Hero. Yeah, the > > gender roles are old and rigid (and, curiously, not that different > > from JKR's), but at least there's some balance. zgirnius: > Are you saying this is lacking in DH? Hermione seems Clever enough > for me, Harry is Brave and Kind, and we also have Ron for more Brave, > and also Vulnerable, with both males managing to blunder. (And hey, > this mixes up the gender roles! ) Nita now: Yes, the potential for balance is there (not much of a mix up, though - the fairy tale Witch is Ginny+Hermione, the Hero is Harry+Ron), but somehow a lot of Awesomeness ends up focused on Harry. This is a bit hard to explain. I just get this feeling of things happening just to show how Wonderful Harry is while reading DH that I don't get in the fairy tale. In fact, the entire Quest to kill the Bad Guy becomes necessary only because the hero tries to lock his beloved witch in her human form, and his attempt sends her back to her father instead (some clever spell he put on her). In other words, the hero messes up, realizes it, and then works hard to undo the damage. I can sympathize with that. And for some reason I feel like JKR loves Harry so much that she can't let him mess up and be scolded for it, not even by himself. I mean, he makes a bad decision about the goblin, right? Let's have some consequences! Not because I want Harry to suffer, but because I want to sympathize with him, and want him to grow. But no, the goblin is a bad, bad double-crosser himself, so it doesn't matter. And, in fact, the goblin property laws are *wrong* (see Neville's feat), so Harry did the right thing after all. Don't you worry kids, Our Side is always Right. Of course, sometimes fairy tale heroes get rude, lie and cheat without reproach as well. But from an author who believes she's written "moral books", I expect something else. zgirnius: > Nah, she did not. I admit my reaction is probably not > indicative...but if even Alla did not gloat, we were *not* meant to. > That's my reasoning, too ;) Nita From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Aug 17 10:54:05 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:54:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) Message-ID: <786936.99330.qm@web86203.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175646 Nita wrote: zgirnius: > Nah, she did not. I admit my reaction is probably not > indicative...but if even Alla did not gloat, we were *not* meant to. > Nita: That's my reasoning, too ;) Irene: I need to be very careful about the quotes here. First, let me quote Alla's first reaction to the DH: Alla wrote: Heeee, to get to Snape for a second, I guess his death makes my point as well that she wanted to show suddenness and senselessness, but at the same time I cannot help but smile at the delightful irony JKR brought there ?V potion master dies from poison with no chance to get an antidote or anything like that. As I said, I still hate the character, probably more than before, but I also cannot help but be happy as to the end JKR brought for him. Oh, oh and no recognition except from Harry, that noble soul. I applaud Harry. He is a very forgiving man indeed. I wanted confrontation between Snape and Harry so badly, but now I cannot help but think that JKR??s way is so much better. She would not let Snape taunt Harry ?V haha, I am Dumbledore??s man, (or is he?) who loved your mother, Harry just learns it all afterwards. Since it also now seems that Lily was all that Snape wanted all his life, I am happy imagining that in the afterlife Snape will be watching Lily in James?? arms for eternity. I think that is a great justice, personally. I was a little afraid that I will start crying even when I read about Snape??s death, but I found it just funny. Irene: Now it's me talking. I think JRK meant some reactions here and she has written the scene in such a way that allows them very intentionally. First of all, there is "delightful irony", of course - dying from poison, dying in a place that's significant to him from childhood etc. Delightful. Readers can't help but smile and be happy all round. Second - no recognition bit. His body is not mentioned by JKR and that's no insignificant omission. No portrait. All he gets is a vague promise in an interview: "Harry will take care of it in due course". Third - no confrontation. Other people explained better than me why it was so important to JRK that Harry does not have to deal with difficult, living Snape and gets an easy and clean memory instead. Fourth - can't talk about the delightful idea of Snape being tortured for eternity by James, sorry. Not strong enough. Fifth - very funny scene, what can I say? All in all, I think it's very clear that JKR wrote the scene in such a way that allows Snape haters to enjoy it greatly. Please, please don't take it as personal attack on Alla or any other reader - we are all entitled to our reading experiences and emotions, and there is no such thing as "wrong reading" of any book. I didn't shed any tears when Sirius had died either. Attack on JKR, on the other hand? You bet. Irene From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Aug 17 11:29:50 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:29:50 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175647 Mim: > But does it really work this way? He was a Marauder in school. He > was their friend and as much a member and a product of their little > gang as any of them. And perhaps if James had tried a little harder > he might have seen just how much Peter resented him. But he > encouraged the hero worship and the fawning not really seeing how > Peter felt. Peter is still a monster for betraying him but to some > extent James should have seen it coming and didn't. Dana: Could you provide canon support that Peter betrayed the Potters because he resented James? Lily refers to Peter as Wormy when she tells Sirius in the letter that he had been visiting them just the weekend before and that he seemed a little depressed. No where in canon is it ever suggested that Peter betrayed the Potters for anything other then him wanting to save his own skin in the ongoing war and Peter believing LV's side of the fence was probably the safest side to be on. He himself in PoA admits that he had not been brave enough to refuse to do LV's bidding and keep fighting against him. That he hadn't been brave enough to die not even for his friends. What you are suggesting as Peter's reason has been suggested as a possible reason in fandom but never anywhere in the books. James could not have seen it coming that Peter would be willing to betray his friends to secure his position on LV's side of the war. The switch plan was never put in place with the intention of putting Peter in the line of fire. They did not ask Peter to die for them; they just trusted that he would not betray the secret to anyone and no one but the Potters, Sirius and Peter himself knew that he had been their secret keeper. So if Peter would have kept his mouth shut then no one would have ever gone after him to force the secret out of him. He did not betray the Potter because he was under pressure or because he resented James. He betrayed them because he believed LV was going to win the war anyway. He just betrayed the Potters to proof his loyalty for LV to get LV's protection in return. If you do not want to accept that James truly grew out is arrogant behavior then fine be that way but I think you can't accuse Lily of not being perfectly nice to Peter and he betrayed her to. And if LV's treatment of Peter is anything to go by then I seriously doubt that anything anyone ever said to Peter had any effect on him, as he was still willing to sacrifice his own hand for LV while he had been threatened often enough to end up as Nagini's dinner. We do not see LV paying any attention to Peter's possible hurt feelings either but he is willing to do pretty much anything for him. Well accept dying of course. JMHO Dana From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 11:46:59 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:46:59 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: <786936.99330.qm@web86203.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175648 Irene: > Please, please don't take it as personal attack on Alla or any other reader - we are all entitled to our reading experiences and emotions, and there is no such thing as "wrong reading" of any book. I didn't shed any tears when Sirius had died either. > Attack on JKR, on the other hand? You bet. Alla: So, Irene I am just trying to understand what **was** your point in this post? In the post upthread I said that I certainly found Snape's end to be fitting, carmic justicing and all that, that I certainly was happy about Snape's end. I especially agreed with Lupinlore about the reasons WHY I found Snape's death to be fitting. And here you are quoting me that I was happy earlier? Um, yeah, I was. At the same time I found his death to be gruesome. I would not want to reread the scene - meaning the process of Nagini biting hi, and the wounds on his neck, etc. Not that I thought that he deserved any other death. Same thing actually as I do not want to reread the Dumbledore's death. I am funny that way about Potterverse's deaths for different reasons. I was not crying or anything like that. I was quite content with future generations of Hogwarts students never seeing Snape teaching ever again. Were you trying to show my ""conflicting"" reaction to the scene or something like that? That I was contradicting myself or something? As if people never change their minds on the positions and need to be shown that. But if you were I do not find my reaction to be at all conflicting on this issue. I did not find the **description** of Snape's death to be enjoyable, but at the same time I found the end to be highly fitting. Alla. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 11:57:30 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:57:30 -0000 Subject: Reaction to Snape's death WAS :Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175649 Alla: I did not find the **description** of Snape's death > to be enjoyable, but at the same time I found the end to be highly > fitting. Alla: Oh, oh forgot to add that upon one reread where I forced myself to reread the scene (goodness, no more). In **addition** to those reactions I found green eyes looked on black line to be even moving. And if it was somebody else dying, I would even cry. Yep, ALL those reaction at the same time. Strange I know. Thank you JKR. From guzuguzu at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 12:26:14 2007 From: guzuguzu at yahoo.com (guzuguzu) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:26:14 -0000 Subject: Inferi (was Re: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175650 guzu wrote: > With the inferi guarding the locket in HBP, I thought that in DH > Harry would have to face more, possibly including someone he > recognized(someone like Cedric). When Voldemort cracked Dumbledore's > tomb, I was afraid it was going to be him, foreshadowed by the dust- > dolly Dumbledore that was guarding Grimmauld Place. I was happy that > was all just my imagination running wild, because that would have been monumentally creepy! va32h wrote: > Monumentally creepy or incredibly awesome? I think both. One of JKR's strengths is her ability to come up with some truly terrifying > imagery. Voldemort's eyeballs in the locket? Nagini emerging from > Bathilda's rotting corpse? I absolutely hate horror movies, but I > found those passages both fascinating and sickening. guzu again: Good point?- it would have been both. Rowling could have pulled it off well. I am a huge horror fan (especially Lovecraft and Barker) so I probably would have technically enjoyed the scene itself, but I think it would have been too creepy for me personally to reconcile being in the HP series. The anonymous inferi (and the other freaky scenes mentioned above) were horror scenes of the "shock/monster" variety. As creepy as the Bathilda/snake scene was, it would have been a whole level more disturbing if Harry had actually known her. Adding the psychological horror component of fighting rotting, reanimated corpses of friends on top of that might have pushed it over the edge for me; my mind is in a different space when I read HP than when I'm reading a horror story. Maybe if Harry and company had discussed the possibility of having to face inferi they personally knew to mentally prepare themselves for it, or Harry have a nightmare about it, it would have been a "creepy" medium?- creepy but not as creepy as if it actually played out. va32h: > Still - she could have slipped one in the Battle of Hogwarts - every > other type of creature was in there, why not? Agreed. Now that I think about it, were there any goblins fighting? I checked the book again quickly, but I might have missed them. guzu From guzuguzu at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 12:38:33 2007 From: guzuguzu at yahoo.com (guzuguzu) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:38:33 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175651 Mim: > That's where you and JKR lose me. The Fidelius Charm is the ultimate > protection because James trusts his friends. But he knows that > someone may go after the Secret Keeper and that's why Sirius decides > to change. So as they would go after Sirius and possibly murder him > torture him and the rest they could go to Peter too and murder him > torture him and the rest. Peter doesn't have to betray him for the > Secret Keeper business not to be full proof. And since it hinges on > James' blind trust to his friends, then how can he blindly trust > them and at the same time suspect Remus? So he blindly trusts the > others and not Remus? guzu: I am with you on this confusion. I was further confused by the revelation in DH that you can go into hiding and be *your own* secret keeper for the Fidelus Charm (DH page 390 UK edition). Both Arthur and Bill are their own secret keepers. So assuming this is not an author oversight, could there have been anything else going on with the Marauders Secret Keeper Fiasco? Could it have been a strategy to try to figure out whose loyalties were where, but it worked way too well? (I'm sorry if this point was brought up elsewhere-- I did a search and didn't see it). guzu From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Aug 17 13:14:23 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:14:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) Message-ID: <716841.32300.qm@web86205.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175652 Alla: Were you trying to show my ""conflicting"" reaction to the scene or something like that? That I was contradicting myself or something? As if people never change their minds on the positions and need to be shown that. Irene: I was not trying to show any contradictions in your reaction. I've just found your initial reaction to be a perfect, one-post summary of what I thought JKR has intended, that's why I used it as an illustration. Irene From va32h at comcast.net Fri Aug 17 13:25:44 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:25:44 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175653 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "frumenta" wrote: And there is trust and there's mind-boggling stupidity. Now, unless it's canon that when James' friends came over for a visit they'd blast his door open I just don't see why James would sprint to the hall wandless to see what the hell just happened. It sucks that the ended up in this situation and it sucks that he died but I just don't see WTF he was thinking. No, he probably didn't stand a chance. But his death could have been a little less ridiculous, is all. And they definitely needed a backup plan as to getting out of there besides the whole Secret Keeper crap. Ever heard of portkeys? Apparition? Oh, well... JKR needed her sacrifice and all but there are more holes in that plot than swiss cheese. va32h: Right, JKR needed it to work that way, so let's blame her and not the poor character to whom she gave the shaft. This is the first we've heard that James had no wand - and it would seem to contradict what was implied in previous books - Voldemort wanting Harry to duel with him, like his father. My first thought was - oh well JKR is tired of being asked why James and Lily didn't Apparate or use a Portkey or otherwise escape, so she made a new rule (Apparition requires wands) and made James and Lily wandless in that scene. I think it's pretty lame myself, and just another piece of evidence that JKR really didn't give two figs about whether this book was any good or not. And I know I'll get accused of being an ungrateful nit-picker, so let me just add my usual disclaimer. Yes, the little things matter, because it is the sum of these little things that make the reader trust the author. Trust that whatever she's telling us is actually important, and not just another Flint. When the author chronically makes mistakes or creates plotholes, it becomes impossible to take anything she says seriously. Is this scene with James really trying to say anything about James or the notion of sacrfice? Or is it just a poorly-thought-out response to a longstanding fan question. va32h From graynavarre at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 12:39:29 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3689.93179.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175654 > zgirnius wrote: > > > Not my main point, but I did not want to let it > pass - Ginny's lack > > of crying does not have to do with a lack of > compassion. She does not > > cry *for herself*. The young man she loves is > going to war, and she > > does not get all weepy and woe is me-ish about it, > and Harry > > appreciates that. > I do understand Harry's apprieciation for Ginny's ability to face danger (her family's and his) without weeping. In the historical fiction books by Roberta Gellis (not bodice-rippers!!), the lead female character reminds her daughter and daughter-in-law not the weep or cling to their men as they go off to war. They must be strong for the men so that when the men have to fight, they can concentrate on the fight. The men will know that their wives are strong enough to go on without them if they should die. Of course, they can weep all they want in private. I suspect Ginny and Mrs Weasley are like this. Barbara From lailasakti at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 13:33:20 2007 From: lailasakti at yahoo.com (lailasakti) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:33:20 -0000 Subject: need help for all of my confuse! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175655 I was wondering why is it that the Greatest Dark Wizard ever could be dead, because his Avada Kedavra was crushed with Harry's Expelliarmus? Explain it please. lailasakti From nitalynx at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 14:14:28 2007 From: nitalynx at yahoo.com (nitalynx) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:14:28 -0000 Subject: Appeal of the story to the reader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175656 > Nita earlier: > > > Well, thanks for that. I hope JKR really didn't intend any > gloating there. > > Alla: > > I do not know whether she intended or not, but for me satisfaction > came later when I realised how fitting Snape's death was ( IMO). > > I am just saying that I did not feel like gloating when I read the > scene. Nita now: All right, minus half the thanks, then. I guess you and Lupinlore and Irene have a point :) Alla: > > Not for the sake of gloating per se, but basically for what va32h > said ( I guess I should add action movies here - some of them) - to > imagine doing to mean people what you cannot do in RL. > > I do not think I do that when I read about Potterverse. Alla: > > I enjoyed watching him getting his just deserts and how Harry gets > there. It definitely worked for me. As I said, my point is that I do > not think that enjoying reading about villains being punished > appeals to my inner meanness, that's all. Nita: Hmm... I'm not sure I quite grasp the difference in principle between taking revenge on mean people and punishing villains. Is it the justice factor? Does what happen in Potterverse come off as more just to you than what happens in action movies? (I'm not trying to imply anything here, just to understand.) > Nita earlier: > > > I suppose you read it as a different kind of story. As houyhnhnm > said, > > one is free to pick and choose in this series :) > Alla: > > Different from what? Nita now: Different from the story lizzyben and Sydney and Betsy Hp and I and others were reading, of course. The one that someone said was only in our heads :) But I think there *are* bits of different stories in the books, and *that* is one of the reasons why they appeal (or used to appeal) to so many different people. You want Bad Guys being punished? Here you go! You want Bad Guys being human? Here's something for you, too! You want a whimsical world and a healthy dose of humour? Sure! You want a scary wartime story? Yes, it's here as well! Of course, these bits are bound to conflict at certain points, and resolving those conflicts in a universally satisfying way is almost impossible. Hence the disappointment (for some). Alla: > Putting aside Draco and some other examples, which we may disagree > on, I think Umbridge is a perfect one. You said it yourself - > Umbridge is unlikely to have many fans if any ( sorry to the fans of > the character if they exist). > > She is a torturing sadist, isn't she? We can agree on that? > > I do not think I want her to get what is coming because I cannot do > it in RL. In RL I would report somebody like her, testify, do > everything I can to make sure she ends up in jail. That would be RL > justice. > > But this is not the story about conventional types of justice, no? > > So, whatever Umbridge gets - wrath of the centaurs or anything, I > think is justice and of course I am glad that she does, you know? Nita: Ah, here we are. The unconventional justice :) From reading your earlier posts, I understand that you keep real and fictional universes well separated in your mind, so things that are *not* OK in real life can be OK and even great in a story. Right? Well, for some of us, the separating line is not all that impenetrable. After all, both real-world processing and thinking about books goes on in the same mind, *and* authors frequently try to say things about our world in their imaginary stories (see "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson). So sometimes we need a reason why the rules of the story-world are different from the normal ones. Nita, wondering *why* conventional justice doesn't work in Potterverse... From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 14:22:45 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:22:45 -0000 Subject: Paging Dr. Freud (was:Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175657 > >>Sydney: > > > > Because.. okay, it's reaaally hard to read that as anything other > > than a conscious decision from a clued-up writer about Shadow- > > imagery. And then she kicks under a chair and says 'that's what > > you should do with that awful Shadow thing!' Which.. okay... is > > that a school of psychological thought these days? *scans JK's > > bookshelf* I see a lot of Freud.. I really don't like Freud so I > > don't know what he thought about this sort of thing. > >>lizzyben: > I don't like Freud, either, so I don't what he'd make of it either - > maybe the baby as id, w/Harry as ego, & Dumbledore as superego? > Though I'd have a hard time buying DD as anyone's conscience. > Betsy Hp: Well, my inner-twelve-year-old likes Freud because he deals so much with human sexuality and messed up parents and stuff. So, releasing my inner-twelve-year-old for a bit (and yeah, 12 years old, so no expert here, Freud may well start spinning )... I'm going to say that Gryffindor tower represtents Hogwarts' penis and the Slytherin dungeon is Hogwarts' vagina. I think much can be made of the robust, vibrant tower and the cold, dark dungeon. And of course, Gryffindor is all about the wand (with Harry getting the biggest, baddest wand in the end) and Slytherin is all about the cauldron (which helps our hero barely at all). Um... well, Tom Riddle certainly sprang from some crazy loins, with his mother dominating and controlling his father completely, and in the end, putting his father above himself. (The bit where the destraught girl chooses death over her newborn -- as per Dumbledore and Harry anyway. But heck, if that's how Harry sees it...) I think we can also look at the treatment Harry's parental stand-ins receive. Both Sirius (stand-in for James) and Snape (stand-in for Lily) die in a rather meaningless way. (Meaningless in that their deaths are sort of accidental and not a case of nobly shielding Harry with their bodies or some such.) And neither men receive any kind of burial. It's also interesting that Dumbledore treats both Sirius and Snape so coldly. He allows Sirius to waste away in prison for years without a thought. He manipulates Snape without cumpunction. I will say I think Snape gets harsher treatment than Sirius, whatever that might mean. (Heh. I'm kind of subtly leaning towards these books being particularly harsh on women and mothers. See me being subtle? ) And I did think to myself the other day that I should have realized we'd have no unifying of the Houses, or more specifically, unification of Slytherin and Gryffindor, because Draco Malfoy was cast as a boy. Harry, in marrying Ginny, doesn't so much marry his mother as he marries himself. So that's my twelve-year-old's version of Freud. Discuss amongst yourselves. Betsy Hp (looking forward to an extended weekend afk, or starting withdrawal pains -- you decide) From thaijasmine1 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 14:19:48 2007 From: thaijasmine1 at yahoo.com (jasmine) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:19:48 -0000 Subject: need help for all of my confuse! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175658 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lailasakti" wrote: > > I was wondering why is it that the Greatest Dark Wizard ever could be > dead, because his Avada Kedavra was crushed with Harry's Expelliarmus? > Explain it please. > > lailasakti > Jasmine here: The Avada Kedavra spell rebounded on Voldy because the elder wand would not curse its true master, Harry Potter. As Harry explained to Voldemort that he overpowered Draco weeks ago and took his wand from him. The real question was, Harry said, if the wand knew his true master had been disarmed, ergo the elder wand recognizes Draco's wand in Harry possession, that was the reason why the curse rebounded. It's not because the Expelliarmus spell that crushed Voldy, it was the rebounded killing curse that he himself casts. :) Jasmine From tenne at redshift.bc.ca Fri Aug 17 14:24:40 2007 From: tenne at redshift.bc.ca (Tenne) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:24:40 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) References: Message-ID: <003c01c7e0da$633812a0$797ba8c0@terrilaptop> No: HPFGUIDX 175659 va32h wrote: My first thought was - oh well JKR is tired of being asked why James and Lily didn't Apparate or use a Portkey or otherwise escape, so she made a new rule (Apparition requires wands) and made James and Lily wandless in that scene. Terri: This scene made sense to me. I took it as James reacted on pure instinct. The moment they have lived in fear of is happening and he panics. Runs to try to defend his family without thought. Something I could see myself doing in a moment of crisis. That is why soldiers train all the time, so their training will overcome their instincts. As for apparition or portkeys, in DH, the order didn't want to transport Harry by apparition or portkey because they did not trust that they were watched. I see no reason that this situation wouldn't be different. And James did want to duel with the Dark Lord, and would have been more than willing, but he panicked and didn't bring his wand. Terri From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 14:35:44 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:35:44 -0000 Subject: Appeal of the story to the reader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175660 > Julie: > I assumed Houyhnhnm was referring to the meanness inherent > in our human natures, which to me is similar to vindictiveness > or vengefulness. I think we all have a bit of that in us, and > we've all had moments where we've been angry and said or > done something just to be mean. And don't we all feel > vengeful at times against those who have wronged us, even > if we usually don't act on it. I know I have, and I do not > consider myself a mean or vindictive person at all. But > I have had my moments, and I think Houyhnhnm meant the > books appeal to that part of us. Alla: Of course many of us have our moments that way, that was not my point. My point is that I do not think books appeal to THAT part of me, in fact whatever description of the violence in them is what I like the **least**, you know? And I do not appreciate telling me to what part of me those books appeal (any reader, not just me. I mean, as I said upthread there are actions movies that I can partially watch for that - to release those sort of emotions if I have them sometimes, you know? In Potterverse, I do not like rereading death descriptions, be it Snape or Dumbledore or Sirius or Fred. Of course I want villains punished, but as I said even though opinions on the villains differ, I think wanting to get justice is quite different from appeal to the meanness in the reader. > Irene: > > I kept hoping (not up to book 7, but quite for a long time) that JKR is taking Gryffindor vs Slytherin issue somewhere in the direction of Musketeers vs. Cardinal's Guards. Where two groups recognised that their rivalry is just a game after all, the allocations are quite random (even though it's very important to be loyal to your regiment after the "Sorting"), and both sides are human. Even d'Artagnan and Rochefort can become friends in the end. > Alas, that was not to be. > > Dumas was writing a jolly good adventure, for money and pleasure. And JKR was >writing apparently a well thought out book with important messages for children and >adults. And somehow there is more humanity in the first one. Weird. Alla: Weren't Musketeers and Cardinal's Guards were mostly decent, honorable people in their society, who were just supporting different leaders? And Duma dropped no hints that Cardinal's Guards supported ideology similar to what Slytherin house did? But yeah, d'Artagnan and Rochefort become friends. Except as we know in "Twenty years after" Rochefort is killed from D'artagnan hand, accident and all that, but I think Duma knew how to do that irony too. > Nita now: > > Different from the story lizzyben and Sydney and Betsy Hp and I and > others were reading, of course. The one that someone said was only in > our heads :) Alla: Absolutely - I absolutely read very different story from what lizzyben and Sydney and Betsy Hp and you were reading. On that there is no doubt in my mind. Thanks for clarifying. > Nita: > > Ah, here we are. The unconventional justice :) From reading your > earlier posts, I understand that you keep real and fictional universes > well separated in your mind, so things that are *not* OK in real life > can be OK and even great in a story. Right? > Alla: If you mean the unconventional justice part, then yes, absolutely. I find many other things in the story which are okay for me in RL too. From tenne at redshift.bc.ca Fri Aug 17 14:27:37 2007 From: tenne at redshift.bc.ca (Tenne) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:27:37 -0600 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) References: Message-ID: <004a01c7e0da$c5d17780$797ba8c0@terrilaptop> No: HPFGUIDX 175661 guzu: I am with you on this confusion. I was further confused by the revelation in DH that you can go into hiding and be *your own* secret keeper for the Fidelus Charm (DH page 390 UK edition). Both Arthur and Bill are their own secret keepers. So assuming this is not an author oversight, could there have been anything else going on with the Marauders Secret Keeper Fiasco? Could it have been a strategy to try to figure out whose loyalties were where, but it worked way too well? Terri: I was thinking that they would have made someone their secret keeper just in case they needed some help. If they were their own Secret Keeper and they get sick or something, who would take care of Harry? As a parent, I could see wanting a way that someone could get help to me if needed. An adult could be their own Secret Keeper as they are more self relient. Terri From judy at judyshapiro.com Fri Aug 17 15:20:04 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:20:04 -0000 Subject: Reaction to Snape's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175662 Alla wrote: > I am happy imagining that in the afterlife Snape will be > watching Lily in James' arms for eternity. Wait a minute -- a few days ago, I said: > I even saw one person (Alla, I > think) saying how comforted she is to think of Snape being tormented > forever in the afterlife by seeing Lily in James' arms. And Alla replied: > Close but not quite. I said that I was imagining that as carmic > justice for Snape for what he did to Harry. So, was I right in the first place about how you felt about this, Alla? In my own view of the afterlife, Snape wouldn't be seeing Lily in James' arms. My personal view of the afterlife is that once our physical bodies are gone, the only thing we will have to connect ourselves to others is love. So, in the afterlife, we see those whom we love, but not our enemies. Unless Snape felt reconciled to James, he wouldn't see him at all. A corollary of my view is that people who never felt love for anyone would be isolated in the afterlife. Alla again: > I was quite content with > future generations of Hogwarts students never seeing Snape teaching > ever again. Just a question -- is Snape's behavior as a teacher the main reason that you hate him? (As opposed to, say, Snape's having been a Death Eater as your reason.) I'm trying to get a handle on the whole Snape- hatred phenomenon. -- JudySerenity, whose affection for Snape seems to grow the more that people here criticize him. (The poor guy!) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 15:32:00 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:32:00 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175663 lizzyben wrote: > > Sydney, thanks for bringing up yet another level of symbolic weirdness. Yeah, that's totally what DD seems to be saying - ignore that pain! Stuff it under the chair! Don't cry! And this seems to also connect w/the message that expressing emotions or sadness is just wrong. Other people have brought up that Slytherins like Draco & Snape cry and become emotional under stress, while Gryffindors tend to get angry & explosive. Slytherin is the house of "water" & emotion, and it's also the house of evil? Emotions are evil? And even though "love" is supposed to be a central message, it's actually never handled in a healthy way - and Slytherins also are assigned all the unhealthy aspects of love. Love is evil? Empathy is evil? Carol responds: This is Voldemort's soul we're talking about. Have you forgotten the anguish Voldemort endured when his soul came into contact with Harry's love for Sirius? Love and compassion cannot help Voldemort. They might even increase his pain. He is quite literally beyond help. Only his own remorse can save him. Emotions are not evil in this book. Note Harry's reaction when Molly gives him her brother Fabian's watch. And Harry is learning compassion--for Kreacher, for Draco, for Snape. It just doesn't come naturally to a boy raised as he was and who has, through most of the books, focused primarily on his own problems, his own little world, his own friends. Gradually, he learns to feel affection and respect for Luna and Neville, but only near the end does he learn to trust them and the other DA members. He learns that he doesn't have to act alone or with the help only of his closest friends. He learns compassion for Kreacher, respecting and honoring his adoration of Master Regulus and Kreacher's own terrible suffering, understanding, finally (along with Hermione) how his mind works. And Harry saves his enemy, Draco, who, with Ron's grudging help, saves Goyle, another enemy. (That Crabbe isn't also saved is his own fault. there would be nothing to save him from if he hadn't cast the Fiendfyre.) You don't need to agree with me that Harry has learned compassion, but I think he's come a long way from the Boy who Takes Action to Save People But Is Oblivious to Everyone Else's Feelings that we see in the first five books and still, to some degree, in the sixth. Seeing Draco on the tower and again forced to perform cruel deeds he doesn't want to do changes Harry's view of Draco. He doesn't say so, but, IMO, he understands him and wants to help him.) I won't repeat my other arguments about the creature under the chair, but I would like to see your responses to them. We're getting nowhere with emotional, gut reactions and rhetorical questions. Let's look at the canon, shall we? Carol, wondering why Slytherins (except Draco) mostly have dragon- heartstring wandcores if they're the House of water From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 15:47:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:47:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175664 Allie wrote > > Dumbledore clearly knew that Snape was protecting Harry out of love for Lily, and the promise he made Dumbledore after she died. We have seen Dumbledore redirect Harry, and lie via omission, but I can't recall another outright lie like that. We have NO REASON to think that Snape felt anything of the sort. > > Allie (who still worships the old man, but finds this a little disappointing > Melissa responded: > True, but I'm going to cut the old guy a little slack here. He had promised Snape to never reveal the reason that he [Snape] agreed to spy on LV and the deatheaters. Harry wanted/needed an explanation of some sort and this juggling of the truth was better than betraying Snape's trust. > > And I do think a part (a very small almost invisible part) of Snape hating/saving Harry was also due to the life debt to James. .no matter how loath Snape would have been to admit it. Carol responds: I've noticed that many characters, Dumbledore in particular but also Snape and sometimes Harry, wittingly or unwittingly, tell part of the truth rather than the whole. Thhey'll give a good reason, a perfectly true reason, which is nevertheless not the main reason. Dumbledore, as you say, can't tell Harry how snape feels about Lily, so he tells him how he feels about James, which Harry is likely to find out about anyway. And it's quite possible that Snape *did* feel "even" with James after saving Harry from Quirrell. "You saved my life, you jerk. Now I've saved your son's. So there!" That would not mean, of course, that Snape would stop protecting Harry, only that he had repaid an unwanted debt of honor. The life debt, if there was one, plays no further part in the books except in relation to the enmity and misunderstanding between Snape and MWPP. I thought the moment that I read that bit that DD was telling a half truth to conceal something, but I thought that something was Snape's loyalty to DD, represented by Snape's words to Quirrell about "where your loyalties lie" (his with DD, Quirrell's with Voldemort, whom both Snape and DD--and even Hagrid--knew would return). IOW, I was pretty sure from SS/PS onward that Snape was secretly working with DD against Voldemort, including protecting Harry, but for some reason, Harry was not to know exactly what Snape was doing or why. I just never believed that the reason for the loyalty was Lily. Carol, who thinks that this particular half-truth is perfectly in character for Dumbledore, who uses the same tactic with "Tom" in the battle of the MoM From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Aug 17 15:48:34 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:48:34 -0000 Subject: Appeal of the story to the reader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175665 houyhnhnm: > Look, not at this discussion group, but at the billions > of words that have been written by fans about the Harry > Potter series (not to mention fanfiction). Can anyone > deny that a great part of the appeal of these books is > the enjoyment of violence, punishment, revenge, inflicting > pain, watching other people suffer? Of course it's on > bad guys. Those who are on the receiving end of vengeance > are always "the bad guys". I find it disturbing. Jen: I'm having a surreal experience at the moment, naively realizing for the first time that the way I've read the series, the things I've placed importance on, are not just different but *vastly* different from some other readers. Take what you said above, the enjoyment of 'violence, punishment, revenge, inflicting pain, watching others suffer.' I would characterize that part of the series in a very different way, as dark humor or tragic-comedy or the necessary conflict of a protagonist/antagonist in order to have a story. It's not an overarching theme for me, definitely not *the* theme. It's part of the story and there are revenge moments on both sides as well as times revenge is overcome. Past that, I've explored some ideas but not come to any conclusions because the story is very gray to me. Part of my opinions come from indentifying with Harry from book 1, understanding JKR was sympathetic to her hero and not expecting a complete reversal in the end for Harry. It's why I read Snape as Grey!Snape, because I couldn't picture Harry in a place of realizing he was wrong about *everything* re: Snape's person even if he discovered Snape was indeed loyal and working to defeat Voldemort. DH wasn't a big smack in the face for me (except for the DD piece). Also, the premise of hundreds of kids living with about 12 adults supervising (and not at night), all carrying around weapons on a daily basis and not having half of them killed or seriously maimed every year required a huge suspension of disbelief for me to begin with! I just...it's so hard for me to lay a real world template over the books. Children are getting petrified, at risk to be killed and the school stays open? Right. A werewolf is allowed to go to school and the protection provided is a tree and a shack? Good idea. A potentially life-threatening competition takes place at the school and an underage kid without much training has to compete b/c of a binding magical contract? M'kaaaaay. There were times I laughed when I was 'supposed' to and times something struck me as mean or too dark for me - oh well, JKR and I don't have the same sense of humor. I don't characterize myself as someone who rubbed my hands with glee and shouted 'more violence, more eye-for-an eye - wahooo, I can't wait to see how JKR gets the baddies next.' The story was much too gray for me to see this very black/white aspect others see when characterizing it as a revenge story, full stop. Houyhnhnm: > But some other things, I just don't know what to make of > them. Like the miserable creature in the train station > and the injunction not to pity or comfort it. Repeated > over and over. Once might not have been so bad, but it > was just hammered in. I've been bothered by the mean-spirited > undercurrent in the books all the way along, the Appeal > to the Crowd, and trying to deny to myself that I see > what I see. Learning that an author I really admire > (who's worth twelve of Rowling) had come right out and > said it was kind of a tipping point. Jen: I have some things to work out as well, but the difference is I'm pretty sure mine will end up as a plot point or fitting in with the theme of exploring death or *something* - they won't likely fit into the moral aspects of the story, not at the moment anyway. Like I said, it's very gray for me now; I was reading DD as the moral compass and since he's been brought down some notches, the moral universe feels like a swirling mass of grayness that I haven't sorted out yet. So mostly I was surprised that others closed the book and had this very clear picture of Potterverse as a bad place since my reading was the moral aspect was *less* clear, not more. Jen From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Aug 17 15:49:11 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:49:11 -0000 Subject: Paging Dr. Freud (was:Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175666 Betsy HP: > I'm going to say that Gryffindor tower represtents > Hogwarts' penis and the Slytherin dungeon is Hogwarts' > vagina. I think much can be made of the robust, vibrant > tower and the cold, dark dungeon. And of course, > Gryffindor is all about the wand (with Harry getting > the biggest, baddest wand in the end) and Slytherin is > all about the cauldron (which helps our hero barely at all). houyhnhnm: Except for Expelliarmus(symbolic castration), Harry's signature spell, which he learned from Snape. Hmmm Have you read "Harry Potter's Oedipal Issues"? http://human-nature.com/free-associations/harrypotter.html A tidbit: The main characters of the Harry Potter books, then, allow the reader to enjoy a phantasy which denies the reality of the Oedipal configuration. What we have here is not an Oedipal triangle, but a phantasised and fragile triangular situation: in one corner, Harry, the hero (our ego); in another, Harry's good, dead parents, who live on, through introjection, in Harry (our phantasy of ideal parents); and, in the third, the evil Lord Voldemort, his adult self the repository for the split-off bad parts of Harry's perfect parents, his boyhood self a repository for similar parts of Harry. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 16:06:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:06:27 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter an Anti-Royalist Tract? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175667 Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > > Justin Fitch-Fetchly, who chose between Eaton and Hogwarts > > would be at least minor nobility or gentry, wouldn't he? > > Geoff: > If you mean because Justin could have gone to Eton then, no. > > In times past, public schools such as Eton, Harrow or Rugby - to name just a handful - would have been the preserve of the nobility or gentry simply because they had the money. Today, there are enough people prepared to find the money to send their children to a fee-paying school who are from otber social backgrounds. > Presumably, for a family without Muggle links, this point would not arise. > Carol responds: Not to mention that we know that Justin Finch-Fletchley (with his hyphenated name, which *does* sound as if he has aristocratic connections) is a Muggle-born. He thought that Harry was the Heir of Slytherin and had set the snake on him for that reason, and he ends of Petrified by the Basilisk, which only attacks Muggle-borns (presumably because Ginny knows who's Muggle-born and who isn't). I'm guessing that even Sir Nicholas, the Petrified ghost, was a Muggle-born. His backstory, given on JKR's website, sounds that way. As for the Bloody Baron, he lived at a time when wizards were just starting to separate themselves from Muggles, so he could have been either one. Offhand, I'd say that JKR only meant that none of the British royal family have been wizards, not even the present Prince Harry. Carol, who thinks that history would have been rather different if British or other European monarchs were wizards From rvink7 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 17 16:12:02 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:12:02 -0000 Subject: Potter's Teacher's Edition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175668 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: Betsy HP Voldemort died of course; Harry > achieved the vengence he wanted. Renee: Are you really saying that in the end it was all about Harry's vengeange? By the time we reach the point of the story where Harry believes he must die to vanquish Voldemort, we read nothing more about vengeance, which would be rather peculiar if vengeance was foremost on his mind. Instead, we see him acknowledge - and on rereading the text I realised that it was deaths of Lupin and Tonks that really hammered this home - that he must put an end to the violence, prevent any more people from dying for his sake. So he sacrifices himself - not to take revenge on Voldemort, but to protect all those who are fighting for him. It seems to me he has moved far beyond the point in HBP where it still was about vengeance. Renee From judy at judyshapiro.com Fri Aug 17 16:33:36 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:33:36 -0000 Subject: DADA Curse? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175669 We know that Voldemort put a curse on the DADA position, and JKR said in an interview that the curse was broken when Voldemort died. What I find interesting is that in the seven books, most of the people who fall victim to the curse are in fact Voldemort supporters (or in the case of Snape, someone whom Voldemort *believed* to be his supporter.) We have four Death Eaters/Voldemort supporters who fall victim to the curse: Book 1: Quirrel - Dies after Voldemort stopped possessing him. May not have had a Dark Mark, but certainly a Voldemort supporter. Book 4: Barty Crouch, Jr - Soul sucked. Death Eater and according to Voldemort, his "most faithful servant." Book 6: Snape - Fled. Former Death Eater; belived by Voldemort to be loyal at the time he held & lost the DADA post. Book 7: Carrow - Captured prior to Voldemort's death & last seen trussed up in the Ravenclaw common room; presumably sent to Azkaban. Death Eater. So, from what we've seen, most of the victims of the DADA curse were actually people whom Voldemort believed to be on his side. So, does that mean Voldemort wasn't able to lift the curse even when he wanted to? If so, what was he planning to do if he had won the war and kept control of Hogwarts? Wouldn't he have used up an awful lot of Death Eaters trying to staff the DADA position? --JudySerenity, wondering if Stan Shunpike would have eventually gotten the job From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 17 17:00:13 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:00:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175670 Dumbledore: And then your father did something Snape could never forgive. Harry: What? Dumbledore: He saved his life. I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt that would make him and your father even. Then he could go back to hating your father's memory in peace. allies426 Wrote: > We have seen Dumbledore redirect Harry, > and lie via omission, but I can't recall > another outright lie like that. In a list of grievances Harry could write against Dumbledore I do not think that would rank very high, in light of future events it seems positively trivial. Much more important was Dumbledore raising Harry like a pig for slaughter. In book 6 Harry asks Dumbledore if he thinks his private lessons will help him survive, Dumbledore responds that he certainly HOPES it will help him survive. That is not technically a lie but it is very misleading because Dumbledore did not THINK it would help Harry survive, he didn't think anything could do that. Dumbledore did not bother telling Harry this of course and I believe that would cause more resentment toward Dumbledore than anything else. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 17:04:07 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:04:07 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175671 Nita wrote: > Watching someone die is an act of compassion now? Well, I don't know. I don't think so. Carol responds: The compassion comes later, after he sees the memories. Harry's initial reaction is horror and shock, not at all the reaction he must have expected to have to Snape's death, since he still thinks that Snape is DD's murderer and a loyal DE. Until that moment, he has been hoping to meet Snape face to face to avenge Dumbledore (not that it would have happened that way, but he says twice that he wants it to happen). And instead of gloating or watching him die from beneath the cloak, Harry is moved by some impulse or instince (could it be the subconscious memory of all the times that Snape, as an adult or the HBP, has helped him or risked his life for DD, things that Harry knows but has suppressed?) to come forward and look at him, and he obediently scoops up the memories (once Hermione has conjured a vial) and obeys snape's last request to look into his eyes. It may not quite be compassion, but it isn't hatred (though he still thinks that he hates Snape) or the desire for revenge, either. Something is changing or has changed in Harry at that moment. I keep thinking back to Snape's healing Draco in HBP and to Harry's cut hand in the second chapter of DH. "He had never learned how to repair wounds, and now he came to think of it . . . this seemed like a serious flaw in his magical education" (14). (Hermione doesn't know how, either. She just uses essence of dittany, but evidently Ron still has a chunk out of his arm from his Splinching.) I wondered as I read the quoted words what they foreshadowed. Could it be his (and Hermione's--Ron's reaction is not given) helplessness in watching Snape bleed to death? He raises a hand to his neck but apparently can't or won't perform the incantation on himself. A simple wand wave probably won't work here, and perhaps, with the snake's venom, even a complex chant like the countercurse for Sectumsempra wouldn't have worked. Still, I think that Harry feels helpless here and the flaw in his magical education is showing. And it's another sad irony that Snape, who has saved others from Dark magic (three people in HBP, not counting teaching Harry about bezoars) can't heal himself. At any rate, if we contrast Harry's feelings about Snape at the beginning of the book (or even the beginning of the series--we've watched the mutual hatred and misunderstanding grow with every book) with his shock and horror here and his empathy for Severus the "abandoned boy" after the Pensieve excursion and his public vindication of Snape and his naming his second son after him, I think we can safely say that he does feel something like compassion for Snape, very different from the desire for vengeance at the beginning of the book (the same feeling that prompted the Crucio of Amycus Carrow), which would, IMO, have made his self-sacrifice impossible (he would have tried to fight Voldemort, avenging the deaths of his parents and Cedric and Sirius and Dumbledore, and he would have failed). Harry has always shown some compassion for his friends. But compassion for those he sees as odd or inferior (Luna and Neville) develops into appreciation of them as friends and respect for their abilities. But only at the end of HBP, watching Draco lower his wand a fraction of an inch, and throughout DH does Harry finally develop, or start to develop, full-fledged compassion and empathy. We see it first when Molly Weasley gives Harry her brother Fabian's watch, and instead of wondering why she's given him a hand-me-down, he understands its full significance, which he can't put into words, and hugs her (DH Am. ed. 114). After all this time, he finally understands and appreciates Molly, knows what her brothers' deaths mean to her and how she fears for her children and how she loves him as one of them. It's a lovely and understated moment. Harry is not notably articulate, especially with regard to emotions. He's just an average kid (a boy at that, meaning that he's less willing to display his emotions than the typical girl) with a few unusual powers and a unique destiny that continually places him in grave danger. He prefers action to words and is not always aware of his own emotions. It's as if, in both these instances, a wordless understanding simply comes to him, a little epiphany with Molly and a huge one with Snape. To the extent that the HP series is a Bildungsroman, this is the book in which Harry, though still a boy by our standards, becomes a "man" in the eyes of the WW. It's the last stage in his journey toward adulthood. And, IMO, he does make progress. His perception of Snape and Dumbledore and his mission is cleared, with the doubts and mistrust and misunderstanding removed. He chooses Horcruxes over Hallows; what is right over what is easy. He faces death without fighting back. He forgives Snape (and Kreacher and Draco). He sets aside revenge and sacrifices himself as an act of love. And he learns, or begins to learn, compassion. We see him talking to his younger son with the affectionate understanding that no one showed to him (or to little Severus, thirty-nine years earlier). I see a vast improvement. I see hope for the future. Harry is not and never will be perfect, but he's a better person in this book--not merely courageous, as he's always been, but at last grasping how others feel and think--than he's been in any of the other books. Carol, once again asking people to look closely at the text itself rather than making unsupported generalizations based on disappointment in the book From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 17:04:49 2007 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:04:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175672 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > PS page 300 canon: > > < Harry: What? > DD: He saved his life. I do believe he worked so hard to > protect you this year because he felt that would make him and your > father even. Then he could go back to hating your father's memory > in peace.>> > > WHAT???? If you believe (and I do) that JKR had the whole thing > mapped out from the beginning, this makes no sense. Dumbledore > clearly knew that Snape was protecting Harry out of love for Lily, > and the promise he made Dumbledore after she died. We have seen > Dumbledore redirect Harry, and lie via omission, but I can't recall > another outright lie like that. We have NO REASON to think that > Snape felt anything of the sort. > > Allie (who still worships the old man, but finds this a little > disappointing) Jack-A-Roe: What else could Dumbledore do? He had promised Snape that he wouldn't reveal the secret that he was actually supposed to be protecting Harry. There is also the possibility of a life debt forming when James saved Snape. If there was a life debt it could also be true that was acting in response to the life debt. Therefore Dumbledore didn't lie, he just didn't tell the entire truth From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Aug 17 17:04:25 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] need help for all of my confuse! Message-ID: <15644049.1187370266126.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 175673 From: lailasakti >I was wondering why is it that the Greatest Dark Wizard ever could be >dead, because his Avada Kedavra was crushed with Harry's Expelliarmus? >Explain it please. Morty was trying to use Harry's wand against Harry's other wand. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 17:55:43 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:55:43 -0000 Subject: Snape's death scene (Was: Compassionate hero) In-Reply-To: <716841.32300.qm@web86205.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175674 Alla wrote: > > > Were you trying to show my ""conflicting"" reaction to the scene or something like that? That I was contradicting myself or something? > Irene replied: > > I was not trying to show any contradictions in your reaction. I've just found your initial reaction to be a perfect, one-post summary of what I thought JKR has intended, that's why I used it as an illustration. Carol responds: If that was her intention then she failed to accomplish it with me, and I think with many other readers, as well. On a first reading I felt only anguish for Snape and wonder at his last, highly impressive bit of magic and the poignancy of that last look into each other's eyes (not thinking analytically about what it meant, just feeling it as a moment of connection at last). His death, as even Harry saw, was wholly unmerited (as was Cedric's and many others in the book. People die suddenly, for no reason or no good reason. That's a fact of life reflected ruthlessly but truthfully in the books.) I certainly didn't gloat over Snape's death or his sufferings. I was furious with Voldemort and hated Nagini. I was right there with Harry, shocked and horrified as I looked for the last time into Snape's eyes and very much wanting to see what was in those memories. I cried over "The Prince's Tale," too, not liking Dumbledore very much but loving Snape and proud of him for his change of sides and loyalty and courage and healing skills and unrelenting remorse and opposition to Voldemort. On a second reading, I saw the many levels of irony in his death and how it allowed that last exchange with Harry and the release of memories as a simple AK would not have done, how the shock and horror of it prepared Harry for the surprise of the memories, in which young Severus is shown to be so similar to himself except for his wrong choices of joining the DEs and revealing the Prophecy to Voldemort. Harry sees. along with the reader, the genuineness of young Snape's pain and remorse and the slow change from indifference to himself to protecting him for Lily's sake to saving anyone he can save, whether that person is Dumbledore or Katie Bell or Draco, to helping Harry in his quest as no one else could have done. I see nothing ignominious in his death. He was killed, after all, by Voldemort (like so many others before him), and not, heaven help us, by McGonagall or Flitwick (both of whom he could have beaten had he really fought them instead of using defensive tactics in "The Sacking of Severus Snape"--love his swift and powerful Protego!). He died accomplishing something so important that Harry could not have defeated LV without his help. And he managed to get Harry to see him as he really was. Perhaps he saw Harry as *he* really was as well. I see atonement, expiation, redemption, hope for healing and happiness in the afterlife. I see irony in his death by snake but no punishment, no poetic justice. He's on the side of good, after all. After death comes healing (unless you've split your soul in eighths). "Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living, and especially those who live without love." Poor Severus, whose life had only one bright spot, reflected in his beautiful and powerful doe Patronus. Surely, he's happier now, forgiven and understood and redeemed by his courage and unswerving devotion to the cause of protecting Harry and defeating Voldemort. Whatever JKR wanted the reader to feel, I don't think it was grim satisfaction in a painful death any more than we were supposed to have that reaction to Regulus's self-sacrifice, which was more horrible still. I think we're meant to feel exactly what Harry feels, shock and horror at his death and, through the memories, understanding and of Snape's long struggle for redemption, compassion for the little boy who could have achieved greatness had he not been so neglected and unappreciated and misguided by evil friends, and admiration of his "immense courage," so long unacknowledged by anyone except Dumbledore, whose treatment of Snape (except for the moment of disgust when young Snape comes to beg for his help) parallels in many ways his treatment of Harry, from whom he also concealed information and whom he also used for "the greater good." Had Snape died *failing* to accomplish his last mission, as he so clearly feared, it would have been an ignominious death. And had Harry watched him die without revealing his presence, gloating over the suffering of his supposed enemy, the book would have ended tragically, with the triumph of evil over good. He would have felt vengeance rather than willingly choosing to sacrifice himself and he would have tried to fight, resulting in his own death rather than the destruction of the soul bit because the protection provided by the shared dorp of blood would have been destroyed. Carol, who really doesn't care what JKR *intended* but considers this particular scene a marvelous piece of writing because of the variety of responses it evokes and the variety of interpretations to which it is subject From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 17:58:43 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:58:43 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175675 > Carol responds: > This is Voldemort's soul we're talking about. Have you forgotten the > anguish Voldemort endured when his soul came into contact with Harry's > love for Sirius? Love and compassion cannot help Voldemort. They might > even increase his pain. He is quite literally beyond help. Only his > own remorse can save him. lizzyben: Yes, love & compassion are useless. LV is beyond help, and no one should even try. Carol: > Emotions are not evil in this book. Note Harry's reaction when Molly > gives him her brother Fabian's watch. And Harry is learning > compassion--for Kreacher, for Draco, for Snape. It just doesn't come > naturally to a boy raised as he was and who has, through most of the > books, focused primarily on his own problems, his own little world, > his own friends. lizzyben: Well, when I say that, I don't mean that emotion is evil, it just seems like some emotions are being associated w/evil in an odd way. The comes because the Four Houses correspond to different emotions - and one House is condemned as evil. Thereby seeming to condemn those emotions as evil. Gryffindor is the fire house - corresponding to the qualities of anger, passion, courage, etc. These emotions are heartely embraced & approved. Slytherin is the water house - corresponding to qualities of emotion, healing, love, empathy, sadness. And these emotions are rejected by association as useless & even dangerous. This is how Slytherins are given the "obsessive love" - love as something dangerous & wrong. This is how Slytherin men are seen crying - crying & expressing sadness is dangerous & wrong. This also seems to correspond w/what Betsy HP was saying about how Slytherin seems to represent in some ways the feminine aspects that are condemned in favor of macho masculine Gryffindors. This is, IMO, where the *weirdness* comes from. Carol: Gradually, he learns to feel affection and respect > for Luna and Neville, but only near the end does he learn to trust > them and the other DA members. Seeing Draco > on the tower and again forced to perform cruel deeds he doesn't want > to do changes Harry's view of Draco. He doesn't say so, but, IMO, he > understands him and wants to help him.) lizzyben: People sometimes say that there's a lack of empathy & compassion in these novels, & I agree. Harry does help Draco, & Goyle, but that's typical saving-people-thing. He's nice to Kreacher, which gets him a new ally. But I think of compassion as being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes, to see life as they see it, and understand their pain. We don't really see Harry doing that very often, although I agree that he does seem to feel compassion for Draco's predicament. Compassion isn't Harry's strength - he's got other strengths. Carol: > I won't repeat my other arguments about the creature under the chair, > but I would like to see your responses to them. We're getting nowhere > with emotional, gut reactions and rhetorical questions. Let's look at > the canon, shall we? lizzyben: Hi Carol, I'll try to connect this better to the canon events. I do think that the novels seem to send a message that crying is bad. Other people have brought up the fact that Harry thinks Ginny is so great because she never cries, & she seems to react often w/anger & emotional explosions (hexes) instead. This is seen as a *good* thing. Cho is often derided by the other characters for being weepy & weak - even though, if you think about her POV for a second, she has plenty of good reasons to cry - she's grieving! Moaning Myrtle is also an object of derision - although the murdered girl also has plenty of reasons to be upset. And despite all his traumas, Harry is never allowed, once, to cry. Ever. And it seems to connect back w/this weird notion of "water" temprament as being a bad thing. In HBP, one of the chapters is called "an excess of phlegm" & the kids relentlessly make fun of Fluer as "Phlegm". Well, the "phlegmatic temprament" is one of the four classical Greek personality types - and it corresponds to the element of water. And the "water" house is the Slytherin House. And the Slytherin House is evil & wrong. Just like Gryfindors seem to think crying is evil & wrong. In this way, normal human qualities are cut off & rejected. That's not *healthy*. At the same time, stereotypical Gryfindor traits are taken to the nth degree - Crucios become gallant, physical courage is valued above all else, anger is accepted as a replacement for other emotions, revenge is a worthy goal, and it becomes all about how big & powerful your wand is. I think that the prophecy's "power that the Dark Lord knows not" is good example of how the message became subverted into something else. At first, it was about love, right? A mother's self-sacrificing love that defeated evil. This lead people to think that "love", in its Agape form, was Harry's power. But no, at the end it turned out that the unknown power was a super-special, super-powerful wand. In effect, Harry had a superior weapon. Magic makes Might. The fire qualities are given free reign as the water qualities are subverted & rejected. Bringing it all back to the creature stuffed under the chair. The good Gryffindors look at the shuddering, crying, rejected creature and feel repulsed by it. They assure themselves that compassion & love are useless qualities, and this creature simply can't be helped. DD tells Harry over & over, it's got nothing to do w/you, it's not a part of you, despite the fact that it's been a part of him for 16 years. That crying, weak, sad creature has nothing to do with you! It's evil! Reject it!! And he does. Harry cuts off that part of himself as evil & wrong. Just like Gryfindors have cut off the Slytherins as evil & wrong. Just like the Gryf heros have also cut off & rejected the "water" qualities of themselves in favor of totally overdoing the "fire" qualities that their culture values more. Just like, in Jungian terms, the Harry's shadow qualities have been rejected & purged instead of being understood or integrated into the personality. It's creepy creepy. lizzyben From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Aug 17 18:13:31 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:13:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Appeal of the story to the reader In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40708171113r3b6da94br5344998984543066@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175676 > > Nita: > > Well, for some of us, the separating line is not all that > impenetrable. After all, both real-world processing and thinking about > books goes on in the same mind, *and* authors frequently try to say > things about our world in their imaginary stories (see "The Lottery" > by Shirley Jackson). So sometimes we need a reason why the rules of > the story-world are different from the normal ones. > > Nita, wondering *why* conventional justice doesn't work in Potterverse... montims: so now I am beginning to understand why some people are having the problems they evidently are. You see, I have no problem suspending my disbelief and entering a "parallel" world, whether it is opera, theatre, books, films, whatever, even when set in what is ostensibly and recognisably our own world... I am troubled by inconsistencies within the imaginary world, but I do not have to have its physical or moral or whatever laws conform with those of my world. More than that, I lived in Italy for 10 years, and quickly had to make massive adjustments to my understanding of the way people reacted to a concept or action (the Mafia, to use an extreme example; Ms as a female title to use a trivial example). I adore Discworld, and find its characters and laws totally consistent. I read Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Trollope and others, and am not cut up when their moral ideas differ from mine. If, in their universe, as character is good for doing X and bad for doing Y, I note it mentally and move on, maybe with a little smile at the differences in our attitudes. But it does not make their world wrong, or their characters morally deficient. As I say, it is inconsistencies (Flints if you will) in the imagined world that jar... Oh, and as to why conventional justice doesn't work in Potterverse, IMO it's because there is LV, and a MoM, and Hogwarts, etc. Their world is not "conventional"... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 18:14:01 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:14:01 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175677 Lizzyben: < BIG SNIP> > Bringing it all back to the creature stuffed under the chair. The > good Gryffindors look at the shuddering, crying, rejected creature > and feel repulsed by it. They assure themselves that compassion & > love are useless qualities, and this creature simply can't be > helped. DD tells Harry over & over, it's got nothing to do w/you, > it's not a part of you, despite the fact that it's been a part of > him for 16 years. That crying, weak, sad creature has nothing to do > with you! It's evil! Reject it!! And he does. Harry cuts off that > part of himself as evil & wrong. Just like Gryfindors have cut off > the Slytherins as evil & wrong. Just like the Gryf heros have also > cut off & rejected the "water" qualities of themselves in favor of > totally overdoing the "fire" qualities that their culture values > more. Just like, in Jungian terms, the Harry's shadow qualities have > been rejected & purged instead of being understood or integrated > into the personality. It's creepy creepy. Alla: I just wanted to ask for some canon for this creature being part of Harry for sixteen years. I took it to be as what is to happen to whatever part of Voldemort's soul is left in him and that is what happened to him if he does not feel remorse. That being part of Harry? > Alla wrote: > > I am happy imagining that in the afterlife Snape will be > > watching Lily in James' arms for eternity. > > Wait a minute -- a few days ago, I said: > > I even saw one person (Alla, I > > think) saying how comforted she is to think of Snape being tormented > > forever in the afterlife by seeing Lily in James' arms. > > And Alla replied: > > Close but not quite. I said that I was imagining that as carmic > > justice for Snape for what he did to Harry. > > So, was I right in the first place about how you felt about this, > Alla? Alla: Oy, you know Judy I am starting to confuse myself. It is just so close. The bottom line is that I am happy with Snape's end and that if he watches Lily in James hands, it would be carmic justice. > Alla again: > > I was quite content with > > future generations of Hogwarts students never seeing Snape teaching > > ever again. JudySerenity: > Just a question -- is Snape's behavior as a teacher the main reason > that you hate him? (As opposed to, say, Snape's having been a Death > Eater as your reason.) I'm trying to get a handle on the whole Snape- > hatred phenomenon. Alla: Sure it started that way, but it is not opposed to him being a DE. I started actually with Snape being my favorite character. Believe it or not it is a truth. Yeah, I KNOW, weird. But my liking for him was not the liking in a usual sense. I did not appreciate him treating Harry and Neville badly, I did not appreciate the character as **is**, I saw the potential for change, for redemption. I liked him as I like Raskolnikov, Boromir, Gerald Tarant, etc Again, I am just telling you how I perceived Snape's originally, I am not intending to argue about whether he achieved redemption or not, just telling you how I saw him. Oh Goodness, I so wish more people read Coldfire trilogy than it would be so much easier to explain what I wanted for Snape's storyline. I cannot put IMO after every sentence to follow ? so the following is again obviously my opinion of how I saw Snape, not the facts. But absolutely I wanted Snape to change towards Harry first and foremost and Neville. Comes book 2, book 3 ? nothing and Snape's cruelty only keeps escalating. I still hope and when I read GoF, oh man, I so hoped the handshake will go somewhere and in the next book Snape finally sees Harry for who he is. Well, I saw nothing to the effect, I saw Snape's unchanging hatred to the innocent kid, whom he probably helped made an orphan ( Snape's being an eavesdropper was one of the few predictions I got right, hehe) I still thought he is loyal to DD in OOP ? well for the most part anyways, but yeah, I hated him by then. I suppose, yes him being a teacher like that is the primary reason ? not that I liked him being DE, but I thought he changed. Comes HBP, here comes Snape killing DD. That crossed out everything for me including Snape's loyalty and I hated him even more. And I hated, hated, hated upon reread to realize that Snape treated this way the boy whose life he himself helped to shape. To me this was not how remorseful person acts and since I am perfectly satisfied that Snape hated Harry as person till very end (when he replies to DD question and I take JKR statement as support too), I cannot forgive Snape, because I do not believe he changed in his view of Harry, even if he did not want Harry dead. I do like Harry though even more because he did. No matter how brave Snape was in helping to defeat world against Voldemort. So, that's me. I think in a nutshell, if you find any contradictions with my earlier posts, please keep in mind that it is caused my tendency to ramble, nothing more. > -- JudySerenity, whose affection for Snape seems to grow the more > that people here criticize him. (The poor guy!) Alla: Heeeee. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 18:26:07 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:26:07 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175678 > > Alla: > > I just wanted to ask for some canon for this creature being part of > Harry for sixteen years. I took it to be as what is to happen to > whatever part of Voldemort's soul is left in him and that is what > happened to him if he does not feel remorse. > > That being part of Harry? > lizzyben: Well, it's all happening in Harry's head, right? DD confirms that. And what else is in Harry's head? The horcrux. IMO, that figure represented the horcrux that had been sharing Harry's head for the past 16 years. But I realize that opinions might vary on that. When Harry comes to, the horcrux has disappeared. From va32h at comcast.net Fri Aug 17 18:30:24 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:30:24 -0000 Subject: Harry does cry Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175679 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: Hi Carol, I'll try to connect this better to the canon events. I do think that the novels seem to send a message that crying is bad. Other people have brought up the fact that Harry thinks Ginny is so great because she never cries, & she seems to react often w/anger & emotional explosions (hexes) instead. This is seen as a *good* thing. Cho is often derided by the other characters for being weepy & weak - even though, if you think about her POV for a second, she has plenty of good reasons to cry - she's grieving! Moaning Myrtle is also an object of derision - although the murdered girl also has plenty of reasons to be upset. And despite all his traumas, Harry is never allowed, once, to cry. Ever. Va32h: I have to disagree with you there. In PS, Dumbledore tells Harry how his mother's love protected him so that Quirrel could not bear to touch him: "It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good." Then, Dumbledore pretended to be very interested in a bird outside the window "which gave Harry time to dry his eyes on the sheet." In GoF, when Harry is telling Dumbledore about what happened in the graveyard, there comes a time when he "found his throat obstructed" which requires more interpretation on our parts but which I consider choking back tears. In OoTP, after hearing the prophecy, Harry spends an afternoon walking around the lake, avoiding everybody and mourning Sirius. At the end of his reverie, he returns to castle "wiping his face on his sleeve as he went." In HBP, when talking to the other professors after Dumbledore's death, he starts to say that the students should be allowed to stay at school to say goodbye, but "the last word caught in his throat." Again, an interpretation, but I'd at least grant him "choked up" on that one. And of course, in Deathly Hallows, Harry very clearly cries at his parents' graves. So perhaps three clear instances and two vague allusions to crying over the course of 7 years and umpteen traumatic experiences isn't much, but Harry *does* cry. He would just prefer not to, and certainly not to do it in front of others. I have to wonder what kind of response Baby Harry received from the Dursleys, when he cried in those first few weeks at Privet Drive? I would guess that Harry learned at a very early age not to cry. va32h From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 18:29:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:29:14 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: <004a01c7e0da$c5d17780$797ba8c0@terrilaptop> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175680 guzu wrote: > > I am with you on this confusion. I was further confused by the revelation in DH that you can go into hiding and be *your own* secret keeper for the Fidelus Charm (DH page 390 UK edition). Both Arthur and Bill are their own secret keepers. So assuming this is not an author oversight, could there have been anything else going on with the Marauders Secret Keeper Fiasco? Could it have been a strategy to try to figure out whose loyalties were where, but it worked way too well? > > Terri replied: > I was thinking that they would have made someone their secret keeper just in case they needed some help. If they were their own Secret Keeper and they get sick or something, who would take care of Harry? As a parent, I could see wanting a way that someone could get help to me if needed. An adult could be their own Secret Keeper as they are more self relient. Carol responds: I think they needed someone else to be the Secret Keeper because they, not their hiding place, were the Secret. Their house is not invisible like 12 GP to those who don't know the secret (other than Muggles), but *they* are. Flitwick says in PoA that Voldemort could have pressed his nose to their window and could not have seen them as long as the charm was unbroken. The DEs can't press their noses to 12 GP's window because they can't see it even when they know where it is because the location of the Order HQ rather than the Order itself is the Secret. I also think that the Potters, who could not leave the house without being seen (thanks to Dumbledore's borrowing the Invisibility Cloak!) needed someone who could reveal the Secret to chosen friends, say Lupin or Dumbledore or other Order members, should the need arise, except, of course, that they didn't trust Lupin and thought that he was the spy (and Pettigrew himself was motivated only to reveal it to the very person they were hiding from, if LV can be called a person). So the Potters *were* the Secret, Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper (whose lack of fidelity broke the Fidelius Charm), and Black was the only person who was told the Secret. (No doubt he was present when the charm was performed or perhaps performed it himself as "bonder" though I always assumed that it was Lily who performed it.) DD cannot have been told (unless he was sent a note and didn't know Pettigrew's writing from Black's) or he would not have thought that Balck was the SK. Carol, noting that if the Potters had been their own SKs, whether the house itself had been hidden or not, there could have been no betrayal and no story From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 17 19:47:58 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:47:58 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? (was Re: Appeal of the st In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175681 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > Judy: > > "And then, there's the whole issue of predestination and "the Elect":" > > Well, JKR is a Presbyterian. > > Bruce Alan Wilson Geoff: But I have read somewhere that she comes from an Anglican background, having spent some of her formative years in villages near Bristol. Presbyterianism is a plant which tends to flourish much further north. From rawood3 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 20:01:19 2007 From: rawood3 at yahoo.com (rawood3) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:01:19 -0000 Subject: need help for all of my confuse! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175682 > Jasmine here: > The Avada Kedavra spell rebounded on Voldy because the elder wand > would not curse its true master, Harry Potter. As Harry explained to > Voldemort that he overpowered Draco weeks ago and took his wand from > him. > I have had an issue with the topic of Harry being the Elder Wand's true master. Harry never actually took the Elder Wand from Draco so how could he be the EW's true master? Harry disarmed Draco and took his personal wand sure, however, the Elder Wand was in Dumbledore's tomb. I'll have to check the text of Olivander's explanation of wandlore again, but in my opinion Harry was never the EW's true master, Draco should still be the wand's true master as he did take it from Dumbledore by disarming him. On the other hand, Voldy was not the true master of the EW when he used AD on Harry, but Harry was the true master of Draco's wand and thus a true master's Expelliarmus overpowered Voldy's AD. Russ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 20:15:53 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:15:53 -0000 Subject: need help for all of my confuse! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175683 --- "lailasakti" wrote: > > I was wondering why is it that the Greatest Dark > Wizard ever could be dead, because his Avada Kedavra > was crushed with Harry's Expelliarmus? > Explain it please. > > lailasakti > bboyminn: Well as others have explained, the Expelliarmus didn't /crush/ the Avada Kadavra. But I think more is going on that others have indicated so far. It has been established in GoF that Spells can collide. We see this happen when Harry and Draco duel in the hall outside of potions. The spells collide and ricochet off of each other and hit by-standers. Later in the story Voldemort and Harry's spells collide head-on, and induce the 'Brother Wand' effect. In the final scene, Harry can sense Voldemort's spell coming long before it is actually cast. That allows him to time his counter curse so that it will also collide with Voldemort's. Next, switching of wand allegiance is not cut-and-dried, not governed by clear concise rules. Even Mr. Ollivander admit that he, with all his experience, does not understand it completely. Harry tells Voldemort of the sequence of events that lead Harry to believe that he (Harry) is the true master of the Wand. Maybe he is right, and /maybe/ he is just trying to shake Voldemort confidence. Maybe the Elder Wand recognized Harry and maybe it recognized Draco's wand. I'm sure this carries some weight, but I'm not sure it carries the full weight of what happened when they exchanged curses. None the less, a sequence of several events occurred that caused Voldemort's own AK to rebound back on him. Whether reflected by Harry being the Master or the tendency of curses to collide, both, or even more things, it is clear that Voldemort's own curse killed him. I think to some extent, JKR indended for it to NOT be crystal clear exactly what saved Harry. Certainly, several aspects are clear, but how they all add together and how critical they each are remains a mystery. Harry is simply 'The Boy Who Lived - Twice' ..no make that three times. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Fri Aug 17 20:21:32 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:21:32 -0000 Subject: Hermione's parents (was Re: A Sense of Betrayal / Unforgiveables) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175684 > Allie: > > Nah. She'll just modify their memories, so that they think they DID > discuss the matter and they DID agree to go to Australia. No, I don't think she'd do that. In fact she might even enjoy being yelled at - it'll mean they know her again! > Memory modification seems like something that ought to be immensely > complex (on the order of Polyjuice Potion), yet it seems Hermione > had no problem modifying the **lifelong** memories of TWO people. I > realize she's the brightest witch of her age, but come on... I tend to agree but if the memory modifying involved a potion they Hermione could swing it. The girl's weak on theory and style but she's the cat's pajamas at following finicky instructions to perfection. And she did hex Marietta pretty darn good not to mention mastering the proteus charm. So I guess this was within her competence. Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 20:23:21 2007 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:23:21 -0000 Subject: Reaction to Snape's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175685 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > Just a question -- is Snape's behavior as a teacher the main reason > that you hate him? (As opposed to, say, Snape's having been a Death > Eater as your reason.) I'm trying to get a handle on the whole Snape- > hatred phenomenon. > > -- JudySerenity, whose affection for Snape seems to grow the more > that people here criticize him. (The poor guy!) Jack-A-Roe: He was a poor excuse for a teacher. Insults and bullying are not the way to get children to learn. Intimidating Nevelle, reading the paper out load in class in GoF, Breaking Harry's potion in OotP, etc. The man should not have been anywhere near students. If he was half way decent to Harry then Harry may have gone to him in PS/SS or in CoS when they knew Lockhart was leaving, he may have been trusted enough to be remembered as a good guy in OoTP so they could have avoided the whole ministry trip. As a highly placed death eater we can be certain that he committed his shares of atrocities. There would have been no way to enter the inner group if you hadn't proved yourself. He was so well thought of that he was given the position of being the spy at Hogwarts. He is also partially responsible for the deaths of James and Lilly. He was then pathetic enough to ask for Lilly's life not caring what happened to James and Harry. So yes, there are alot of reasons to dislike/hate Snape. Jack-A-Roe who is amazed at the slack given to Snape. From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Aug 17 20:23:00 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:23:00 -0000 Subject: Harry does cry Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175686 va32h: > I have to wonder what kind of response Baby Harry > received from the Dursleys, when he cried in those > first few weeks at Privet Drive? I would guess that > Harry learned at a very early age not to cry. houyhnhnm: That's a good point that Harry's inability to *allow* himself to cry may be a result of psychological damage suffered at the hands of the Dursleys. It's not that he doesn't feel sorrow strongly enough to bring tears. He does. But he seems to feel the need to repress it. It's not how the passages affected me the first time I read them, though. Long before I ever started reading discussions on web sites, back when it just me and the text, the negative message about showing your feelings jumped out at me. I figured it was a Brit thing. I, too, have been hurriedly thumbing through 4100 pages to find the passages I remembered. I would like to examine the language of those passages. (SS, Scholastic, 299) >>Dumbledore now became very interested in a bird out on the windowsill, which gave Harry time to dry his eyes on the sheet.<< Harry's just been told how his mother died to save him. If ever there were an appropriate occasion for the public display of grief, this would be the time it seems to me. Now, I can see why Harry, with his history, had difficulty showing grief. What seems off to me is the fact that Dumbledore had to pretend not to observe that Harry was crying, as if Harry's tears were somehow shameful. Contrast that with Dumbeldore's calm acceptance of Harry's rampage after the battle at the MoM. Rage is nothing to be ashamed of. Tears are. (GoF, Scholastic, 714) >>The thing against which he had been fighting on and off ever since he had come out of the maze was threatening to overpower him. He could feel a burning prickling feeling in the inner corner of his eyes. He blinked and stared up at the ceiling. << "The thing" That seems a very peculiar way to describe very natural feelings after watching a classmate murdered in cold blood. He has to blink and stare at the ceiling. He has to fight "the thing". It just seems like a weird choice of words to me. (OotP, Scholastic, 856) >>The sun had fallen before he realized that he was cold. He got up and returned to the castle, wiping his face on his sleeve.<< Harry has no trouble letting his grief out this time. He's alone. There's is no one to observe his shame. (DH, Scholastic, 328) >>And tears came before he could stop them, boiling hot then instantly freezing on his face, and what was the point of wiping them off or pretending? << Well, thank goodness. At last! But here still we have "before he could stop them" and no "point of ...pretending." Because he's with Hermione, he feels the need to pretend. Yes, I got the message that Gryffindors don't cry long before I read any posts online and somebody put the idea in my head. It was my first reaction the first time I read the books. Of course, there is an exception in Hagrid, who cries readily. Hagrid, though, is presented as a great big kid with a lot of eccentricities and not a lot of social control. From nitalynx at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 20:21:56 2007 From: nitalynx at yahoo.com (nitalynx) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:21:56 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175687 Part 1: Compassion for Snape Carol wrote: > The compassion comes later, after he sees the memories. Harry's > initial reaction is horror and shock, not at all the reaction he must > have expected to have to Snape's death, since he still thinks that > Snape is DD's murderer and a loyal DE. Nita: True, there's a change, but it happens a) off-page and b) after it has turned out that Snape was his/DD's/Lily's all along. The after-the-fact part parallels what happened with Kreacher and Griphook - first they prove themselves useful, then Harry treats them well (or not really well in the goblin's case). I'll explain why I'd prefer on-page changes in part 3. Part 2: Compassion and other emotions Carol wrote: > Harry has always shown some compassion for his friends. But compassion > for those he sees as odd or inferior (Luna and Neville) develops into > appreciation of them as friends and respect for their abilities. But > only at the end of HBP, watching Draco lower his wand a fraction of an > inch, and throughout DH does Harry finally develop, or start to > develop, full-fledged compassion and empathy. We see it first when > Molly Weasley gives Harry her brother Fabian's watch, and instead of > wondering why she's given him a hand-me-down, he understands its full > significance, which he can't put into words, and hugs her (DH Am. ed. > 114). After all this time, he finally understands and appreciates > Molly, knows what her brothers' deaths mean to her and how she fears > for her children and how she loves him as one of them. It's a lovely > and understated moment. Nita: Well, I see friendship and love (Ron, Hermione, Molly), semi-friendship (Luna, Neville), and pity (Luna, Neville, Draco). We're actually told that Harry feels "the tiniest drop of pity" for Draco at the end of HBP. I believe pity and compassion are very different, although them seem alike. I have no idea if Harry knows what Molly's brothers' deaths mean to her. Perhaps he just finally feels like a part of the family? Part 3: Harry's character Carol wrote: > Harry is not notably articulate, especially with regard to emotions. > He's just an average kid (a boy at that, meaning that he's less > willing to display his emotions than the typical girl) with a few > unusual powers and a unique destiny that continually places him in > grave danger. He prefers action to words and is not always aware of > his own emotions. It's as if, in both these instances, a wordless > understanding simply comes to him, a little epiphany with Molly and a > huge one with Snape. Nita: I think epiphanies are decidedly *not* the best way to show emotional or intellectual growth for a character who lacks self-awareness. Or at least they didn't work well for me in DH. "Somehow Harry just knew" and such feel like authorial laziness when overused. You present a very good explanation of how the growth *could have* occurred, but it's your analysis, not JKR's writing, that puts the emphasis on certain events and makes them work towards a goal, IMO. So, what we have in canon is various stuff going on, events that might be significant or plot points or both, and an oblivious hero in the middle. Which leaves the text *very* open to interpretation, and no amount of re-reading can resolve the differences of opinion on Harry's growth. Maybe Harry subconsciously remembers Snape's good acts. Maybe his reaction illustrates that he's not an avenger, like Draco is not a killer. Or maybe JKR just needed him to get those damned memories :) I've seen some writers establish a "reliably unreliable" narrator, so that the reader can easily extrapolate the truth from the viewpoint character's consistently skewed observations, and realize what the character's hidden flaws and motivations are. But, since JKR has to point out such flaws in an interview to explain his ambiguous behaviour (Crucio!), it seems that in the end we are no more aware of Harry's emotions than Harry himself. Part 4: The amount of compassion Harry develops Carol wrote: > To the extent that the HP series is a Bildungsroman, this is the book > in which Harry, though still a boy by our standards, becomes a "man" > in the eyes of the WW. It's the last stage in his journey toward > adulthood. And, IMO, he does make progress. His perception of Snape > and Dumbledore and his mission is cleared, with the doubts and > mistrust and misunderstanding removed. He chooses Horcruxes over > Hallows; what is right over what is easy. He faces death without > fighting back. He forgives Snape (and Kreacher and Draco). He sets > aside revenge and sacrifices himself as an act of love. And he learns, > or begins to learn, compassion. We see him talking to his younger son > with the affectionate understanding that no one showed to him (or to > little Severus, thirty-nine years earlier). > > I see a vast improvement. I see hope for the future. Harry is not and > never will be perfect, but he's a better person in this book--not > merely courageous, as he's always been, but at last grasping how > others feel and think--than he's been in any of the other books. Nita: I've never said that Harry is completely devoid of compassion or never learns any of it. Due to the way he's written, it's hard to tell what's going on in his head exactly, but perhaps you're right. However, my point was that compassion isn't as central to the story as it seemed to be, judging by some of DD's sound bites and such. It isn't exactly necessary, so any compassion Harry has simply earns him bonus points on the Good Person scale, and if he has only a small amount, it's not a problem, not a challenge. > Carol, once again asking people to look closely at the text itself > rather than making unsupported generalizations based on disappointment > in the book Nita, whose disappointment had given way to bemused interest quite a while ago From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Aug 17 20:32:56 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:32:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of Sorting and Snape Message-ID: <5914261.1187382776726.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 175688 lizzyben: >Yes, love & compassion are useless. LV is beyond help, and no one >should even try. Bart: I know what you are trying to say, here, but you do bring up an interesting point. Because Morty IS beyond help, at least practical help (if he were a normal human, he COULD be sent to an institution where they MIGHT be able to help him, but the question comes of how many lives should be destroyed to save him). But that does not mean that Harry shouldn't have tried, if not for Morty's sake, for Harry's own sake. Looking at what happened: Harry tried to convince Morty that he is doomed unless he repents, Morty fails to listen and casts the YAAK at Harry, who acts, not to harm Morty, but to keep Morty from doing harm. After seeing what will happen to Morty, Harry can go on, knowing that he did everything in his power to keep that from happening. There are no wuddacuddashuddas here. And, who knows? A miracle MIGHT have happened. lizzyben: >Draco's predicament. Compassion isn't Harry's strength - he's got >other strengths. Bart: I think that, by trying to save Morty, even though he knows it's not going to work, Harry is showing compassion. While almost everybody is born with some degree of compassion, a good chunk of it is learned. Some people are born without it; unfortunately Morty falls into that category. And it looks like, at least in the area of mental illness, St. Mungo's can learn a thing or two from us Muggles. Note the trouble that the DD's went through to keep Ari out of there. Final comment, without quoting from you: JKR is self-admittedly unfamiliar with RW occultism, so it is wrong to assume that errors that she makes involving those are through anything other than ignorance. Bart From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 20:38:35 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:38:35 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175689 > Nita: > Well, the young man is not dead yet, is he? Would Harry appreciate her > "toughness" if it prevented her from reacting to his death at all? zgirnius: Of course not! In the scene where Harry compares her (internally) to Cho, Ginny makes her concern apparent in a stoic fashion, discussing why she had no present to give Harry on his birthday: > DH, "The Will of Albus Dumbledore": > "I didn't know what would be useful. Nothing too big, because you wouldn't be able to take it with you." > He chanced a glance at her. She was not tearful; that was one of the wonderful things about Ginny, she was rarely weepy. zgirnius: Her desire to give Harry a gift that would be useful and helpful in his mission is a sure sign that she appreciates the danger he is facing, and is worried/ saddened by it, and by the fact that she is not allowed and not able to help. Harry fully understands this subtext, I feel, this is why Harry expects she might be weeping, hence the glance at her. Shortly after, they kiss, and their tryst is interrupted by Ron and Hermione. > DH, "The Will of Albus Dumbledore": > He looked at Ginny, wanting to say something, though he hardly knew what, but she had turned her back on him. He thought that she might have succumbed, for once, to tears. He could not do anything to comfort her in front of Ron. zgirnius: In other words, by the end of the scene, Ginny *is* brought to tears. (OK, we don't know this for a fact, but that was certainly how I, and Harry, read it). Harry wants to comfort her, and is not remotely annoyed by this reaction. Within the scene, his joking "I think dating opportunities are going to be thin on the ground", is an attempt to reassure Ginny, and that it is precisely the right thing to say to her in that moment seems to be confirmed by the fact that her response is to initiate the kiss. They are neither of them particularly effusive about their love, but it seems to me this suits their personalities, and they are a good match. I liked DH Ginny, I guess! > Nita: > I wouldn't. I'd rather be liked for my own merit than because I'm not > as bad as someone else. Actually, I feel a bit sorry for Ginny. I > wonder how supportive Harry will be when her parents die. zgirnius: I addressed your latter point above. To your former point, Ginny is restrained in showing her fear and sadness, so Harry is appreciating her on her merits. > Nita: > Er, that's not how it happened in my book. *First* Harry learns > valuable information, including that Kreacher was still loyal to > Regulus, LV's enemy. *Then*, with a lot of encouragement from > Hermione, he manages some compassion. zgirnius: Nor was Kreacher a completely unknown mama animal worried about her young. He was the guy who conspired to send Harry to the DoM. For Harry to express compassion instantly, without learning anything about Kreacher, would have been a far greater step than the fairy tale hero's, to my mind. > Nita: > Watching someone die is an act of compassion now? Well, I don't know. > I don't think so. zgirnius: He did not merely watch, he approached Snape. I do not believe Snape could be saved at that point. If he could be, I think he himself would have been the right person to do it. Snape has forgotten more about healing than Harry knows at that point, it would seem to me. So what more could Harry have done for him than he did? And again, he approached a man he considered his mortal enemy, so things like holding his hand as he died, or whatever other random exhibition of sympathy, would have been out of place (not to mention, probably unwelcome). Harry does comply with every request of the dying Snape, including the last one, which is of no practical value to 'the cause'. (Oh, man, that scene got to me...) > Nita: > Again, let's look at the sequence of events here. First, Harry asks > Griphook to lie for them. Without any reward or explanation, the > goblin does so. Under torture. zgirnius: I don't think he did it for Harry. He is not pleased to be there, and to be treated so by the Death Eaters. > Nita. > Then, Harry buries Dobby, his devoted > follower who had just saved Harry at the cost of his own life. > Griphook is impressed, and agrees to help them further, in return for > Harry observing goblins' inheritance laws instead of wizards', for > once. Harry uses his semi-trust. zgirnius: Harry would have returned the sword, of course. But I conceded this point, that Harry was planning to double-cross him to an extent. > Nita: > Well, I don't think Harry did it out of compassion. Do you? I think he > (rightly) sees himself as someone who wouldn't leave non-Evil people > to die, and acts accordingly. It's a good self-perpetuating cycle. zgirnius: I am afraid I do consider 'being a person who would not leave a non- evil person to die' synonymous with compassion, though I may be weird that way. I would say Severus Snape demoonstrates compassion on occasion. So to get a clearer idea of what I am supposed to mean by that word...I looked it up. Merriam Wenster online defines compassion as: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/compassion: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it zgirnius: Harry's thought process as the Room of Requirement is consumed by flame is as follows: > DH, "The Battle of Hogwarts": > He swooped as low as he dared over the marauding monsters of flame to try and find them, but there was nothing but fire: What a terrible way to die...He had never wanted this... > "Harry, let's get out, let's get out!" bellowed Ron, though it was impossible to see where the door was through the black smoke. > And then Harry heard a thin, piteous human scream from amidst the terrible commotion, the thunder of devouring flame. zgirnius: So, Harry thinks of the fate in store for Draco, and finds it terrible. Draco sounds 'piteous'. I see both the sympathetic consciousness, and the desire to alleviate the suffering, myself. (Oh, total aside...marauding monsters of flame, LOL. Total coincidence I am sure.) > Nita: > Oh, > and by the way, Draco tries to save Harry by pretending not to > recognize him first. zgirnius: Word! Draco is one of *my* Good Slytherins. It's not about which side he and his family are on in the war, it is about what he does. He tries to drag Goyle, unconscious and twice his size, out of that inferno instead of running for his life. But the attempt to help out at Malfoy Manor is not why Harry rescues him, as indicated in the citation above. So it in no way makes Harry's action less than compassionate. > Nita now: > This is a bit hard to explain. I just get this feeling of things > happening just to show how Wonderful Harry is while reading DH that I > don't get in the fairy tale. zgirnius: I don't understand, I am afraid. But then you did say it was hard to explain, and it is apparent that we had very different gut reactions to the book. This may be one of those points where neither of us can put a finger on anything specific enough to explain to the other what we are seeing. > Nita: > In other words, the hero messes up, realizes it, and then works hard > to undo the damage. I can sympathize with that. zgirnius: Yeah, it is not Harry's fault that he needs to defeat Voldemort, this is a fundamental difference between Rowling's story and the fairy tale you compare it to. The whole mess fell on his head when he was a one-year-old. Any mistakes he made after that could have contributed (and did contribute) to the difficulties he faced, could have contributed to losses and sorrow he experienced, but the Harry/Voldemort conflict is something Harry did not cause and cannot prevent. Of course, once upon a time there was a lovely princess with flaming red hair, who shut the door in the face of her old friend as he strove to apologize to her for words he had uttered in a moment of pain and humiliation. And a brave prince who had too much fun hurting and humiliating that same old friend of the princess with his friends. The prince and princess married and produced... Our Hero. If that old friend had not become a Death Eater, word of a certain prophecy would not have gotten to Voldemort... take it or leave it. (I feel an urge to interject that it is Snape's own fault that he reported the prophecy and became a Death Eater. Nonetheless, I stand by the factual correctness of the paragraph above). > Nita: > And for some reason I > feel like JKR loves Harry so much that she can't let him mess up and > be scolded for it, not even by himself. I mean, he makes a bad > decision about the goblin, right? Let's have some consequences! zgirnius: I suppose the loss of the sword and discovery of the Horcrux hunt is not enough of a consequence? I do agree that Harry does not beat himself up about it. Though, I think the biggest mistake by Harry in the series occured in OotP, and it led to the death of Sirius Black. Harry does recognize his own responsibility in that death, and it pains him deeply. (Though, naturally, the most responsible persons are Voldemort and Bellatrix. And of course, he shifts the blame to Snape, which feels soooo much better. But I never thought we were 'supposed' to believe that was a good thing. It was one of those things that contrinuted to my conviction that Snape would prove to have always been DDM!). > Nita: > And, in fact, the goblin > property laws are *wrong* (see Neville's feat), so Harry did the right > thing after all. Don't you worry kids, Our Side is always Right. zgirnius: A technical point, but both the sword and the Hat are magical artifacts that were once property of the mythical wizard, Godric Gryffindor. The sword comes out of the Hat not because God, or Justice, or some other force of Good makes it do so, but because that's what the artifacts in question were bespelled to do by their former owner. In my opinion, naturally. Griphook would say Godric was wrong to cast such a spell, and I would not take sides on the matter. > Nita: > Of course, sometimes fairy tale heroes get rude, lie and cheat without > reproach as well. But from an author who believes she's written "moral > books", I expect something else. zgirnius: I agree within-book reproaches do not abound in the series. I guess I don't have a problem with that. I can find them tedious, myself, in other words which strive to guide me more in how I should think. My 4 year old loves Starukha Shapoklyak from the Cheburashka cartoons. After hearing the crocodile and his pals lecture her, I can see his point. Apologies to those not familiar with Soviet Era animated cartoons. She's a (rather silly) 'villain' in a show for young kids, that is in my view didactic about virtues like friendliness, cooperation, and community service in ways I find heavy- handed. I can figure out whose actions I approve of, and whose not, on my own. The thing is, there are things Harry does of which I do not approve (like the Crucio on Carrow, for example). I just don't feel that the author would tell me I am wrong. The author does not tell me one way or the other how *I* should feel about it, she just tells me Harry did it, and how he felt about it. Which is enough information for me to condemn that action. From srpripas at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 20:34:31 2007 From: srpripas at yahoo.com (srpripas) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:34:31 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175690 Mim: > That's where you and JKR lose me. The Fidelius Charm is the ultimate > protection because James trusts his friends. But he knows that > someone may go after the Secret Keeper and that's why Sirius decides > to change. So as they would go after Sirius and possibly murder him > torture him and the rest they could go to Peter too and murder him > torture him and the rest. Peter doe>sn't have to betray him for the > Secret Keeper business not to be full proof. And since it hinges on > James' blind trust to his friends, then how can he blindly trust > them and at the same time suspect Remus? So he blindly trusts the > others and not Remus? Nowhere in canon does it actually indicate that James didn't trust Remus. You might infer that he didn't based on the fact that Remus didn't know about the switch in Secret-Keepers, but canon doesn't actually state it and there are certainly alternative explanations. All we know for sure is that *Sirius* thought Remus was the spy. Personally, I doubt Remus would have said that James "would have regarded it as the height of dishonor to suspect his friends" if James had suspected him the way Sirius did. > > Mim: > Going after Peter by himself was reckless because he didn't tell > anyone else what Peter had done. He might have stood more of a > chance if he hadn't gone off half-cocked like that. He was under > extreme emotional duress at the time and obviously not really > thinking. But the boy they had laughed at and obviously considered > inferior in their little gang outsmarted him. That's just all sorts > of ironic. I agree with you about Sirius' flaws, absolutely. I will say in his defense that people generally don't make rational, well-thought out decisions immediately after suffering an extreme trauma. (Though Sirius is rather reckless under any circumstances.) >Mim: > Remus isn't a coward in everything he does. He goes undercover in > Fenrir's gang an that can't have been fun. And yet he does it even > though unlike Snape he had never joined them but because it's right. > Yet in his private life the cowardice is there and his immaturity. > Marrying Tonks and getting her pregnant (this is the guy who forgot > his potion in PoA...) even though there was a serious chance the kid > would be like him and then being such an incredible jerk about it. > And he hit Harry when Harry goaded him. He's the adult and at that > moment he acted like a child himself. I think that he didn't really > grow that much either. He was somewhat more mature than the others > to begin with but as an adult he doesn't seem to be over repeating > some patterns. I do think DH indicates that he was able to eventually--after Harry's harsh but appropriate words--get over his misgivings and do the right thing by staying with Tonks. There are strong indications that he settles in as a proud, happy father after the baby is born. He gets over his fears and insecurities to some extent, IMO. And while much of Remus' behavior in the early part of the book is indeed indefensible, I find it somewhat odd that you blame him for "getting Tonks pregnant." First, we don't know what the actual odds of him passing lycanthropy (not a genetic trait) to potential offspring and JKR has said that Teddy's not a werewolf. Second, it takes two to make a baby. Tonks also bears some responsibility for the pregnancy (which was probably accidental, IMO). I agree with criticisms of Remus' behavior after the pregnancy was discovered, but criticizing him for getting Tonks pregnant at all strikes me as rather odd. > Mim: > > I think that fandom gives them a hell of a lot of slack, myself. But > I guess it depends also on where you place yourself in regards to > them, a bully or a victim? This is a gross oversimplification of the Marauder/Snape dynamic. While MWPP are extremely far from sainthood, so was young Snape (who was involved with Dark magic, even to the point of inventing spells like Sectumsempra, was entirely too interested in his rivals' business, and broke rules and made bad decisions himself as a result of his hatred.) I've always been confused by fandom's desire to "take sides", as it were, instead of recognizing the deliciously ambiguous characters on both sides of the conflict. > Dumbledore who knew them and let Sirius rot in > jail and Remus be miserable until he could find some use for them > again. It's complicated. > Dumbledore had every reason to believe that Sirius was guilty, and therefore very different from the boy/young man he thought he knew. Yet when meeting Sirius again in PoA, Dumbledore was willing to listen to his story and believed him. He orchestrated Sirius' escape. As for Remus, it's not clear what Dumbledore *could* have done for him during the "missing years" gap. He can't magically make the wizarding world less prejudiced against werewolves. Besides, we know so little of Remus' life during this time that I don't think we can make very many definitive statements about it. Suffice to say that I think Dumbledore valued Sirius and Remus a good deal more than you're willing to acknowledge. Yes, Dumbledore was concerned with making "use" of them. But he clearly was making "use" of Snape, too, not merely giving him a cushy job out of the kindness of his heart. He clearly despised Snape at first, in fact, calling him "despicable." Using people is what Dumbledore *did*--and I'm not sure what conclusions we can draw about MWPP from his various actions. Sarah From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 20:45:06 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:45:06 -0000 Subject: need help for all of my confuse! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175691 --- "rawood3" wrote: > > I have had an issue with the topic of Harry being > the Elder Wand's true master. Harry never actually > took the Elder Wand from Draco so how could he be > the EW's true master? bboyminn: Well that brings up the very issue that we have been debating. Does the wand allegiance change when Wizard conquers Wizard, or when Wand conquers Wand, or when Wizard conquers Wand, or when Wand conquers Wizard? As I've said, I don't think the rules are cut-and- dried; I think they are vague and esoteric. We have a general indication of how wand allegiance will shift, but no clear immutable rules. Draco /conquered/ Dumbledore, but Draco never took possession of the Elder Wand. Harry /conquered/ Draco, but he too never took possession of the wand. Theoretically, the wands allegiance tracks the conquerer. But, note when Draco 'conquered' Dumbledore, it was by magic. When Harry 'conquered' Draco, it was by physical force. Does that matter, is 'conquered' conquered, or does it have to be magically 'conquered'? Or, does it have to be conquered at all? Maybe it just needs to be captured. Grindlewald captured the wand from Gregorovitch. But, we could say Grindlewald conquered Gregorovitch by stealth and quick wits (plus a trace of magic). He conquered him by out smarting him. We don't know the answer to these question, but Harry thinks he does, and that gives him the confidence to act. Thinking Harry might be right, it shakes Voldemort's confidence and makes him hesitant and uncertain in his actions. One final note, to support my broad 'complex' theory. Voldemort has lost all his Horcruxes; the things that held him bound to the earth and away from death. Harry on the other hand still has his mother's protection, and a drop of that protection resides in Voldemort. That drop of Harry's Blood in Voldemort is the thing that held Harry to the earth, and allowed him the option to return from death. In short, and figuratively, Voldemort has NO Horcruxes, Harry has one. In the end, I think it is a complex combination of factors that allows Harry to win. I really don't think it is as simple as Master of the Wand. Steve/bboyminn From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Fri Aug 17 20:45:51 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:45:51 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175692 Eggplant107: In book 6 Harry asks Dumbledore if he thinks > his private lessons will help him survive, Dumbledore responds that > he certainly HOPES it will help him survive. That is not technically > a lie but it is very misleading because Dumbledore did not THINK it > would help Harry survive, he didn't think anything could do that. Rowena: I don't think that is quite fair or even correct. Voldy took Harry's blood in Book 4, from that time on Dumbledore had a very real hope that Harry *could* survive - and the better he understands Voldemort, what he's done and why, the better Harry's chances become. Also IMO wanting to erase his life-debt to James *was* part of Snape's motivation, quite possibly Snape himself has told DD so! And DD can't tell Harry about Lily and Severus but he has to say something and hence the half-truth. It seems to me DD actually teeters on the edge of telling Harry Snape's secret every time the former demands to know why he trusts Snape - but each time he lets respect for Snape's confidence keep him silent dispite the serious risk posed by Harry's dislike and distrust of the Potions Master - who all to soon will be his only mentor. Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch From nitalynx at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 21:01:56 2007 From: nitalynx at yahoo.com (nitalynx) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:01:56 -0000 Subject: Appeal of the story to the reader In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708171113r3b6da94br5344998984543066@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175693 montims wrote: > so now I am beginning to understand why some people are having the problems > they evidently are. You see, I have no problem suspending my disbelief and > entering a "parallel" world, whether it is opera, theatre, books, films, > whatever, even when set in what is ostensibly and recognisably our own > world... Nita: Oh. Evidently, I've failed to explain my position clearly... > I am troubled by inconsistencies within the imaginary world, but I do not > have to have its physical or moral or whatever laws conform with those of my > world. More than that, I lived in Italy for 10 years, and quickly had to > make massive adjustments to my understanding of the way people reacted to a > concept or action (the Mafia, to use an extreme example; Ms as a female > title to use a trivial example). It's not really the characters' morals I'm having a problem with, but the way they're presented. > I adore Discworld, and find its characters and laws totally consistent. I > read Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Trollope and others, and am not cut up > when their moral ideas differ from mine. If, in their universe, as > character is good for doing X and bad for doing Y, I note it mentally and > move on, maybe with a little smile at the differences in our attitudes. But > it does not make their world wrong, or their characters morally deficient. But don't you ever wonder why the author has chosen such laws, how they impact the imaginary world, why our laws are different? > As I say, it is inconsistencies (Flints if you will) in the imagined world > that jar... I can live with a pretty high amount of technical flints (bad timelines, objects ending up in random places), and a lower amount of character-related quirks (knowing things for no good reason, keeping secrets for no good reason, some OOC-ness for plot purposes). Moral inconsistencies annoy me, and narrative inconsistencies (for instance, telling and showing different things) make me suspect either an inexperienced writer or a clever reversal. Which is why I felt mildly stunned while reading DH ("Wait, so she *meant* that?!"). > Oh, and as to why conventional justice doesn't work in Potterverse, IMO it's > because there is LV, and a MoM, and Hogwarts, etc. Their world is not > "conventional"... So we have an unconventional world with unconventional groups fighting each other for unconventional reasons with unconventional weapons. Why should I sympathize with one of those groups and not the other(s)? Who do you sympathize with, and why? :) Nita From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 17 21:22:03 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:22:03 -0000 Subject: need help for all of my confuse! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175694 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "lailasakti" wrote: > > > > I was wondering why is it that the Greatest Dark > > Wizard ever could be dead, because his Avada Kedavra > > was crushed with Harry's Expelliarmus? > > Explain it please. > > > > lailasakti > bboyminn: > I think to some extent, JKR indended for it to NOT be > crystal clear exactly what saved Harry. Certainly, > several aspects are clear, but how they all add together > and how critical they each are remains a mystery. Harry > is simply 'The Boy Who Lived - Twice' ..no make that > three times. Geoff: I think I disagree with that analysis. Strictly speaking, since Harry has not been killed, no. He is still the Boy Who Lived (Once) - perhaps his name should have been the Boy who Continued to Live. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Aug 17 21:30:39 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:30:39 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175695 > zgirnius: > I am afraid I do consider 'being a person who would not leave a non- > evil person to die' synonymous with compassion, though I may be weird > that way. I would say Severus Snape demoonstrates compassion on > occasion. So to get a clearer idea of what I am supposed to mean by > that word...I looked it up. Merriam Wenster online defines compassion > as: > > http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/compassion: > sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire > to alleviate it Magpie: It seems like some are setting a different bar for compassion--not in terms of what it is, because we all agree that there are moments where Harry shows compassion--but what they consider to be the kind of compassion that's particularly notable, especially in a hero or a story. And what would make compassion something particularly important to the series. I'm with Nita on this--it means somebody who understands someone's pov from their own perspective, especially if it's a humbling moment with somebody you didn't think you could have understood. Harry really isn't challenged much this way. He feels compassion for people who mostly already exist in his comfort zone for compassion (the person's an orphan or has done a lot for him--even easier if they no longer exist) or he feels pity in a removed way. There's no moments where Harry has a big revelation about himself a la Elizabeth Bennett having to do with compassion or looking at others. So does he ever show compassion? Sure. But not in a way that particularly stands out for me so that I'd think of it as being a big factor in the story. To me he seems to spend the entire series at pretty much the same level, connected to people only via things with which he feels comfortable about himself with it always obvious who's below him in the narrative. Someone recently, for instance, asked why Harry "owed" Draco a normal conversation. In the context that question was asked I think it was beside the point--nobody was saying he owed it to him, but that they expected part of Harry's development to involve the breaking down of this kind of hierarchy and seeing him as more of a person just like him. But at the same time the question, imo, very much reflected more the way the books see it. Harry (like his father, I think) has a saving people thing but developing a challenging compassion for people he's genuinely disliked, seeing himself as not so different from them (meaning really challing to himself, not with them working for him, or mirroring the things he most associates with his own suffering or pitying them from above) is not the thrust of the narrative. Nor does it have to be, but since it isn't I don't see compassion as very important in the books at all. The books don't have that much to say about it as far as I can see. Harry gets full props for being repulsed by his school enemies burning to death. He feels connected to other orphans. On things like Kreacher, again I agree with Nita. Harry needs something from Kreacher, and then Kreacher's story puts him on Harry's side. You say Harry feeling compassion before that would be fake, but I don't agree--particularly before Sirius was killed and Kreacher was just a lonely House Elf mourning his dead family with intruders destroying his house. I felt sorry for Kreacher there, Harry never did (and never had to since it turned out later that level of emotion from Kreacher was an illusion so Harry didn't have to ever care about that, and Kreacher still became a loving slave). Zara: > Though, I think the biggest mistake by Harry in the series occured in > OotP, and it led to the death of Sirius Black. Harry does recognize > his own responsibility in that death, and it pains him deeply. > (Though, naturally, the most responsible persons are Voldemort and > Bellatrix. And of course, he shifts the blame to Snape, which feels > soooo much better. But I never thought we were 'supposed' to believe > that was a good thing. It was one of those things that contrinuted to > my conviction that Snape would prove to have always been DDM!). Magpie: Maybe I'm forgetting this, but I don't recall Harry really working through this at all. He is aware that it feels good to blame Snape so he doesn't blame himself, but that's another element of the Snape relationship that isn't worked-through on page. Likewise Harry feels twinges of conscience after Sectumsempra which also go nowhere. They're just presented as a sign that Harry's got this covered. They don't need to be reflected on or worked through. So again, it doesn't seem like the story's really saying much about these things. Nowhere near what I thought was logical personally, which is why I felt like, "Wait, what about...?" Part of me is honestly still waiting for the end of HBP based on the story that seemed like it was being set up there--and that's not just a question of me wanting the story I wanted to see. It honestly seems more like the story setting things up and then moving on to other different things instead. I know that means I was wrong, but I don't think it's just me projecting everything. > zgirnius: > A technical point, but both the sword and the Hat are magical > artifacts that were once property of the mythical wizard, Godric > Gryffindor. The sword comes out of the Hat not because God, or > Justice, or some other force of Good makes it do so, but because > that's what the artifacts in question were bespelled to do by their > former owner. In my opinion, naturally. Griphook would say Godric was > wrong to cast such a spell, and I would not take sides on the matter. Magpie: He would--but surely it's more presented as a good thing that Godric did? Neville was a "true Gryffindor" and so it came to in--thank goodness, so he could kill the snake. There's no consideration in the story about Griphook losing it again, for instance. Zara: > I can figure out whose actions I approve of, and whose not, on my > own. The thing is, there are things Harry does of which I do not > approve (like the Crucio on Carrow, for example). I just don't feel > that the author would tell me I am wrong. The author does not tell me > one way or the other how *I* should feel about it, she just tells me > Harry did it, and how he felt about it. Which is enough information > for me to condemn that action. Magpie: I wouldn't always say it's a question of the story telling us how we should feel--though I think that JKR does that quite often by letting Harry tell us how he feels about something or some other authority character tell us. Or else the narrator is quite good at pulling us along. I think where people more often are going on is the consequences of actions and what they say about what's happening. If somebody does something and there's no bad consequences for it and no need for any (as opposed to the things in the story that do bring bad consequences, often with the approval of characters we tend to listen to) that's saying something probably more clearly than having a designated character come out and explain why they were bad. There's plenty of clear examples of that in the books that I think stand out against other times that seem to be approved of by contrast. It's not, I don't think, about having bunnies come out at the end of the chapter and tell the kids who was right or wrong, it's how the story goes that gives us the impression of what's being held up as valuable and right and wrong. I've no doubt, for instance, that Harry's saving the Slytherins in the RoR is presented as Harry being heroic. (I'd also think the way it's written as compared to Draco's saving Goyle also influences how the acts are perceived--something I think is also at play in the crying scenes of different characters. Harry and his friends do cry--Harry's tears are usually written about in a way different from other characters, iirc. Scenes where Hermione cries are written very affectionately, imo.) -m From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Aug 17 21:30:48 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:30:48 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: <5914261.1187382776726.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175696 lizzyben: > > The comes because the Four Houses correspond to > > different emotions - and one House is condemned > > as evil. Thereby seeming to condemn those emotions > > as evil. Gryffindor is the fire house - corresponding > > to the qualities of anger, passion, courage, etc. > > These emotions are heartely embraced & approved. > > Slytherin is the water house - corresponding to > > qualities of emotion, healing, love, empathy, sadness. > > And these emotions are rejected by association as > > useless & even dangerous. This is how Slytherins are > > given the "obsessive love" - love as something dangerous > > & wrong. This is how Slytherin men are seen crying - crying & > > expressing sadness is dangerous & wrong. This also seems > > to correspond w/what Betsy HP was saying about how Slytherin > > seems to represent in some ways the feminine aspects that > > are condemned in favor of macho masculine Gryffindors. > > This is, IMO, where the *weirdness* comes from. Bart: > Final comment, without quoting from you: JKR is > self-admittedly unfamiliar with RW occultism, so it > is wrong to assume that errors that she makes involving > those are through anything other than ignorance. houyhnhnm: I'm not willing to let her off that easily. There's the "ridiculous amount about alchemy" that she had to learn "to invent this wizard world" (by the way, where was it in DH?) There's the statements she made in the LC/Mugglenet interview. There's all the imagery in the books, continued in DH with the description of Ravenclaw common room, "airier than any Harry had ever seen at Hogwarts". She was right on with the personality traits associated with fire and not too far off on earth and air. But water? Not anywhere close. That's the single biggest wtf for me in the whole series. I know you've made a point before about the founders being the wrong gender. But I'm thinking of Betsy and the vibrant robust Gryffindor tower, now, and that since Ravenclaw also lives in a tower and Hufflepuff's common room is underground (too bad we never got a chance to see it), she even got that part right. So where's the Slytherin compassion, sensitivity, kindness, gentleness, and graciousness? I think she was caught between the notion to use elemental archetypes and the need to make Slytherin the repository of all that is bad and that need won out. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 17 21:33:54 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:33:54 -0000 Subject: Harry does cry Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175697 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > va32h: > > > I have to wonder what kind of response Baby Harry > > received from the Dursleys, when he cried in those > > first few weeks at Privet Drive? I would guess that > > Harry learned at a very early age not to cry. > > houyhnhnm: > > That's a good point that Harry's inability to *allow* > himself to cry may be a result of psychological damage > suffered at the hands of the Dursleys. It's not that he > doesn't feel sorrow strongly enough to bring tears. He > does. But he seems to feel the need to repress it. > > It's not how the passages affected me the first time I > read them, though. Long before I ever started reading > discussions on web sites, back when it just me and the > text, the negative message about showing your feelings > jumped out at me. I figured it was a Brit thing. Geoff: I think it is a British "thing". I've often cursed the fact that i've been unable to cry at times. I can get a tear in my eye as Harry apparently did, but full scale crying - no. I think that the "boys don't cry" syndrome is still very present today in the UK. I remember being very surprised when Harry found Draco crying in the boys' toilet in HBP but not surprised at the latter's violent reaction to being seen in that condition. houyhnhnm: > I, too, have been hurriedly thumbing through 4100 pages > to find the passages I remembered. I would like to examine > the language of those passages. Geoff: You should get the UK editions - they only come to 3362 pages. :-) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 21:38:30 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:38:30 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter an Anti-Royalist Tract? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175698 --- "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > Career advisor: > "I start with the fact that in HBP Hermione says > that (I'm paraphrasing): 'There are no wizarding > princes in Britain'. Which implies that there are > probably no noble wizards (and witches?) in the > wizarding world. And no student is mentioned > as being 'noble' at Hogwarts." > > > Justin Fitch-Fetchly, who chose between Eaton and > Hogwarts would be at least minor nobility or gentry, > wouldn't he? > > Bruce Alan Wilson bboyminn: Just because there are no Princes or Nobility OF the wizarding world doesn't mean that there are no Princes or Nobility IN the wizarding world. I am pondering a fan fiction in which we discover, that Prince William and Prince Harry received Hogwart's Letters, but because of their high profile position, they were forced to decline. Since muggle-born wizards are pretty much luck of the draw, Prince William has roughly the same chance of being a wizard as Hermione does. Also, I manage to sneak a great Uncle from a distant country into the mix, so P.William and P.Harry would actually have magic in their family tree. So, while the wizard world does not grant titles of nobility, and don't recognize muggle titles of nobility as having any wizardly authority, they would certainly recognize a Prince as a Prince. So, my point is, there could be Kings, Queen, Princes, Princesses, Dukes, Counts, and Earls from assorted countries who are also wizards, but those titles are not granted by any wizardly authority. Nor would the wizard world acknowledge any authority or privileges associated with those muggle titles, but again, they would certainly recognize that a Prince is a Prince. I think in the wizard world, the equivalent of aristocracy or nobility would be the continuation of the ancient and wealthy wizarding families like the Malfoys; good breeding and old money. I think those are the aspects that give a wizard status in their society. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Aug 17 21:43:39 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:43:39 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Appeal of the story to the reader In-Reply-To: References: <8ee758b40708171113r3b6da94br5344998984543066@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40708171443m35712069jd3224dad51f419ab@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175699 > > So we have an unconventional world with unconventional groups fighting > each other for unconventional reasons with unconventional weapons. Why > should I sympathize with one of those groups and not the other(s)? Who > do you sympathize with, and why? :) > > Nita montims: Well, that's the point - I have never really seen the "Slytherins evil/Gryffindor saints" thing, or vice versa, and I don't sympathise with one group over the other. I certainly don't revel in the torture/killings/vengeance events as mentioned by another poster. For me, it is just the story of Harry Potter from birth through to age 36 (?), the world in which he lives, and its events as they impact his life... The characters do what they do, and I can cheer, or wish they didn't, but it is not my story to change. The joy for me is seeing all the separate strands which lead all the way back to the first of the seven books, being woven together to form a beautiful and intricate pattern, and upon rereading the septology (currently nearly finishing PoA), seeing how often I have been led astray by misdirection and Harry's errant viewpoint. The books can also be very funny, and sometimes quite poignant. I recently, for a break, reread Emma, and took great pleasure at being misdirected there also. I used to like reading Agatha Christie, and other "classic" mystery writers. These days, the method seems to be to show the crime and who did it at the very start, and to explore the psychology behind the criminal's actions, and why the victim's psychology contributed to the crime, etc, through the rest of the book... I prefer a good oldfashioned whodunnit, which makes me rack my brains and doesn't let me know till the end what really happened, then I slap my head and go, "D'oh! How can I have missed that?" Now that's good writing!... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Aug 17 21:57:27 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:57:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry does cry Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40708171457l1a41c1c3te06650d66e98a28d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175700 > > houyhnhnm: > > It's not how the passages affected me the first time I > read them, though. Long before I ever started reading > discussions on web sites, back when it just me and the > text, the negative message about showing your feelings > jumped out at me. I figured it was a Brit thing. montims: and there was me thinking it was an American thing, everyone focusing on who cries or doesn't cry enough... Are there any other nationalities here who would like to speak up about this subject from a national viewpoint? Maybe it is a Brit thing, but I see nothing admirable in people weeping per se, and yes, maybe it is more admirable IMO to have a stiff upper lip and just deal with a situation without tears... There is not a lot of point in discussing feelings in a war time situation... I'm thinking back to the way wives and girlfriends were supposed to behave in WW1 and WW2. To bring it to the modern day, what good would it do to have soldiers in Iraq giving way to their feelings any time something bad happened? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvink7 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 17 22:23:54 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:23:54 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175701 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > >> houyhnhnm: > > There's > the "ridiculous amount about alchemy" that she had to > learn "to invent this wizard world" (by the way, where > was it in DH?) Renee: Try this link: http://hogwartsprofessor.com/?p=155 It's an alchemical analysis of the first half of DH by John Granger (the other half will follow in due time). Also, the Leaky Cauldron has a thread about Alchemy in HP, Part 7: http://www.leakylounge.com/index.php?s=81657de9545d08ab576e33ea32584309&showtopic=51485&st=0 Houyhnhnm: There's the statements she made in the > LC/Mugglenet interview. > She was right on with the personality traits associated > with fire and not too far off on earth and air. But > water? Not anywhere close. That's the single biggest > wtf for me in the whole series. > > > > So where's the Slytherin compassion, sensitivity, > kindness, gentleness, and graciousness? I think she > was caught between the notion to use elemental archetypes > and the need to make Slytherin the repository of all that > is bad and that need won out. Renee: Actually, I agree with you about that. It seems that she tried to combine a morally neutral system with a morally "charged" one, so to speak, and I don't think this was a very lucky move. If I try to think of a reason why she combined the House of Water with the pureblood ideology, what I can come up with is the association of water with cleansing. From there, it's only one step to notions of "ethnic cleansing", etcetera. But if this is how the House of Water acquired its traits, I doubt it was a step in the right direction. Ren?e From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 22:56:54 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:56:54 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: <5914261.1187382776726.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175702 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > lizzyben: > >Yes, love & compassion are useless. LV is beyond help, and no one > >should even try. > > Bart: > I know what you are trying to say, here, but you do bring up an interesting point. Because Morty IS beyond help, at least practical help (if he were a normal human, he COULD be sent to an institution where they MIGHT be able to help him, but the question comes of how many lives should be destroyed to save him). But that does not mean that Harry shouldn't have tried, if not for Morty's sake, for Harry's own sake. Looking at what happened: Harry tried to convince Morty that he is doomed unless he repents, Morty fails to listen and casts the YAAK at Harry, who acts, not to harm Morty, but to keep Morty from doing harm. After seeing what will happen to Morty, Harry can go on, knowing that he did everything in his power to keep that from happening. There are no wuddacuddashuddas here. And, who knows? A miracle MIGHT have happened. lizzyben: If it wasn't a taunt, it was good that Harry at least tried to ask LV to feel remorse. I liked that. He tries even after DD keeps insisting it is impossible. Like you say, maybe a miracle could happen. Bart: I think that, by trying to save Morty, even though he knows it's not going to work, Harry is showing compassion. While almost everybody is born with some degree of compassion, a good chunk of it is learned. Some people are born without it; unfortunately Morty falls into that category. lizzyben: Dumbledore too, for the most part. My biggest problem isn't how Harry treats the live LV, but how DD & Harry treat the baby in King's Cross chapter. It showed a total lack of compassion on DD's part - and he eventually convinces Harry to ignore & suppress any sense of empathy as well. I have always considered DD to be one of the most heartless, cold characters in the series - and even after death he still seems the same. DD didn't really have to learn or change either. In looking for a happy Snape ending, I came across one fan story w/a much more satisfying ending to "King's Cross". After Harry leaves the station, DD is left behind in the station with the crying, suffering baby. He ignores it & sits somewhere else, watching many many people pass through the station. They all get onto the train, but DD cannot & he doesn't understand why. He waits for years & years, & it becomes more & more difficult for him to ignore the baby's cries. Finally, he picks up the baby, and comforts it, and takes it onto the train with him. He had to show compassion in order to finally get on the train. This little story was so much more satisfying than the end of DH. Bart: > Final comment, without quoting from you: JKR is self-admittedly unfamiliar with RW occultism, so it is wrong to assume that errors that she makes involving those are through anything other than ignorance. > > Bart > lizzyben: Except she's basically working off of alchemy in how she constructs her world. Anyway, the classical "four humours" don't come from the occult, but Greek philosophy. JKR, as a classics major, would certainly be aware of them. And she more or less gets the temperaments right - Gryffindor fire w/courage, Ravenclaw air w/intellect, Hufflepuff earth w/loyalty. It just goes totally wrong w/Slytherin water, which just becomes the depository for everything evil instead. And maybe this has something to with the way the wizarding world in general seems to lack the positive "water" qualities - kindness, empathy, healing. If Slytherin House were redeemed, that'd go a long way towards healing this world, which is why that redemption seemed so necessary for a final resolution of the conflict. Oh, well. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 23:21:05 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:21:05 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter an Anti-Royalist Tract? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175703 > > Career advisor: > > "I start with the fact that in HBP Hermione says > > that (I'm paraphrasing): 'There are no wizarding > > princes in Britain'. Which implies that there are > > probably no noble wizards (and witches?) in the > > wizarding world. And no student is mentioned > > as being 'noble' at Hogwarts." > bboyminn: > > Just because there are no Princes or Nobility OF the > wizarding world doesn't mean that there are no > Princes or Nobility IN the wizarding world. > I think in the wizard world, the equivalent of > aristocracy or nobility would be the continuation > of the ancient and wealthy wizarding families like the > Malfoys; good breeding and old money. I think those > are the aspects that give a wizard status in their > society. Juli now: CareerAdvisor, the phrase doesn't go like that Hermione just says there are no "princes in the WW". There is royalty in the potterverse muggle world, probably one or two (or a thousand) were wizards (muggle born wizards), but just like Steve said, their status is probably not recognised by the WW. Ancient families like the Blacks, the Malfoys, the Pervells could be considered nobility, their ancenstry goes back centuries. I think in the course of the centuries a muggle-friendly wizard could have won himself any sort of Noble Title for any service to the king. In the MW he would be nobility, in the WW for anti-muggle idealist, he would just have been a crazy muggle-loving freak. JMO, Juli From kat7555 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 21:55:24 2007 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:55:24 -0000 Subject: Harry does cry Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175704 > Va32h: > > > I have to wonder what kind of response Baby Harry received from the > Dursleys, when he cried in those first few weeks at Privet Drive? I > would guess that Harry learned at a very early age not to cry. Harry gets tears in his eyes as he reads Lily's letter to Sirius. (DH 181) Harry states that Vernon likes to treat him as if he is invisable so I would guess that Baby Harry's cries were ignored. Kathy Kulesza From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 00:12:31 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:12:31 -0000 Subject: The Afterlife (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175705 What happens to our beloved dead? Do they retain personalities? Are they forever lost to us... or are they supporting us, just in some way we can't always perceive? The answers to these questions from DH are the kind that would be of comfort to those who grieve, and presumably comforted the author as well. Julie H, chicago I've wondered this a lot, especially as we've been given more glimpses of the afterlife. It's not just this total mystery. There are a lot of times in the series we've seen the living interact with the dead, and it's only served to confuse me more. Ghosts are the simplest. A shadow of the living. It seems their soul, their personality, all of their being is present, on earth, as a shadow of what once was. Able to speak, but do little else. The only confusing aspect is if a ghost were to have a portrait (I'll get into portraits later as they are the most confusing aspect of death) ? is this even possible? Would they be aspects of the same soul? Would a ghost be able to talk with his portrait persona? What else have we seen? Well, if we assume the King's Cross to not be entirely in Harry's head, because I don't see that as being definitive either way, here we have a purgatory, or at least a place of transition before the true afterlife. And here we also see Dumbledore, who is dead. The question is, did he wait here for Harry? Was he able to return from the true afterlife in order to meet Harry? Or, is the reality a mixture of reality and Harry's psyche ? he is in a place between life and death, but Dumbledore is an aspect of himself? Then, there are the regurgitated spells from GoF. Harry's parents, Cedric I find these to be some of the most disturbing visions of the dead that we have seen. Are they the souls of the people Voldy killed, literally trapped in the wand until Harry releases them? This seems unlikely, for every person who died due to the wand actions of another would be unable to advance to the afterlife. But they do drift upwards, apparently towards heaven. If they are not the souls, are they shadows of the people? Here I think of Tom Riddle in CoS. We learned later that the diary was a Horcrux, but at the time, Tom was a `memory'. Trapped at the time the diary was made, and had he been able to achieve his goal, he would have returned to life as Tom Riddle from that point, starting a divergent path from that of Voldy. Somehow the Horcruxes both anchor the soul to earth, so that when Voldy loses his body, he is anchored from that point on ? he does not revert (as far as I can tell) to the person he was at the creation of any of the Horcruxes ? as well as offer a `rebirth' option, providing a copy of the soul at the point of horcrux creation, ready to be released and start over from that point. This itself offers strange possibilities, as theoretically there could be multiple Riddles, from different Horcrux creations, alive at the same time, possibly in conflict with each other (because could Voldemorte team up with anyone, even himself?). This doesn't seem to be what JKR was planning for, but had Tom escaped and Ginny died in CoS, but the events of GoF still took place soul pieces like flatworms, cut apart and assuming their own identities? Or is each fragmented, flawed piece going to seek to bond with the others when it meets them again? But back to the regurgitated spells ? are they memories, shadows of souls copied at the moment of their death, and are simply going to heaven to merge with the true souls who have been there the whole time? It doesn't seem like a perfect answer, but it appeals to me more than the trapped souls theory. And, as Lupin and Sirius are present at the end (though we don't really know how Lupin died, it may not have been by wand, and perhaps Sirius's death was more attributed to the basement shower stall of death) it appears their souls are not trapped having not been regurgitated. Which brings us to the Resurrection Stone figures. It's hard to judge entirely based on the children's story of the Three Hallows that is, we know, a story, and likely exaggerated, but those who return from the dead are not happy and cannot truly be home in the world of the living. This leads me to believe that the presences that accompany Harry really are the souls of his loved ones ? they appear to even choose their own images, as James is dressed the same as the night of his death, but Sirius & Lupin imagine themselves younger and more hale than Harry last saw them alive. I have to wonder how Tonks, Moody, etc. were when the four of them were suddenly blinked out of one existence into another. A comment from Lily letting Harry know he's grown over the last 3 years would go a long way to identifying whether the same consciousness was present in GoF, but alas, not to be. The final, and most confusing aspect of the afterlife is the portrait. A really cool idea, when all the portraits we meet are people who are already dead. But when I start to consider people we knew alive and are now dead, it's a lot more confusing. Dumbeldore's portrait continues to influence events. Now, is that an aspect of magic that mimics the person's feelings at the time of death and allows them to continue working? Or is it an aspect of their actual soul? I can't imagine the dead person is trapped in the frame like a ghost is trapped on earth, but is it one soul that can travel between the afterlife and the portraits? That seems unlikely as well, because that means as a Hogwarts Headmaster you NEVER get to retire ? you'll be working forever, no rest for the weary. What if Harry had recalled Dumbledore with the stone in the office? And, again, what if a ghost had a portrait? Finally, who gets portraits? At first, I assumed it was a privilege for the rich and powerful, who would make arrangements before death. Sirius, not expecting death, wouldn't have made such arrangements. And then, some institutions, like Hogwarts, would have automatic placement spells to have them appear upon death of the headmaster. But (admittedly, not in the books) JKR tells us Snape will get a portrait later thanks to Harry. Well, if that's the case, why doesn't EVERYONE have a portrait? Portrait insurance should be a huge part of life insurance. Makes for a different talk with loved ones. Who needs to keep those you love in your heart? "Don't worry, Timmy, when I die, I'll never leave you. I'll always be here in the den." Harry is more than rich enough! He should have portraits of his parents, Sirius, everybody! Based on Dumbledore's portrait's involvement in the world, it may not be quite the same as life, but it must really be awesome for someone to have someone they love NEVER have to stop talking with them and giving them advice. And, somehow, it does not carry with it the negative connotations of being a ghost or being resurrected by the stone. I don't know what the portraits are exactly, soul-wise, but I do know that I want one of everyone I've ever lost. It would be hard, I suppose, with someone you loved, to never be able to hold them again, but in most cases being able to go home and talk to Sirius or get to know his parents seems like it would be a great thing for Harry. I doubt there are many answers to these questions, but if anyone has thoughts, I'd love to hear them. The afterlife is much more complicated when it overlaps with the duringlife. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 00:49:45 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:49:45 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175706 Hickengruendler: I don't think it has to be either. I mean, Cedric Diggory, for example, did not die a heroe's death, but definitely not a villain's death, either. He was a victim. Maybe Snape, in a completely different way, was in the end just a victim as well. I definitely don't think it was a villain's death, mainly because there was no satisfaction from any character. Harry, who at this time still detested Snape, was so shocked by it, that he showed himself to Snape, (which led to Snape fulfilling Dumbledore's final task). And judging by Sherry's post, at least some readers, who hated Snape prior to this, shared Harry's shock as well. There's a big difference between this scene and the recations after for example Bellatrix and Voldmeort's deaths from the other characters. I'm not sure, if it was a heroe's death, but I would say it was. I mean, in his way he died fulfilling his job in the fight against Voldemort the way Sirius, Lupin or Fred did, and as mentioned above, he managed to fulfill the last task given to , even if it was thanks to Harry. So, yes, I think it was pretty heroic IMO, even though the manner was certainly nasty, but so is ending up having a knife in your back, like Dobby did, which doesn't make Dobby's death less heroic. I think the nastiness was simply to show how horrid Voldemort can be even to those he considered his allies. I personally found Snape's Death scene pretty powerful, particularly in contrast with him being allowed to sit to the right of Voldemort in the first chapter. Throughout the series I've noted that JKR's deaths are fairly interesting, especially as compared to how many movie and other entertainment deaths are shown. In the series, I've noticed that for the most part, a person that dies does so quickly, without much suffering or last words (Dobby & Snape are notable exceptions) and also often without even being doing something very important. Most deaths don't occur as a character is valiantly protecting another character, but occur at a time that surprises them. More often than not, I feel that JKR really is showing us that death is meaningless. Life isn't, as many of these people were working towards valiant goals, but at the moment of death death came to them as it does to anyone, without meaning or fanfare. Cedric: Killed for no reason, instantly. His last words come after his death. There was no reason for him to die, and it certainly wasn't protracted Sirius: Killed in the heat of battle, fighting, but he also isn't shown doing anything particularly heroic. He isn't jumping in front of a blast meant for Harry. He's unlucky. And again instant. In such a weird way it really seemed like he hadn't died at all. Dumbledore: He's vulnerable for a long time, but when he dies, it's another instant thing. He's unarmed, and not attempting to accomplish anything ? except perhaps to save Draco's soul (a plot point I felt when sorely unaddressed in DH). We learn he did plead for his own death, which makes it interesting ? he certainly had any final words he wished to have. But it was another rather anticlimactic death Fred dies in battle, but due to a random explosion. He wasn't specifically targeted; his death was the whim of fate. And even by a mechanical means, not a spell, he gets no dying words. Lupin, Colin, and Tonks die off page, as does Moody. We know a little bit more of Moody's death, and he more than most we hear about was trying to accomplish something ? but for someone murdered, it doesn't sound like he was engaged in battle. He also was simply struck down with an instant death. Dobby & Snape escape this pattern. Snape, though, like most of our characters is not doing anything of importance. He dies for no reason (TANGENT: Voldemorte's reasoning is faulty, and I still don't totally follow his logic. If he really felt that he had to kill the holder of the wand, why not simply kill him? Why have Nagini do it? I guess he figures that counts, but with the odd wand rules, wouldn't you rather be sure and do it by wand, rather than by animal? I feel like Voldemorte should know wand rules better, and know he needs to `defeat' him, not KILL him, and actually, killing a loyal follower seems much more out of character to me than one would think. Since GoF I was surprised at how Voldy DIDN'T seem like your traditional megavillain. Giving Peter the silver hand, praising Barty, appearing to forgive those who had forsaken him, even appearing to be willing to spare Lily (SUBTANGENT TANGENT: Seriously, Lily was a mudblood who was part of the order. There was no reason for voldy to even offer to not kill her, other than to do something nice for Severus. It adds a dimension to Harry's love protection ? if Severus had not made this request, I believe Voldy would have simply dispatched Lily as he did James, and she would not have the opportunity to give her life for her son. So the love of Severus for Lily allowed the love of Lily for Harry to save Harry whose love of the world, let him save the world. So, Severus is responsible for Voldy targeting Harry at all, and him getting protection from Lily ? two levels of his direct involvement with creating the child who could defeat Voldy. Doesn't make me like Snape any better, but it's pretty interesting.) to me, he seemed like a villain with a heart. I was always interesting in voldy's compassion for his crew. Not that he wouldn't sacrifice him for a reason but his reasoning in this case seemed so flawed, and the execution so random I think JKR wanted Snape to die by the snake. And, what's more, I think she liked the idea of Neville being the one who in effect both avenges Snape and also defeats that which overcame him, that it overpowered the logic in simply having Voldy AK Snape.) and he dies not attempting to accomplish anything. However, Snape doesn't die instantly ? in fact, he's trying to staunch his blood, and then he manages to do a last deed by giving Harry his memories, and get last words and look into Harry's eyes. I, for one, was expecting Snape to betray Voldy at the right moment, or save someone, or sacrifice himself. This abrupt murder was not what I was expecting, but it fits more with JKR's usual context of death. Dobby, little Dobby, has the most traditional hero's death. Not only is he very bravely engaged in a dangerous activity to save his friends, but he dies by a nonmagical, slower means of death that gives him the most heroic death of the series. My tangents made me remember a few other deaths Lily, whose death obviously has more meaning than any other death in the series. She is, like Dobby, `doing something' with her death. Her death, however, is like others AK'd, immediate. I think James is basically the same as Lily's ? he just wasn't given the option to not die his for his family. But he chose to die while trying to give them time to run. And Peter, whose storyline also finished up very unsatisfactorily for me. I wanted more than a slight twitch (which we have to assume was done for the right reasons ? really, voldy wanted Potter himself, and would have been pissed if Peter had actually crushed his neck as well). But he did die doing SOMETHING, I guess, and crushing his own throat has to be one of the most gruesome deaths in the series. The death of a traitor, I suppose, and one who didn't ever really recant, but gruesome nonetheless. Not sure if I have a conclusion to this post. I wanted to think it out in writing, with all of you. But I think, for the most part, it's true that JKR shows us that the moment of death is fast, without meaning or drawn out sympathy. It happens when characters don't expect it, and not at their most heroic moment or most sacrificial. It just happens. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 01:42:14 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:42:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry does cry Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <223377.82280.qm@web55009.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175707 lizzyben04@: [snip] >And despite all his traumas, Harry is never allowed, once, to cry. Ever. Va32h: >I have to disagree with you there. >In PS, Dumbledore tells Harry how his mother's love protected him so >that Quirrel could not bear to touch him: "It was agony to touch a >person marked by something so good." >Then, Dumbledore pretended to be very interested in a bird outside >the window "which gave Harry time to dry his eyes on the sheet." >In GoF, when Harry is telling Dumbledore about what happened in the >graveyard, there comes a time when he "found his throat obstructed" >which requires more interpretation on our parts but which I consider >choking back tears. >In OoTP, after hearing the prophecy, Harry spends an afternoon >walking around the lake, avoiding everybody and mourning Sirius. At >the end of his reverie, he returns to castle "wiping his face on his >sleeve as he went." >In HBP, when talking to the other professors after Dumbledore's >death, he starts to say that the students should be allowed to stay >at school to say goodbye, but "the last word caught in his throat." >Again, an interpretation, but I'd at least grant him "choked up" on >that one. >And of course, in Deathly Hallows, Harry very clearly cries at his >parents' graves. >So perhaps three clear instances and two vague allusions to crying >over the course of 7 years and umpteen traumatic experiences isn't >much, but Harry *does* cry. He would just prefer not to, and >certainly not to do it in front of others. >I have to wonder what kind of response Baby Harry received from the >Dursleys, when he cried in those first few weeks at Privet Drive? I >would guess that Harry learned at a very early age not to cry. I have an example to add from GOF -- this scene broke my heart and it marked the first time I cried while reading a HP book...and it helps answer the question you pose in your last paragraph. You asked us all for "our moment" from DH -- this would be my "first moment" within the series. [Harry is in the infirmary, and Fudge has left the Tri-Wizard winnings for him. Harry tells Molly that he doesn't want the gold, that he "shouldn't have won it. It should've been Cedric's."] The thing against which he had been fighting on and off ever since he had come out the maze was threatening to overpower him. He could feel a burning, prickling feeling in the inner corners of his eyes. He blinked and stared up at the ceiling. "It wasn't your fault, Harry," Mrs. Weasley whispered. "I told him to take the cup with me," said Harry. Now the burning feeling was in his throat too. He wished Ron would look away. Mrs. Weasley set the potion down on the beside cabinet, bent down, and put her arms around Harry. He had no memory of ever being hugged like this, as though by a mother. The full weight of everything he had seen that night seemed to fall in upon him as Mrs. Weasley held him to her. His mother's face, his father's voice, the sight of Cedric, dead on the ground all started spinning in his head until he could hardly bear it, until he was screwing up his face against the howl of misery fighting to get out of him. p. 714 Christy, who, if she were Molly, would have never let Harry go after this scene --------------------------------- Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Aug 18 02:07:44 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 02:07:44 -0000 Subject: Harry does cry Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708171457l1a41c1c3te06650d66e98a28d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175708 montims: > and there was me thinking it was an American thing, > everyone focusing on who cries or doesn't cry enough.. houyhnhnm: Well, it is. :-} Excessively so; I'm well aware. I've wondered before now if some of the differences in interpretation by readers could be due to cross-cultural misperceptions and I think in this case (the importance to put on the fact that Harry feels he must not cry) that might be so. American readers might ascribe a different significance to it than British readers. I guess the test would be to lurk awhile on a non-English fan sites and see if there is a difference in the kind of issues that come up. From nitalynx at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 02:10:33 2007 From: nitalynx at yahoo.com (nitalynx) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 02:10:33 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175709 zgirnius wrote: > In other words, by the end of the scene, Ginny *is* brought to tears. > (OK, we don't know this for a fact, but that was certainly how I, and > Harry, read it). Harry wants to comfort her, and is not remotely > annoyed by this reaction. Nita: Hmm, good point (although why Harry *can't* comfort her is beyond me). Now I think that JKR simply wanted to mention that Harry finds many things wonderful about Ginny, and the gibe at "weepy" people just happened along. Perhaps it just irks me because I used to be quite weepy myself, and I don't get why a physiological reaction should be perceived as "selfish". People usually cry when can't help crying, it's no more of a choice than blushing. I'd be able not to cry in Ginny's situation, but not in some others. I have no idea what I or Ginny would do in Cho's place, so comparing the girls in this aspect doesn't make sense to me. zgirnius: > Nor was Kreacher a completely unknown mama animal worried about her > young. He was the guy who conspired to send Harry to the DoM. For > Harry to express compassion instantly, without learning anything > about Kreacher, would have been a far greater step than the fairy > tale hero's, to my mind. Right. I think JKR never puts Harry in the fairy tale hero's situation. Perhaps she doesn't see that kind of challenge as important. zgirnius: > He did not merely watch, he approached Snape. I do not believe Snape > could be saved at that point. If he could be, I think he himself > would have been the right person to do it. Snape has forgotten more > about healing than Harry knows at that point, it would seem to me. > > So what more could Harry have done for him than he did? I don't demand anything more of Harry in the scene. I simply objected to including it in a list of compassionate actions. No compassion is required, none is demonstrated. All is well :) > Harry does comply with every request of the dying Snape, > including the last one, which is of no practical value to 'the > cause'. (Oh, man, that scene got to me...) Yeah, it was an intense scene. Poor Snape :/ zgirnius: > I don't think he did it for Harry. He is not pleased to be there, and > to be treated so by the Death Eaters. Eh? How does that work? "I don't like these guys, so I'll randomly do as this kid says while they break my bones"? IMO, he granted Harry a favour. zgirnius: > I am afraid I do consider 'being a person who would not leave a non- > evil person to die' synonymous with compassion, though I may be weird > that way. Well, I wouldn't call you weird just for disagreeing with me ;) I think there are several possible motivations for such behaviour, and compassion is only one of them. > I would say Severus Snape demonstrates compassion on > occasion. It's hard to tell without looking into his head, IMO. Wouldn't it be extremely difficult for him, just like being kind is difficult - because he's too defensive and miserable? zgirnius: > So to get a clearer idea of what I am supposed to mean by > that word...I looked it up. Merriam Wenster online defines compassion > as: > > http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/compassion: > sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire > to alleviate it > > Harry's thought process as the Room of Requirement is consumed by > flame is as follows: > > > DH, "The Battle of Hogwarts": > > He swooped as low as he dared over the marauding monsters of flame > to try and find them, but there was nothing but fire: What a terrible > way to die...He had never wanted this... > > "Harry, let's get out, let's get out!" bellowed Ron, though it was > impossible to see where the door was through the black smoke. > > And then Harry heard a thin, piteous human scream from amidst the > terrible commotion, the thunder of devouring flame. > > zgirnius: > So, Harry thinks of the fate in store for Draco, and finds it > terrible. Draco sounds 'piteous'. I see both the sympathetic > consciousness, and the desire to alleviate the suffering, myself. Nita: Well, Harry probably thinks what Draco is thinking, but I doubt that he feels what Draco is feeling. Or that he would ever welcome that sort of feeling. It *is* a kind of sympathy, but a rational, removed kind. "Ah, those poor unlucky bastards in the flames..." Still, it's the most sympathy "the other" can hope for, so, in his moral universe, Harry can be called compassionate, I suppose. zgirnius: > Word! Draco is one of *my* Good Slytherins. It's not about which side > he and his family are on in the war, it is about what he does. He > tries to drag Goyle, unconscious and twice his size, out of that > inferno instead of running for his life. > > But the attempt to help out at Malfoy Manor is not why Harry rescues > him, as indicated in the citation above. So it in no way makes > Harry's action less than compassionate. Again, I wasn't trying to say anything about Harry with that, but rather about the way the story is built. I wonder if JKR thinks that perhaps Draco wouldn't "deserve" being saved if he hadn't played that part earlier. > zgirnius: > > Of course, once upon a time there was a lovely princess with flaming > red hair, who shut the door in the face of her old friend as he > strove to apologize to her for words he had uttered in a moment of > pain and humiliation. And a brave prince who had too much fun hurting > and humiliating that same old friend of the princess with his > friends. The prince and princess married and produced... Our Hero. If > that old friend had not become a Death Eater, word of a certain > prophecy would not have gotten to Voldemort... take it or leave it. > Oh. That's an interesting take on the backstory... I like it a lot ;) zgirnius: > I suppose the loss of the sword and discovery of the Horcrux hunt is > not enough of a consequence? I do agree that Harry does not beat > himself up about it. The sword comes back as soon as they really need it, and I don't think the discovery could be connected to Harry's decision. Er, maybe I'm misremembering something, though. > Though, I think the biggest mistake by Harry in the series occured in > OotP, and it led to the death of Sirius Black. Harry does recognize > his own responsibility in that death, and it pains him deeply. > (Though, naturally, the most responsible persons are Voldemort and > Bellatrix. And of course, he shifts the blame to Snape, which feels > soooo much better. But I never thought we were 'supposed' to believe > that was a good thing. It was one of those things that contrinuted to > my conviction that Snape would prove to have always been DDM!). *nods* And, as sistermagpie said, all that shifted blame simply disappeared somehow. I have no idea what Harry feels about Sirius' death now, do you? Oh, wait. Sirius said it didn't hurt and he seemed OK. I guess that takes care of the problem. Hmm :/ zgirnius: > A technical point, but both the sword and the Hat are magical > artifacts that were once property of the mythical wizard, Godric > Gryffindor. The sword comes out of the Hat not because God, or > Justice, or some other force of Good makes it do so, but because > that's what the artifacts in question were bespelled to do by their > former owner. In my opinion, naturally. Griphook would say Godric was > wrong to cast such a spell, and I would not take sides on the matter. Well, I don't know what you think about interviews, but JKR did say "Griphook was wrong - Gryffindor did not 'steal' the sword, not unless you are a goblin fanatic and believe that all goblin-made objects really belong to the maker." ( http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0730-bloomsbury-chat.html ) > zgirnius: > I agree within-book reproaches do not abound in the series. I guess I > don't have a problem with that. I can find them tedious, myself, in > other words which strive to guide me more in how I should think. > > My 4 year old loves Starukha Shapoklyak from the Cheburashka > cartoons. After hearing the crocodile and his pals lecture her, I can > see his point. Apologies to those not familiar with Soviet Era > animated cartoons. She's a (rather silly) 'villain' in a show for > young kids, that is in my view didactic about virtues like > friendliness, cooperation, and community service in ways I find heavy- > handed. Nita: I agree with your 4-year-old, she's a delightful little old lady! And, while we're on the subject of rooting for the "wrong" side, I think I've found another way to explain my viewpoint :) Let's take a look at "Tom & Jerry". There's a big bad cat who wants to catch and eat the cute little mouse. The mouse is booth good and the underdog, right? Only, after you've watched a few episodes, you know that Tom usually doesn't have a chance. He's doomed to a lot of violent (but, luckily, cartoony) payback. On a certain level, the HP series turned out similar, and that was a surprise to me. I had expected all human characters except Voldemort to be fully human, in the sense that Harry should be able to relate to them. I'm not interested in heavy-handed moralizing, but I do think it's important to understand how minds, including your own, work, in order to make good decisions. I believe it's an essential part of growing up. Apparently, JKR didn't agree, leaving me a little confused after all the build-up. Nita, not feeling as eloquent as she'd like to be From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Aug 18 00:38:04 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:38:04 -0400 Subject: Reaction to Snape's death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175710 "Jack-A-Roe: He was a poor excuse for a teacher. Insults and bullying are not the way to get children to learn. Intimidating Nevelle, reading the paper out load in class in GoF, Breaking Harry's potion in OotP, etc. The man should not have been anywhere near students." The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Snape's students learn. Even Harry manages to get an E. I love my aunt to death, but before she retired she was a HS English teacher, and once I heard her say that her goal was for her students to like her and have fun in her class, and if they learned anything it was a bonus. Between a nice, sweet -tempered teacher who didn't care about the students mastering the material and a harsh mean teacher who sees to it that the students master the material, in spite of themselves if necessary, I'd take the latter. Particularly in a subject where not getting things right could get you, or someone else, killed. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Aug 18 02:25:40 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 02:25:40 -0000 Subject: FILK: If I Harry Kill Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175711 If I Harry Kill (DH, Chap. 33) To the tune of Blueberry Hill by Fats Domino (Domino = Domine = Lord) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO2ZjbTND38 THE SCENE: Hogwarts & the surrounding areas. Not only did LORD VOLDEMORT take over the Malfoy Manor and seize Lucius' wand, he's also swiped the Malfoy Karaoke machine, which he uses to broadcast his latest hit single VOLDEMORT: I won't blood spill if I Harry kill If I Harry kill I will spare you My will is ill till Harry I kill I'll wait until this hour is through The wand that's a Hallow gives A sweet victory And what of the Boy Who Lived? He'll die dreadfully Thanks to Dark Arts, depart soon he will There'll be a big chill when I Harry kill. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 02:46:35 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 02:46:35 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175712 > prep0strus: > Life isn't, as many of these people were working towards valiant > goals, but at the moment of death death came to them as it does to > anyone, without meaning or fanfare. zgirnius: Yes, I think this is definitely something I also saw. It's the lives that matter. > prep0strus: > Dumbledore: He's vulnerable for a long time, but when he dies, it's > another instant thing. He's unarmed, and not attempting to accomplish > anything ? except perhaps to save Draco's soul (a plot point I felt > when sorely unaddressed in DH). We learn he did plead for his own > death, which makes it interesting ? he certainly had any final words > he wished to have. But it was another rather anticlimactic death zgirnius: Gee, I have to disagree on this one. First, it was not anticlimactic. At the time we read it, either it was a cold-blooded murder at the hands of a traitor he protected and trusted for fifteen years, or it was a sacrifice made for the greater good with the cooperation (also a sacrifice, that) of his uber-loyal spy. And he was trying to accomplish things as he died - save Draco's soul, as you say, and also protect Harry (that Expelliarmus worked because Dumbledore first froze Harry). And if one bought at the time that it was a willing death, he was also trying to further whatever DDM!Snape plot of choice you liked at the time. OK, so now we know it was the planned death, still dramatic even though he was dying, because of Snape's involvement. And with that death he was trying to accomplish a death undefeated, while Master of the Elder Wand (oops, Draco messed that up for him), to keep that power out of Voldemort's hands. And incidentally, to cement Snape's position as Voldemort's right hand man, which would leave Snape in a position to try and protect the students as Headmaster, and hang about Voldemort waiting for the moment to tell Harry about his little soul-bit problem. I really think this one qualifies as one of the meaningful, dramatic deaths. > prep0strus: > Dobby & Snape escape this pattern. Snape, though, like most of our > characters is not doing anything of importance. He dies for no reason zgirnius: Well, yeah. Though in Snape's case I thought that was highly suitable. He dies because Voldemort, whom Snape has successfully deceived for 16 years, is a dangerous sociopath who might kill anyone at any given time for unpredictable reasons. Something his pointless murder of his best lieutenant (he thought) illustrated beautifully. > prep0strus: > (TANGENT: Voldemorte's reasoning is faulty, and I still don't totally > follow his logic. If he really felt that he had to kill the holder of > the wand, why not simply kill him? zgirnius: Because Voldemort believed Snape, as the murderer of Dumbledore, was Master of the Elder Wand, Voldemort had to use the wand indirectly, it might not act properly against its true Master (as was indeed illustrated by Voldemort's death, a few chapters later). By using it to trap Snape in the bubble and letting Nagini do the honors, he avoided that danger. > prep0strus: > I feel like > Voldemorte should know wand rules better, and know he needs to > `defeat' him, not KILL him, zgirnius: He does not know wandlore, it appears to be a field of magic of which he was ignorant. It seems a very obscure field, known to very few. Anyway, yes, he had reason to believe a murder was not necessary - both GW and DD seemed to have got the wand by seizing it. But Voldemort had already done that, by stealing it form the tomb of Dumbledore, and he could tell the wand was not in any way unusual, it allowed him only his ordinary high level of performance. He may have figured that GW and DD did not figure out what they needed to do to make the wand work right, or did not its failure to deliver on its promise, or were too weak (as LV would think it) to do what it took. (A more reasonable thing to suppose of Albus than of Young Gellert). SO he figured the wand must have attaced to Snape when Snape killed DD, and that he therefore had to kill Snape. > prep0strus: and actually, killing a loyal follower > seems much more out of character to me than one would think. Since > GoF I was surprised at how Voldy DIDN'T seem like your traditional > megavillain. Giving Peter the silver hand, zgirnius: Oh, the silver hand. I ADORE the silver hand. Such a sweet gift that was, from a grateful Dark Lord to his loyal follower. Because I just adore it (now that I fully understand what happened there), let us recall that touching exchange: > GoF: > Voldemort raised his wand again and whirled it through the air. A streak of what looked like molten silver hung shining in the wand's wake. Momentarily shapeless, it writhed and then formed itself into a gleaming replica of a human hand, bright as moonlight, which soared downward and fixed itself upon Wormtail's bleeding wrist. > Wormtail's sobbing stopped abruptly. His breathing harsh and ragged, he raised his head and stared in disbelief at the silver hand, now attached seamlessly to his arm, as though he were wearing a dazzling glove. He flexed the shining fingers, then, trembling, picked up a small twig on the ground and crushed it into powder. > "My Lord," he whispered. "Master ... it is beautiful. . . thank you... thank you. ..." > He scrambled forward on his knees and kissed the hem of Voldemort's robes. > "May your loyalty never waver again, Wormtail," said Voldemort. > "No, my Lord . . . never, my Lord . . ." zgirnius: But it did waver, it did! Just for a moment...and that was the end of Peter (DH, "Malfoy Manor"). A gift quite in the spirit of the murder of Severus Snape, if you ask me. > prep0strus: praising Barty, zgirnius: Well, and why not? The man was fanatically loyal, and carried out his assignment to perfection! > prep0strus: > appearing to forgive those who had forsaken him, zgirnius: Yes, he chose to Crucio only one of them, 'pour encourager les autres'. Though he reserved the right to do as much to any of them, should they fail him again. > prep0strus: > even appearing to be willing to spare Lily zgirnius: What did it cost him? Nothing. When the annoying girl refused to stand aside, he zapped her. A pity, really, she could have been a lovely gift for Severus, very much in the spirit of the silver hand. What would he have done for Voldemort, to ensure her continued survival? (We know the answer, of course..."Anything.") Voldemort does not 'get' love, but he does 'get' that it is a wonderful lever to use on people. Look how he dealt with the Malfoys in HBP and DH... > prep0strus: > So, Severus is responsible for Voldy targeting Harry at all, and him > getting protection from Lily ? two levels of his direct involvement > with creating the child who could defeat Voldy. Doesn't make me like > Snape any better, but it's pretty interesting.) zgirnius: (No accounting for taste ). Yup. Sev/Lily is "at the heart of it all". > prep0strus: > to me, he seemed like a villain with a heart. I was always > interesting in voldy's compassion for his crew. zgirnius: Yeah, we definitely see old Tom differently. Scary, scary man. *shudders* > prep0strus: > And, what's more, I think she liked the idea of Neville > being the one who in effect both avenges Snape and also defeats that > which overcame him, that it overpowered the logic in simply having > Voldy AK Snape.) zgirnius: Umm - there were more pressing plot reasons why it could not be an AK! Dead men share no memories. But I definitely agree about Neville and Nagini. > prep0strus: > and he dies not attempting to accomplish anything. However, Snape > doesn't die instantly ? in fact, he's trying to staunch his blood, and > then he manages to do a last deed by giving Harry his memories, zgirnius: Well, not just *A* last deed, *THE* last deed. This was his role in Dumbledore's master plan, the thing he had to do without fail for the plan to work. > prep0strus: > Dobby, little Dobby, has the most traditional hero's death. zgirnius: *sob* > prep0strus: > And Peter, whose storyline also finished up very unsatisfactorily for > me. I wanted more than a slight twitch (which we have to assume was > done for the right reasons ? really, voldy wanted Potter himself, and > would have been pissed if Peter had actually crushed his neck as > well). zgirnius: I think that Voldemort's little present detected that the reason was 'right'. If Peter had been thinking 'Oops, Master wants the boy alive', my feeling is that the hand would have gone along with the change of plans. But no, for a moment Peter remembered this was James' son, who saved him from the retribution of his erstwhile friends, and the hand did the rest. > prep0strus: > Not sure if I have a conclusion to this post. I wanted to think it > out in writing, with all of you. But I think, for the most part, it's > true that JKR shows us that the moment of death is fast, without > meaning or drawn out sympathy. It happens when characters don't > expect it, and not at their most heroic moment or most sacrificial. > It just happens. zgirnius: Well, I am glad you wrote the post, I found it very interesting to think about your ideas (and your asides). You ought perhaps add Harry's death to the list. While instant like most of them, it was definitely trying (and succeeding) to achieve something important. And because Harry went to it knowingly, we got lots of last words/thoughts before it, so it was totally the heroic sort of death you mention above. Of course, then he didn't die after all. From judy at judyshapiro.com Sat Aug 18 03:19:19 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 03:19:19 -0000 Subject: Own Secret Keeper? (Was: Ungrateful werewolf) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175713 On the topic of on why James & Lily needed a Secret Keeper, Guzu wrote: > > I was further confused by the revelation in DH that you can go > > into hiding and be *your own* secret > > keeper for the Fidelus Charm (DH page 390 UK edition). > > Both Arthur and Bill are their own secret keepers. [SNIP] Terri replied: > > I was thinking that they would have made someone their secret > > keeper just in case they needed some help. If they were their > > own Secret Keeper and they get sick or something, who would take > > care of Harry? [SNIP] Carol responded: > I think they needed someone else to be the Secret Keeper because > they, not their hiding place, were the Secret. Their house is not > invisible like 12 GP to those who don't know the secret (other than > Muggles), but *they* are. Flitwick says in PoA that Voldemort could > have pressed his nose to their window and could not have seen them > cas long as the charm was unbroken. ... > I also think that the Potters, who could not leave the house without > being seen (thanks to Dumbledore's borrowing the Invisibility > Cloak!) needed someone who could reveal the Secret to chosen > friends, say Lupin or Dumbledore or other Order members. [SNIP] Alas, I think this is just one of JKR's many inconsistencies. If you can be your own Secret Keeper, as Arthur and Bill are, then I see no reason why James or Lily couldn't be the Secret Keeper. If James and Lily just wanted to let someone else know where they were, so that that person could take care of Harry if they became ill for example, then they could have just TOLD the secret to Sirius or Dumbledore, without making that person the Secret Keeper. That way, Sirius, Dumbledore or whoever would have been able to come to the house and take care of Harry (or whatever needed to be done), but could not have revealed the Secret to anyone else. If James', Lily's, and Harry's *locations* were the actual secret, rather than the location of the Godric's Hollow house, then why couldn't James leave the house without his cloak? If "where James is" is the secret and Voldemort couldn't even see him with his nose pressed against the window, then presumably Voldemort couldn't see James even if he left the house, either. I don't see any way to fill this plot hole. JKR could easily have made the Fidelius Charm consistent simply by (say) having Arthur be the Secret Keeper for Bill & Fleur, and Bill be the Secret Keeper for Arthur & Co, but she didn't bother. I don't see any way to make the secret of #12 Grimmauld Place consistent, either. If Hermione can let a Death Eater in by accident, Snape could certainly have let a whole slew of them in intentionally. (And even if he wouldn't let Death Eaters in, because he is Dumbledore's Man, the Trio don't know that, so it made no sense for them to stay at #12 Grimmauld Place for so long.) As someone here said, JKR's idea of the Fidelius Charm seems to change not only from book to book, but from chapter to chapter. -- Frustrated-at-plotholes!Judy From graynavarre at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 03:08:32 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Reaction to Snape's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <534372.97491.qm@web30113.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175714 > "Jack-A-Roe: > He was a poor excuse for a teacher. Insults and > bullying are not the way to get children to learn. > Bruce Alan Wilson: > The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Snape's > students learn. Even Harry manages to get an E. Both my sister and I had a small, little lady named Miss Hughes for the the fifth grade. All of us were scared of her. One single look could reduce tough boys to jelly. A snarl could produce tears in girls. She taught us grammar and you had better believe this fact - we learned grammar. I don't remember how many sentences I had to diagram on the blackboard. Now, everyone at my college (where I am an assistant librarian) comes to me to get the answer to a grammar question. Snape was teaching a class that was extremely dangerous. He wasn't nice but he taught it well. Barbara PS About 20 years ago, at the "viewing" before our father's funeral, a small, sweet faced lady walked over to the chairs where my sister and I were seated. She told us how sorry she was to hear of our loss. Then she told us that she had taught both us. (Yep, you have guessed it.) She said that she was Miss Hughes. Both Carol and I jumped to our feet and backed up in instant terror. She just smiled. From jnferr at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 03:29:30 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:29:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Reaction to Snape's death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40708172029u3fc1262fob910fa4986afe144@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175715 Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > > I love my aunt to death, but before she retired she was a HS > English teacher, and once I heard her say that her goal was > for her students to like her and have fun in her class, and > if they learned anything it was a bonus. Between a nice, sweet > -tempered teacher who didn't care about the students mastering > the material and a harsh mean teacher who sees to it that the > students master the material, in spite of themselves if necessary, > I'd take the latter. Particularly in a subject where not getting > things right could get you, or someone else, killed. montims: that last sentence makes a good point - how many sergeant majors are lovable? If you're teaching a dangerous subject, it is necessary to bully if you're dealing with adolescents with many other things on their mind, to get htem to concentrate... The kids behave well for McGonagall because she's scary, and badly for Binns and Trelawney... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 04:04:58 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 04:04:58 -0000 Subject: Reaction to Snape's death In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708172029u3fc1262fob910fa4986afe144@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175716 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > > > > I love my aunt to death, but before she retired she was a HS > > English teacher, and once I heard her say that her goal was > > for her students to like her and have fun in her class, and > > if they learned anything it was a bonus. Between a nice, sweet > > -tempered teacher who didn't care about the students mastering > > the material and a harsh mean teacher who sees to it that the > > students master the material, in spite of themselves if necessary, > > I'd take the latter. Particularly in a subject where not getting > > things right could get you, or someone else, killed. > > > montims: > that last sentence makes a good point - how many sergeant majors are > lovable? If you're teaching a dangerous subject, it is necessary to bully > if you're dealing with adolescents with many other things on their mind, to > get htem to concentrate... The kids behave well for McGonagall because > she's scary, and badly for Binns and Trelawney... > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Prep0strus: McGonagall was tough-but-fair. The Snape-as-drill-sergeant doesn't work when you see how he taught Slytherins in comparison. Inequality in teaching doesn't equal good teaching. either the slytherins aren't getting the benefit of the tough love, or the griffendors are just getting shafted. Personally, i know many a student who would just as soon write off a situation where they knew they were damned whatever they did. A good teacher is able to teach all students. And a great teacher also inspires a love of the field and a desire to learn more. Snape was a good potionsmaster, but not a good teacher. ~Adam From urghiggi at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 04:19:26 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 04:19:26 -0000 Subject: Elder Wand mastery (was Re: need help for all of my confuse!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175717 > bboyminn: > > Does that matter, is 'conquered' conquered, or does it > have to be magically 'conquered'? Or, does it have to > be conquered at all? Maybe it just needs to be captured. > Grindlewald captured the wand from Gregorovitch. But, > we could say Grindlewald conquered Gregorovitch by > stealth and quick wits (plus a trace of magic). He > conquered him by out smarting him. > julie H: Well, it's convenient for Ollivander to say it's complex & mysterious because it allows a lot of logical murkiness in this part of the plot, IMO :-) I don't think just 'capturing' it would be enough to transfer the Elder Wand's allegiance. Because, if it was, how on earth could Dumbledore have beaten Grindelwald in the duel, when Grindelwald had this so-called unbeatable wand? The only possible solution is that, at the very least, theft does not constitute a wand ownership transfer, at least not with this particular wand. If Grindelwald 'conquered' Gregorovitch, it wasn't a good enough conquering to make the Grindelwald the true master. Ergo LV's possession, which also stems from theft, would be illegitimate even if Dumbledore had still been the rightful master of the Elder Wand at his death. (But... the Dumbledore portrait also agrees with Harry when he says in the penultimate chapter of DH that if the master of the wand is never "defeated," its power would die with the owner... so if Dumbledore had died another kind of death, the wand's power would be gone. Clearly the wand had registered the Tower events as a true defeat, even though Dumbledore was arguably letting them unfold voluntarily.) The only way I can logically make this work is this sequence: 1) Gregorovich had the wand and presumably was a legit 'master'. 2) Grindelwald stole it and thought he was 'master' but was not, due to the fact that he had stolen the wand (apparently not constituting "defeat" of a definitive enough type). 3) Dumbledore bested Grindelwald in a duel and won the mastery of the wand. The wand by definition is 'unbeatable' in the hands of the true master. Ergo, 'theft' cannot constitute legit mastery, or Grindelwald would have been the 'master' and Dumbledore would not have been able to defeat him. 4) Draco disarmed Dumbledore because Dumbledore did not fight (if he'd chosen or been able to fight, he'd have had to win, yes?) Draco did not have possession but was still by rights 'master' of the wand. 5) Harry bested Draco by physical overpowerment and took possession of Draco's 'regular' wand. Somehow this defeat also 'registered' with the Elder wand in DD's tomb. (here's where it all gets pretty goofy, imo.) 6) LV stole the wand from Dumbledore's tomb and thought it made him the master. But noooooo, because a) he'd gotten the wand by theft and also b) Harry was at this point the master of the wand. 7)LV thinks the Elder Wand isn't as juiced-up as it ought to be, according to its reputation, though why he thinks this is somewhat unclear ("The Elder Wand," page 656-57). He concludes that Snape is the true master, the "wizard who killed its last owner." He kills snape with the snake to supposedly ensure his mastery of the wand. 7) LV and Harry duel, casting curses simultaneously. "Harry saw Voldemort's green jet meet his own spell, saw the Elder Wand fly high, dark against the sunrise, spinning across the enchanted ceiling like the head of Nagini, spinning through the air toward THE MASTER IT WOULD NOT KILL, who had come to take full possession of it at last." (DH scholastic p 743-44, ALLCAPS mine) So -- the logic of this wand appears to be: 1) Stealing the wand does not make you 'master' 2) Somehow you must defeat the current 'master' in some kind of fight. This fight does NOT have to involve actual fighting with the Elder Wand. (Indeed, it seems to me that the only way to take legit possession is to win some kind of battle where the current master is NOT using the Elder wand, because... it's an unbeatable wand in the hands of the master, yes?) 3) The Wand has some sort of built in 'sensor' registering such defeats -- cumulatively, in fact. (Because for Harry to be "the master it would not kill," the wand has to have registered Draco's ownership, though Draco never touched it, and then Draco's disarming by Harry.) All very murky, but you CAN make it make sense if you puzzle over it for a while. Nevertheless, there are still holes in the logic. To wit -- if Gregorevich was the master and if the Grindelwald ripoff did not make HIM the master, who WAS the master after Grindelwald stole the wand? Still Gregorevich? How did the defeat of Grindelwald make Dumbledore the master if Grindelwald truly was NOT the master to begin with? But if Grindelwald was NOT the master, then how did he amass such power in a way that was attributed at least in part to his possession of this wand? But if he WAS the master, then how the heck could Dumbledore beat him in a duel? But if he WASN'T the master, then wasn't Gregorevich still the master -- and presumably not actually defeated until LV killed him, which would have made LV the master???? You see where I'm going? You can make it make sense, but only if you don't look at it too darned hard. Which is why it's so convenient for Ollivander to just throw up his hands and say "wandlore is a complex and mysterious branch of magic." DH p 494 yeah, you can say that again, wand dude. Julie H, chicago From juli17 at aol.com Sat Aug 18 04:49:22 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:49:22 EDT Subject: The crying thing (was Harry does cry Re: Of Sorting and Snape) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175718 I honestly don't get the whole crying debate. 1. Harry does cry sometimes. Those instances have been pointed out. And when Dumbledore turned away rather than watching Harry cry, he was giving Harry his privacy, which is what Dumbledore understands Harry (who is less comfortable with crying than most, given his background) would want. He's being respectful, not implying Harry's tears are shameful, IMO. 2. No one cries a great deal *except* Cho. Not Gryffindors, not Slytherins, not Hufflepuffs, not Ravenclaws. Or, to put it more correctly, we rarely see anyone crying IN FRONT of Harry. The one time we see Snape cry, he is doing so *privately.* (Which makes him giving this memory to Harry all the more amazing, IMO.) From everything I've seen in the books, Slytherins are just like students from all the other Houses, far more likely to vent their anger in front of other students than to cry in front of other students. (And of the "cryers," two who have shed tears in the books are Gryffindor-- Dumbledore and Hagrid--and how odd neither seemed uncomfortable or ashamed at doing so). Which brings us to... 3. JKR's writing about crying reflects her culture and upbringing. In Britian and in America it IS more acceptable for people to express anger in public than to cry in public, *especially* for boys/men. This isn't very healthy, but it is the way it is. So why would the WW in Britian be any different than the surrounding Muggle society in Britian? 4. Do you know any teenage boys who are comfortable comforting a crying girl? I don't. Like most teenage boys, Harry would rather not deal with someone else's sadness or grief, because he doesn't know *how* to deal with it, how to make it "better." Thus that Ginny isn't as openly emotional as Cho strikes teenage boy Harry as a good thing, as it doesn't put him in the position of feeling confused and helpless. Presumably as he matures and gets more life experience, he'll learn to deal better with crying. Though he may never be comfortable with it, as some people, especially those who grew up where crying was a bad (or in Harry's case, totally useless) thing, never do. Julie, who can't see at all how crying, not crying, being comfortable with, or being uncomfortable with crying has any relation to one's House or reflects on any particular House. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Aug 18 05:16:22 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 05:16:22 -0000 Subject: FILK: Lily's Letter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175719 Dedicated to everyone who participated in the "Lily's Letter" thread. (Willingly or not) To the tune of "The Letter" as sung by the Boxtops http://youtube.com/watch?v=wD9mCp8SifM Scene: 12 Grimauld Place, shortly after Dumbledore's death. Snape rushes in, dashes up to Sirius's old room and is frantically seaching for something. Got to get a picture of Lily's smile Haven't seen her face in a long while. Dumbledore is gone. Going it alone. I know Lily must-a wrote him a letter. Got to get something to remind me of her, Just to give me strength so I will endure. Dumbledore is gone. Going it alone. I know Lily must-a wrote him a letter. Well, I know Lily's letter Would give me the strength to face Voldemort. Got to find her picture so that I can do what I promised Dumbledore, Anything (repeat) Potioncat, who thinks the lead singer could be Snape, and that one of the other band members could be Sirius---except that wouldn't work out. Take a look From penhaligon at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 05:23:38 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:23:38 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry the author In-Reply-To: References: <006501c7defb$9b57f960$6501a8c0@your4cdmc4uqnt> Message-ID: <6289588F1F004C5482D3FA2301CBC793@Home> No: HPFGUIDX 175720 Judy Serenity wrote: > Here's my theory, as an academic and a Snapefan: > Snape hasn't published his "secret recipes" because then they would > no longer be *secret*. As long as he is the only one with this > knowledge, he can run - er, brew - circles around the other potion > makers. Except for Lily, I think. I believe that the potions talent Slughorn so admired in Lily came from her good friend Severus secretly coaching her throughout at least the first six years. Panhandle -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.0/958 - Release Date: 8/17/2007 2:31 PM From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 05:32:42 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 05:32:42 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175721 > Nita: > Hmm, good point (although why Harry *can't* comfort her is beyond me). zgirnius: Oh, I don't know, I could see not wanting to continue a highly personal discussion in front of my best friends, one of whom is the older brother of my girlfriend. I suppose he could tell them to get lost, though Ron might not. > Nita: > Perhaps it just irks me because I used to be quite weepy myself, and I > don't get why a physiological reaction should be perceived as > "selfish". zgirnius: I am still quite weepy, personally, under the right circumstances. I don't think this makes me selfish, and I quite agree that it does not seem to be something over which one has all that much control. But Harry does not think to himself that Cho is selfish, and therefore Ginny is morally superior, and this is why he loves her. He is just uncomfortable around a weepy girlfriend, and therefore prefers Ginny to Cho in this respect. This preference is an established fact about Harry's character, we were shown that discomfort in OotP. Harry's thought is just about one way in which Ginny is the right girl for Harry. Ginny's non-weepiness also exists in canon pre-DH. > > zgirnius: > > Harry does comply with every request of the dying Snape, > > including the last one, which is of no practical value to 'the > > cause'. (Oh, man, that scene got to me...) > > Nita: > Yeah, it was an intense scene. Poor Snape :/ zgirnius: I guess our mileage varies. The whole scene is very non-explicit about what, exactly, Harry is feeling. He thinks of Snape as "the man he hated", but surely Harry would know it if what he was feeling was any of grim satisfaction, hate, vengeful glee, etc. These are the emotions he has expected to feel at this moment, a moment he has longed for: > HBP, "The White Tomb" "And if I meet Severus Snape along the way, so much the better for me, so much the worse for him." zgirnius: Or earler the same day... > DH, "The Sacking of Severus Snape": > Hatred boiled up in Harry at the sight of him zgirnius: The mysterious feeling that causes Harry to go into the room, and to remove his cloak is not identified, but I think it is horror at what he has seen, despite his feelings about Snape. I just don't see what else it could be - I attribute Harry's own obliviousness to confusion (I can't possibly be feeling sorry for Snape!). If he is horrified, and wants to do something to alleviate Snape's suffering, complying with Snape's dying wishes would be the only avenue, and that is precisely what Harry does, by kneeling down, by collecting his memories, and by looking into his eyes as he dies. (And I do think it is effective. As I see it, Snape is far happier to die secure in the knowledge that he has not, after all, failed, and gazing into that set of green eyes. Which may not be very happy, but that's Snape. *sigh*) But yeah, whatever it is, is not spelled out. > Nita: > Eh? How does that work? "I don't like these guys, so I'll randomly do > as this kid says while they break my bones"? IMO, he granted Harry a > favour. zgirnius: Griphook was already a captive of Greybeard and Co., and already in poor physical condition when the Trio were captured. (Oh, aside, Harry blundered. I had forgotten that the reason they were captured at all is that Harry got irritated and used the word Voldemort). Greybeard took Griphook to his apparent ally Bellatrix together with Harry and the others. Also, Griphook already has issues with the DEs, because they are interfering at Gringott's. And he knows the DEs need to ask - so they can't tell whether he is lying or not. "These guys are torturing me, and apparently if I lie to them about the sword, this kid thinks it will screw them over. Gee, I think I will, on the off-chance he is right! Bastards." Incidentally, I believe his choice saved his life. If Bella knew the sword was real, she would think they had been in the vault and would have killed him, instead of relaxing and giving him one final parting gift of a knife slash across his face before calling Voldemort. Did he have some inkling of the stakes? Perhaps. > Nita: > It's hard to tell without looking into his head, IMO. Wouldn't it be > extremely difficult for him, just like being kind is difficult - > because he's too defensive and miserable? zgirnius: As you say, hard to tell. But I tend to think there is more going on in that head than seeps out. It's possible the compassionate-seeming things he does are actually done out of a rational calculation that they are 'right' a la Spock, but he does seem to be a rather emotional guy under the exterior. Sort of an aside in this discussion, though. > Nita: > Well, Harry probably thinks what Draco is thinking, but I doubt that > he feels what Draco is feeling. Or that he would ever welcome that > sort of feeling. zgirnius: He is almost in the flames himself. Ron is urging him to get out before it is too late. This is not about Draco's emotional pain, but his physical danger/pain, which I think Harry apprehends perfectly, and wishes to alleviate. Anyway, Draco's emotional situation at this point as I see it, is frantic worry about his parents. Both are without their wands, with Voldemort, and on his shit list. This makes his situation not unlike that of Xenophilius Lovegood, for whom Harry does what he can. He has the following thought about old Xeno: > DH, "The Tale of the Three Brothers": > "They will be here in a moment. I must save Luna. I cannot lose Luna. You must not leave." > He spread his arms in front of the staircase, and Harry had a sudden vision of his mother doing the same thing in front of his crib. zgirnius: It seems to me that he gets it. And when the DEs show up immediately afterwards, Harry makes sure they see him, in the hope that it will make them go easier on Lovegood than in they believed he had summoned them on a false alarm. Draco's parents Harry cannot help, except by defeating Voldemort. Which he is on the process of doing. So he cannot do anything about the emotional situation, which I think he also understands. > Nita: > Again, I wasn't trying to say anything about Harry with that, but > rather about the way the story is built. I wonder if JKR thinks that > perhaps Draco wouldn't "deserve" being saved if he hadn't played that > part earlier. zgirnius: OK. I also just wanted an excuse to rave about Draco. I did in an earlier post, but noone bit. Persistence! I think she figures he deserves to be saved for trying to save Goyle, myself. In addition to that thing earlier, Draco also lowered his wand on the Tower in HBP. I think all three things make him 'deserving'. Perhaps also his feelings about Charity Burbage and having to torture people, I don't know. But Harry does rescue nondeserving people (Dudley, or so he thinks). > Nita: > *nods* And, as sistermagpie said, all that shifted blame simply > disappeared somehow. I have no idea what Harry feels about Sirius' > death now, do you? Oh, wait. Sirius said it didn't hurt and he seemed > OK. I guess that takes care of the problem. Hmm :/ zgirnius: No, I think the next bit of the conversation to which you refer takes care of the problem. > DH, "The Forest Again": > "I didn't want you to die," Harry said. These words came without volition. "Any of you. I'm sorry-" zgirnius: And then Lupin agrees he is sorry too, and the other three all confirm that they will stay with him. "We are a part of you. Invisible to anyone else," Sirius says to him. So basically, Harry now knows that Sirius himself does not blame him. There is no reason for him to continue to carry a load of guilt. I also think that over time it had gotten less anyway. I can't find the quote, but I recall Harry described Sirius as 'reckless' at a point in the book. This suggests he was already beginning to take a more balanced view of the events. (And of course, again, while Harry did make a mistake, and did feel badly about both the possibloe ansd actually outcomes of that mistake, Sirius's death was more the fault of Bella and Voldemort.) And he sort of lost interest in blaming Snape for that when he had a nice, traitorou murder to hang in him instead. (At least, it does not get mentioned at the end of HBP, or in DH that I can recall). > Nita: > Well, I don't know what you think about interviews, but JKR did say > "Griphook was wrong - Gryffindor did not 'steal' the sword, not unless > you are a goblin fanatic and believe that all goblin-made objects > really belong to the maker." ( > http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0730-bloomsbury-chat.html ) zgirnius: Rowling is a human. It does not really answer the question, though. All this means is that Godric paid for the sword in the human manner, something I did not doubt in the first place. It remains possible the goblin who took the payment, took it thinking he was selling it goblin-style, to use during the purchaser's lifetime. > Nita: > On a certain level, the HP series turned out similar, and that was a > surprise to me. I had expected all human characters except Voldemort > to be fully human, in the sense that Harry should be able to relate to > them. I'm not interested in heavy-handed moralizing, but I do think > it's important to understand how minds, including your own, work, in > order to make good decisions. I believe it's an essential part of > growing up. Apparently, JKR didn't agree, leaving me a little confused > after all the build-up. zgirnius: Not all real life humans can relate to all other real-life humans poerfectly. Harry is not deficient in this area. He does get enough to understand lots of characters on some functioning level, I think. He got that Draco did not want to kill or torture anyone. He got that Draco felt cornered, and worried about his family. But the reason I don't get the Tom and Jerry feeling is because *I* can relate to the other real-life humans. Even (especially?) the "Others", the Slytherins we were 'supposed to' think were bad guys (some really were, at various points in their existence): Cissy, Draco, Regulus, Snape, Lucius. (Not Bella, sorry. I think Azkaban unhinged her.) Oh, and I suppose Peter, though in most posts where "Others" are discussed, people seem to be thinking mainly Slytherins. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 06:26:22 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:26:22 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: <8C9AEA44EA0D338-2A0-3624@FWM-M15.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C9AEA44EA0D338-2A0-3624@FWM-M15.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0708172326t3b11275j8c39b043a6b056ff@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175722 marion11111: Now that I think about it, I don't personally know anyone who married their high school sweetheart. Of course, with only one wizard high school per country, i guess you'd pretty much have to marry someone from school. Or go abroad to find love. Lynda: Oh, I can think of four couples from my high school who did. (Well one couple did not marry--couldn't legally in the U.S--but they were together until one of them passed on). And two of those couples are still together. As are two other couples I can think of right off that met in high school and married. So it still does happen occasionally, even in the latter part of the 20th century/early part of the 21st century. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sat Aug 18 07:12:30 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 03:12:30 EDT Subject: The Afterlife (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175723 Adam wrote: Which brings us to the Resurrection Stone figures. It's hard to judge entirely based on the children's story of the Three Hallows? that is, we know, a story, and likely exaggerated, but those who return from the dead are not happy and cannot truly be home in the world of the living. This leads me to believe that the presences that accompany Harry really are the souls of his loved ones ? they appear to even choose their own images, as James is dressed the same as the night of his death, but Sirius & Lupin imagine themselves younger and more hale than Harry last saw them alive. I have to wonder how Tonks, Moody, etc. were when the four of them were suddenly blinked out of one existence into another. A comment from Lily letting Harry know he's grown over the last 3 years would go a long way to identifying whether the same consciousness was present in GoF, but alas, not to be. Julie: My response about the Afterlife will reflect a bit of my own views, and I'm going to add in some things I've read recently here, and in fanfic. And I'll use Snape for an example (sorry, but you probably knew that was coming!) Alla mentioned in one post that she would view Snape being forced to see Lily and James together in the Afterlife as very fitting Karma (I think I got the gist of Alla's meaning right anyway!). On a personal level, I don't agree, since I do believe Snape redeemed himself, and that no one has to go to the Afterlife (whatever that may be) having corrected/repented every misdeed or healed every problematic aspect of his/her life or personality. Sirius died still bitter and angry, not yet having overcome his worst faults, still unkind to Kreacher and immersed in fruitless hatred of Snape. Dumbledore died a man with many faults and an unfinished need to atone to Harry and others by his own admission. So why shouldn't Snape die still bitter and unable to own up to the unfairness in his treatment of Harry or his meanness to others in general, yet still be eligible for Afterlife as a redeemed soul like the other flawed people in the books? Sorry, that was really a tangent to the main discussion. I don't see the Afterlife, the actual one should that be the case, or the one we glimpse in the HP books, as some sort of linear continuation of life. It's not like James and Lily continue as they were, setting up house on some heavenly little cloud, or the Marauders (minus Peter presumably) get together again and prance about in some grassy Elysium Field in their Animagi forms. Or that could be one small element of it... I recently read a fanfic where after Snape dies he finds himself in the Afterlife, and who should come to join him but Lily. Snape is gratified but wonders why Lily isn't with James. Lily tells him that it doesn't work like that "here." She isn't just in one place. James' Lily is with James, while Sev's Lily will remain right here with him. Eventually, Harry's Lily--his mom--will be with him too. In other words, souls don't have the same boundaries as living people. Their existence isn't just in a different "place" but also of a different nature altogether. So for me, I don't see Snape, Lily, James, Dumbledore, Cedric, etc, etc, existing in soul form as single individuals in some heavenly place, all getting along or trying to get along, occasionally being summoned through wands or resurrection stones to visit the living. Whatever the soul's existence entails, it must be broader in scope, far less defined within physical space and time, than the existence of the living. And no doubt completely incomprehensible to us mere humans, but this is my best guess put into words. Julie (who suspects the souls that accompanied Harry looked the way *Harry* wanted to see them...) ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 07:25:42 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 07:25:42 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter an Anti-Royalist Tract? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175724 --- "jlnbtr" wrote: > > > > > Career advisor: > > > "I start with the fact that in HBP Hermione says > > > that (I'm paraphrasing): 'There are no wizarding > > > princes in Britain'. Which implies that there are > > > probably no noble wizards (and witches?) in the > > > wizarding world. And no student is mentioned > > > as being 'noble' at Hogwarts." > > > bboyminn: > > > > Just because there are no Princes or Nobility OF > > the wizarding world doesn't mean that there are no > > Princes or Nobility IN the wizarding world. > > > I think in the wizard world, the equivalent of > > aristocracy or nobility would be the continuation > > of the ancient and wealthy wizarding families like > > the Malfoys; good breeding and old money. I think > > those are the aspects that give a wizard status in > > their society. > > Juli now: > CareerAdvisor, the phrase doesn't go like that > Hermione just says there are no "princes in the WW". > There is royalty in the potterverse muggle world, > probably one or two (or a thousand) were wizards > (muggle born wizards), but just like Steve said, > their status is probably not recognised by the WW. > Ancient families like the Blacks, the Malfoys, the > Pervells could be considered nobility, their > ancenstry goes back centuries. ... bboyminn: A few additional points - SIR Patrick Delaney-Podmore - leader of the Headless Hunt SIR Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington - Gryffindor Ghost SIR Cadogan - Knight in a Portrait For these people to carry the title 'Sir' means that they were inducted into some Royal Order. But, of course, that would be a muggle Royal Order. Yet, the wizard world does recognize those title. They accept that it is 'SIR Nicholas'. But being a 'Sir' or a Duke or a Count wouldn't carry any authority in the wizard world. Just as a Count who came to England from Romania would still be recognized as a Count, he wouldn't be recognized as a British Count. So, the wizard world recognizes the existance of members of Royal Orders, those granted Royal Titles, and those of Royal birth, but the wizard world itself grants none of these. This is just my long winded way of agreeing with Juli and expanding the conversation to include Sir Nicholas. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 07:48:12 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 07:48:12 -0000 Subject: need help for all of my confuse! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175725 --- "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > > bboyminn: > > > I think to some extent, JKR indended for it to > > NOT be crystal clear exactly what saved Harry.... > > and (to)... remains a mystery. Harry is simply 'The > > Boy Who Lived - Twice' ..no make that three times. > > Geoff: > I think I disagree with that analysis. Strictly > speaking, since Harry has not been killed, no. He is > still the Boy Who Lived (Once) - perhaps his name > should have been the Boy who Continued to Live. > bboyminn: Yes and No. 'The Boy Who Lived' is really 'the boy who was hit with an AK curse and lived'. Harry was hit twice (Godrics Hollow and Forbidden Forest) with an AK and lived to tell the tale, and twice more the unblockable AK curse was cast against him, and he still survived (graveyard and final battle). It is not significant that Harry lived and continues to live, because Ron lived and continues to live, Neville lived and continues to live. Harry is only 'The Boy Who Lived' because he shouldn't have lived and he shouldn't continue to live because he was hit with the AK. But he does, so he is. Steve/bboyminn From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 07:56:51 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 07:56:51 -0000 Subject: Reaction to Snape's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175726 > Prep0strus: > McGonagall was tough-but-fair. The Snape-as-drill-sergeant doesn't > work when you see how he taught Slytherins in comparison. Inequality > in teaching doesn't equal good teaching. either the slytherins aren't > getting the benefit of the tough love, or the griffendors are just > getting shafted. Personally, i know many a student who would just as > soon write off a situation where they knew they were damned whatever > they did. A good teacher is able to teach all students. And a great > teacher also inspires a love of the field and a desire to learn more. > Snape was a good potionsmaster, but not a good teacher. > > ~Adam Montavilla47: Adam, please show the text evidence of Snape teaching Slytherins so we can compare them. Harry says that Snape treated the Slytherins differently, but, while I can see that he sided with the Slytherins in any disciplinary situation, I don't see anything that indicates that he taught them differently or graded them differently. The only time he praises a Slytherin in class is during the first class where he points out Draco's perfectly cut slugs. We also have him not awarding points to Hermione for something Harry feels another teacher would have awarded points for (in the D.A.D.A. class. Hermione is the first to cast a spell non-verbally.) But that doesn't necessarily mean that he would have awarded points had a Slytherin been the first student to do so. In CoS, the Harry Narrator (of Harrator) tells us that Snape is unfair. But I don't find that reliable, as it's a student making that judgment. I'm sure if this was Draco Malfoy and the Very Annoying Thing That My Father Told Me Not to Get Involved With, we'd be getting a passage about how McGonagall is so unfair--unlike Professor Snape, who is tough, but always just. Montavilla47 From super_tattoo_queen at yahoo.co.uk Sat Aug 18 09:12:12 2007 From: super_tattoo_queen at yahoo.co.uk (super_tattoo_queen) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 09:12:12 -0000 Subject: Kings Cross..... The end??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175727 Please explain as I really cannot fathom, if HP was willingly hit by the Avada Kedavra "UC" why did HP's consciousness go somewhere remarkably like a scene from "The Matrix" where he is waiting at the train station to come back to reality??? I thought that AK curse was supposed to kill outright?? I get why Harry survived the 1st time, but the second?? I thought that the destruction of the horcrux would have ultimately destroyed him also?? But alas no.... Harry survives???, has 3 kids and lives happily ever after......???? (IMO) surely after allowing him to survive, JKR can't just leave HP out to pasture ... she has left too much scope there for more adventures....? Great book though, I was really shocked at the Snape, Lily, James triangle though ... I didn't think Snape had it in him. lolol super_tatto_queen From virpshas at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 18 13:13:26 2007 From: virpshas at tiscali.co.uk (Edis) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 13:13:26 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio In-Reply-To: <000e01c7d380$e0668c00$3a62acce@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175728 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > From the live chat: > "Barbara: I was very disappointed to see harry use crucio I think there is an overall dramatic point here. Harry has tried to use certain Unforgivable Curses before and has failed because his powers were undeveloped. Now he uses Crucio - and with complete success. Can anyone doubt that he could use the Avadra Kedavra if he chose to do so? There can be no doubt about his full magical powers after the 'Crucio casting' scene. Yet Harry chooses not to kill but instead to use his trademark expelliarmus when he is truly at the personal extremity in confrontation with Voldemort. Expelliarmus - the trademark 'juvenile' spell he was criticised for using after the battle of the escape from Privet Drive. It is part of a theme. Harry is willing to die for a cause but not to kill. The Crucio scene underlines that this is a choice not a magical incompetence. Jo needed to make this point somehow for dramatic clarity and this is how she did it. Edis From urghiggi at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 13:33:15 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 13:33:15 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175729 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Edis" wrote: Edis: > The Crucio scene underlines that this is a choice not a magical > incompetence. Jo needed to make this point somehow for dramatic > clarity and this is how she did it. > Julie H: Ahhh, but he'd already proven his mastery of an 'unforgivable' by this time, having Imperio'd several characters during the Gringotts cup heist. Was the crucio scene really necessary to prove again that he could do an unforgivable curse? And if she needed to do that... why not do it in the heat of battle... or, say, in the RoR during the diadem incident, when stuff was happening fast and furious? (Not the case in the Ravenclaw Tower.) Sorry, I still can't see how 'stupefy' or 'petrificus totalus' wouldn't have worked equally well in the Carrow incident, without the moral issues of torture raised by crucio.... Julie H, chicago From leahstill at hotmail.com Sat Aug 18 13:57:32 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 13:57:32 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175730 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "urghiggi" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Edis" wrote: > > > Edis: > > The Crucio scene underlines that this is a choice not a magical > > incompetence. Jo needed to make this point somehow for dramatic > > clarity and this is how she did it. > > > > Julie H: > Ahhh, but he'd already proven his mastery of an 'unforgivable' by this time, having > Imperio'd several characters during the Gringotts cup heist. Was the crucio scene really > necessary to prove again that he could do an unforgivable curse? And if she needed to do > that... why not do it in the heat of battle... or, say, in the RoR during the diadem incident, > when stuff was happening fast and furious? (Not the case in the Ravenclaw Tower.) (snipped) > Julie H, chicago Leah: Funnily enough, just before reading Edis' post, I had myself had the thought that perhaps Harry's use of the Imperius and Cruciatus curses were indeed meant to prepare us for Harry taking out Voldemort with an AK, only for the Harry who returns from his near- death experience in the Forest to be able to defeat only by removing the wand/power from Voldemort/Evil with the Expelliarmus In that case, the casual use of the Cruciatus, which disturbed me, might be a further build-up towards a presumed AK, or perhaps an indication of the power of the soul bit in Harry (as Voldemort himself appears to be gaining in power). But that still doesn't explain McGonagall's 'gallant' reaction. If the Crucio is meant to make us think the hero is becoming 'Dirty Harry' shouldn't McGonagall's reaction indicate that? Leah, pretty puzzled. From andie1 at earthlink.net Sat Aug 18 14:23:27 2007 From: andie1 at earthlink.net (grindieloe) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:23:27 -0000 Subject: Kings Cross..... The end??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175731 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "super_tattoo_queen" wrote: > > Please explain as I really cannot fathom, if HP was willingly hit by the > Avada Kedavra "UC" why did HP's consciousness go somewhere remarkably > like a scene from "The Matrix" where he is waiting at the train station > to come back to reality??? > > I thought that AK curse was supposed to kill outright?? I get why Harry > survived the 1st time, but the second?? I thought that the destruction > of the horcrux would have ultimately destroyed him also?? > > But alas no.... Harry survives???, has 3 kids and lives happily ever > after......???? (IMO) surely after allowing him to survive, JKR can't > just leave HP out to pasture ... she has left too much scope there for > more adventures....? > > Great book though, I was really shocked at the Snape, Lily, James > triangle though ... I didn't think Snape had it in him. lolol > > super_tatto_queen > I think that Harry survived when the horcrux was destroyed because of the Elder Wand. Harry was the true master of the Elder Wand, and thus it would not work properly against him - just as he states in the final battle scenes in the Great Hall with Riddle. From andie1 at earthlink.net Sat Aug 18 14:24:52 2007 From: andie1 at earthlink.net (grindieloe) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:24:52 -0000 Subject: Kings Cross..... The end??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175732 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "super_tattoo_queen" wrote: I thought that AK curse was supposed to kill outright?? I get why Harry survived the 1st time, but the second?? I thought that the destruction of the horcrux would have ultimately destroyed him also?? super_tatto_queen I think that Harry survived when the horcrux was destroyed because of the Elder Wand. Harry was the true master of the Elder Wand, and thus it would not work properly against him - just as he states in the final battle scenes in the Great Hall with Riddle. grindieloe From augustinapeach at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 15:37:26 2007 From: augustinapeach at yahoo.com (augustinapeach) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:37:26 -0000 Subject: Kings Cross..... The end??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175733 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "grindieloe" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "super_tattoo_queen" > wrote: > I thought that AK curse was supposed to kill outright?? I get why > Harry > survived the 1st time, but the second?? I thought that the > destruction > of the horcrux would have ultimately destroyed him also?? > super_tatto_queen > > > > I think that Harry survived when the horcrux was destroyed because of > the Elder Wand. Harry was the true master of the Elder Wand, and > thus it would not work properly against him - just as he states in > the final battle scenes in the Great Hall with Riddle. > > grindieloe > I think he survived because a bit of him was in Voldemort. Remember the momentary gleam of triumph in Dumbledore's eye while he was questioning Harry after the graveyard scene in Goblet of Fire? I always wondered about that. Now I think it was because Dumbledore realized that by using Harry's blood to reincarnate himself, Voldemort had provided Harry with a way back once Voldemort had killed him to destroy the scar horcrux. A bit of Harry wouldn't be in the body that died. Dumbledore knew Harry would have to die to destroy the horcrux, but the triumph was that it didn't have to be final. From augustinapeach at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 15:57:31 2007 From: augustinapeach at yahoo.com (augustinapeach) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:57:31 -0000 Subject: This moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175734 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: > > > "potioncat" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175735 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > Alas, I think this is just one of JKR's many inconsistencies. > > If you can be your own Secret Keeper, as Arthur and Bill are, then I > see no reason why James or Lily couldn't be the Secret Keeper. Pippin: I think it's because the Secret Keeper can reveal the secret, and the secret they need to protect is not Lily or James, it's Harry. He is the one Voldemort wants to kill. If James or Lily are secret keepers, they can accidentally give themselves away, as Hermione did, and then they could be coerced or tricked into revealing Harry. IIRC, the idea was for Sirius to go into hiding, luring the pursuit after him and leaving the real secret keeper Peter unmolested. Peter would be in hiding too, but nobody would go looking for him, since no one would suspect such a supposedly weak wizard of being an SK. Judy: > I don't see any way to make the secret of #12 Grimmauld Place > consistent, either. If Hermione can let a Death Eater in by accident, > Snape could certainly have let a whole slew of them in intentionally. > (And even if he wouldn't let Death Eaters in, because he is > Dumbledore's Man, the Trio don't know that, so it made no sense for > them to stay at #12 Grimmauld Place for so long.) Pippin: They knew the DE's couldn't get in because they were keeping watch on the square instead of invading the House. They assumed that whatever Moody did to stop Snape from letting the DE's in worked. Presumably Snape's tongue would curl up if he tried to tell anyone the exact location of the doorstep. I have to imagine they know there are ways of keeping Snape from communicating the location by some other means than talking, just as there must be spells besides the stair slide to keep boys out of the girls dorms. JKR doesn't go into detail about them because they aren't important to the story. If she did go into detail, then we'd be expecting a subplot about Snape working his way past the spells, or boys breaking into a dorm. But the stair slide spell does appear again, when Hermione uses it to block the DE's during the Battle of Hogwarts. As for the doorstep, IMO, the risk of splinching while sidealong apparating into such a narrow space would be enough to discourage Voldemort from ordering Snape to try it, at least while Snape is still a valuable lieutenant. Pippin From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 16:22:49 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:22:49 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175736 Va32h: I have to disagree with you there. In PS, Dumbledore tells Harry how his mother's love protected him so that Quirrel could not bear to touch him: "It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good." Then, Dumbledore pretended to be very interested in a bird outside the window "which gave Harry time to dry his eyes on the sheet." In GoF, when Harry is telling Dumbledore about what happened in the graveyard, there comes a time when he "found his throat obstructed" which requires more interpretation on our parts but which I consider choking back tears. And of course, in Deathly Hallows, Harry very clearly cries at his parents' graves. So perhaps three clear instances and two vague allusions to crying over the course of 7 years and umpteen traumatic experiences isn't much, but Harry *does* cry. He would just prefer not to, and certainly not to do it in front of others. lizzyben: Well, this might be a cultural thing more than anything else - Harry's general reluctance to cry might be more of a British stiff-upper lip thing. And you're right, there are more instances of Harry tearing up than I remembered. However, we really only see Harry truly *cry* once, at the grave of his parents. When only Hermione can see him. And in general, it does seem like Gryffindors view "weepy" people as weak or cowardly - which goes in line w/the expected fiery "courage" traits they're expected to show instead. I was mostly thinking of that scene in GOF, when Harry has suffered a traumatic experience, and Mrs. Weasley is hugging him - and he screws up his face to resist from sobbing. It says: "Now the burning feeling was in his throat too. He wished Ron would look away. ... The thing against which he had been fighting on and off ever since he had come out the maze was threatening to overpower him. He could feel a burning, prickling feeling in the inner corners of his eyes. He blinked and stared up at the ceiling.... until he was screwing up his face against the howl of misery fighting to get out of him." But he never lets that howl of misery out, never just lets go & cries. He sees his incredible pain as a "thing he must fight against". It's like Harry (or JKR) wouldn't allow himself to truly let out his grief because crying is something he sees as weak or shameful. va32h: I have to wonder what kind of response Baby Harry received from the Dursleys, when he cried in those first few weeks at Privet Drive? I would guess that Harry learned at a very early age not to cry. lizzyben: Maybe Baby Harry did learn early on at the Dursleys that adults will ignore your cries, and that crying won't bring help or comfort. This just makes the "King's Cross" scene even odder - the crying baby that the adults ignore. houyhnhnm: That's a good point that Harry's inability to *allow* himself to cry may be a result of psychological damage suffered at the hands of the Dursleys. It's not that he doesn't feel sorrow strongly enough to bring tears. He does. But he seems to feel the need to repress it. Harry's just been told how his mother died to save him. If ever there were an appropriate occasion for the public display of grief, this would be the time it seems to me. Now, I can see why Harry, with his history, had difficulty showing grief. What seems off to me is the fact that Dumbledore had to pretend not to observe that Harry was crying, as if Harry's tears were somehow shameful. Contrast that with Dumbeldore's calm acceptance of Harry's rampage after the battle at the MoM. Rage is nothing to be ashamed of. Tears are. lizzyben: Yes, because rage & anger are acceptable fiery Gryffindor traits, and so nothing to be ashamed of. DD does give Harry the message that tears are shameful, and that's reinforced by other Gryffindors at other times. houyhnhnm: "The thing" That seems a very peculiar way to describe very natural feelings after watching a classmate murdered in cold blood. He has to blink and stare at the ceiling. He has to fight "the thing". It just seems like a weird choice of words to me. lizzyben: Doesn't it? It almost seems like Harry views his pain as something separate from him, a foreign "thing" that he has to fight against & repress & stuff under a chair.... and ignore, because adults won't try to help ease the crying & suffering anyway. He thinks of his love for Ginny the same way - that infamous "chest monster". It's a monster, separate from him, nothing to do with him really. And he tries to repress & ignore those emotions as well. The love "chest monster" and the pain "thing" have just taken up residence inside him - and he wishes they'd go away. So, Harry the Gryffindor sees both romantic love & sadness as almost separate entities - shameful entities that he has to hide from others. And these emotions are also "water" traits, associated w/the evil "other" Slytherins.... I don't think I'm making this up here. In one sense, Harry is given the message to suppress his shameful weepiness & express pain w/anger & rage instead, as he does in OOTP. As Sydney said it - "Ignore the crying & the pain; beat up some Bad People instead! You'll feel better!" In another sense, those very qualities of which he is most ashamed, most eager to repress, are the very qualities associated w/the "other". By beating up the "other", he's also fighting against those qualities in himself that he's been taught to repress. The "Bad people" are also the shameful emotions - and by getting rid of one, he can get rid of the other. So the Evil Slytherin is also the crying suffering thing that he wants to stuff out of sight... that's King's Cross in a nutshell. That's classic shadow projection. The shadow isn't bad, it's just what you think you shouldn't be. And Gryffindors & Harry get a relentless message that they must *always* be brave & courageous & strong & daring. If you're anything else, you're not a "true Gryffindor" & have no identity. This practically begs for someone that they can project all those unacceptable non-Gryf traits upon & maintain their idealized self-image. Slytherins function very well as the scapegoat for Gryfindors' sins & the projected shadow for the Gryffindors' own unacceptable traits. They NEED the Slytherins around so that they don't have to face themselves in the mirror. IMO, this is also why we see very little personal growth from the Trio - they've never learned to accept & integrate their perceived flaws, but have instead projected them outward onto the "other". lizzyben From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 16:31:54 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:31:54 -0000 Subject: Reaction to Snape's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175737 > Montavilla47: > > Adam, please show the text evidence of Snape teaching Slytherins > so we can compare them. > "Snape's Head of Slytherin House. They say he always favors them - we'll be able to see if it's true." This according to Ron, as well as 'they'. Certainly not hard evidence, but proof of 'the word on the street' about Snape. In that first lesson Snape goes after Harry with a vengeance, ignores Hermione's obvious knowledge and skill, rips into Neville, and praises Malfoy 'whom he seemed to like'. We also get, 'Cheer up, Snape's always taking points off Fred and George.' though, I have to admit, they are more likely to deserve it. Not too much, though it's more than I expected to be able to with my books in storage - I found a copy of SS - my sisters? If anyone has examples from the next 5 books, I'd be grateful. But even if we attribute his poor treatment of Harry to his preexisting relationship with James and Lily, his treatment of Neville to his incompetence, and his treatment of Malfoy to his preexisting relationship with the Malfoys, I think we should see better treatment of Hermione, who is surely skilled in potions, and worse treatment of Crabbe and Goyle, who we know to be idiots. And, his preexisting hatred and favoritism are NOT signs of a good teacher, and neither is the maliciousness with which he treats Neville. And the common knowledge Ron spouts may not be hard fact, but I am inclined to believe that the students have a decent handle on this. Feel free to disagree. ~Adam(Prep0strus) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 18 16:32:22 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:32:22 -0000 Subject: Harry using Crucio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175738 "urghiggi" wrote: > I still can't see how 'stupefy' or > 'petrificus totalus' wouldn't have > worked equally well in the Carrow > incident, without the moral issues > of torture raised by crucio. If a moral issue is raised in that scene it is caused by war not by the crucio. In a real war if a commando infiltrated into the enemy camp and needed to put a high ranking enemy official out of action he would not knock him out, he would no tie him up, he would kill him. Dead dead dead! There is absolutely no doubt about it. Carrow got very lightly at Harry's hands, too lightly to be entirely realistic but then this is a fantasy. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From sherriola at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 16:34:09 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 09:34:09 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry does cry Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <46c71f8a.29578c0a.1d9c.ffffa280@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175739 houyhnhnm: That's a good point that Harry's inability to *allow* himself to cry may be a result of psychological damage suffered at the hands of the Dursleys. It's not that he doesn't feel sorrow strongly enough to bring tears. He does. But he seems to feel the need to repress it. It's not how the passages affected me the first time I read them, though. Long before I ever started reading discussions on web sites, back when it just me and the text, the negative message about showing your feelings jumped out at me. I figured it was a Brit thing. Sherry: I always found Harry's silent tearless grief more moving than crying every time would have been. It made the times when he does cry even more powerful. But, that's my way of dealing with pain as well. I was not abused into not crying. But I come from a family who keeps their pain and sorrow and anger very much to themselves. I also had a painful disease from birth that taught me not to give into pain and other negative emotions. In high school, a stepmother told me that people like me when I'm happy and don't like me when I'm not, so I added that to my never show negative emotions thing. So, I could always relate personally to Harry's manner of reacting to loss and grief, except that I don't lose my temper instead. Particularly in the case of his reactions to Sirius death in HBP, I ached over his grief that wasn't allowed to show itself in tears, as it's very much what I showed to the world after my father's death ten years ago. If you didn't know me, you might think I didn't react much at all, but you'd be very wrong. It could also be a boy thing. Supposedly, the world is changing and it's ok for boys to cry these days, but I don't know many young boys, particularly teenage ones, who would want to be seen crying. Can you imagine how Uncle Vernon would have reacted to Harry crying? Even though Dudley found fake tears got him his way with his parents, I bet Harry received some horrible physical and emotional abuse for crying around them. I can hear Uncle Vernon now saying something along the lines of: "Stop that noise or I'll give you something to cry about!" So, for me, Harry's lack of tears really worked and seemed absolutely believable, probably making him more realistic to me and more vulnerable to me. Sherry From judy at judyshapiro.com Sat Aug 18 16:47:16 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:47:16 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175740 I asked: >> Anyone feel like re-writing the ending to the book? :-) And va32h replied: > Yes, I do, and I am, Judy! Actually, I'm writing my own entire > version, because, like you, I really cannot stomach the one that > we've been given. [snipped about disappointment in reading the book, but being encouraged by the enthustiastic fans] > Well I have re-read the book, and I am no longer angry about it. > Still irritated, but that sense of outrage has faded away. > There are parts > that I actually quite like. The Forest Again, The Silver Doe. > But I also firmly believe that JKR lost sight of her own series. > Either it got away from her or she just became tired of it - but I > don't believe that Deathly Hallows is a fitting end to the series. > I don't believe it captures the spirit of Harry Potter as I have > come to know it, and I don't care what JKR says about her series > anymore. Her story is not just *her* story, she's shared it with us > and it's ours now too. > > So, just for me, to give me peace of mind, I am writing my own > personal version of Deathly Hallows. And to prove (to myself, I > suppose) that it isn't about characters dying or pet theories not > being right, I am not completely reimagining it. Everyone who died > in the real DH with die in > my version, and I will even keep the two theories I hated the most > (LOLLIPOPS and Harrycrux). But I am going to fix what I think went > terribly, terribly wrong. Sure, it will only happen inside *my* > head, but why should that mean it is not real? > > Anyway, if you are similiary unhappy with DH, I suggest you try > writing your own version too. It's very cathartic. You go, girl! And, I liked what you said about "Sure, it will only happen inside *my* head, but why should that mean it is not real?" If you are actually writing this out, though, I'm interested in reading it -- I'll email you. I'm not sure if the story got away from JKR, or if it just was never the story that I thought it was. Dumbledore in particular bothered me in DH, as I noted by contrasting his speech in GoF with his actual behavior when a Death Eater wanted to return. Dumbledore always seemed to me to be the moral center of the book, and if he wasn't what I expected, that the whole series wasn't what I expected, either. I guess it's ironic that I feel like we didn't "know" Dumbledore until after he was dead! If JKR had never told us anything more about the character after his death, I think many people would view the end of the series very differently. I also have started "rewriting" the book, as of about a week ago, but I don't know if I'll have time to get very far. -- JudySerenity From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 18 16:59:16 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:59:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175741 "rowena_grunnionffitch" wrote: > I don't think that is quite fair or even correct. > Voldy took Harry's blood in Book 4, from that time > on Dumbledore had a very real hope that Harry > *could* survive If so then the books don't make much sense. Dumbledore told Snape he didn't expect Harry to survive and for the life of me I can't see why he would lie to Snape of all people about that. And Dumbledore thought the snake, the last Horcrux (except for Harry), would be dead when Harry marched into the forest to meet Voldemort. If the snake were dead the results of that meeting would have been apocalyptic for both of them. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 17:07:32 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:07:32 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero & karmic justice (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175742 > Nita: > Again, I wasn't trying to say anything about Harry with that, but > rather about the way the story is built. I wonder if JKR thinks that > perhaps Draco wouldn't "deserve" being saved if he hadn't played that > part earlier. lizzyben: Yeah, Draco earned that salvation. If he hadn't wavered in his support for the Death Eaters, he'd have shared Crabbe's fate. Narcissa also deserved to survive because she put her child above her cause. I keep having the sneaking suspicion that Tonks "deserved" to die because she did not do the same. Nita: > Well, I don't know what you think about interviews, but JKR did say > "Griphook was wrong - Gryffindor did not 'steal' the sword, not unless > you are a goblin fanatic and believe that all goblin-made objects > really belong to the maker." ( > http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0730-bloomsbury-chat.html ) lizzyben: I can't believe she said that! God forbid we might think good Gryffindor could ever do something wrong. So, someone from culture A buys an object from culture B, w/the understanding that under Culture B's laws, that object reverts back to the maker upon the buyer's death. Mr. A then decides to bequeath that object to someone else instead, keeping the object away from Culture B forever. He uses magic to create a hat that will always take the object back from whoever has it at the time - so, even if Culture B manages gets it back, Culture A can always use their magic to steal it right back. Magic makes might & might makes right. If you think that might not be quite fair, you're obviously a fanatic. Way to show that cultural sensitivity, there. Jeez, no wonder the goblins are always rebelling. Regarding the Marietta controversy: Louie: Did Marietta's pimply formation ever fade? J.K. Rowling: Eventually, but it left a few scars. I loathe a traitor! Ouch, that's harsh. JKR did consider that a just revenge. And this seems to reinforce that she does dispense a kind of "karmic justice" to various characters throughout the series. It's a revenge narrative, y'all. > Nita: > > I agree with your 4-year-old, she's a delightful little old lady! And, > while we're on the subject of rooting for the "wrong" side, I think > I've found another way to explain my viewpoint :) Let's take a look at > "Tom & Jerry". There's a big bad cat who wants to catch and eat the > cute little mouse. The mouse is booth good and the underdog, right? > Only, after you've watched a few episodes, you know that Tom usually > doesn't have a chance. He's doomed to a lot of violent (but, luckily, > cartoony) payback. > > On a certain level, the HP series turned out similar, and that was a > surprise to me. I had expected all human characters except Voldemort > to be fully human, in the sense that Harry should be able to relate to > them. I'm not interested in heavy-handed moralizing, but I do think > it's important to understand how minds, including your own, work, in > order to make good decisions. I believe it's an essential part of > growing up. Apparently, JKR didn't agree, leaving me a little confused > after all the build-up. lizzyben: Basically a "me-too" here. It's odd, because the books do deal w/weighty themes like death, corruption, bigotry, etc. but in the end it sort of became a Dudley Do-Right beats Snidely Whiplash cartoon. And IMO the books do send some "heavy-handed moralizing" - we can tell which actions JKR approves of & disapproves of by their consequences. She approves of the Marietta hex, so Hermione doesn't have consequences for that. She disapproves of Marietta's tattle-tailing, so Marietta does suffer consequences/payback. The fact that Gryffindors seem to be the ones who are always allowed to dish out this payback to other people is entirely a coincidence. IMO, one of the reasons that there isn't a great deal of empathy or compassion is because empathizing too much w/these characters would lessen the satisfaction of the various paybacks/revenges they receive. Like, could we really laugh at Umbridge & the centaurs if we knew all about her strict, intolerant mother who would make her use the quill as a child any time she acted "disorderly"? Or saw how traumatic & terrifying the centaur experience really was for her? Could we laugh at Marietta's pustules if we knew how her Ministry mother had pressured her into giving information on the DA? Maybe, but it'd be harder to do. That's why it does seem like empathy might be a "bad thing" within the context of the series. lizzyben From va32h at comcast.net Sat Aug 18 17:11:10 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:11:10 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175743 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: (snip) > It almost seems like Harry views his pain as something > separate from him, a foreign "thing" that he has to fight against & > repress & stuff under a chair.... and ignore, because adults won't try > to help ease the crying & suffering anyway. > > He thinks of his love for Ginny the same way - that infamous "chest > monster". It's a monster, separate from him, nothing to do with him > really. And he tries to repress & ignore those emotions as well. The > love "chest monster" and the pain "thing" have just taken up residence > inside him - and he wishes they'd go away. So, Harry the Gryffindor > sees both romantic love & sadness as almost separate entities - > shameful entities that he has to hide from others. And these emotions > are also "water" traits, associated w/the evil "other" Slytherins.... > I don't think I'm making this up here. > > In one sense, Harry is given the message to suppress his shameful > weepiness & express pain w/anger & rage instead, as he does in OOTP. > As Sydney said it - "Ignore the crying & the pain; beat up some Bad > People instead! You'll feel better!" > > In another sense, those very qualities of which he is most ashamed, > most eager to repress, are the very qualities associated w/the > "other". By beating up the "other", he's also fighting against those > qualities in himself that he's been taught to repress. The "Bad > people" are also the shameful emotions - and by getting rid of one, he > can get rid of the other. So the Evil Slytherin is also the crying > suffering thing that he wants to stuff out of sight... that's King's > Cross in a nutshell. > > That's classic shadow projection. The shadow isn't bad, it's just what > you think you shouldn't be. And Gryffindors & Harry get a relentless > message that they must *always* be brave & courageous & strong & > daring. If you're anything else, you're not a "true Gryffindor" & have > no identity. This practically begs for someone that they can project > all those unacceptable non-Gryf traits upon & maintain their idealized > self-image. Slytherins function very well as the scapegoat for > Gryfindors' sins & the projected shadow for the Gryffindors' own > unacceptable traits. They NEED the Slytherins around so that they > don't have to face themselves in the mirror. IMO, this is also why we > see very little personal growth from the Trio - they've never learned > to accept & integrate their perceived flaws, but have instead > projected them outward onto the "other". va32h: What do you think could have (or perhaps ought to have) happened in Deathly Hallows to change this outcome? Would "one good Slytherin" in the RoR have been enough to change this tendency to treat Slyterins as the "other"? I ask because I have some of the same discomforts you've expressed about the book, and while I've been blaming this particular book for being a poor end to the series, I am starting to wonder whether one book could do enough to rectify the kind of scapegoating and projecting that has been going on for the past six books. va32h From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Aug 18 17:31:59 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:31:59 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175744 > lizzyben: > > Dumbledore too, for the most part. My biggest problem isn't how Harry > treats the live LV, but how DD & Harry treat the baby in King's Cross > chapter. It showed a total lack of compassion on DD's part - and he > eventually convinces Harry to ignore & suppress any sense of empathy > as well. I have always considered DD to be one of the most heartless, > cold characters in the series - and even after death he still seems > the same. DD didn't really have to learn or change either. Pippin: The funny thing is, when I read King's Cross I thought of a LeGuin character too, but it was the burned child Theru in Tehanu, "trying to breathe, and trying again to breathe" (quoting from memory.) In that story there is no magic that can be used to heal her, and no witch or wizard will dare to try. They're pretty cold about saying so. They have no power to reverse such evil and it seems that it would be a sort of arrogance, a misuse of their powers, to make the attempt. The awful truth is that people do more harm than they can mend. I was in tears with Kings Cross that mankind's power to injure is so great and our power to heal so pitifully small. That point would be lost if there had been something Dumbledore or Harry could do. If they wept it would be for their own helplessness, and what good would that do? There was, maybe, a time when compassion could have helped Tom Riddle but it was when he was a real child; I am sure this reflects JKR's own experiences. I have never talked to a teacher who didn't bewail the fact that the system so often neglects children in need until they are school age. Often enough they are irreversibly damaged before anyone finds out they need help. If we're meant to think of Snape in connection with the ruined child, I think it's only that it's what Snape and even Dumbledore might have become if they had not been given second chances. When Dumbledore says, "Sometimes I think we Sort too soon" I don't think he's only talking about Snape growing to be someone who could have been a Gryffindor. I think it's about Dumbledore wondering whether he himself hadn't grown closer to Salazar Slytherin's idea of a great wizard than Godric Gryffindor's. I think many Snape fans (and I am definitely including me) invested so much in a Snape who wasn't about vengeance. But he is, he really is. "Vengeance is sweet" he breathes. Much as I would have hoped he was acting, he wasn't. Snape wanted retaliation for each and every injury, real or imagined. Ironically, he got more revenge than he wanted. Between relaying the prophecy and his interference in the Shrieking Shack which led to Pettigrew's escape, those whom Snape hated ended up dead, just as Harry said: all the Marauders and Harry himself. But Snape was allowed to finish the task which Dumbledore set him, even if he did not live to see victory, so I would like to think he died redeemed. After all Dumbledore made it to the next world, if in a more damaged state than Harry. LizzybenL It just goes totally wrong w/Slytherin > water, which just becomes the depository for everything evil instead. > And maybe this has something to with the way the wizarding world in > general seems to lack the positive "water" qualities - kindness, > empathy, healing. If Slytherin House were redeemed, that'd go a long > way towards healing this world, which is why that redemption seemed so > necessary for a final resolution of the conflict. Oh, well. Pippin: How can there be a final resolution to the problem of evil? What kind of resolution is tricking the bad guy into using the wrong wand? Well, what kind is throwing a magic ring into a volcano or killing a dragon or blowing up a space station? Ursula LeGuin said the people who dislike the unreal resolutions to evil in fantasy are the ones who think there is a solution to evil in real life. :) We do see Snape and Fleur as healers, and on the rare occasions when we see Slytherins and water types without the Harry filter, they *are* gracious and compassionate. I am thinking of Snape welcoming Narcissa and Bella into his home, Draco sickened for Charity Burbage, the peacocks at Malfoy manor, Snape gripping his chair when he learns Ginny has been taken, Grimmauld Place cheerful and welcoming once it has been restored and above all to Draco saving Goyle. You could even argue that Pansy is thinking of saving her classmates when she fingers Harry. After all, Harry ends up doing exactly what she wanted him to do: give himself up. She'd have to be pretty dumb to believe that Voldemort would keep his promises, but she'd hardly be the the only witch who ever trusted the wrong person. Pippin From va32h at comcast.net Sat Aug 18 18:07:32 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:07:32 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175745 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: >> The awful truth is that people do more harm than they can mend. I >was in tears with Kings Cross that mankind's power to injure is so >great and our power to heal so pitifully small. That point would be >lost if there had been something Dumbledore or Harry could do. If they >wept it would be for their own helplessness, and what good would that >do? > > There was, maybe, a time when compassion could have helped Tom > Riddle but it was when he was a real child; I am sure this reflects > JKR's own experiences. I have never talked to a teacher who didn't > bewail the fact that the system so often neglects children in need > until they are school age. Often enough they are irreversibly damaged > before anyone finds out they need help. va32h: Oh I have to agree with you there. One of the most powerful and horrifying experiences of my life was being a Court Appointed Special Advocate for abused and neglected children. What people are capable of doing to their children - to any child - to any other human being - it's just sickening and heartbreaking and *wrong*. There is just something *wrong* with those people, for whatever reason, and all the compassion and forgiveness and therapy in the world is *not* going to make them stop. And that may be a shameful and bad attitude on my part, but I know too many real life examples of adults who have abused and tortured again and again, even after plenty of state intervention, to believe otherwise. And many of these abused children are so damaged from the horrors inflicted upon them that again, all the love and compassion and therapy in the world isn't going to make them whole. It's pretty chilling when a social worker tells you that no, there really isn't anything that can be done for this child, but to keep them in a facility where they are the least likely to hurt themselves or others. JKR has described Voldemort as a sociopath, and if that flayed baby is him, and if he is a sociopath, then there really is nothing to be done. You cannot make a person with no conscience feel guilty. va32h From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Aug 18 18:20:05 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:20:05 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175746 JudySerenity: > I'm not sure if the story got away from JKR, or if it just was > never the story that I thought it was. Dumbledore in particular > bothered me in DH, as I noted by contrasting his speech in GoF with > his actual behavior when a Death Eater wanted to return. Dumbledore > always seemed to me to be the moral center of the book, and if he > wasn't what I expected, that the whole series wasn't what I > expected, either. > > I guess it's ironic that I feel like we didn't "know" Dumbledore > until after he was dead! If JKR had never told us anything more > about the character after his death, I think many people would view > the end of the series very differently. Jen: This was exactly my experience, Judy, at least my first read- through. I felt like the moral rules system I'd created in my head for Potterverse depended on Dumbledore at the center and if he wasn't who he appeared to be, then everything collapsed. After a second reading and cutting Dumbledore back down to human size from the almost Aslan-like creation I'd made of him in my head - the noble heir of Gryffindor, the tireless fighter of evil, the word of Truth, sacrificing himself for the WW - once again his words seem congruent with the ideals he holds, even after the discovery he struggles with temptation and hubris. Maybe his words hold even *more* weight because of those struggles, because he's not just giving lip service to the idea of choosing right over easy, he's actually had the experience of choosing easy and seeing the destruction such a choice wrought; he's every parent who urges a child to reconsider a choice to take some action because the parent still holds his/her own memory of pain and suffering when making the same choice once upon a time. Re: Snape, he's not playing the role of the kind, forgiving parent who keeps offering second- chances and boosting with praise but the critical, demanding parent whose seen the fall and demands right action to earn trust and forgiveness. In an almost Aristotelian way, Dumbledore believes a person is the sum of his/her choices and he urges Harry and the WW to consider the choices they make when faced with moments that can set a person down one path or another. Even when succumbing to the temptation of the ring, Dumbledore was able to turn his moment of temptation into a right action by offering Draco the hope of a second-chance (which helped cement Draco's return as one without true loyalty, thus helping Harry on at least two occasions), and Dumbledore ensuring there were those he left behind with enough information needed to carry on the fight. (I found it interesting Harry, like DD, didn't exaplain 'everything' to Neville when telling him about the snake. I understood better why on some occasions DD made that same choice.) What DD said in book 1 is one message the series delivers as far as I can tell: "...it will merely take someone else who is prepared to fight what seems a losing battle next time - and if he is delayed again, and again, why, he may never return to power."* People who fight against evil and desctruction might not live to see the fruits of their labor but whatever choices they've made live on in others who take up the cause. Jen * SS, chap. 17, p. 298, Am. ed. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 18:32:05 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:32:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175747 > Eggplant: > If so then the books don't make much sense. Dumbledore told Snape he > didn't expect Harry to survive and for the life of me I can't see why > he would lie to Snape of all people about that. And Dumbledore thought > the snake, the last Horcrux (except for Harry), would be dead when > Harry marched into the forest to meet Voldemort. If the snake were > dead the results of that meeting would have been apocalyptic for both > of them. zgirnius: I disagree, I think Dumbledore believed Harry had an excellent chance of surviving the encounter in the Forest with all the other Horcruxes destroyed, while defeating Voldemort permanently, and the story makes sense that way. First, why Dumbledore would lie to Snape about Harry's survival: DD knew he himself would be dead and gone by the time Snape was to tell Harry the bad news, at Snape's hand, to make matters even worse. He knew Harry already greatly disliked and distrusted Snape, without Snape having murdered anyone that Harry knew of. So he had to expect that Snape would have to somehow prove the truth of the story to Harry, and that this would be very difficult (probably impossible) to accomplish through simple persuasion. The easiest way for Snape to overcome this obstacle, would be to provide Harry the memory in which Dumbledore told him about it. (Which is indeed how Snape did communicate the information in the end). So if Dumbledore wanted to deceive Harry, he needed also to deceive Snape. Second, I don't see why Nagini is relevant. If Harry allowed Voldemort to AK him, Voldemort would still be alive in the crucial moment when the AK hit Harry, and that momentary survival would be enough for the blood protection thingie to kick in and keep Harry (but not the soul bit in him) alive. The spell could in the next instant blow back and kill Voldemort, leaving Harry alive and Voldemort dead. Only, Nagini still lived as the events actually played out in DH, contrary to The Plan, so Harry and LV were both alive after that confrontation, and Harry had to find a new and different way to defeat Voldemort, all on his own. (I thought this was a nice touch, it made him far less a puppet on Dumbledore's strings). The reason *Harry* needed to remain in ignorance of the possibility of his survival is that, while he maintained the intent to die as a sacrifice for his friends and the Wizarding World, the AK would leave him alone and go after the soul bit. If Harry knew he might live, he would know he might not be *truly* sacrificing himself, and this might not be enough for Dumbledore's blood-protection idea to work. Finally, I think that when Dumbledore was putting this plan together, it had not occured to him that Snape would *mind* that Harry had to die, or that it would be his job to to tell Harry this. That, anyway, is how I interpret their exchange at the end of that scene, in which Dumbledore asks Snape if he has come to care for Harry, Snape angrily deflects the question (without answering, most importantly, without denying it!), and Dumbledore gets tears in his eyes. Why? Dumbledore has passed the (for him, because he loves Harry) enormously difficult job of telling Harry he must die onto Snape. Only to discover that this might not be as easy for Snape as he had thought. From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Aug 18 18:49:48 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:49:48 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175748 Pippin: > Grimmauld Place cheerful and welcoming > once it has been restored houyhnhnm: That really works for me. Thanks, Pippin. I'm not bothered by the fact that we don't see many of the positive water qualities in most of the Slytherin characters (except I do think Snape shows quite a few of them), corrupted as they are by Voldemort's influence. I'm not necessarily bothered by the fact that Slytherin students didn't join in the fight against Voldemort, when the man who was their natural leader was locked into his double agent role and couldn't lead them. What I wanted was one clear, strong metaphor showing the potential of the Slytherin nature (not some trying-too-hard Lovegoodesque flight of fancy about the Delacours). I think the transformation of 12 GP is that metaphor and I missed it. That *was* my favorite part of the book, though. I'm going to have to go back and read it again. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 19:55:45 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:55:45 -0000 Subject: Own Secret Keeper? (Was: Ungrateful werewolf) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175749 > > Judy wrote: > > Alas, I think this is just one of JKR's many inconsistencies. > > > > If you can be your own Secret Keeper, as Arthur and Bill are, > > then I see no reason why James or Lily couldn't be the Secret > > Keeper. > > Pippin: > I think it's because the Secret Keeper can reveal the secret, and > the secret they need to protect is not Lily or James, it's Harry. > He is the one Voldemort wants to kill. If James or Lily are secret > keepers, they can accidentally give themselves away, as Hermione > did, and then they could be coerced or tricked into revealing Harry. Mike: Ooh, a technical magical quandry - I love these. OK, here's my take. The problem for James and Lily is that they are the secret, that is, they are the ones to be hidden from everyone. I, long ago, set the premise that the Fidelius requires three things to work. 1) It must be true. 2) The secret makers must have propriety over the secret they are making. 3) The secret must be limited to their propriety. So James and Lily (and Harry) must be hiding at 123 Some Street, Godric's Hollow for the secret to be true. And if they are their own secret keeper, then nobody else can be there, else they are not hidden from everyone else and the secret isn't true from the get go. If they follow these conditions, the only way for them to reveal the secret to others, is to leave their home to become visible, i.e. stop "hiding at GH" to make that part untrue. That's what Bill did, he left the protection of the cottage and went out to meet Harry and Co. Notice, neither the Shell Cottage nor the Potter home are invisible, only the people under the Fidelius and within the location are invisible to those that don't know the secret. So, I must therefore conclude that the Potters chose to remain in hiding, to not take the chance of revealing themselves **at all** and rely on a trusted friend to reveal their secret to only those other trusted souls. Which isn't entirely inconsistant with what we've been led to believe the climate was like re Voldemort and VWI at that time. Lily's letter was written before the Fidelius and it seems James was already going a little stir-crazy, but was staying inside none the less. > > Judy: > > I don't see any way to make the secret of #12 Grimmauld Place > > consistent, either. If Hermione can let a Death Eater in by > > accident, Snape could certainly have let a whole slew of them in > > intentionally. > > Pippin: > They knew the DE's couldn't get in because they were keeping watch > on the square instead of invading the House. They assumed that > whatever Moody did to stop Snape from letting the DE's in worked. Mike: Yeah, Pippin, that was my conclusion also. The DEs were outside because the Trio inside were still using "Voldemort's" name. So that Taboo had kicked in, but evidently it wasn't strong enough to defeat the Fidelius. And the Fidelius is on 12 GP, not the occupants, so the Trio weren't invisible inside it, it was invisible to outsiders. That brought the DEs into the vicinity, but no further. > Pippin > As for the doorstep, IMO, the risk of splinching while sidealong > apparating into such a narrow space would be enough to discourage > Voldemort from ordering Snape to try it, at least while Snape is > still a valuable lieutenant. Mike: I think you got things a little twisted around, in fact, you might have gone and splinched *yourself* on this one - check your fingernails. LOL What I mean is that Snape would have had to lead the side-along, so the DE he was taking would have been at risk. But no matter really, Snape didn't need to apperate onto the step, he could just walk up to it like the Trio did in Chapter 9, A Place to Hide. Voldemort must have concluded that the Order did abandon their old hiding place, which they did do of course, and that there was nothing of value there. Or, possibly, Snape wasn't the only one who searched the house before the Trio got there, and no Order stuff was found. As long as the DEs out front weren't the sames ones that searched the house, they wouldn't know where the Taboo breakers were, nor why they couldn't see them. They'd be sitting there trying to look innocuous but not knowing who they were looking for. Mike From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 18 20:00:58 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:00:58 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175750 > Pippin: > > > Grimmauld Place cheerful and welcoming > > once it has been restored > > houyhnhnm: What I wanted was one clear, strong metaphor > showing the potential of the Slytherin nature (not some > trying-too-hard Lovegoodesque flight of fancy about the > Delacours). I think the transformation of 12 GP is > that metaphor and I missed it. That *was* my favorite > part of the book, though. I'm going to have to go back > and read it again. Magpie: The Slytherins of Grimmauld Place are all dead and the house, which our heroes waged war against and scrubbed and disinfected is now quite cozy. That doesn't say anything positive about the Slytherin nature to me. It says how nice their houses can be when they've been taken over by better people. It just seems like I'm seeing a pattern here where any chance of getting what you're talking about is avoided by being diverted onto something less difficult. -m From lealess at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 20:49:28 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:49:28 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175751 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > JudySerenity: > > I'm not sure if the story got away from JKR, or if it just was > > never the story that I thought it was. Dumbledore in particular > > bothered me in DH, as I noted by contrasting his speech in GoF > > with his actual behavior when a Death Eater wanted to return. > > > > Jen: > > > > Maybe his words hold even *more* weight because of those struggles, > because he's not just giving lip service to the idea of choosing > right over easy, he's actually had the experience of choosing easy > and seeing the destruction such a choice wrought; he's every parent > who urges a child to reconsider a choice to take some action because > the parent still holds his/her own memory of pain and suffering when > making the same choice once upon a time. Re: Snape, he's not > playing the role of the kind, forgiving parent who keeps offering > second chances and boosting with praise but the critical, demanding > parent whose seen the fall and demands right action to earn trust > and forgiveness. > > In an almost Aristotelian way, Dumbledore believes a person is the > sum of his/her choices and he urges Harry and the WW to consider the > choices they make when faced with moments that can set a person down > one path or another. Even when succumbing to the temptation of the > ring, Dumbledore was able to turn his moment of temptation into a > right action by offering Draco the hope of a second-chance (which > helped cement Draco's return as one without true loyalty, thus > helping Harry on at least two occasions), and Dumbledore ensuring > there were those he left behind with enough information needed to > carry on the fight. > > > > People who fight against evil and desctruction might not live to see > the fruits of their labor but whatever choices they've made live on > in others who take up the cause. > > Jen I'm just wondering if you think Dumbledore chose what was right over what was easy when he asked Snape to kill him, to spare him pain and humiliation. Did Dumbledore turn his moment of temptation into a "right action" by asking Snape to compromise Snape's soul for Draco's sake? Snape agreed to do this, not for the sake of Lily's child, but presumably to keep Draco's soul pure, to help the old man, and to further the "plan" that Snape later found out Dumbledore had lied to him about all along. There was always a cost to Dumbledore's actions. The cost was Severus Snape. Dumbledore tells the returning Death Eater Snape that, "You disgust me," "You do not care, then, about the deaths of her husband and child? They can die, as long as you have what you want?" At the end of his life, though, he does the same thing to Snape. Snape can go to hell, for all Dumbledore cares, as long as he agrees to follow the plan. So I wonder, was asking this of Snape right, or easy? lealess From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 18:50:38 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:50:38 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175752 > > Eggplant: > > If so then the books don't make much sense. Dumbledore told Snape > > he didn't expect Harry to survive and for the life of me I can't > > see why he would lie to Snape of all people about that. I think that's the point. The books DON'T make much sense at several places. As a lot of people have been exploring, anything having to do with Dumbledore's plan and/or the Elder Wand gets rapidly lost in a tangle of contradictions, plot holes, and disastrous inconsistencies. Zara: > That, anyway, is how I interpret their exchange at the end of that > scene, in which Dumbledore asks Snape if he has come to care for > Harry, Snape angrily deflects the question (without answering, > most importantly, without denying it!), and Dumbledore gets tears > in his eyes. Why? Well, I don't think the text really supports the implication that Snape cares for Harry. Snape has, certainly, absorbed some of DD's values to the point of not wanting to kill without reason. But when DD makes his query, Snape immediately says "For HIM?" and produces his patronus. That seems to me that he is saying very clearly "No, I don't care for the boy. I still care for Lily and you promised me I was keeping the wretched brat alive FOR Lily!" Dumbledore then says "After all this time?" and gets teared up, which seems to me clearly to say that Dumbledore is crying NOT because he thinks Snape cares for Harry -- since Snape has just clearly said he does no such thing -- but because Snape still loves Lily enough after all this time for her to be his patronus. Lupinlore From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Sat Aug 18 18:28:00 2007 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:28:00 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: Harry Horcrux Question Message-ID: <46C73A30.00001C.00556@LIFESAVER> No: HPFGUIDX 175753 Please help me understand something. To make a horcrux, a murder has to be committed and a spell cast to put the torn piece of soul into an object intended to be a horcrux. When was the spell cast to make Harry a horcrux? Donna [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 21:21:58 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:21:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0708181421j28f08449r40bc19a65424c9cf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175754 Jen: This was exactly my experience, Judy, at least my first read- through. I felt like the moral rules system I'd created in my head for Potterverse depended on Dumbledore at the center and if he wasn't who he appeared to be, then everything collapsed. After a second reading and cutting Dumbledore back down to human size from the almost Aslan-like creation I'd made of him in my head - the noble heir of Gryffindor, the tireless fighter of evil, the word of Truth, sacrificing himself for the WW - once again his words seem congruent with the ideals he holds, even after the discovery he struggles with temptation and hubris. Lynda: Hmm. Maybe this is part of why I was not as disturbed as some by this book. You see, I read/listened to some interviews along the way in which I repeatedly heard JKR saying things along the lines of "do not make Dumbledore, Harry, etc. into an Aslan-type character", so I took her at her word and never did. I expected Dumbledore to be human and have as before DH unrevealed flaws. I did not expect them to be exactly what they were, but I did not expect perfection from him. Perhaps that's it. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Aug 18 21:30:47 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:30:47 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175755 Magpie: > That doesn't say anything positive about the Slytherin > nature to me. It says how nice their houses can be when > they've been taken over by better people. houyhnhnm: Those same people had previously lived in the house for a year to no effect. They waged war on the house and the house won. But when Harry spoke to it in a language it could understand--he made a *gracious* gesture to Kreacher (his motive doesn't matter)--the house changed. I like it--as a metaphor. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 18 21:51:33 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:51:33 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175756 > Magpie: > > > That doesn't say anything positive about the Slytherin > > nature to me. It says how nice their houses can be when > > they've been taken over by better people. > > houyhnhnm: > > Those same people had previously lived in the house for > a year to no effect. They waged war on the house and > the house won. But when Harry spoke to it in a language > it could understand--he made a *gracious* gesture to > Kreacher (his motive doesn't matter)--the house changed. > I like it--as a metaphor. Magpie: It's still a house that was a Slytherin house and is now a Gryffindor house. Kreacher is now Harry's loyal slave. Personally I don't like it as a metaphor (for me the absence of the actual Slytherins speaks far more loudly than how nice their property is), but even if I did it would still mostly show how much easier it is to give some beads to a house elf and have him magically make a nice house than more difficult dealings with Harry's antagonists (the kind where Harry was actually wrong in some way). -m From AllieS426 at aol.com Sat Aug 18 21:39:46 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:39:46 -0000 Subject: Elder Wand mastery (was Re: need help for all of my confuse!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175757 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "urghiggi" wrote: > > The only way I can logically make this work is this sequence: > > 1) Gregorovich had the wand and presumably was a legit 'master'. > 2) Grindelwald stole it and thought he was 'master' but was not, due to the fact that he > had stolen the wand (apparently not constituting "defeat" of a definitive enough type). > 3) Dumbledore bested Grindelwald in a duel and won the mastery of the wand. The wand > by definition is 'unbeatable' in the hands of the true master. Ergo, 'theft' cannot constitute > legit mastery, or Grindelwald would have been the 'master' and Dumbledore would not > have been able to defeat him. > 4) Draco disarmed Dumbledore because Dumbledore did not fight (if he'd chosen or been > able to fight, he'd have had to win, yes?) Draco did not have possession but was still by > rights 'master' of the wand. > 5) Harry bested Draco by physical overpowerment and took possession of Draco's 'regular' > wand. Somehow this defeat also 'registered' with the Elder wand in DD's tomb. (here's > where it all gets pretty goofy, imo.) > 6) LV stole the wand from Dumbledore's tomb and thought it made him the master. But > noooooo, because a) he'd gotten the wand by theft and also b) Harry was at this point the > master of the wand. > 7)LV thinks the Elder Wand isn't as juiced-up as it ought to be, according to its reputation, > though why he thinks this is somewhat unclear ("The Elder Wand," page 656-57). He > concludes that Snape is the true master, the "wizard who killed its last owner." He kills > snape with the snake to supposedly ensure his mastery of the wand. > 7) LV and Harry duel, casting curses simultaneously. "Harry saw Voldemort's green jet > meet his own spell, saw the Elder Wand fly high, dark against the sunrise, spinning across > the enchanted ceiling like the head of Nagini, spinning through the air toward THE > MASTER IT WOULD NOT KILL, who had come to take full possession of it at last." (DH > scholastic p 743-44, ALLCAPS mine) > Allie: Regarding Step 5, where it all gets goofy - somehow the Elder Wand KNEW that Harry overpowered Draco and it became loyal to Harry, despite the fact that neither Harry nor Draco ever touched the Elder wand. Someone on the list suggested that the Elder Wand actually recognized **Draco's wand**, which Harry was using in the final duel, as the last wand to defeat it. Thus, the owner of the last wand to defeat it must be its new, true master. Whether the intended truth or not, it makes more sense to me. :) From va32h at comcast.net Sat Aug 18 21:54:25 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:54:25 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175758 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" wrote: > Dumbledore tells the returning Death Eater Snape that, "You disgust > me," "You do not care, then, about the deaths of her husband and > child? They can die, as long as you have what you want?" At the end > of his life, though, he does the same thing to Snape. Snape can go to > hell, for all Dumbledore cares, as long as he agrees to follow the > plan. So I wonder, was asking this of Snape right, or easy? va32h; I don't know about right vs. easy, but my understanding of that passage was that both Dumbledore and Snape understood that if Snape killed him out of mercy, not hatred, Snape would *not* go to hell. Paraphrasing "only you know whether helping an old man will damage your soul," or something like that. I really don't understand this idea that Dumbledore wanted Snape to go to hell (or wanted him killed, btw - Dumbledore did not know, at the time of his death, that Voldemort sought the Elder Wand. Voldemort didn't go looking for the wand for months after DD's death. Dumbledore wanted to break the power of the wand, and for all we know Snape was supposed to bury it in Hagrid's garden or throw it in the Black Lake or set it on fire afterwards. But I digress. And I can't see what's so wrong about Dumbledore being disgusted that 21 year old Snape is telling him that three people, one of them a helpless infant, are about to die horriby. But he only cares about one of them, so please make an effort to save her, and leave the other two. That *is* disgusting. What should Dumbledore have said? "Gosh Severus, that doesn't seem very nice. Don't you want to help James and little Harry too?" Sometimes harsh words are needed to get through to a person who has gone too far. Trying to get someone to save the object of your affections while condemning her spouse and child to certain death falls under my definition of "too far." This is an intervention of sorts for Snape. You don't politely ask an alcoholic to please think about maybe going into rehab, if he fees like it. You tell him that his drinking is ruining everyone's life and if he doesn't get help, the family will just have to cut ties and let him drink himself to death. And you might just tell him "You disgust me," which would very likely be true, based on my experience with alcholics. I believe that Snape was redeemed in the end, but I also believe that one of the reasons he *needed* redemption was because there was a time in his life when he was perfectly willing to let a baby Harry die (and would not have cared at all if the entire Longbottom family died). va32h From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 21:57:25 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:57:25 -0000 Subject: Harry the author In-Reply-To: <6289588F1F004C5482D3FA2301CBC793@Home> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175759 Judy Serenity wrote: > > > Here's my theory, as an academic and a Snapefan: > > Snape hasn't published his "secret recipes" because then they would no longer be *secret*. As long as he is the only one with this > > knowledge, he can run - er, brew - circles around the other potion > > makers. Panhandle replied:> > Except for Lily, I think. I believe that the potions talent Slughorn so admired in Lily came from her good friend Severus secretly coaching her throughout at least the first six years. Carol responds: Unfortunately for that theory, by sixth year when they were actually using that Potions book, Lily and Sev were no longer friends. Every potions hint and spell is in his handwriting. Just because two people are good in the same subject doesn't mean that one is responsible for the other person's genius, and Snape's Potions genius is demonstrated in every book. I seriously doubt that Severus ever needed to be "coached" in his second-favorite subject. Carol, who thinks that if Lily were the brains behind the Potions book, we'd have learned that in DH From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 22:03:50 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:03:50 -0000 Subject: Snape and caring (WAS :Re: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175760 > Lupinlore: > Well, I don't think the text really supports the implication that > Snape cares for Harry. Snape has, certainly, absorbed some of DD's > values to the point of not wanting to kill without reason. But when > DD makes his query, Snape immediately says "For HIM?" and produces > his patronus. That seems to me that he is saying very clearly "No, I > don't care for the boy. I still care for Lily and you promised me I > was keeping the wretched brat alive FOR Lily!" zgirnius: I certainly see where your reading is coming from. The thing is, so far as we know for *sure*, Snape had felt affection/ caring for precisely one human being, ever: Lily. Yet he has never said so to a living soul. Not to her, not to Dumbledore. (OK, he intimated to Voldemort he 'desired' her, not the same thing, not the whole truth, and he had to explain his odd request for the life of a Muggleborn in some way). Further, once Dumbledore knows (without being explicitly told) Snape swears him to secrecy as soon as he is in a position to impose any conditions. So the fact that he never said he felt caring or affection for Harry, or for Dumbledore (to name another person I think got past Snape's guard eventually), does not prove to me that he did not. His instinct is to hide 'the best of him', not 'wear his heart on his sleeve', etc. We can confidently state that he loved Lily based on his actions (and a bit of confirmatory magical evidence in the form of the silver doe). So, it seems to me that *if* he ever came to care for anyone else, we would, again, only know it through his actions. His scolding when Dumbledore put on the cursed ring, and especially his willingness to kill Dumbledore 'to spare an old man pain and humiliation' are suggestive. And, to me, his horror at the plan, his eventual decision to go along with it anyway, and his decision to give Harry his whole history, are suggestive as well. > Lupinlore: > Dumbledore then > says "After all this time?" and gets teared up, which seems to me > clearly to say that Dumbledore is crying NOT because he thinks Snape > cares for Harry -- since Snape has just clearly said he does no such > thing -- but because Snape still loves Lily enough after all this > time for her to be his patronus. zgirnius: Snape does not deny caring for Harry. Nor does he confirm it. He says, "For *him*?", and casts his Patronus. Were Snape to have answered Dumbledore in the affirmative, it would have been the only time in his life that he made such an admission as far as we know, so its absence does not convince me. As far as when Dumbledore tears up, you have the order wrong. We are shown his tears before he asks, "After all this time?". It could be a reaction to seeing the doe, of course (though, he must know by now?). To me, the scene just made sense as Dumbledore seeing through Snape's bluster, but not challenging him on it. From muellem at bc.edu Sat Aug 18 22:23:53 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:23:53 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175761 > > Magpie: > > > > > That doesn't say anything positive about the Slytherin > > > nature to me. It says how nice their houses can be when > > > they've been taken over by better people. > > > > houyhnhnm: > > > > Those same people had previously lived in the house for > > a year to no effect. They waged war on the house and > > the house won. But when Harry spoke to it in a language > > it could understand--he made a *gracious* gesture to > > Kreacher (his motive doesn't matter)--the house changed. > > I like it--as a metaphor. > > Magpie: > It's still a house that was a Slytherin house and is now a Gryffindor > house. Kreacher is now Harry's loyal slave. Personally I don't like it > as a metaphor (for me the absence of the actual Slytherins speaks far > more loudly than how nice their property is), but even if I did it > would still mostly show how much easier it is to give some beads to a > house elf and have him magically make a nice house than more difficult > dealings with Harry's antagonists (the kind where Harry was actually > wrong in some way). colebiancardi: I agree with Magpie on this one. When the Trio *lived* in the house before, it was when Sirius was the owner of said house. And Sirius *was* a Black, afterall. Sirius didn't care about the house, nor Kreacher, nor his family. The Trio didn't live in number 12 during HBP and was only in the house for a brief period before they *made* the house *cheerful*, by Harry realizing his mistake about Kreacher (finally understanding what Hermione had been stating about House-Elves for YEARS). Kreacher was the one that turned that house into home. As far as we know, that home was wonderful and cheerful to the rest of the Blacks(with the exception of Sirius) and it fell into disuse because there was no owner. The house didn't change - it was Harry who changed, which then had a ripple effect onto Kreacher - he made the home. As far as I know, Kreacher isn't a Slytherin, he is just a house elf. colebiancardi. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 22:31:26 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:31:26 -0000 Subject: The creature under the bench (again) (was: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175762 Alla wrote: > > I just wanted to ask for some canon for this creature being part of Harry for sixteen years. I took it to be as what is to happen to whatever part of Voldemort's soul is left in him and that is what happened to him if he does not feel remorse. > > > > That being part of Harry? lizzyben responded: > > Well, it's all happening in Harry's head, right? DD confirms that. And what else is in Harry's head? The horcrux. IMO, that figure represented the horcrux that had been sharing Harry's head for the past 16 years. But I realize that opinions might vary on that. When Harry comes to, the horcrux has disappeared. > Carol: Can I get you to take a closer look at my arguments that the creature under the bench is Voldemort's mangled soul and *not* the destroyed soul bit? I've argued it about four times, most recently in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175573 with links to the earlier posts. What I mean by looking at the canon is looking closely at what is said *in DH itself* about souls, soul bits, and the creature under the chair (not asides in interviews about Slytherin as the water House). Textual analysis, in other words, instead of, say, a Jungian interpretation (which might be more appropriate *after* we analyze what the text actually says). Please take a look at my arguments and the canon I've presented in those earlier posts. I'd like to see them actually answered. To reiterate briefly: I see no evidence that the thing under the chair was ever a part of Harry. It appears to be Voldemort's own "flayed" soul. Harry's compassion can't save it. Only Voldemort's own remorse can. It is, therefore, pointless and perhaps worse than pointles to try. (If it were a human child or any being capable of benefiting from an act of mercy or compassion, DD would not dissuade Harry from picking it up.) The fault, if any, with this scenario (aside from the confusion it creates in many readers) is not Harry's or Dumbledore's but in JKR's conception of a personal, self-created hell for the unredeemed and unrepentant. which, it appears, is repellant to many readers. But, surely, Voldie's crimes differ in scope and substance from everyone else's in the books, even Bellatrix, sadistic as she is, not coming even close. (Grindelwald is another matter, but he seems to have repented before the end.) Should Voldie, for all his crimes, have been redeemed, in your view? Why should Snape or any other character bother to repent, then, if sins are so easily expiated or rather require no expiation and the unrepentant have the same afterlife as the repentant and there is no penalty for unnaturally dividing the soul from the body through the murder of another to prevent your own death? I think the difference between Voldemort's mangled soul and the soul of an ordinary repentant sinner like Snape, who can receive redemption through remorse and atonement if the flawed Dumbledore can, is crucial to our understanding of this last book, and to think of the flayed baby as the soul bit we *know* to have been destroyed and as part of Harry is to completely miss the point of this symbolic rendering of Voldie's remaining "main" soul. That the King's Cross scene is happening in Harry's head only means, IMO, that his now-healed mind/soul (DD tells Snape that with LV and Harry, mind and soul can't be distinguished) is having an out-of-body, near-death experience (which LV seems to be having, too, but learning nothing from). See my earlier posts for more details on this aspect of the argument. Carol, hoping that you'll read and respond to my actual arguments and to the canon support provided in the earlier posts, using canon from DH itself (not noncanonical or semicanonical interviews) to support your interpretation From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Sat Aug 18 22:09:01 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:09:01 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175763 > Siriusly Snapey Susan: > To me, it was a stunning moment, this gift of the full > background, this most difficult gift to give, revealing > those things which had been hidden from all to the person > to whom it was most difficult to allow to see. It was amazing. > Which would probably mean I could cross-post this in Potioncat's > One Moment thread. ;-) allthecoolnamesgone: I agree totally and consider this, Snape had spent the past 17 years 'concealing' his true motivation. Most of his adult life had been a lie, his cover story. Even in the time that Voldemort was 'gone' he had had to maintain his cover story so that when Voldemort reappeared he could ressume his place as a Death Eater, albeit as Dumbledores agent in place. He was a skilled Occlumens and it appears that there were few who were. So we can perhaps conclude that he was naturally given to concealing his true feelings. If so his self revelation even at the moment of his death to the one from whom he most wanted his deepest shame concealed seems to me to be a seal on his redemption. I found his death profoundly shocking and moving and it was probably the only way that his message could have been delivered to Harry for him to accept it's veracity. Alive Snape would have been to Harry merely the cruel teacher, the killer of Dumbledore whose mind was guarded. His dying declaration gave the proof to his thoughts. He is a tragic figure, his flaw was his single-minded ambition in pursuit of knowledge which led to his sorting into Slytherin. In any other house his life would have followed a differnt path. Symbolic too then that it was the Snake that killed him but also that the use of that method enabled his dying moments to be used to complete his mission. Had he been AK'd there would have been no gift of his memories to Harry. allthecoolnamesgone From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 22:58:12 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:58:12 -0000 Subject: Snape and caring (WAS :Re: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175764 > zgirnius: > I certainly see where your reading is coming from. The thing is, so > far as we know for *sure*, Snape had felt affection/ caring for > precisely one human being, ever: Lily. Yet he has never said so to a > living soul. Not to her, not to Dumbledore. (OK, he intimated to > Voldemort he 'desired' her, not the same thing, not the whole truth, > and he had to explain his odd request for the life of a Muggleborn in > some way). Further, once Dumbledore knows (without being explicitly > told) Snape swears him to secrecy as soon as he is in a position to > impose any conditions. Alla: But he did tell Lily that he cared for her, no? As a friend, yes, but still if we are talking affection, I thought he made it abundantly clear to her, IMO of course. Zgirnius: So the fact that he never said he felt caring > or affection for Harry, or for Dumbledore (to name another person I > think got past Snape's guard eventually), does not prove to me that > he did not. His instinct is to hide 'the best of him', not 'wear his > heart on his sleeve', etc. Alla: Well, there is JKR saying that he did not care for Harry till very end and how unfair it is, but I understand if you want to look at the text only. I guess to me just as to LL, Snape answer means basically **how dare you DD suggest that I may care for him, while I care only for his mother and here is my patronus as proof of it**. Obviously only my interpretation. > zgirnius: > Snape does not deny caring for Harry. Nor does he confirm it. He > says, "For *him*?", and casts his Patronus. Were Snape to have > answered Dumbledore in the affirmative, it would have been the only > time in his life that he made such an admission as far as we know, so > its absence does not convince me. Alla: To me what he did is rather strong denial and much more impressive had he simply said no. IMO lets JKR kill two birds with one stone - show that Snape still loves Lily and does not give a fig about her son, even if he wanted him to live as extension of her. Which I grant you was certainly more than I ever expected of Snape. JMO. Alla From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 23:01:59 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:01:59 -0000 Subject: Reaction to Snape's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175765 > > Montavilla47: > > > > Adam, please show the text evidence of Snape teaching Slytherins > > so we can compare them. > > Prep0sterus: > "Snape's Head of Slytherin House. They say he always favors them - > we'll be able to see if it's true." > > This according to Ron, as well as 'they'. Certainly not hard > evidence, but proof of 'the word on the street' about Snape. Montavilla47: It's not hard evidence. It's hearsay. I'll bet the Slytherin students say the same thing about other teachers. Prep0sterus: > In that first lesson Snape goes after Harry with a vengeance, ignores > Hermione's obvious knowledge and skill, rips into Neville, and praises > Malfoy 'whom he seemed to like'. Montavilla47: I'll give you Harry and Hermione. But I don't see proof that it's because they weren't Slytherin that he insulted them. As for Neville, he made a bad mistake and melted Seamus's cauldron. And what's wrong with praising someone for cutting their slugs well? Prep0sterus: > We also get, 'Cheer up, Snape's always taking points off Fred and > George.' though, I have to admit, they are more likely to deserve it. Montavilla47: >From the way Georgeand Fred behave, I wouldn't count any points taken from them as evidence of favoritism. Prep0sterus: > But even if we attribute his poor treatment of Harry to his > preexisting relationship with James and Lily, his treatment of Neville > to his incompetence, and his treatment of Malfoy to his preexisting > relationship with the Malfoys, I think we should see better treatment > of Hermione, who is surely skilled in potions, and worse treatment of > Crabbe and Goyle, who we know to be idiots. And, his preexisting > hatred and favoritism are NOT signs of a good teacher, and neither is > the maliciousness with which he treats Neville. Montavilla47: Again, I'd just like to point out that Draco is "praised" (not awarded points) exactly *once*. And, since Draco probably got an O in his O.W.L.s in potions, he probably deserved the praise. As for Hermione, she doesn't get points, IIRC. But then, no one else does, either. Including Draco. And Hermione tends to answer questions by quoting the text. Well, this is the guy who battled the text throughout potions, and bettered it. He's not going to be impressed with someone who sticks to the book. Prep0sterus: > And the common knowledge Ron spouts may not be hard fact, but I am > inclined to believe that the students have a decent handle on this. > Feel free to disagree. Montavilla47: I don't think it's so much that the students are wrong as that the students are looking at it from their perspective. They don't really know Snape. They see him as 1) a "nasty" teacher and 2) the Head of Slytherin House--the House they have the most problems with. Naturally, they are going to assume that any points he gives to Slytherins are unearned, and that any points taken from a Gryffindor (or not awarded) are unjustified. The *only* unjustified point that I see Snape taking from Harry in the first five years of class is the one he takes when Neville melts the cauldron. I have no idea why he does that, but it isn't as though he's favoring the Slytherins by doing so. If anything, he's favoring Neville. After Harry goes into SWM, we see a difference, with Snape taking petty revenge on Harry by not marking the broken vial of potion, and taking a huge number of points for Harry arriving late and out of uniform. (Although, that might be partly because Harry gave him a scare--I mean, he was probably worried that he'd mess up that "protect Lily's son" thing.) As for Crabbe and Goyle, we also know that Snape gave them detention for not learning their D.A.D.A. material. (Although that one is murky, as he might have been trying to keep them from helping Draco.) Also, the only potions disaster that befalls Crabbe or Goyle in potions is when Harry lobs a firecracker into Goyle's cauldron--something Snape quickly identifies as sabotage. Apparently, Crabbe and Goyle know enough not to melt their cauldrons. My point is that, although we hear Harry (and Ron) talk about the unfairness of Snape, we don't actually see much favoritism within the classroom. And what we do see is never based on the work itself, but rather on Snape assuming that the Gryffindors are always out to make trouble and that the Slytherins never are. Which is wrong, of course, but it has more to do with discipline and very little to do with teaching. Montavilla47 From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Aug 18 23:13:13 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:13:13 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175766 Magpie: > > It's still a house that was a Slytherin house > > and is now a Gryffindor house. Kreacher is now > > Harry's loyal slave colebiancardi: > I agree with Magpie on this one. When the Trio > *lived* in the house before, it was when Sirius > was the owner of said house. houyhnhnm: I think of the house at 12 Grimmauld Place more as a magical object than a piece of Muggle real estate and have done so since the personification in OotP. >>Snape might refer to their work as cleaning, but in Harry's opinion they were really waging war on the house, which was putting up a very good fight, aided and abetted by Kreacher.<< It doesn't care who owns it and neither does Kreacher. Kreacher had to obey Harry when it was merely a matter of ownership, but in no way would I call him loyal. Mrs. Black's portrait is still on the wall and so is the tapestry. Orion Black's enchantments are still in place. It's still a Slytherin house. I would say, rather, it is Harry who takes on Slytherin qualities from the house and the house responds. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 23:21:21 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:21:21 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux Question In-Reply-To: <46C73A30.00001C.00556@LIFESAVER> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175767 --- "Donna" wrote: > > Please help me understand something. To make a > horcrux, a murder has to be committed and a spell > cast to put the torn piece of soul into an object > intended to be a horcrux. When was the spell cast > to make Harry a horcrux? > > Donna bboyminn: It wasn't. Making a Horcrux is a specific and intentional act. What happened to Harry was a random unintentional unlikely event that resulting in something approximating a Horcrux. Or something that could be described has resulting in a Horcrux-like result, but only because 'Horcrux' is the only frame of reference we have for the result. So, Harry wasn't a Horcrux, he was just Horcrux-ish. Functionally he was the same as a Horcrux, but he wasn't literally a Horcrux in the way a Horcrux in normally created. Some people like to refer to this as an 'Accidental Horcrux', but I think even that is over stating it. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 23:35:41 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:35:41 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175768 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > > Magpie: > > > > > That doesn't say anything positive about the Slytherin > > > nature to me. It says how nice their houses can be when > > > they've been taken over by better people. > > > > houyhnhnm: > > > > Those same people had previously lived in the house for > > a year to no effect. They waged war on the house and > > the house won. But when Harry spoke to it in a language > > it could understand--he made a *gracious* gesture to > > Kreacher (his motive doesn't matter)--the house changed. > > I like it--as a metaphor. > > Magpie: > It's still a house that was a Slytherin house and is now a Gryffindor > house. Kreacher is now Harry's loyal slave. Personally I don't like it > as a metaphor (for me the absence of the actual Slytherins speaks far > more loudly than how nice their property is), but even if I did it > would still mostly show how much easier it is to give some beads to a > house elf and have him magically make a nice house than more difficult > dealings with Harry's antagonists (the kind where Harry was actually > wrong in some way). > > -m Montavilla47: Or perhaps how much easier it is to deal with property than with people. Which if you want to extend to real life conflict is down- right creepy, because it makes me think about people driving out other types of people and moving into their houses--in an ethnic cleansing sort of way. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Aug 19 00:15:16 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 00:15:16 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175769 > houyhnhnm: > > I think of the house at 12 Grimmauld Place more as > a magical object than a piece of Muggle real estate > and have done so since the personification in OotP. > >>Snape might refer to their work as cleaning, but > in Harry's opinion they were really waging war on > the house, which was putting up a very good fight, > aided and abetted by Kreacher.<< Magpie: Either way, it's an object. There are few objects in canon I imagine wouldn't eventually work for Harry no matter who they belonged to eventually. It doesn't care who > owns it and neither does Kreacher. Kreacher had to > obey Harry when it was merely a matter of ownership, > but in no way would I call him loyal. Magpie: No, he wasn't loyal until Harry showed him a bit of kindness, at which point he became a loving slave. This doesn't resemble any interaction with a person I've ever had in my life--particularly a person who didn't like me and I didn't like back. Mrs. Black's > portrait is still on the wall and so is the tapestry. > Orion Black's enchantments are still in place. It's > still a Slytherin house. I would say, rather, it is > Harry who takes on Slytherin qualities from the house > and the house responds. Magpie: So Harry found a way of reaping the "qualities" of Slytherin while still remaining above actual Slytherins. If it's a magical object, Harry just has to find the right trick and he makes it his own. Harry wins mastery of the house and now its submissive to him, as is Kreacher is. People aren't so easy. It's like Harry and Malfoy actually working together because Harry was using Draco's wand when he killed Voldemort. The Order has actually been using the House just fine as a headquarters for years, of course. The metaphor of the house waging war on them is fairly limited. They are able to kill the vermin and toss out the dark objects. A few things on the wall don't mean much next to Harry's actual dealings with Slytherin antagonists. I can't say I'm surprised a Slytherin house eventually bowed to him. I woudln't have been surprised if the Malfoy's peacocks and eagle owl had wound up loving him either. Montavilla47: Or perhaps how much easier it is to deal with property than with people. Which if you want to extend to real life conflict is down- right creepy, because it makes me think about people driving out other types of people and moving into their houses--in an ethnic cleansing sort of way. Magpie: That's totally what it says to me. I can't find any way of using this as a metaphor without coming up against that very obvious image. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Aug 19 01:25:29 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 01:25:29 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175770 > Magpie: > It's still a house that was a Slytherin house and is now a > Gryffindor house. Kreacher is now Harry's loyal slave. Personally I > don't like it as a metaphor (for me the absence of the actual > Slytherins speaks far more loudly than how nice their property is), > but even if I did it would still mostly show how much easier it is > to give some beads to a house elf and have him magically make a > nice house than more difficult dealings with Harry's antagonists > (the kind where Harry was actually wrong in some way). Jen: Kreacher is bound to serve the House of Black, which happens to be owned at the moment by a Gryffindor. Kreacher is loyal to Harry because he has to be by the enchantment, but he remains loyal to Regulus (and by extension, the Blacks) as well: "Fight for my Master, defender of house-elves! Fight the Dark Lord, in the name of brave Regulus!"* When I first read those sentences, I thought Kreacher was calling Regulus his Master because his chosen loyalty is to the Blacks. It's analogous to Dobby being owned by the Malfoys yet willing to defy them in order to keep Harry safe and alive - choosing his primary loyalty even if punishment was the consequence. Kreacher, whose still bound by the enchantment to Harry, has always been loyal to the Blacks and continues to be, the difference being that his master not only permits this loyalty but promotes it as well, by giving the fake locket to him & helping Kreacher carry out the last order from 'brave Regulus.' I still think of the Black House as a Slytherin House and Kreacher as one who has a chosen loyalty to the Blacks and a forced loyalty to Harry, which just happens to be a more amenable term of service than it used to be. Jen *DH, chap.36, p. 734, Am. Ed. From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 01:49:31 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 01:49:31 -0000 Subject: The creature under the bench (again) (was: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175771 > Alla wrote: > > > > I just wanted to ask for some canon for this creature being part > of Harry for sixteen years. I took it to be as what is to happen to > whatever part of Voldemort's soul is left in him and that is what > happened to him if he does not feel remorse. > > > > > > That being part of Harry? > > lizzyben responded: > > > > Well, it's all happening in Harry's head, right? DD confirms that. > And what else is in Harry's head? The horcrux. IMO, that figure > represented the horcrux that had been sharing Harry's head for the > past 16 years. But I realize that opinions might vary on that. When > Harry comes to, the horcrux has disappeared. > > > Carol: > Can I get you to take a closer look at my arguments that the creature > under the bench is Voldemort's mangled soul and *not* the destroyed > soul bit? I've argued it about four times, most recently in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175573 > with links to the earlier posts. > Annemehr: Well, you have persuaded me, because as you pointed out, DD said the soul-bit had been destroyed while he was right near the creature. I don't think it makes sense that LV should have such a near-death experience while he still had the Nagini Hx, but that does really seem to be the meaning of the text. However, I don't think that's fatal in the least to lizzyben's arguments. The flayed creature is a bit of the same essensce, the *same soul,* as Harry carried with him for sixteen years. With that understanding, I very much agree with her posts. Carol: > The fault, if any, with this scenario (aside from the confusion it > creates in many readers) is not Harry's or Dumbledore's but in JKR's > conception of a personal, self-created hell for the unredeemed and > unrepentant. which, it appears, is repellant to many readers. Annemehr: Well, yes, that's it exactly. Voldemort reads like a psychopath. Psychopathy happens to a person; they don't choose it. We first meet Tom Riddle at age 11, and we see that his personality is already well established, so clearly he's been that way since early childhood. Whatever anyone claims that JKR is writing about free will, it is impossible to believe in the concept of a young child who has freely chosen to lack any feeling for anyone else (and everything that follows from that). But it seems he *is* already damned. DH seems to say that LV made his bed, and he can lie in it forever. He apparently began creating his personal hell as a small boy in an orphanage. In HBP, after Harry marvelled that Merope wouldn't stay alive for her son, DD asked Harry if he was feeling pity for Tom Riddle. Well, *I* was, but it seems JKR wasn't. It may be true that there's nothing Harry or DD could do for LV's mangled soul in Kings Cross, since love causes him pain. But the part that's really bothering me is to think that LV's only chance -- ever -- was to feel remorse, i.e. to empathise with his victims, something that was never possible for him. Carol: > But, > surely, Voldie's crimes differ in scope and substance from everyone > else's in the books, even Bellatrix, sadistic as she is, not coming > even close. (Grindelwald is another matter, but he seems to have > repented before the end.) Should Voldie, for all his crimes, have been > redeemed, in your view? Why should Snape or any other character bother > to repent, then, if sins are so easily expiated or rather require no > expiation and the unrepentant have the same afterlife as the repentant > and there is no penalty for unnaturally dividing the soul from the > body through the murder of another to prevent your own death? Annemehr: To me, psychopathy isn't something that needs to be expiated in the next world so much as to be healed. For all we know, such a healing may be painful enough. If in JKR's world, Voldemort's only chance is remorse, well then he has always been one of the Unelect, predestined to hell before he was truly self-aware. I don't see what use it is to compare him to Snape or any of the others. Everyone is born into a completely different set of circumstances with no choice in the matter. If some characters find healing in the next great adventure (symbolised in Harry's perfect vision and scar-free hands at Kings Cross, and in Lupin's and Sirius's restored appearances in the walk into the Forest), why should it cause them any bitterness if even the seeming worst of them does so as well? Annemehr From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 02:11:14 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 02:11:14 -0000 Subject: Reaction to Snape's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175772 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > > > > Montavilla47: > > > > > > Adam, please show the text evidence of Snape teaching Slytherins > > > so we can compare them. > > > > > Prep0sterus: > > "Snape's Head of Slytherin House. They say he always favors them - > > we'll be able to see if it's true." > > > > This according to Ron, as well as 'they'. Certainly not hard > > evidence, but proof of 'the word on the street' about Snape. > > Montavilla47: > It's not hard evidence. It's hearsay. > > I'll bet the Slytherin students say the same thing about other > teachers. > Prep0strus: perhaps. But again, then, it's Slytherins vs. the world. Because anyone who isn't favoring them, must be working against them. We don't hear anything, at all, about favoritism about any of the other professors - not the heads of houses or anyone else. McGonnegal is repeatedly shown and talked about as being strict, but fair. > > Prep0sterus: > > But even if we attribute his poor treatment of Harry to his > > preexisting relationship with James and Lily, his treatment of Neville > > to his incompetence, and his treatment of Malfoy to his preexisting > > relationship with the Malfoys, I think we should see better treatment > > of Hermione, who is surely skilled in potions, and worse treatment of > > Crabbe and Goyle, who we know to be idiots. And, his preexisting > > hatred and favoritism are NOT signs of a good teacher, and neither is > > the maliciousness with which he treats Neville. > > Montavilla47: > Again, I'd just like to point out that Draco is "praised" (not awarded > points) exactly *once*. And, since Draco probably got an O in his > O.W.L.s in potions, he probably deserved the praise. > > As for Hermione, she doesn't get points, IIRC. But then, no one else > does, either. Including Draco. > > And Hermione tends to answer questions by quoting the text. Well, > this is the guy who battled the text throughout potions, and bettered > it. He's not going to be impressed with someone who sticks to the > book. > Prep0strus: I have acquired my books 2-4 (still w/o 5 & 6, if anyone would like to help me out), so spent a cursory time flipping through looking for mentions of Potions. Sure I missed some stuff, but let's see what else I came up with. In CoS, the narrator tells us, "Cruel, sarcastic, and disliked by everybody except the students from his own house (Slytherin), Snape taught Potions." Again, you can say Harry is biased, or the narrative voice is, or JKR is. I still will tend to believe when told everyone dislikes Snape, but Slytherins don't. You can have your own take on it, but I believe this shows bias. Also, "Snape prowled through the fumes, making waspish remarks about the Gryffindors' work while the Slytherins sniggered appreciatively.." It's hard to twist that into a purely biased scenario, where Harry's viewpoint changes reality. Snape IS making comments of some kind. About Griffindor work. Slytherins are appreciative of the comments. Griffindors aren't. It doesn't seem like comments are being directed at Slytherins that Griffindors can appreciate. "Draco Malfoy, who was Snape's favorite student, kept flicking puffer-fish eyes at Ron and Harry, who knew that if they retaliated they would get detenion faster than you could say, 'Unfair'." Harry's view? Yes. But does anyone here doubt that it is true? PoA: Here we have that lovely scene where Snape is going to test Neville's potion on his toad. I know some people don't care, or make excuses about this, but it doesn't sound like Neville has been asked to leave his toad in his room. And if Neville has messed his potion up to the point that Snape expects, I doubt he can have the appropriate antidote at his fingertips. Regardless, this belittling, cruel, predatory method of teaching can in no way be considered good teaching. In this same scene, Malfoy get Griffindors to do his work because of his 'injured' arm. First of all, Snape, who is well aware of the relationship between Malfoy and Potter, makes Harry and Ron do this purely out of spite - there is no reason not to ask a fellow Slytherin to do it. More telling... Snape, as represented by SnapeFans (and, really, by everyone else as well) is smart. Very smart. He's clever and sees through ruses. Is there anyone here who really believes Malfoy needs help? If you truly believe that, then, fine. i still say there was no need to put the work on Malfoy's enemies. But I think Snape knew very well Malfoy was faking, looked the other way, and allowed Malfoy to get away with it and punished Griffindors as well. As there it isn't stated in the book that Snape knew, you can argue the point... but I think it diminishes Snape. He's nasty, but he's nobody's fool. And another scene in PoA, when he takes over for Lupin, where he treats the Griffindor class horribly, ignoring their lessons, ignoring Hermione's ability to answer his questions. Because he hates Lupin? Because he hates Griffindors? I don't care why. It is simply more evidence of bad teaching. GoF: Harry & Draco attack each other simultaneously after he calls Hermione a Mudblood. Snape shows up, not only extraordinarily cruelly insults Hermione's teeth, but takes FIFTY POINTS from griffindor and gives harry and ron detentions... while giving Draco nothing. Ron hadn't even done anything (ok, not nothing - he, like Harry, yelled at Snape after he was cruel to Hermione), but considering the hexes that had just happened, and knowing neither had hexed Hermione, it took quite a bit of gall. One more little scene shows Snape continuing to harass and taunt Harry when he is written up by Rita Skeeter. He insults and demeans him in front of the entire class. > Prep0sterus: > > And the common knowledge Ron spouts may not be hard fact, but I am > > inclined to believe that the students have a decent handle on this. > > Feel free to disagree. > > Montavilla47: > I don't think it's so much that the students are wrong as that > the students are looking at it from their perspective. They don't > really know Snape. They see him as 1) a "nasty" teacher and 2) the > Head of Slytherin House--the House they have the most problems > with. > > Naturally, they are going to assume that any points he gives to > Slytherins are unearned, and that any points taken from a > Gryffindor (or not awarded) are unjustified. > > The *only* unjustified point that I see Snape taking from Harry in > the first five years of class is the one he takes when Neville melts > the cauldron. I have no idea why he does that, but it isn't as > though he's favoring the Slytherins by doing so. If anything, he's > favoring Neville. > > After Harry goes into SWM, we see a difference, with Snape taking > petty revenge on Harry by not marking the broken vial of potion, > and taking a huge number of points for Harry arriving late and > out of uniform. (Although, that might be partly because Harry > gave him a scare--I mean, he was probably worried that he'd > mess up that "protect Lily's son" thing.) > > As for Crabbe and Goyle, we also know that Snape gave them > detention for not learning their D.A.D.A. material. (Although > that one is murky, as he might have been trying to keep them > from helping Draco.) Also, the only potions disaster that > befalls Crabbe or Goyle in potions is when Harry lobs a > firecracker into Goyle's cauldron--something Snape quickly > identifies as sabotage. > > Apparently, Crabbe and Goyle know enough not to melt > their cauldrons. > > My point is that, although we hear Harry (and Ron) talk about > the unfairness of Snape, we don't actually see much favoritism > within the classroom. And what we do see is never based on > the work itself, but rather on Snape assuming that the > Gryffindors are always out to make trouble and that the > Slytherins never are. > > Which is wrong, of course, but it has more to do with > discipline and very little to do with teaching. > > Montavilla47 > Prep0strus: Discipline and teaching go hand in hand. Just as a teacher who lets his or her students run all over them in class would be a bad teacher. It doesn't matter how good their lessons are if they have no discipline and get no respect. A teacher that is biased will also not receive respect, or a teacher that is cruel. And without respect, the students have only fear to inspire them. They will not love a class; they will not care about the class. They will care about staying out of trouble. Demeaning some students, favoring others - this is not the hallmark of a good teacher. You talk about their work, but do you really think Snape would compliment Hermione for making a perfect potion? I mean, a lot of this comes down to what you can actually believe, shown or not? Do you think he lets Draco get away with talking or making gestures in class that he would come down on Harry or Ron for? If not, then we just have a difference of opinion of what we read in the text. I think if it's repeated that students think Snape is unfair and biased, it's likely true. All these kids aren't idiots, and JKR isn't telling us it for no reason. No one thinks Minerva is a pushover, but no one seems to think they're getting shafted by her either. And what he does to Neville... his poor performance is exacerbated by his fear of Snape. Justified by his treatment by Snape. Cruel, unnecessary, and poor teaching. Neville may never have been a potions master, but he is unlikely to be able to accomplish even the smallest task in potions, and that is 100% Snape's fault. A good teacher helps all students, from the best to the worst. Snape gets his kicks mocking Griffindors to the delight of Slytherins. And the thing is... it is possible to be a mocking, hard-ass of a teacher and still be halfway decent. I don't know if anyone on this board follows horse-racing, but if you've heard of Barbaro, and the surgeon who operated on him, Dean Richardson... that guy can be a real ... something... when it comes to his teaching method. Socratic, demanding, even sarcastic. But he's fair. Everyone gets an even chance. Snape doesn't give even chances. And his cruelty, especially when it comes to Harry, Neville, and Hermione is absolutely uncalled for. He might be good with potions, with dada, with any other branch of magic. But he's a bad teacher. And let's not forget - these aren't adults he's dealing with. 11, 12, 13 year old kids he treats like this. it's absolutely despicable. And we're SUPPOSED to find it despicable. It's only in the amazingly broad and wacky world of fandom that it could be found not so. Which is a wonderful thing, I suppose, but also frustrating. In RL, I think Snape would be having more parent-teacher conferences, mediated by the headmaster, than I think he'd be willing to put up with. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From catlady at wicca.net Sun Aug 19 02:40:29 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 02:40:29 -0000 Subject: D-G duel/House Elves/Krum/Sirius-Gryffindor/Slytherin/Shadow/Snape/Marietta Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175773 Carol wrote in : << I agree with this interpretation except for one thing. I think that Dumbledore surprised Grindelwald, who was expecting fancy, powerful spells, by using Expelliarmus. >> Elphias Doge's obituary of DD: "They say, still, that no wizarding duel ever matched that between Dumbledore and Grindelwald in 1945. Those who witnessed it have written of the terror and the awe they felt as they watched these two extraordinary wizards do battle." My own idea as to how DD could defeat the wizard with the unbeatable wand is: he cheated. I'm not sure how he could cheat: if the Deathstick doesn't bother to defend against spells it considers harmless and non-combat, could DD have figured out how to use such a spell in combat? Vanishing the earth out from under GG's feet so that GG fell down a hole? Flinging a potted Devil's Snare at him? houyhnhnm wrote in : << They're not meant to represent human slavery in the real world. They want to be owned. They will serve a mean master grudgingly, but a kind one with devotion. They're dogs. Bipedal, English-speaking dogs. That's how we're supposed to see them. >> This is a forbidden "I agree" post. << S.P.E.W. = S.P.C.A. >> If only Hermione had understood what House Elves want, that's what it should have been: a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to House Elves rather than a House Elf Liberation Front. Carol wrote in : << (BTW, I've always wondered how Krum could already be eighteen in August and yet still be in school.) >> Of course it is possible that Durmstrang has a different system than Hogwarts, in which perhaps students don't start when they're 11, and perhaps don't leave until they're 20 years old ... I prefer to think that Durmstrang students also normally leave after their 17/18 yo year, but when Krum was invited to the National Team, he arranged to go to school half-time for twice as many years in order to have time to train and compete with the Team. Carol wrote in : << Sirius chose to be in Gryffindor to be with his new friend, James, who hated Slytherin. >> I thought Sirius had already chosen to be in Gryffindor (or, as Alla said, 'not Slytherin') to spite his parents before, he even met James. Carol wrote in : << Can you cite some canon to support this view of Sirius at age eleven (not as a teenager whose bedroom is decorated to emphasize his differences with his family)? I don't see anything except his surprise at James's antipathy to the House that his family has always been Sorted into, his curiosity regarding the House James would prefer, >> I don't read "Sirius did not smile. 'My whole family have been in Slytherin,' he said" as surprise that James disliked Slytherin. I read it -- perhaps wrongly -- as that he already knew that some wizards hate Slytherins and he was concerned lest James would hate him because he was related to Slytherins. "'Blimey,' said James. 'And I thought you seemed all right!'" was James not holding his relatives against him. Neri wrote in : << The WW in general doesn't think like Hagrid [that "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin"], or obviously they would have abolished the house a long time ago. >> You awoke one of my hobbyhorses: I feel certain that wizarding society in the wizarding world believes that Dark and Light (what Light wizards call 'evil' and 'good') are a personal choice. Like the history of Western Europe contains a couple of centuries of different flavors of Christians fighting wars and burning each other at the stake, but now days they view religion as a personal choice. A person who believes that everyone except members of his own little denomination will go to Hell might blog about it, pass out leaflets, preach on a street corner, complain to his intimates that all other denominations are deceiving people into Hell, but if he urged the local school board to replace the comparative religions classes with mandatory assemblies at which speakers would assure all the students that they will go to Hell unless they join this particular little denomination, everyone would think he was just another loonie. I think the wizarding world is like that: wizards who are committed to the Light may complain about evil people, evil doers, children being indoctrinated into their parents' evil, and wizards who are committed to the Dark may complain about prissy little goody-two-shoes prigs who want to control how everyone else lives their lives, but they would block most of each others' attempts to get Hogwarts or the Ministry on one side or the other. Lizzyben wrote in : << The shadow isn't bad, it's just what you think you shouldn't be. >> If the Shadow was never bad, it wouldn't be so difficult to deal with. All the parts of a person that they refuse to admit are parts of themselves -- I suppose a big one in USA culture would be feeling tempted to steal money or to get money by defrauding people. Feeling urges to murder people for being annoying. (I confess to having felt a strong desire to kill a certain crying, screaming baby on a long bus ride.) Adam(Prep0strus) wrote in : << I think we should see better treatment of Hermione, who is surely skilled in potions, >> I always thought that. When DH revealed Snape's insides, I was quite shocked to find that he really had been an anti-Muggleborn-ist blood-ist, because that bigotry is so illogical and contrary to empirical evidence that I thought Snape, who is surely very intelligent, wouldn't be stupid enough to believe it. But at least it *explained* why he had always been so against Hermione, who started the first class desperate to make a good impression on him, and always listened to him in class and studied extra. Adam(Prep0strus) wrote in : << In RL, I think Snape would be having more parent-teacher conferences, mediated by the headmaster, than I think he'd be willing to put up with. >> The wizarding world is an old-fashioned place, which probably hasn't discovered parent-teacher conferences yet. Wizarding parents probably respond to their children's complaints like my parents' generation or my grandparents' generation did. Parents: either "It's a bad situation but you just have to tough it out, because there is nothing we can do about it" or "don't be so oversensitive". Grandparents: "Children are supposed to respect their teachers ... if you respected him as you should, you wouldn't even notice that [he came to class drunk -- that's from something my Babba said to me, not that I think Snape drinks to excess]." Lizzyben quoted in : << Louie: Did Marietta's pimply formation ever fade? J.K. Rowling: Eventually, but it left a few scars. I loathe a traitor! >> She loathes traitors ... except for Snape betraying his Death Eater friends, and Dobby betraying his Malfoy masters, and Tonks & Shacklebolt in OoP betraying their duty as Aurors to catch the escaped prisoner Sirius Black ... From judy at judyshapiro.com Sun Aug 19 03:16:54 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:16:54 -0000 Subject: Harry the author In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175774 I (Judy) Serenity wrote: > > > Here's my theory, as an academic and a Snapefan: > > > Snape hasn't published his "secret recipes" because then they > > > would no longer be *secret*. As long as he is the only one with > > > potion knowledge, he can run - er, brew - circles around the > > > other potionmakers. Panhandle replied:> > > Except for Lily, I think. I believe that the potions talent > > Slughornso admired in Lily came from her good friend Severus > > secretly coaching > > her throughout at least the first six years. I agree, although I think Snape only was helping Lily in Potions during their first FIVE years -- she got angry at him right during their O.W.L.s, which would be fifth year. However, I doubt he shared *all* of his potions secrets with her, if for no other reason than that she wasn't as interested in Potions as he was. When HBP came out, there was actually a lot of speculation that Snape had been helping Lily in Potions, just like Snape was helping *Harry* in Potions, through the Prince's book. IRRC correctly, people saw this both as evidence for Snape loving Lily, and as one of JKR's hints to the Prince's identity. Carol responded: > Unfortunately for that theory, by sixth year when they were actually > using that Potions book, Lily and Sev were no longer friends. > potions hint and spell is in his handwriting. Just because two > people are good in the same subject doesn't mean that one is > responsible for the other person's genius, and Snape's Potions > genius is demonstrated > in every book. I seriously doubt that Severus ever needed to be > "coached" in his second-favorite subject. Panhandle was suggesting that Snape coached Lily in Potions, not that Lily coached Snape in Potions. I don't think anyone would suggest that Lily was better in Potions than Snape was. Potions seems to be heavily associated with Slytherin, the Water House, while Gryffindor (the Fire House) is associated with Transfiguration. It's also implied that Lily was good at Charms (Ollivander said her wand was good for Charms work), which I'd assume is more like Transfiguration than it is like Potions. As for when Snape used wrote in the book, he must have been using it by Fifth year, because he wrote the Levicorpus spell in it. I don't find it surprising that Snape would make use of a more advanced potions book than the one he used for class, though; I see him as working on advanced potions in his spare time, with Slughorn's encouragement. -- JudySerenity From judy at judyshapiro.com Sun Aug 19 03:26:05 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:26:05 -0000 Subject: Reasons for reactions to Snape (was: Reactions to Snape's death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175775 I asked Alla for her reasons for hating Snape, and Alla said: [snip] > But absolutely I wanted Snape to change towards Harry first and > foremost and Neville. Comes book 2, book 3 ? nothing and Snape's > cruelty only keeps escalating. I still hope and when I read GoF, oh > man, I so hoped the handshake will go somewhere and in the next book > Snape finally sees Harry for who he is. > Well, I saw nothing to the effect, I saw Snape's unchanging hatred to > the innocent kid, whom he probably helped made an orphan ( Snape's > being an eavesdropper was one of the few predictions I got right, > hehe) > I still thought he is loyal to DD in OOP ? well for the most part > anyways, but yeah, I hated him by then. I suppose, yes him being a > teacher like that is the primary reason ? not that I liked him being > DE, but I thought he changed. > Comes HBP, here comes Snape killing DD. That crossed out everything > for me including Snape's loyalty and I hated him even more. > And I hated, hated, hated upon reread to realize that Snape treated > this way the boy whose life he himself helped to shape. > To me this was not how remorseful person acts and since I am > perfectly satisfied that Snape hated Harry as person till very end > (when he replies to DD question and I take JKR statement as support > too), I cannot forgive Snape, because I do not believe he changed in > his view of Harry, even if he did not want Harry dead. Thanks, Alla, for answering my question. So, if I understand you correctly, what makes you hate Snape is primarily how he treated Harry, especially since (by giving the prophecy to Voldemort) Snape contributed to Harry's being an orphan. You also feel that if Snape were truly remorseful for giving Voldemort the prophecy, he would have behaved (and felt) differently towards Harry. Have I gotten this right? I think that one reason I see Snape so differently is that I never perceived him as hating Harry. Yes, I knew that Harry believed Snape hated him, but Harry was often wrong about Snape's motivations and intentions, starting from Book 1 and continuing until Snape's death. So, I figured Harry was probably wrong in thinking that Snape hated him. I did perceive Snape as disliking Harry a lot, but I never saw Snape as HATING Harry. As for Snape's role in making Harry an orphan, I am a very long-time believer in the theory that Snape loved Lily. As far back as early 2002, long before Book 5 came out and told us that there was a prophecy about Harry, I believed that Snape was the person, mentioned in Book 3, who went to Dumbledore and warned him that the Potters were in danger. Like you, when we learned of the Prophecy in Book 5, I figured that Snape was probably the one who heard it and informed Lord Voldemort. But, since I was already convinced that Snape was also the one who tried to save the Potters, this didn't make me hate Snape. One important factor in my feelings towards Snape is that I always thought that he wanted to save Harry for Harry's own sake. When I read in Book 7 that Snape was only saving Harry for Lily's sake, I was really surprised. Had I known this all along, it would probably have made me like Snape less, although I think I would still have liked him some. Of course, this raises the question of why I believed that Snape actually had concern for Harry, rather than just wanting to save him because Lily wanted Harry to live. This is complicated, so I'll make a separate post about that later. Jack-A-Roe, I really wasn't trying to start another thread where some posters attack Snape, and others defend them. There's been a lot of back-and-forth posts on Snape lately, and I don't think they're really getting us anywhere. (So, I'm not going to try to defend Snape from the claims in your post.) Instead, I was trying to find out what those opposed to Snape saw as the causes for their own emotional responses to the character. I was hoping for the sort of post Alla made where she discusses when and why she developed her emotional responses to Snape. Reading your post, Jack, I couldn't find an answer to my question ? what do you see as the primary reason for your disliking/despising/hating Snape? -JudySerenity From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Aug 19 03:22:58 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:22:58 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175776 Jen: > I still think of the Black House as a Slytherin House and Kreacher as > one who has a chosen loyalty to the Blacks and a forced loyalty to > Harry, which just happens to be a more amenable term of service than > it used to be. Magpie: Yes, but the fact remains Kreacher is a House-Elf (he could have been a Hufflepuff House-Elf just as easily, actually). He's a House-Elf. He's not a Slytherin. Saying that we see how great Slytherins can be by showing us a house and an elf once owned by Slytherins pleasing Harry is still avoiding Slytherins. And of course, avoiding anything where Harry has to seriously reconsider his own behavior or ideas in the ways people have described--that goes without saying. Even if this is some clue that Harry's treating his Slytherin enemies with kindness and respect would turn them into fluffy bunnies, he still never has to do that. He just has to treat the talking pet better and makes a servant for life. He also yoinks a Slytherin's wand away from him and gets that bending to his will quite nicely. So no, Harry happily living in a cozy house he inherited from a line of dead Slytherins, being waited on by their old affection-starved pet isn't to me a powerful metaphor for the beautiful side of the Slytherin nature. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 03:55:15 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:55:15 -0000 Subject: Reasons for reactions to Snape (was: Reactions to Snape's death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175777 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > Thanks, Alla, for answering my question. So, if I understand you > correctly, what makes you hate Snape is primarily how he treated > Harry, especially since (by giving the prophecy to Voldemort) Snape > contributed to Harry's being an orphan. You also feel that if Snape > were truly remorseful for giving Voldemort the prophecy, he would > have behaved (and felt) differently towards Harry. Have I gotten > this right? Alla: Yes, absolutely. But also the way he treated Neville is the important part of why I eventually came to hate him. But it started with that, yes. I mean started with how he treated Harry and Neville. JudySerenity: > I think that one reason I see Snape so differently is that I never > perceived him as hating Harry. Yes, I knew that Harry believed Snape > hated him, but Harry was often wrong about Snape's motivations and > intentions, starting from Book 1 and continuing until Snape's death. > So, I figured Harry was probably wrong in thinking that Snape hated > him. I did perceive Snape as disliking Harry a lot, but I never saw > Snape as HATING Harry. Alla: You see, I always trusted Harry's view enough and no matter what did not put much emphasis on **Harry's filter**. Not that I thought that Harry was not making mistakes in evaluating what's going on and as we know he did, but I always trusted him describing facts rather accurately and with the amount of information he had ( which is often incomplete), he made correct conclusions and wrong ones too. But I was often willing to make mistakes along the way of Harry's journey, if that makes sense. So, yeah, I trusted Harry on his conclusion that Snape hates him. It is like if we take first lesson, would the fact of Snape asking Harry those obnoxious questions change if say Draco Malfoy would be describing it? Sure, Draco malfoy would give those facts different emotional colouring, but I always felt that facts of Snape doing what he did to Harry, Neville, Hermione would be same, filter or no filter. But here is another confession to make - for quite some time when I still had some sympathy for Snape as character, I wanted that to be true, I wanted that to be seen that Snape does not hate Harry. I used to say that I have love/hate relationship with Snape's character, it is probably turned to hate by the end of book 5, I think. JudySerenity: > As for Snape's role in making Harry an orphan, I am a very long- time > believer in the theory that Snape loved Lily. Alla: Well, I am not as long believer in it as you, but thank goodness I have preDH posts to prove it, that I was also saying that LOLLIPOPS in some variety are coming for quite some time. I mean, not that I LIKED them coming, I just thought that it is a pretty strong clue that Snape only was badmouthing James and never sad a bad word about Lily, never ever. So, I hated them, but yes, expected very much for them to come, sort of resolved myself to it for the last year or so. I was hoping for pure obsession though, for Snape not only bargaining with Voldemort, but being there in GH and asking Lily to step aside too and watching her die. Oh well, I am quite Okay with how it played out, really. JudySerenity: One important factor in my feelings towards Snape is that I always > thought that he wanted to save Harry for Harry's own sake. When I > read in Book 7 that Snape was only saving Harry for Lily's sake, I > was really surprised. Had I known this all along, it would probably > have made me like Snape less, although I think I would still have > liked him some. > Alla: Hee, and as I wrote to zgirnius, I am pretty convinced that Snape did not give a fig for Harry as a person till the end. But there is opposing POV too, but here the text for me is clear enough and I am happy that JKR expressed her intent to be exactly that, even though I know for many readers it does not matter - the intent I mean. It matters for me if nothing else, but as extra support for my interpetation. JudySerenity: > Of course, this raises the question of why I believed that Snape > actually had concern for Harry, rather than just wanting to save him > because Lily wanted Harry to live. This is complicated, so I'll make > a separate post about that later. > Alla: Cannot wait to read it :) From sherriola at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 04:00:01 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:00:01 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Reasons for reactions to Snape (was: Reactions to Snape's death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <46c7c04b.05578c0a.2e19.71c9@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175778 Judy I really wasn't trying to start another thread where some posters attack Snape, and others defend them. There's been a lot of back-and-forth posts on Snape lately, and I don't think they're really getting us anywhere. (So, I'm not going to try to defend Snape from the claims in your post.) Instead, I was trying to find out what those opposed to Snape saw as the causes for their own emotional responses to the character. I was hoping for the sort of post Alla made where she discusses when and why she developed her emotional responses to Snape. Sherry now: I'll try to answer this, though it's complicated. It's based partly on his behavior, and partly on my own personal emotions and reactions to someone whose actions seemed far too familiar. Let me get the personal part of it out of the way, so I can bring it back to canon. In high school, I had a teacher very much like Snape. He was a resource teacher, a teacher in a public high school who was there to help the disabled kids in the public school. He was also blind and he thought that his opinion of what I should or should not do, as a blind person, was all that mattered. Ok, all kids have annoying adults who try to tell them what to do, and if it had been only that, it would have been nothing. But for four miserable years, he made my life hell. Putting me down, personal insults about my looks, my physical condition, my interactions with my family, my hopes and dreams for my future life. He pushed and nagged and pushed and nagged. Never a good thing with me. My father believed him over and above me, even when I was right, and I would have to jump through hoops to prove it to my dad, even though I'd never been much of a liar. And I had to put up with this creep for those whole four years. I got an ulcer in my sophomore year, was so ill I only weighed 68 pounds, and though there were other causes of that, the teacher was part of it. I grew up in the 60's, when kids got their faces slapped for talking back to teachers or other adults. So, I internalized it all, only breaking and lashing out when I couldn't stand it anymore. I would never have graduated if not for another wonderful teacher, a very kind, but oh so tough and fair teacher! For many, many years, the mere idea of more school, meaning college, made me physically ill. That teacher used to tell me that all his students came back and thanked him, but even 30 years later, I would not thank him. It's actually pretty easy to get me to consider, to think and to try, but he never learned what was the best way to motivate me. Tearing me apart as a person is most definitely not the way. Ok, so excuse all the personal garbage, but I've always known I react to Snape in part because he reminds me so much of that horrid man from high school. So, we meet Snape in the very first book, and the first thing he does is start being cruel to Harry, attacking him verbally from the very first lesson, for no good reason. He continued to be a jerk to Harry. Then in the third book, he was stunningly awful to Neville. Whether or not he honestly meant to Poison Neville's pet, the fact that he did give it the potion, knowing how precious that toad was to Neville was so far out of line, that no calm different view of the scene will ever change my mind. If I'd been Neville's parent, the board of governors would have had an earful or two from me. In the same book, he humiliated Neville in front of Lupin and the rest of the class, which is a rotten thing for a so-called adult to do to a child. I really hated Snape after that. It continued in book four with the "I see no difference" remark about Hermione's teeth. And it just went on and on. Yet, I always tried to believe that though he was a twisted disgusting excuse for a teacher and human being, he was ultimately on the side of good, Dumbledore's man and all that. Then came HBP. Not even the revelations of DH have made me able to accept the plan, Snape to kill DD. Neither Snape nor DD look to good to me over that one! Strangely, I do feel less hatred toward Snape, and I think some of that is because he wasn't perfect. He wasn't really DDM, he was lily's man. He wouldn't have lifted a finger to help James or Harry if not for Lily. No, that doesn't make him a good person, it just makes him more human in a way, more understandable. He was a rotten git, not a nice person, horrible to children. But he did care about something, someone, not just an idea of ridding the world of Voldemort. I don't know why, but that makes him somehow more acceptable, though not likable ever for me. Sherry From jnferr at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 04:15:20 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:15:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Reasons for reactions to Snape (was: Reactions to Snape's death) In-Reply-To: <46c7c04b.05578c0a.2e19.71c9@mx.google.com> References: <46c7c04b.05578c0a.2e19.71c9@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40708182115y1bd9eebeqc3b7c5d47033d4d4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175779 Sherry: So, we meet Snape in the very first book, and the first thing he does is start being cruel to Harry, attacking him verbally from the very first lesson, for no good reason. He continued to be a jerk to Harry. Then in the third book, he was stunningly awful to Neville. Whether or not he honestly meant to Poison Neville's pet, the fact that he did give it the potion, knowing how precious that toad was to Neville was so far out of line, that no calm different view of the scene will ever change my mind. montims: but he KNEW he wouldn't be poisoning Trevor - maybe he was wrong to have given Neville such a scare, but this is a teacher who could look at any potion and know from its shade that a student had omitted a particular ingredient, or added it at the wrong time, or stirred in the wrong direction... The potion *would* have poisoned the toad before Hermione started helping, but I firmly believe that if the potion hadn't been remediated by the end of the lesson, that he would have given them all extra homework on why it is important to read instructions, deducted points from Gryffindor for Neville's abysmal performance, and said something snide about Hermione not being able to help as well as she had thought she could. The threat was enough. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 03:51:30 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:51:30 -0500 Subject: King's Cross - Harry's party Message-ID: <8ee758b40708182051u647f3577hf39cd5096088e2a2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175780 > > lizzyben: > > In looking for a happy Snape ending, I came across one fan story w/a > much more satisfying ending to "King's Cross". After Harry leaves the > station, DD is left behind in the station with the crying, suffering > baby. He ignores it & sits somewhere else, watching many many people > pass through the station. They all get onto the train, but DD cannot & > he doesn't understand why. He waits for years & years, & it becomes > more & more difficult for him to ignore the baby's cries. Finally, he > picks up the baby, and comforts it, and takes it onto the train with > him. He had to show compassion in order to finally get on the train. > This little story was so much more satisfying than the end of DH. montims: I keep reading things about other people being at "King's Cross", as though this is where everybody goes when they die... It was quite clear to me from DH that this is the place *Harry* chooses, because it is right for *him*. When he tells DD where it is (P. 570, UK version): "King's Cross station!" Dumbledore was chuckling immoderately. "Good gracious, really?" "Well, where do you think we are?" asked Harry, a little defensively. "My dear boy, I have no idea. This is, as they say, your party." Later, p.579, it is made clear that the whole scene was happening inside Harry's head. What I'm trying to say is that, if we follow JKR's rules, a person near death will go in their head to a white misty place, which will resolve itself into a place which has meaning for the dying person. That will not, except in rare cases, be King's Cross... I believe. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sun Aug 19 04:37:02 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 04:37:02 -0000 Subject: FILK: This Can't Be Death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175781 This Can't Be Death (DH, Chap. 35) To the tune of This Can't Be Love, from Rodgers & Hart's The Boys from Syracuse This You-tube performance only offers the 2nd and 4th stanzas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgJ1uZg8CxM THE SCENE: At a King's Cross simulacrum, HARRY has a musical Near- Deathly Experience. HARRY: In the Forest I met up with Voldemort Who could never be described as anti-war. And he cried aloud, "Now, I shall strike you dead!" So he said . This can't be death `cause I am so alive No pain, no headache, no stars This can't be death, the Boy Who Lived revives, AK'd this time with no scar. It seems that time stands still But I'm afresh I've got my flesh, blood and bone. This can't be death `cause I am so alive And, hey, I have 20-20 eyes. Enter DUMBLEDORE DUMBLEDORE: We can see an ugly baby on the floor I'm afraid it symbolizes Voldemort Though it seem in- -Decent just to let it yelp You can't help .. This isn't death because you're still alive So brave, so noble, so true This isn't death, forgive what I'd contrived To keep my secrets from you. Your blood in Voldy's veins Lets you draw breath Keeping you tethered to life HARRY & DUMBLEDORE This isn't death because I'm/you're still alive And it's the Dark Lord's turn to demise .. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From judy at judyshapiro.com Sun Aug 19 04:45:34 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 04:45:34 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape (also Fidelius Charm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175782 Pippin said: > I think many Snape fans (and I am definitely including me) invested > so much in a Snape who wasn't about vengeance. But he is, he > really is. "Vengeance is sweet" he breathes. Much as I would have > hoped he was acting, he wasn't. Snape wanted retaliation for each > and every injury, real or imagined. Interestingly, we see nothing about Snape wanting revenge on Voldemort for killing Lily. His response to Lily's death seems to be overwhelmingly one of grief, not anger. So, Snape actually turned out to be less vengeful than I expected, although I agree that (at least at first), his positive feeling are limited entirely to Lily. The "vengeance is sweet" line was to Sirius in the Shrieking Shack, wasn't it? Frankly, I think Snape would have to be a saint (which he certainly wasn't ) to not want vengeance here. Harry may believe Snape is just angry because of being bullied in school by Sirius, but clearly Snape has far better reasons to hate Sirius in this scene. He thinks Sirius was responsible for Lily's death, and also was working against Snape's goals by spying on the Order to Voldemort, and trying to kill Harry at Hogwarts. Add in to this the fact that Sirius is believed to betrayed his own best friend and killed 13 muggles, and I think most people would want vengeance on Sirius. Pippin again: > Ironically, he got more revenge than he wanted. > Between relaying the prophecy and his interference in the Shrieking > Shack which led to Pettigrew's escape, those whom Snape hated ended > up dead, just as Harry said: all the Marauders and Harry himself. Of course, the only person Snape loved also ended up dead, as did Snape himself, and a bunch of people Snape presumably didn't care about, or even know. It seems that there was a very high mortality rate among those Order members who started fighting during Voldie War I. The mortality rate among Death Eaters was high, too. Harry. When Harry said that that those Snape hated ended up dead, he was claiming that these deaths were somehow Snape's doing. I disagree with Harry's claim; the deaths were Voldemort's doing. I also posted about another topic, the Fidelius Charm, which I'll respond to here in the interest of keeping my post count down. I (Judy) said that: > If you can be your own Secret Keeper, as Arthur and Bill are, then I > see no reason why James or Lily couldn't be the Secret Keeper. And Pippin responded: > I think it's because the Secret Keeper can reveal the secret, and > the secret they need to protect is not Lily or James, it's Harry. > He is the one Voldemort wants to kill. If James or Lily > are secret keepers, > they can accidentally give themselves away, as Hermione did, and > then they could be coerced or tricked into revealing > Harry. IIRC, the idea was > for Sirius to go into hiding, luring the pursuit after him and > leaving the real secret keeper Peter unmolested. Peter would be > in hiding too, but nobody would go looking for him, since no one > would suspect such a supposedly weak wizard of being an SK. So, Pippin, are you saying that it would add another "layer of protection" for there to be a different person as the Secret Keeper, instead of Lily or James? I don't really see why they would do this, because it sounds like it would be better protection for the Secret Keeper himself or herself to be protected by the charm, rather than out where they can be found & interrogated. I also said that Snape being unable to get into Grimmauld Place seemed like a flint, And Pippin replied: > They knew the DE's couldn't get in because they were keeping watch > on the square instead of invading the House. > They assumed that whatever > Moody did to stop Snape from letting the DE's in worked. Presumably > Snape's tongue would curl up if he tried to tell > anyone the exact location of the doorstep. > I have to imagine they know there are ways of keeping > Snape from communicating the location by some other means than > talking, just as there must be spells besides the stair > slide to keep boys out of the girls dorms. [snip] > As for the doorstep, IMO, the risk of splinching while sidealong > apparating into such a narrow space would be enough to discourage > Voldemort from ordering Snape to try it, at least while Snape is > still a valuable lieutenant. Pippin, you make a valiant effort to fill this plot hole, but I can't help thinking that JKR was thinking about this far less logically that you are! You make a good point that the Trio can tell they are safe because the Death eaters are hanging around outside, and not getting inside. Still, I don't see how Snape would get out of telling the Death Eaters how to get in, or why the Trio don't worry that he will get around to revealing the secret at some point. The whole Tongue-Tying jinx didn't make sense to me. The spell seems to take effect if Snape enters the house, but Harry was told the secret when he was outside the house, which is presumably what Snape would do as well. Furthermore, Harry was given the secret written on a piece of paper, which Snape could also do. It's not just that we aren't told of other protections besides the Tongue-Tying spell, it's that the Tongue-Tying spell itself seemed to make no sense. As for splinching, Ron's splinching happened when Harry tried to sidealong apparate two people, and a third person forcible grabbed one of the people Harry was bringing with him. So, I don't think Snape would really be in danger if he sidealong apparated a single Death Eater to Grimmauld Place. At any rate, I think if Snape can fix the damage from Sectumsempra, he can easily fix splinching. Plus, Mike (mcrudele78) made a good point that Snape could just walk up to Grimmauld Place, so presumably no apparating would be necessary. -- JudySerenity From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Aug 19 05:10:18 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 05:10:18 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175783 lealess: > I'm just wondering if you think Dumbledore chose what was right over > what was easy when he asked Snape to kill him, to spare him pain and > humiliation. Did Dumbledore turn his moment of temptation into a > "right action" by asking Snape to compromise Snape's soul for > Draco's sake? Snape agreed to do this, not for the sake of Lily's > child, but presumably to keep Draco's soul pure, to help the old > man, and to further the "plan" that Snape later found out > Dumbledore had lied to him about all along. > > There was always a cost to Dumbledore's actions. The cost was > Severus Snape. Jen: My gut answer is yes, it was the right choice to ask Snape, but I want to look at all the variables Dumbledore and Snape knew at the time of his request and make sure that's my answer: 1) DD's life - he had about a year to live. 2) Draco's life - a 'death sentence' on his head. 3) Draco's soul - if Dumbledore allows Draco to murder him. 4) Snape's soul - if Voldemort orders him to kill Dumbledore or Dumbledore orders/requests the killing instead. 5) Future of Hogwarts and the students after DD dies. 5) Factor X - Dumbledore knows Harry must be willing to sacrifice himself at some point and he's witholding that information from Snape. This is what Dumbledore knows or suspects from the intelligence provided by Snape and his own knowledge of the Horcruxes. A) If Dumbledore chooses not to act and allows Voldemort to call the shots (because of factor X or a combination of factors), Draco is at risk to be killed by Voldemort before he succeeds. Snape would then be ordered by LV to kill Dumbledore and DD would submit. So Draco is dead and Snape's soul is ripped although still able to heal with remorse. The knowledge of Harry's willing sacrifice is also dead with Dumbledore unless he tells Snape at some point in the year, which is possible. It only makes a difference to Snape if Snape's choice is to stop helping DD with his plan - he'll still be be ordered to kill DD, rip his soul and return to LV or he'll refuse to kill DD, DD will die anyway and Snape won't be able to take over the headmaster position to protect the students. Presumably Snape would then be killed by LV or on LV's orders. B) If Dumbledore allows Draco to kill him, Draco's soul is ripped and he will be a Voldemort follower of some sort if LV wins or a wanted man if Voldemort is defeated. The weight on Dumbledore's head is not offering protection to an unqualified student under his care as headmaster. This move does save Snape from being ordered by either wizard to kill Dumbledore so no soul ripping; however, Snape wouldn't return to Voldemort in any better position than he is at the beginning of HBP, when Peter is spying on him and the other DEs suspect him. Another possibility: Draco refuses to kill DD, he and his family are protected if they accept it and Snape is ordered by Voldemort to do the job instead. Snape can refuse and announce his loyalty to Dumbledore, in which case he won't be made headmaster and be able to protect the students when Voldemort takes over the castle after Dumbledore's death. Or, he can go along, rip his soul, etc. ****************************************************** I'm sure there are many ways the variables could be arranged. That's enough for me to conclude none of Dumbledore's choices were easy, they all exacted a cost. DD asking for a 'quick, painless' exit wasn't the actual reason for making the request of Snape so much as a sort of hope for how he'd go out. The reason is somewhere in the variables above. lealess: > Dumbledore tells the returning Death Eater Snape that, "You disgust > me," "You do not care, then, about the deaths of her husband and > child? They can die, as long as you have what you want?" At the > end of his life, though, he does the same thing to Snape. Snape > can go to hell, for all Dumbledore cares, as long as he agrees to > follow theplan. So I wonder, was asking this of Snape right, or > easy? Jen: He's not in the same situation with Snape. Besides the above complications, he expects Snape will become Master of the Elder Wand. I have no idea what benefit that confers and wish someone would explain it to me. It does sound beneficial from the way Dumbledore and Harry discuss it in the King's Cross chapter. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Aug 19 06:16:10 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 06:16:10 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175784 > Magpie: > Yes, but the fact remains Kreacher is a House-Elf (he could have > been a Hufflepuff House-Elf just as easily, actually). He's a House- > Elf. He's not a Slytherin. Saying that we see how great Slytherins > can be by showing us a house and an elf once owned by Slytherins > pleasing Harry is still avoiding Slytherins. Jen: That's not the point, that Kreacher is somehow Slytherin. It's that he's healing and preserving the memory of the Black family since they can't. Without the piece about Kreacher telling the story of Regulus and how he wasn't able to fulfill his master's dying request, kindness from Harry might have helped Kreacher's disposition but the secret of Kreacher's failure and Regulus's last act remained hidden. What was important was that the kindness involved helping Kreacher give meaning to Regulus's death, not the kindness itself. Families like the Crouches and Blacks read as examples of how secrets and unresolved emotions can damage a family from the inside out - the water aspect out of balance. Yes, pureblood ideaology was the reason for Mrs. Black zapping family members off the family tree, but that action was covering unresolved anger and hurt from rejection. Kreacher releasing his all-important secret about how he couldn't fulfill Regulus's order, how he watched Mrs. Black 'mad with grief' and couldn't help her misery, offered a way for him to set right some of the Black family history that had been damaged. Magpie: > And of course, avoiding anything where Harry has to seriously > reconsider his own behavior or ideas in the ways people have > described--that goes without saying. Even if this is some clue that > Harry's treating his Slytherin enemies with kindness and respect > would turn them into fluffy bunnies, he still never has to do that. > He just has to treat the talking pet better and makes a servant for > life. Jen: He did realize from Regulus's example that he was wrong about Sirius, that Sirius had paid for not treating Kreacher as a being with feelings. Regulus's empathy toward Kreacher was not in name only: he chose to drink the deadly potion instead of making Kreacher do it and went to his watery grave, protecting the family he loved by ordering Kreacher not to tell. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 06:43:42 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 06:43:42 -0000 Subject: Elder Wand mastery (was Re: need help for all of my confuse!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175785 massive snip for space purposes: Allie wrote: > > Regarding Step 5, where it all gets goofy - somehow the Elder Wand > KNEW that Harry overpowered Draco and it became loyal to Harry, > despite the fact that neither Harry nor Draco ever touched the Elder > wand. > > Someone on the list suggested that the Elder Wand actually > recognized **Draco's wand**, which Harry was using in the final > duel, as the last wand to defeat it. Thus, the owner of the last > wand to defeat it must be its new, true master. Whether the > intended truth or not, it makes more sense to me. :) Remember: wands choose their owner.... I'm sure that Harry dropping that ring in the forrest may have had a great deal towards procuring the elderwand...(have to go back into the fairy tale...) Harry wants to save the ww...not 'survive at any cost'...I got the "feeling" that after the "colin creevy" incident harry may have felt, "no more"... One has to look back upon what we know of the elder wand....and how "death" may have encouraged/ or nudged said brothers upon its creation...(Voldemort spent his entire life to flee death(much like the brothers may or may not have wanted to do...perhaps the wand may not have worked with voldemort because the wand knew that Voldie could defeat death w/o it...(by creating another horcrux---uh-oh see what happens when one rips their soul to shreds committing murder?) Not only that but perhaps there was not enough soul left in Voldie for a wand to recognize?(most likely explanation but not neccessarily true), hence, I think the elder wand chose harry, he who dropped the ring, is not afraid of death, would never create a horcrux in a million years, yet still mourns all those his misses but would not destroy himself to meet them again.(like DD did when he immediately tried on that damned ring).. I suppose Harry with his guilt about the deaths his life alone had caused w/o his actions...and then the deaths, his actions caused may or may not have made a difference to the wand's loyalty. Harry still feels responsible as an individual..Voldemort believes only the Wand can do it..**shaking head**)... We do atleast know before said battle...that even if Harry was wrong and had died (hence the long speech) I don't think it would matter what wand Voldemort would have had..that speech needed to be there for Neville, Ron and Hermione... (and probably everyone else in the great hall direclty aiming a AK at Voldie..) I may be wrong but I think that the surrounding throng may have been more beneficial to Harry rather than Voldemort. Even if we delve into the "folklore" we have to accept that "death" is in the wings for us all(even voldie) and Harry learned, even for himself...and who would death take---the one who had tried to escape him at least seven times over by creating seven--and mistakenly eight horcruxes, or him who had faced him seven and inadvertently eight times to protect others? Seeing as the deathly hallows were approached by honest, yet selfish means they were born of a belief that death could be beaten...it cannot...and if it can...then we are no longer human..so perhaps the elder wand identifies with those most human...those who know they are destined to die anyhow? Like Harry? Like those willing to sacrifice themselves for others? Like Harry? I could be wrong...but I think that Voldie ordering Nagini to kill Snape speaks volumes...towards Voldie being a clueless git. Doddie, (who still wonders why on earth would Filch be bandaging Snape's wounds in SS/PS.) > From judy at judyshapiro.com Sun Aug 19 07:00:55 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:00:55 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort offer to spare Lily? (was: Reactions to Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175786 Here is a question that I haven't seen discussed here lately. We know that Voldemort offered Lily the chance to live; it was her willingness to die when she had the option to live that gave Harry his protection from the Killing Curse. But, why did Voldemort give Lily that option? Before I suggest some possibilities, let me give some background. I am interested in this question because so much of Snape's story hangs on this question. I used to be an very active poster here, years ago. I was always an ardent supporter of the theory that Snape loved Lily. In fact, "Fantastic Posts and where to Find Them" gives me credit for the theory known as "Too Eww to be Treeww" although I certainly didn't originate all the parts of the theory. (A lot of it came from Tabouli, the "Captain of the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS.") This theory involves Snape knowing that Voldemort was after the Potters, and his love for Lily being the reason that he decided to work for Dumbledore. "Too Eww to be Treeww" was proposed back in February 2002, after GoF came out but before OoP. Basically, here are the parts of the theory that turned out right: 1) Snape was in love with Lily 2) Snape was the one who told Dumbledore that Voldemort was after the Potters 3) Snape asked Dumbledore to protect the Potters, and this was the point at which Snape started working for Dumbledore 1) Snape really was Dumbledore's man throughout the books 5) Dumbledore promised Snape that he would not tell Harry of Snape's love for Lily Most of this I discussed in Message 34857. The last point, about Dumbledore keeping the secret, I proposed in Message 34875. The Prophecy isn't mentioned in these messages, because OoP wasn't out yet. There was one BIG point that I got wrong, though. In Teeew Ewww, I proposed that Voldemort told Snape that he would spare Lily (and even Imperio her or give her a love potion so that she would want to be with Snape), but that this wasn't good enough for Snape. I thought that Snape wanted Harry & James spared, too; that this was why he went to Dumbledore even though Voldemort offered to spare Lily. Clearly, now that Book 7 is out, we see that this part of Teww Ewww was wrong: Snape didn't give a hoot whether James lived, and he also didn't give a hoot, at least at first, whether Harry lived. But why did I think that Snape cared if James & Harry lived? Basically, because of the combination of two factors: 1) There had to be some reason why Voldemort was willing to let Lily live, and I figured that reason was Snape's love for Lily; 2) Snape went to Dumbledore for help even though Voldemort knew Snape loved Lily, and was willing to let her live. But if Voldemort knew Snape loved Lily, and was willing to let Lily live, why would Snape have to go to Dumbledore at all? The answer I came up with was that Snape wanted to save Lily's husband and child, too, rather than have Lily grieve for them or (as Voldemort would probably suggest), use magic to make her forget about them. Well, that part didn't turn out. Snape went to Dumbledore intending just to save Lily, not James or Harry. But, this raises the question again: If Voldemort wasn't willing to spare Lily for Snape's sake, then why, when Voldemort showed up at Godric's Hollow, did he give her a chance to "step aside"? Or, if Voldemort did tell Snape that he would spare Lily, then why did Snape show up, desperate, frantic, begging Dumbledore to save her? Really, this seems like a plot hole to me. The books never explain whether Voldemort said he would spare Lily, and if so, why Snape still went to Dumbledore. I know I was wrong about Snape hoping to save James & Harry, and that Snape was therefore not as good a person as I expected, but I think JKR was misleading on this point ? she said in interviews there was an important reason why Voldemort offered to spare Lily. So, I believed that Voldemort told Snape that he would spare Lily, and that, since Snape knew that Voldemort would spare Lily, Snape must have gone to Dumbledore in the hopes of saving James and/or Harry as well. Here's what I can come up with to plug this potential plothole: 1) Maybe Voldemort told Snape no, he would not spare Lily, but then changed his mind. 2) Maybe Voldemort intended to spare Lily all along, but told Snape he would not just to be cruel. 3) Maybe Voldemort DID tell Snape he would spare Lily, but Snape was worried (quite rightly) that Voldemort wouldn't keep his word. Any thoughts? Oh, and here are a couple of reflections on Tew Eww, since this is my first time posting about it since Book 7 came out. Way back in early 2002 (Message #34801), Cindy Sphinx said: >> The Snape-Loves-Lily theory, on the other hand, says that Snape >> performs all of these heroic tasks and puts himself in harm's way >> for the stale memory of a relationship with a woman Snape never had. >> If that's true, then that makes Snape, well, kinda pitiful, no? And I responded: > I prefer to think of it as a tragic and touching, not pitiful. Now that Snape "putting himself in harm's way for a relationship he never had" is actually canon, I still see it as tragic and touching. But boy, is it sad! I cried when Snape died looking into Harry's eyes. In fact, the only thing that made me feel better was imagining (as several others did here), that Snape "woke up" in the afterlife (in his equivalent of King's Cross station, perhaps) looking into Lily's eyes. We see that in the afterlife, everyone (except Voldemort) has at least some degree of physical healing. I'd like to think that Snape is healed emotionally, as well. (Who knows, maybe his hair is even clean.) Alla said, back in message: > I hope the author of **TOO EWWW TO BE TRUEEEEE** would stand > up and take a round of applauds from me. Bravo. {bowing} Thank you! -- JudySerenity, inveterate Snapefan (as opposed to invertebrate Snapefan, which would be maybe the Giant Squid) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 07:11:07 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:11:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/Grindlewald duel. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175787 --- "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Donna" wrote: > > > How did Dumbledore win the duel with Grindelwald > > when he had an unbeatable wand??? > > ... > > The Elder Wand was the most powerful wand in the > world but whoever gave it the name "unbeatable" was > obviously engaging in a bit of hyperbole as history > is full of instances where the master of the wand > gets murdered. > > Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald > bboyminn: After thinking about it for a while, I'm going to have to agree with Eggplant. We need to separate the Legend of the Elder Wand and the fairytale of The Three Brothers from the reality of the immensely talented wizards who created extraordinary object of immense power, but also within the realms of normal magical science. In other words, the Elder Wand is an immensely powerful wand created by an immensely talented wizard. But it is not a wand given by Death that can defeat Death. The books tell use this much. --- DH; HB, Am.Ed., 'Kings Cross', pg 714 --- "So it's true?" asked Harry. "All of it? The Peverell brothers --" "--were the three brothers of the tale," said Dumbledore, nodding. "Oh yes, I think so. Whether they met Death on a lonely road...I think it more likely that the Peverell brothers were simply gifted, dangerous wizards who succeeded in creating those powerful object. ..." - - - end quote - - - So, the implication seems to be that the Elder Wand, while immensely powerful, was not the unbeatable wand of legend. As to the other difficult aspects of the wand that have been discussed; it is anyone's guess. I think the wand can reasonably distinquish between a true combat 'Expelliarmus' and a practice session spell. I see no conflict there. As to whether Grindelwald was the true master of the wand. I think so, but admit the evidence is thin. One could say that Grindelwald, allowed himself to be seen. He was sitting in the window smiling and calm when Gregorovitch entered. Grindelwald also cast a curse that stopped Gregorovitch from re-capturing the wand. By some stretch that could be considered a defeat. In a manner of speaking they dueled, and Grindelwald won. But I acknowledge it is only 'in a manner of speaking' that this happened. This is tricky, because if the current owner dies a natural death, then ownership and mastery seem to die with it. You can't capture from or defeat a dead person. So, in that case, the wand just becomes another wand. That seems to be what Dumbledore is saying, and what he intended. But if that is true, if ownership and mastery of the wand must occur by some means of defeat or forceful capture, then is Grindelwald's capture sufficient? And if it is not, then how can ownership and mastery pass to Dumbledore? Wouldn't Dumbledore have to defeat Gregorovitch, the wand true Master? I admit on this last part; I'm not sure. It seems as if there is some subtle aspect of Grindelwald's capture of the wand that made it the equivalent of a defeat, so he was Master. If Dumbledore defeat Grindelwald then, Mastery would transfer to Dumbledore. That seems to be the only way it makes sense. Assuming you accept that we have discredited the 'unbeatable' aspect. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Sun Aug 19 07:39:58 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:39:58 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why did Voldemort offer to spare Lily? (was: Reactions to Snape) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2CD22FEF-34CB-41E1-B140-FF037C9100FF@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 175788 On 2007, Aug 18, , at 23:00, Judy wrote: > But, why did Voldemort give Lily that option? Perhaps, in a way, it is a strategic option. If he spares Lily, he has Snape completely in his debt. Snape has shown what is to Voldemort a grave weakness - he LOVES someone. Voldemort can continue to have this immense power over Snape and can use it to keep Snape in control. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leahstill at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 08:44:12 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 08:44:12 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort offer to spare Lily? (was: Reactions to Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175789 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > > Here is a question that I haven't seen discussed here lately. We > know that Voldemort offered Lily the chance to live; it was her > willingness to die when she had the option to live that gave Harry > his protection from the Killing Curse. But, why did Voldemort give > Lily that option? >> > But, this raises the question again: If Voldemort wasn't willing to > spare Lily for Snape's sake, then why, when Voldemort showed up at > Godric's Hollow, did he give her a chance to "step aside"? Or, if > Voldemort did tell Snape that he would spare Lily, then why did Snape > show up, desperate, frantic, begging Dumbledore to save her? > > Really, this seems like a plot hole to me. The books never explain > whether Voldemort said he would spare Lily, and if so, why Snape > still went to Dumbledore. I know I was wrong about Snape hoping to > save James & Harry, and that Snape was therefore not as good a person > as I expected, but I think JKR was misleading on this point ? she > said in interviews there was an important reason why Voldemort > offered to spare Lily. So, I believed that Voldemort told Snape that > he would spare Lily, and that, since Snape knew that Voldemort would > spare Lily, Snape must have gone to Dumbledore in the hopes of saving > James and/or Harry as well. > > Here's what I can come up with to plug this potential plothole: > 1) Maybe Voldemort told Snape no, he would not spare Lily, but then > changed his mind. > 2) Maybe Voldemort intended to spare Lily all along, but told Snape > he would not just to be cruel. > 3) Maybe Voldemort DID tell Snape he would spare Lily, but Snape was > worried (quite rightly) that Voldemort wouldn't keep his word. > > Any thoughts? > > Leah: I think it's only possible to choose between these on gut feeling since I can't immediately think of any canon that would favour one over the other. I think there's a possible a and b in your (3), (a) as you have written and (b) Voldemort did agree to spare Lily and Snape was only hedging his bets in coming to Dumbledore. However, having formulated that I think I will reject it, as it doesn't tally with the desperate state in which Snape approaches DD. My gut reaction (as a Snape fan, so it is coloured by that perspective) is that your number 3 is the one. This would suggest that Snape quite rightly had decided that he couldn't trust VM as far as he could throw him, and also that he had worked out for himself at a fairly early stage something intrinsic about VM's nature and specifically the nature of his promises to his followers which others, notably Wormtail, don't find out until it's too late. As to why Voldemort offered Lily the chance to live, I am equally puzzled. It may be that he thought her continued existence would give him a powerful hold over Snape. Otherwise, he could just have killed Lily and told Snape that she refused his offer, modified Snape's memory so he forgot the promise etc etc. Or it may have something to do with Merope. The distinct impression given in HBP is that Merope chose death over life with her baby. In that case, a mother metaphorically sacrifices her child to her own wish for death, and I wonder if VM was intrigued to see whether a mother would literally sacrifice her child to her wish for life. On a somewhat related topic, I remain puzzled by the fact that DD let Snape loose with the prophecy. Before HBP, my opinion was that DD could not have known he was overheard on the night in question, that the eavesdropper had been thrown out purely as an undesirable by someone who didn't query further and that DD was only informed of the overhearing later by, most likely,, Snape. That went by the board after HBP. So why let Snape out into the night with a prophecy that DD had had no chance to mull over. Would DD really want to let a DE go with a piece of information that was interesting to put it at its mildest? And what responsibiliy does DD bear as a consequence for the deaths of James and Lily. Leah From jnferr at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 03:10:31 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:10:31 -0500 Subject: The Hallows/Horcrux ring thing Message-ID: <8ee758b40708182010x2a458112m323994c57014e5bf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175790 montims: OK - so I have been thinking again about the ring - why on earth did Dumbledore put it on? He knew it was the Hallow - he says on P.576 (UK version) of DH - "I lost my head, Harry. I quite forgot that it was now a Horcrux, that the ring was sure to carry a curse. I picked it up and put it on..." I wonder if he did see Ariana and his parents. But in any case, as Snape says (p.546), "That ring carried a curse of extraordinary power..." and his hand became blackened, and he would have died without Snape's help. He smashed it with the sword, and the Horcrux was destroyed. All well and good, but he didn't need to put the ring on at all - only turn it three times in the hand, as the second brother did. Harry heard the fairy story once, and knew what to do. DD had lived how many years? Knowing that tale inside out, especially as he had hoped to unite the Hallows, and being the greatest wizard of his time... He left the ring to Harry, so he must have known it would still work after being broken. So in the time between finding the ring, and dying, I wonder how often he used the stone to recall his dead... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Aug 19 08:57:08 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 08:57:08 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175791 > > Magpie: > Yes, but the fact remains Kreacher is a House-Elf (he could have been > a Hufflepuff House-Elf just as easily, actually). He's a House-Elf. > He's not a Slytherin. Saying that we see how great Slytherins can be > by showing us a house and an elf once owned by Slytherins pleasing > Harry is still avoiding Slytherins. Pippin: What I meant is that when the House is restored to what its Slytherin founders intended it to be, it's not creepy, gloomy and full of traps. It's warm, gracious and welcoming. Sirius's ancestors had not designed their house to look like a place where Dark Wizards live (which is the way it appeared to Sirius and Harry.) Harry no longer see the house as an enemy, which prefigures his change in attitude towards Snape and Slytherin House. IMO, yes, some Gryffindor elements had to be embraced and recognized to achieve this, because if you are a Slytherin then Gryffindor is your other, is it not? The thing is, we already know that Harry can treat people he doesn't particularly care for with kindness and respect. He just never saw why he should make the effort where Slytherins are concerned, very much like Sirius was kind to House Elves generally but didn't see why he should make an effort with Kreacher. IMO, we do see what brings this change about for Harry. But that's another post. Pippin From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Sun Aug 19 09:34:44 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:34:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175792 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > PS page 300 canon: > < forgive. > Harry: What? > DD: He saved his life. I do believe he worked so hard > to protect you this year because he felt that would make him and > your father even. Then he could go back to hating your father's > memory in peace.>> > WHAT???? If you believe (and I do) that JKR had the whole thing > mapped out from the beginning, this makes no sense. It was not the whole truth but it was an interpretation of the events. Dumbledore concealed the truth from Harry right until and beyond death. At the end of OoTP he told Harry he would now tell him the truth and lo and behold he didn't. Harry was only ever told enough of the 'truth' to move him on as far as Dumbledore wanted to move him at that time. allthecoolnamesgone From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Aug 19 10:36:39 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 10:36:39 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175793 Jen: > He's not in the same situation with Snape. Besides the above > complications, he expects Snape will become Master of the Elder > Wand. I have no idea what benefit that confers and wish someone > would explain it to me. It does sound beneficial from the way > Dumbledore and Harry discuss it in the King's Cross chapter. Dana: Although the wand thing is highly confusing in its rules but from what I understood of it, DD did not want Snape to be the rightful owner in the sense that he could use its power. The death was arranged and therefore Snape would technically not have defeated the owner of the wand. So Snape would, like LV, have owned the wand but not the powers contained within it. It would from then on just be a normal wand just like any other with no one ever again being able to defeat the owner for its powers because DD had been its last rightful owner and because he was dead, he could never be fought for it. That as I take it was DD's plan but Draco disarming DD made him its rightful owner. Dana From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 11:35:45 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:35:45 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175794 > JudySerenity: > Here is a question that I haven't seen discussed here lately. We > know that Voldemort offered Lily the chance to live; it was her > willingness to die when she had the option to live that gave Harry > his protection from the Killing Curse. But, why did Voldemort give > Lily that option? - Rather large one Goddlefrood: Possibly the last person many here would ever expect to jump in uninvited on a Snape thread. There is one matter relative to Snape / Lily that I would like to put forward for further discussion. The view I formed of Harry's initial survivial is that it had something to do with Lily's sacrifice, which was in many ways a condition precedent for his survival, or so we have always believed. As far as I can ascertain it also has a good deal to do with Lord Voldemort not honouring his promise to Severus to not kill Lily. That really came back to bite him. I don't want to speculate myself on just why Snape went to Dumbledore before Voldemort went to Godric's Hollow, but am of the opinion, for what interest it may be to anyone that he probably didn't think our Tom would be good to his word, and it turns out he was quite right in that assessment, not that it helped the Potter parents much at the end of the day. My question for discussion is this: "Did Snape's request to Voldemort play a larger or a smaller role in Harry's initial survival because Voldemort failed to abide the terms of the contract?" You may proceed. Goddlefrood From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Aug 19 11:47:07 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:47:07 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? (was Re: Appeal of the story ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175795 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > I love the Harry Potter series, and I enjoyed reading Book 7. But, I > have to agree that when I reached the end of the book, I was > disappointed by the moral message that JKR seemed to be pushing. > And, the more it gets discussed here, the more dismayed I feel, > because I'm starting to feel that the only way to get even a slightly > uplifting message out of the book is to really dig for it. Pippin: I'm not sure the message for adults is supposed to be entirely uplifting. Fairy tales almost always have different morals for adults and children. Is the moral of LIttle Red Riding Hood Don't Leave the Path and Don't Trust the Wolf? I thought so, when I was a kid. Now I think it's: Kids will leave the path and trust the wolf, so you'd better make sure there's a woodcutter. The HP moral for kids is Evil can be defeated, hurrah. IMO, the moral for adults is Some evils can be defeated, hurrah, so you'd better not sit there reading books when you could be out there doing something. It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live. But *how* to do it -- does JKR tell us that? I think so. I think it's a riddle. The end of the books, I mean, in which we aren't told explicitly how Harry changed so that he could name his son after Severus and rate a curt nod from Draco Malfoy. As you say, we shouldn't have to dig to understand the answer. Like all riddles, the answer's not self-evident, but once you've done a mental backflip and arrived at the solution, it should be glaringly, blindingly self-explanatory. I think I've got it. :drumroll:: What is the one thing that Dumbledore and others consistently asked of Harry with regard to *Professor* Snape? Exactly. Harry was never asked to understand Snape or to trust him or admire him or pity him or reform him or pardon him -- all the things we DDM!Snapers vainly hoped that we would see. Harry was asked to respect him. When Harry tells his son that he's named after the *headmaster* Snape, we see that Harry was finally able to do what Dumbledore asked of him and more. Respect, in its Latin origin, meant "Gaze intensely, look back at." This resonates with Snape's last words: "Look at me." By giving Harry his memories of Lily, Snape enabled Harry to look at him with Lily's eyes, with Lily's respect, rather than James's contempt. And when he saw Snape's memories, Harry found that he could. I *think* this comes across to the reader. It seems from the posts I've read here that even those who wanted to have a higher opinion of Snape than it turned out he deserved, and feel cheated that they didn't get that, did feel more respect for Snape as the kind of person he turned out to be than they anticipated. Though I suppose there will be some exceptions . Harry has always been able to do more for others than they did for him, and I think that is what JKR is asking us as adults to do in the face of prejudice -- to show respect to others even if they're not showing it to you. It's normal, it's human, it may feel necessary, to want to make others feel as bad as they made you feel. And dang! it feels good. I don't think we can change that reality by lying about it. Advising heaven to earth is useless. But Snape's memories show us how ultimately self-defeating revenge is. (That Hermione, at story's end, hasn't yet learned this is perhaps one reason why Harry doesn't want her messing with the Elder Wand, and puts it in a place where she specifically said she won't be tempted to retrieve it. But that's a bit beside my point.) I think JKR is saying that before there can be unity, before there can be any meeting of the minds, there has to be respect for difference, even, perhaps especially, differences that make us feel that the world is seriously out of whack. Slytherins have as much right to be stubbornly committed to bloodyminded, wrongheaded points of view as Gryffindors do. House elves have as much right to like doing housework without wages or pensions as Molly does. There *is* more respect for difference in the WW twenty years on. Harry and Ron show respect for Muggle law by taking a drivers test. Teddy, the son of a werewolf, does not have to hide his love for Victoire. Harry cannot perhaps imagine why anyone would want to be a Slytherin, but he will respect his son's preferences, as the Hat once respected his. Most importantly we do see, obliquely, that Harry has learned respect for living Slytherins. Harry rates a curt nod from Draco. I thought this might be mere Lucius-ness, the Slytherin at your feet or at your throat. But that was *my* prejudice, shame on me. Because whatever you want to say about Draco, unlike his father he's no suckup. He may be mistaken about who deserves his respect, but he's never, ever been a phony. >snipping section about Dumbledore because I agree with those who said he was showing tough love and that he was never meant to be an Aslan/Gandalf figure< Judy: > Lily, who is presented as practically a saint, isn't much better. > I've wondered ever since Book 5 whether Snape ever apologized for > calling her a Mudblood. I never would have dreamed that he did > apologize and in response Lily slammed the door in his face, but > that's pretty much how it happened. Pippin: It wasn't just about her. It was about him using Mudblood to others of her blood. He didn't apologize for that or for lending his support to others who did. His tragedy was that he didn't yet see why he should. And Lily is in the end shown as limited and human -- she could have protected many more people than Harry with her sacrificial death, but she thought only of her son. I can see where Snape might have been coming from in his Voldemort- ism. It wasn't much different than Dumbledore's father. He saw his mother being abused by a Muggle on whom she was financially dependent, knowing she'd be sent to Azkaban if she used magic to defend herself from emotional abuse (which the WW clearly does not recognize as life-threatening) and he thought the problem was Muggles, not the way the WW regards emotional abuse. IIRC, Ron tells Harry that he should respect Voldemort (Voldemort!) and the reason turns out to be, IMO, that if you don't respect your enemies you will surely underestimate them. Pippin who would rather try to understand the ending JKR wrote than invent another one From p_yanna at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 11:59:59 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:59:59 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175796 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "srpripas" wrote: > > Sarah: > Nowhere in canon does it actually indicate that James didn't trust > Remus. You might infer that he didn't based on the fact that Remus > didn't know about the switch in Secret-Keepers, but canon doesn't > actually state it and there are certainly alternative explanations. > All we know for sure is that *Sirius* thought Remus was the spy. > Personally, I doubt Remus would have said that James "would have > regarded it as the height of dishonor to suspect his friends" if James > had suspected him the way Sirius did. Mim: But does Remus know one way or the other? When he says that bit about "height of dishonour" he's trying to get Harry to see that he should be a little less trusting. Using James as an example, good or bad always works with Harry. Until Harry uses it against Remus in the end, that was fun. I'll give you that it's possible that James didn't know and it had been all Sirius but we truly don't know one way or another. James certainly didn't tell Remus and if Remus would have expected Sirius to have told him, the same applies to James. > Sarah: And while much > of Remus' behavior in the early part of the book is indeed > indefensible, I find it somewhat odd that you blame him for "getting > Tonks pregnant." First, we don't know what the actual odds of him > passing lycanthropy (not a genetic trait) to potential offspring and > JKR has said that Teddy's not a werewolf. Second, it takes two to > make a baby. Tonks also bears some responsibility for the pregnancy > (which was probably accidental, IMO). I agree with criticisms of > Remus' behavior after the pregnancy was discovered, but criticizing > him for getting Tonks pregnant at all strikes me as rather odd. > Mim: Of course Tonks shares responsibility for the pregnancy but we're talking about the woman who had been pursuing Remus relentlessly no matter what. She was even stalking him in the middle of the battle of Hogwarts. I bet she would want the kid regardless. She doesn't seem to have any problem with it but Remus throws a hissy fit about it. So if wolfie doesn't want little wolfies around (and it was a crap shoot, they really didn't know what the kid would be) all forgetful wolfie had to do was cover it up. It's simple. He did get Tonks pregnant, her responsibility doesn't matter here. Sarah: > > I think that fandom gives them a hell of a lot of slack, myself. But > > I guess it depends also on where you place yourself in regards to > > them, a bully or a victim? > > This is a gross oversimplification of the Marauder/Snape dynamic. > While MWPP are extremely far from sainthood, so was young Snape (who > was involved with Dark magic, even to the point of inventing spells > like Sectumsempra, was entirely too interested in his rivals' > business, and broke rules and made bad decisions himself as a result > of his hatred.) I've always been confused by fandom's desire to "take > sides", as it were, instead of recognizing the deliciously ambiguous > characters on both sides of the conflict. Mim: They were deliciously ambiguous and when it comes to Snape, he was a bully to his students which is almost worse. But we're talking about fandom here, not the most rational reaction to everything. Yes, Snape did follow them about and try to get them in trouble but they were bullying him and others, looking for any chance to jump him if they outnumbered him. For better or for worse, the books never gave us one scene of young Snape himself bullying others or using that awful dark magic to hurt others in school. Except for James from what we hear from Remus and Sirius, not the most reliable narrators out there. I was bullied as a teenager and that leaves scars that make it completely impossible for me to see this situation objectively. I'm glad that others can but as fandom and identifying with anyone in the books goes, I could never identify with bullies. I had teachers like Snape but their nastiness and pettiness left no scars at all. What my peers did was much worse. > > > Dumbledore who knew them and let Sirius rot in > > jail and Remus be miserable until he could find some use for them > > again. It's complicated. > > > Sarah: > Dumbledore had every reason to believe that Sirius was guilty, and > therefore very different from the boy/young man he thought he knew. > Yet when meeting Sirius again in PoA, Dumbledore was willing to listen > to his story and believed him. Mim: I'm sure that Dumbledore and everyone else could have tried harder if they truly believed in Sirius. But we'll never know one way or another. Sarah As > for Remus, it's not clear what Dumbledore *could* have done for him > during the "missing years" gap. Mim: He could have hired him. In a position other than a cursed one, that is. Sarah: > Using people is what Dumbledore *did*--and I'm not sure what > conclusions we can draw about MWPP from his various actions. Mim: I was referring merely to the fact that he believed Sirius to be guilty. And so did Remus. That's a big deal. But I guess you have a point, Dumbledore was such a user that we can't really draw conclusions from his behaviour. He was probably glad that he had had Sirius out of the way so that Harry could grow up miserable among Muggles and I'm sure that Sirius' death was a relief too because then he could continue grooming Harry to march to his death without any distractions. Gads, I hate Dumbledore but that's a different story. Mim From p_yanna at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 12:08:32 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:08:32 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175797 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > My question for discussion is this: "Did Snape's request to > Voldemort play a larger or a smaller role in Harry's initial > survival because Voldemort failed to abide the terms of the > contract?" > > You may proceed. > > Goddlefrood > Mim: It played a huge part. If Lily hadn't been offered a chance to live then her sacrifice wouldn't have protected Harry. Of course no credit should go to Snape for that, the outcome of his request was the opposite of what he had wanted, which was for Voldemort to kill Harry and James and spare Lily. Voldemort could have easily spared Lily, she was wandless and pleading and he could have just stupefied her, petrified her or a million other things and killed her son without any problems. But as JKR puts it he felt it was more prudent to finish them all. I have a serious problem with prudent, here, since when does Voldie care about prudent? In fact, considering the mother's sacrifice protection, killing Lily was anything but prudent but Voldie obviously didn't know that. But I could believe that even though he had promised Snape to spare Lily it was simply in Voldemort's nature to kill everyone and Snape obviously knew that which is why he also went to Dumbledore. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Aug 19 12:14:05 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:14:05 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175798 > Goddlefrood: > My question for discussion is this: "Did Snape's request to > Voldemort play a larger or a smaller role in Harry's initial > survival because Voldemort failed to abide the terms of the > contract?" Potioncat: If you put it that way, yes. But the better Snape looks, the worse DD looks. This may explain why DD let Snape leave after overhearing Trelawney. DD has said that the prophecy wouldn't have had any power if LV hadn't acted on it. So, if he hadn't heard of it, he wouldn't have acted. Trelawney would have made the prediction whether or not Snape was there. I don't know why he was there, but he was. He pops in hears half and is tossed out. DD lets him go, because DD knows Snape will tell LV and that LV will act on incomplete information. DD will be able to track him. It's a good thing DD always carries some string in his pocket. So, if Snape hadn't told LV, then LV wouldn't have put the magic into effect. You may be right, and Snape's asking for Lily may have stenghtned the magic, or it may merely have caused LV to offer to apare her. The fact that she had a choice is supposed to be part of the magic. (From a JKR interview.) After all these years, DD letting Snape go finally makes sense. (to me, at least.) From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Aug 19 13:03:36 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:03:36 -0000 Subject: Laughing All the Way to the Bank Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175799 Whatever might be said of her, JKR does have a sense of humour. There are some very funny lines in the books. Sometimes there are scenes or lines that could be (maybe) JKR teasing her fans; an "I know what you're saying," sort of joke. For example, at some point in DH, LV makes a comment about DD controlling Harry's strings (does anyone recall that scene, or have I made it up?) So, has anyone else noticed places in any of the books where JKR seems to be winking at her fans or laughing at herself? Potioncat, as ever, the nice old auntie offering plates of cookies. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 13:57:43 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:57:43 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort offer to spare Lily? (was: Reactions to Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175800 > JudySerenity: > Here's what I can come up with to plug this potential plothole: > 1) Maybe Voldemort told Snape no, he would not spare Lily, but then > changed his mind. > 2) Maybe Voldemort intended to spare Lily all along, but told Snape > he would not just to be cruel. > 3) Maybe Voldemort DID tell Snape he would spare Lily, but Snape was > worried (quite rightly) that Voldemort wouldn't keep his word. zgirnius: I think the important reason Voldemort decided to spare Lily *was* Snape's request. If for no other reason, that we know Snape did make the request, and we know Voldemort discussed his failure to comply with Snape after the fact. Addressing your question, Dumbledore in the second meeting with Snape in "The Prince's Tale" states that Snape, like the Potters, placed his trust in the wrong person. I took that to mean Voldemort. Had Voldemort refused, it would make no sense to state that Snape placed any trust in him. So, I think Snape must have gone to Dumbledore after obtaining some sort of reassurance from Voldemort. If it was not a lack of trust in that assurance, perhaps Snape meant to cover all his bases from the start, and approached Voldemort first simply because that was easier for him as a Death Eater. Meeting Dumbledore required making some arrangements to see him, and a greater degree of personal risk. > JudySerenity: > But boy, is it sad! I cried when Snape died looking into Harry's > eyes. In fact, the only thing that made me feel better was imagining > (as several others did here), that Snape "woke up" in the afterlife > (in his equivalent of King's Cross station, perhaps) looking into > Lily's eyes. zgirnius: *sob* Yes, it is sad. I guess I tell myself that in the end he succeeded, he played his part in ensuring that Voldemort was defeated and Harry survived. It should make, hypothetically, facing Lily a bit easier. > Alla said, back in message: > > I hope the author of **TOO EWWW TO BE TRUEEEEE** would stand > > up and take a round of applauds from me. Bravo. > > JudySerenity: > {bowing} Thank you! zgirnius: Brava! Brava!! Wow, I thought (politely!) that you folks were all nuts when I joined the fandom about a month before HBP came out. That book converted me to LOLLIPOPS, but people who saw LOLLIPOPS and TOO EWWW back after PoA/GoF - wow, you folks have some Seer credentials! From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 19 14:12:44 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:12:44 -0000 Subject: Laughing All the Way to the Bank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175801 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: Potioncat; > Whatever might be said of her, JKR does have a sense of humour. There > are some very funny lines in the books. Sometimes there are scenes or > lines that could be (maybe) JKR teasing her fans; an "I know what > you're saying," sort of joke. For example, at some point in DH, LV > makes a comment about DD controlling Harry's strings (does anyone > recall that scene, or have I made it up?) Geoff: No, you haven't. The relevant canon is: 'Voldemort hissed. "Potter doesn't mean that," he said, his red eyes wide. "That isn't how he works, is it? Who are you going to use as a shield today, Potter?" "Nobody," said Harry simply. "There are no more Horcruxes. It's just you and me. Neither can live while the other survives and one of us is about to leave for good..." "One of us?" jeered Voldemort and his whole body was taut and his red eyes stared, a snake that was about to strike. "You think it will be you, do you, the boy who has survived by accident and because Dumbledore was pulling the strings?"' (DH "The Flaw in the Plan" p.591 UK edition) Geoff as ever, the nice old uncle finding juicy bits of canon From urghiggi at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 14:25:52 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:25:52 -0000 Subject: D-G duel/House Elves/Krum/Sirius-Gryffindor/Slytherin/Shadow/Snape/Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175802 Catlady: > My own idea as to how DD could defeat the wizard with the unbeatable > wand is: he cheated. I'm not sure how he could cheat: if the > Deathstick doesn't bother to defend against spells it considers > harmless and non-combat, could DD have figured out how to use such a > spell in combat? Vanishing the earth out from under GG's feet so that > GG fell down a hole? Flinging a potted Devil's Snare at him? > Julie H: See, there is no way to make this make logical sense without a lot of mental gymnastics that disguise the shakiness of the plotline. This plotline simply cannot be made to make logical sense with the amount of information we've been provided in canon. Now, maybe one of these days someone will ask JKR "how did Dumbledore defeat Grindelwald in a duel if Grindelwald had the Elder Wand?" (And yeah, I think it IS supposed to be unbeatable -- or why all the hoo haa over the years? If it's just a "really good wand" ... the whole drama and mystique of the thing falls apart, and the temptation of HP to pursue it is hollow.) Maybe JKR has a completely logical answer... but it's not in the book that I can see. As for the theory that it recognized Draco's wand as the one that had beaten it -- and recognized that wand later in HP's hand -- fair enough, that works for DH. But it doesn't necessarily work in the murder cases discussed by Xeno Lovegood, including the original story where it changed hands via a throat-slitting but apparently transferred its allegiance to the throat slitter (again, no wand in use). It is convenient of course to say "well, yeah, that was all legend, not really reflective of the facts of how this wand works." But when the modern-day "facts" are so muddled and thin on the ground ... then we're just back to the old "mysterious and complex" summation of Ollivander.... Julie H, chicago From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 14:28:03 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:28:03 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175803 > Mim: > > It played a huge part. If Lily hadn't been offered a chance to live > then her sacrifice wouldn't have protected Harry. Of course no > credit should go to Snape for that, the outcome of his request was > the opposite of what he had wanted, which was for Voldemort to kill > Harry and James and spare Lily. zgirnius: I see no evidence that what Snape wanted was "for Voldemort to kill Harry and James and spare Lily". Spare Lily, sure. But the rest? He had to suspect that Dumbledore would not merely protect Lily as he asked. He did not ask for Dumbledore to protect the others, in my opinion, because he did not care. Which is rather different from wanting their deaths. If he wanted anyone dead, he should have stuck with Voldemort. From p_yanna at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 14:36:20 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:36:20 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175804 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > zgirnius: > I see no evidence that what Snape wanted was "for Voldemort to kill > Harry and James and spare Lily". Spare Lily, sure. But the rest? He had > to suspect that Dumbledore would not merely protect Lily as he asked. > He did not ask for Dumbledore to protect the others, in my opinion, > because he did not care. Which is rather different from wanting their > deaths. > > If he wanted anyone dead, he should have stuck with Voldemort. Mim: I phrased it wrong. Snape didn't want all the Potters dead. Maybe James but that's not important. He didn't want Lily dead. Telling Voldemort to spare all the Potters wouldn't have accomplished much. And when Snape went to Dumbledore he was indirectly trying to save all the Potters. The moment he told Dumbledore it wasn't like Dumbledore would have saved only Lily. Dumbledore trying to get him to say that he wanted James and Harry saved too was just another of the old man's sadistic touches. And then he manipulated Snape to get him to promise to do anything. Snape didn't have to do anything and whether Snape did anything for Dumbledore or not, Dumbledore would have to help the Potters. He's supposed to be a good guy. > From p_yanna at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 14:29:11 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:29:11 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort offer to spare Lily? (was: Reactions to Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175805 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > > JudySerenity: > > But boy, is it sad! I cried when Snape died looking into Harry's > > eyes. In fact, the only thing that made me feel better was > imagining > > (as several others did here), that Snape "woke up" in the afterlife > > (in his equivalent of King's Cross station, perhaps) looking into > > Lily's eyes. > > zgirnius: > *sob* Yes, it is sad. I guess I tell myself that in the end he > succeeded, he played his part in ensuring that Voldemort was defeated > and Harry survived. It should make, hypothetically, facing Lily a bit > easier. > Mim: Only Snape didn't do exactly that. His last dying act was to give Harry the memories to ensure that Voldemort would be defeated and Harry would die. I don't think the was thinking that Lily would be too happy with him. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 14:52:31 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:52:31 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175806 > Mim: > > I phrased it wrong. Snape didn't want all the Potters dead. Maybe > James but that's not important. He didn't want Lily dead. Telling > Voldemort to spare all the Potters wouldn't have accomplished much. > And when Snape went to Dumbledore he was indirectly trying to save > all the Potters. The moment he told Dumbledore it wasn't like > Dumbledore would have saved only Lily. Alla: Snape was indirectly trying to save all the Potters while he directly asked Dumbledore to save Lily only? Isn't Snape intent what matters to determine what Snape wanted to do? IMO of course. Mim: Dumbledore trying to get him > to say that he wanted James and Harry saved too was just another of > the old man's sadistic touches. And then he manipulated Snape to get > him to promise to do anything. Snape didn't have to do anything and > whether Snape did anything for Dumbledore or not, Dumbledore would > have to help the Potters. He's supposed to be a good guy. Alla: Snape did not have to do anything? Well of course not. He after all already **did** something - he delivered prophecy to Voldemort. He did not have to come to Dumbledore. "If she means so much to you," said Dumbledore, "surely Lord Voldemort will spare her? Could you not ask for mercy for the mother, in exchange for the son? "I have - I have asked him" - p.677, DH. Alla: I read it as Snape indeed **wanting** Harry dead in exchange for Lily. "You disgust me," said Dumbledore, and Harry had never heard so much contempt in his voice. Snape seemed to shrink a little. "You do not care, then, about the deaths of her husband and child? "They can die, as long as you have what you want?" Snape said nothing, but merely looked up at Dumbledore. "Hide them all, then," he croaked. "Keep her - them - safe. Please" - p.677 - 678 Alla: It does not look to me that Snape gives a fig about them dying, personally and he disgusts me in that scene just as much as Dumbledore. And even when he asks to hide them all, he says to keep her safe. I remember so many preDH arguments that Snape came to Dumbledore because he could not bear to see Voldemort killing the baby. Looks like he could bear it quite well to me. Oh, I just wanted to briefly answer Judy with my opinion why Voldemort wanted to spare Lily. IMO he simply liked and valued Snape too much and would have done a lot for him. After all he asks Lily not once but three times to step aside. JMO, Alla. From va32h at comcast.net Sun Aug 19 14:53:40 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:53:40 -0000 Subject: Laughing All the Way to the Bank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175807 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Whatever might be said of her, JKR does have a sense of humour. There > are some very funny lines in the books. Sometimes there are scenes or > lines that could be (maybe) JKR teasing her fans; an "I know what > you're saying," sort of joke. For example, at some point in DH, LV > makes a comment about DD controlling Harry's strings (does anyone > recall that scene, or have I made it up?) > > So, has anyone else noticed places in any of the books where JKR seems > to be winking at her fans or laughing at herself? va32h: The part where Ron is trying to come up with all the reasons why Moody might not really be dead is surely a nod to those fans who tried so valiantly to prove that Sirius wasn't really dead or Dumbledore wasn't really dead. I also enjoyed Aberforth's commentary on his brother - nice job he gave you eh? Something easy, that a bunch of teenagers could do on summer holiday. I think Aberforth functions in this book much as Bella did in the Spinner's End chapter of HBP. Asking the questions the reader is asking. va32h And Aberforth From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 15:22:20 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:22:20 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort offer to spare Lily? (was: Reactions to Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175808 > > zgirnius: > > *sob* Yes, it is sad. I guess I tell myself that in the end he > > succeeded, he played his part in ensuring that Voldemort was > defeated > > and Harry survived. It should make, hypothetically, facing Lily a > bit > > easier. > > > > Mim: > > Only Snape didn't do exactly that. His last dying act was to give > Harry the memories to ensure that Voldemort would be defeated and > Harry would die. I don't think the was thinking that Lily would be > too happy with him. zgirnius: Yes, I saw that too, and it did make the death that much sadder. And even worse because in my (admittedly perhaps overly sentimental) reading of the book, Snape has developed some positive feelings for both Harry and Dumbledore, and it fell to him in Dumbledore's plans to send Harry to his death, and kill Dumbledore. What I had in mind is that in the Potterverse afterlife, the deceased seem to know what the living have been up to. So while he died ignorant of the outcome, Snape would have seen after his death that Harry survived by trusting in the information he passed on, and then went on to finally defeat Voldemort. About your other post, I am sorry I misunderstood. I suspected I might be misinterpreting your opinion, but I have seen it seriously proposed elsewhere that Snape *did* actively want the other Potters dead. From rvink7 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 15:08:09 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:08:09 -0000 Subject: The creature under the bench (again) (was: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175809 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" wrote: > > Annemehr: > Voldemort reads like a psychopath. > Psychopathy happens to a person; they don't choose it. We first meet > Tom Riddle at age 11, and we see that his personality is already well > established, so clearly he's been that way since early childhood. > Whatever anyone claims that JKR is writing about free will, it is > impossible to believe in the concept of a young child who has freely > chosen to lack any feeling for anyone else (and everything that > follows from that). Renee: Are we meant to see him as a psychopath? An example of what happens when someone is depraved of love? Or is asking how Tom Riddle came to be the way he was like asking after the origins of evil? I wonder if the author isn't just as much at a loss as we are when it comes to answering that question. I've been wondering for a long time why she called him Riddle, a question seldom addressed in HP discussions. Maybe she did so because she hasn't answered the question herself and is putting it before us as readers. As for free will, I'm not sure JKR is writing about unlimited free will. Our choices "showing" who we are doesn't exactly sound like proclaiming complete freedom of will either. And yet, faced with a choice, how often do we actually feel unfree? We have preferences, but do we feel limited by them? What would Tom have said if someone had suggested he wasn't really free? Of course, when choices have damaging consequences to ourselves and others, the problem of responsibility arises, and with it that of accountability. If someone's evil choices were preordained by their sick personality, how can we hold them accountable? Can any punishment be just in such cases? But wat if the one who makes the choice considers himself free? To me, these are baffling problems, and actually I'm not entirely sure wether JKR offers a solution to them. The only thing I can see is that Tom Riddle isn't punished at the end by anyone but himself. Harry doesn't kill him; he doesn't even try. Alle he does is try to disarm him, because whatever you think of his accountability, letting him get away is not an option. And then Tom goes and causes his own death. As Tolkien said, `oft evil will shall evil mar'. Renee From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 15:51:35 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:51:35 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175810 > Alla: > > Snape did not have to do anything? Well of course not. He after all > already **did** something - he delivered prophecy to Voldemort. He > did not have to come to Dumbledore. > > "If she means so much to you," said Dumbledore, "surely Lord > Voldemort will spare her? Could you not ask for mercy for the > mother, in exchange for the son? > > "I have - I have asked him" - p.677, DH. > > Alla: > > I read it as Snape indeed **wanting** Harry dead in exchange for > Lily. > > > "You disgust me," said Dumbledore, and Harry had never heard so much > contempt in his voice. Snape seemed to shrink a little. "You do not > care, then, about the deaths of her husband and child? "They can > die, as long as you have what you want?" > > Snape said nothing, but merely looked up at Dumbledore. > > "Hide them all, then," he croaked. "Keep her - them - safe. Please" - > p.677 - 678 > > > Alla: > > It does not look to me that Snape gives a fig about them dying, > personally and he disgusts me in that scene just as much as > Dumbledore. > > And even when he asks to hide them all, he says to keep her safe. > > > I remember so many preDH arguments that Snape came to Dumbledore > because he could not bear to see Voldemort killing the baby. > > > Looks like he could bear it quite well to me. > Lanval: Oh, yes, I agree completely. There's nothing in this scene that indicates Snape wanting anyone but Lily saved. DD asks Snape if he has asked LV for Lily's life in excahnge for her son's, and he confirms it. Nothing but wishful thinking could swing this around to give it the opposite meaning. Also: Bloomsbury Ed. p.544: 'I thought... you were going... to keep her...safe...' [...] 'Her boy survives,' said Dumbledore. With a tiny jerk of the head, Snape seemed to flick off an irksome fly. End of quote. Not to ambigious, is it? This, I believe goes for all the short Pensieve vignettes. They are meant to clear things up, to give crucial information that had been lacking -- not to provide red herrings, steer the reader off the trail, confuse, raise doubts, whatever. The story is almost over, here's what *really* happened.If Snape anwers DD's question whether he has come to care for Harry with a cry of "For *him*?", and produces the doe patronus, to which DD replies, "After all this time?", then that's exactly what it means. Snape only cared for Lily, and not for Harry. If Snape says he only asked to spare Lily, then that's what he did. Not to say that the Pensieve scenes can't be read and interpreted in its nuances by our own views and preferences, but when it comes to plain facts stated in them, I believe they need to be taken as just that. Facts. On a side note, what if LV had decided to go after the Longbottoms instead of the Potters? Would Snape have found that disturbing enough to notify DD? Lanval, who has given up hope of keeping up with all the messages. *runs back to peskily busy RL* From p_yanna at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 15:48:37 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:48:37 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175811 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > > Snape was indirectly trying to save all the Potters while he > directly asked Dumbledore to save Lily only? Isn't Snape intent what > matters to determine what Snape wanted to do? IMO of course. Mim: In both cases Snape only cared about Lily. She was the one he knew and loved, the other was her husband who he'd always hated and her kid he didn't really know or cared about. When he asked Voldemort, he asked for Lily only. The moment he went to Dumbledore no matter who he begged for Dumbledore would try to help all the Potters. Indirectly, unwittingly Snape was trying to get help for all the Potters there. Probably not because he gave a damn about anyone other than Lily but that he didn't really trust Voldemort to keep his word. > > > Alla: > > Snape did not have to do anything? Well of course not. He after all > already **did** something - he delivered prophecy to Voldemort. He > did not have to come to Dumbledore. Mim: And Dumbledore did not have to let him go to Voldemort. He's a powerful wizard and all, he couldn't have stopped Snape? Somehow, I doubt it. Either way, Snape did not have to betray the other Death Eaters and start working for Dumbledore to repay Dumbledore for protecting the Potters. Dumbledore got that out of him, basically putting Lily's life on the balance. It's like... you're a crminal and you go to the police and tell them that some mafia boss wants to kill an entire family. And then the police tells you... oh, ok, we'll see if we'll help. What are you going to do for us so that we'll help that family? > > "If she means so much to you," said Dumbledore, "surely Lord > Voldemort will spare her? Could you not ask for mercy for the > mother, in exchange for the son? > > "I have - I have asked him" - p.677, DH. > > Alla: > > I read it as Snape indeed **wanting** Harry dead in exchange for > Lily. Mim: Snape cannot ask for the son to be spared. He cannot because that's the whole point of the prophesy. It's not like Voldie is like "Hmm, who should I kill, Lily or the kid?" The kid is dead either way and all Snape is asking is for Lily to be spared. And then Snape goes to Dumbledore. And he knows on some level that whether he pleads for Lily, James, Harry or the Potters' cat Dumbledore *has* to help them. > > > "You disgust me," said Dumbledore, and Harry had never heard so much > contempt in his voice. Snape seemed to shrink a little. "You do not > care, then, about the deaths of her husband and child? "They can > die, as long as you have what you want?" > > Snape said nothing, but merely looked up at Dumbledore. > > "Hide them all, then," he croaked. "Keep her - them - safe. Please" - > p.677 - 678 > > > Alla: > > It does not look to me that Snape gives a fig about them dying, > personally and he disgusts me in that scene just as much as > Dumbledore. > > And even when he asks to hide them all, he says to keep her safe. > > > I remember so many preDH arguments that Snape came to Dumbledore > because he could not bear to see Voldemort killing the baby. > > > Looks like he could bear it quite well to me. > Mim: Like Dumbledore is some paragon if virtue himself and he should have any business making moral judgments on others... And for the last time, yes, Snape didn't give a damn about James and Harry. I know that, I'm ok with that as a Snapefan. I don't know who said that he turned because he couldn't bear the thought of a baby dying. That's ridiculous. If he couldn't bear the thought of a baby dying he wouldn't have given the Prophecy to Voldemort in the first place. Alla: > Oh, I just wanted to briefly answer Judy with my opinion why > Voldemort wanted to spare Lily. IMO he simply liked and valued Snape > too much and would have done a lot for him. After all he asks Lily > not once but three times to step aside. I kinda doubt that. He still didn't just incapacitate her and kill Harry anyway. He didn't truly keep his word as Snape suspected. But he did value Snape and seemed to take an interest in Snape's love life... After all, once Lily was gone he asked Snape and was reassured that there were plenty of worthier witches for him. I'm just wondering about the time frame of that conversation since once Lily was dead, Voldie got hit with that rebounding AK. Since he didn't reveal himself to Snape when he was on the back of Quirrel's head and he wasn't really in CoS and PoA... I can only assume that once Snape appeared back in the fray at the end of GoF Voldie was eager to ask him how his love life had been... Mim (not Dumbledore's biggest fan) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Aug 19 16:02:20 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:02:20 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175812 > Jen: That's not the point, that Kreacher is somehow Slytherin. It's > that he's healing and preserving the memory of the Black family since > they can't. Without the piece about Kreacher telling the story of > Regulus and how he wasn't able to fulfill his master's dying request, > kindness from Harry might have helped Kreacher's disposition but the > secret of Kreacher's failure and Regulus's last act remained hidden. > What was important was that the kindness involved helping Kreacher > give meaning to Regulus's death, not the kindness itself. Magpie: I still don't see what that has to do with the metaphor that's being put forward, that Grimmauld Place being cozy while the Trio lives there shows the beauty of the Slytherin nature. Yeah, it's great that Kreacher got to tell his secret and that we found out Regulus did something brave. I'm still not seeing the transformation of the house reflected in Slytherin or Slytherins. The Blacks don't even resolve their family issues since they're all dead. (Harry watched the Crouches disintegrate as well.) We know Mrs. Black was wrong for zapping people off her tree--Harry already knew that. > Magpie: > > And of course, avoiding anything where Harry has to seriously > > reconsider his own behavior or ideas in the ways people have > > described--that goes without saying. Even if this is some clue that > > Harry's treating his Slytherin enemies with kindness and respect > > would turn them into fluffy bunnies, he still never has to do that. > > He just has to treat the talking pet better and makes a servant for > > life. > > Jen: He did realize from Regulus's example that he was wrong about > Sirius, that Sirius had paid for not treating Kreacher as a being > with feelings. Regulus's empathy toward Kreacher was not in name > only: he chose to drink the deadly potion instead of making Kreacher > do it and went to his watery grave, protecting the family he loved by > ordering Kreacher not to tell. Magpie: He accepted Sirius' behavior towards Kreacher was a mistake that contributed to Sirius' death, but Harry is not Sirius. He also accepted that Regulus loved Kreacher. I still don't see that big of a challenge for Harry here, or how this shows the good side of the Slytherin nature beyond that they are capable of loving people, which is what we see with many of them. Is that what the metaphor is supposed to be showing? That if you're somebody a Slytherin loves they...well, thing won't necessarily be very cozy at all, actually, given the examples we see. Pippin: What I meant is that when the House is restored to what its Slytherin founders intended it to be, it's not creepy, gloomy and full of traps. It's warm, gracious and welcoming. Magpie: Gloomy and creepy was more a factor of nobody living there for years. Malfoy Manor is not gloomy or creepy--that doesn't make it gracious or welcoming to outsiders. And who says Slytherin founders didn't intend it to be full of traps? The Slytherins put the traps there-- just as Slytherin himself put a big snake in Slytherin house as a trap to kill Muggle-borns. The idea that we're not seeing the real Slytherin because it's been perverted by something and that it was really supposed to be warm, gracious and welcoming in general is a theory that did not pan out. Slytherin has always been unwelcoming to the wrong people. Pippin: Sirius's ancestors had not designed their house to look like a place where Dark Wizards live (which is the way it appeared to Sirius and Harry.) Harry no longer see the house as an enemy, which prefigures his change in attitude towards Snape and Slytherin House. Magpie: The place was full of Dark artefacts. Malfoy Manor doesn't look like a place where dark wizards live, it is a place where they live. Harry's attitude towards Slytherin barely changes at all.--for good reason. He notes that some of them can be brave and that's something he respects. Snape turned out to be working for him all along and in love with his mother and Harry accepted that. He accepted that Slytherins were not always totally bad, but that doesn't say much. In case it's not obvious, no I do not see Harry's line to his son as indicating some huge change in his attitude towards Slytherin, and have found explanations of how it's now more integrated completely unconvincing. Slytherin's under control at the end of the story, but still has the reputation for being the house of Dark Wizards that it's earned. Slytherins and Slytherin did not transform like the Black House under Kreacher's renewed cleaning and it was never intended to be warm, gracious or inviting to Mudbloods. Not one of them rises to even the level of someone you'd really want to be friendds with. Pippin: The thing is, we already know that Harry can treat people he doesn't particularly care for with kindness and respect. He just never saw why he should make the effort where Slytherins are concerned, very much like Sirius was kind to House Elves generally but didn't see why he should make an effort with Kreacher. IMO, we do see what brings this change about for Harry. But that's another post. Magpie: He saves the lives of people he doesn't care for. I don't see him treating them with particular kindness or respect or feeling that he needs to; maybe I'm forgetting what you're referring to. He never saw the need to where Slytherins were concerned and had no reason to change his mind on that. Years after Snape's death he felt it was fitting to name his kid after the guy for what he did, but I doubt he regretted not treating him with kindness and respect while he was alive given how Snape treated him. Snape was wrong, Harry wasn't. Draco was wrong, Harry wasn't. He saw good reason to make a change with Kreacher--Kreacher had something he wanted. (And Kreacher wasn't one of Harry's major hate objects, he was Sirius'.) Then he heard the portion of his story that made Kreacher worthy of respect and kindness so he gave it to him and was rewarded hugely for it. This didn't seem to cause any great introspection on Harry's part. Actually, I remember finding it interesting that when Harry saw the picture of Regulus and his Quidditch team he automatically made the connection between them because they were Seekers (as opposed to connecting him with Slytherin seekers)--I thought that was unsurprising since we already knew Regulus was going to turn out to have done something anti- Voldemort. -m From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 16:32:56 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:32:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175813 "Zara" wrote: > The easiest way for Snape to overcome > this obstacle, would be to provide > Harry the memory in which Dumbledore > told him about it. Easiest? So rather than simply hand over a bottle of his own memories to Snape to give to Harry at the proper time Dumbledore proceeded to lie to Snape for years because he figured Harry would someday stumble upon the man seconds before his death and Snape would agree to give Harry all his memories. It seems to me people are going through some pretty wild contortions to avoid the simple fact that Dumbledore had raised Harry for 17 years so he could be slaughtered like a pig. And I don't see why you even want to turn him into another routine 100% good guy when it would be much more interesting if Dumbledore loved Harry and wished there was a way to avoid his death but couldn't think of one. Generals in a time of war do things like that all the time for the greater good. > If Harry allowed Voldemort to AK him, > Voldemort would still be alive in the > crucial moment when the AK hit Harry Voldemort was injured in that attack, besides destroying the Horcrux inside Harry Voldemort was knocked unconscious for just as long as Harry was. The reason Voldemort was just injured and not killed in the attack is that he still had one Horcrux left, the snake; and the reason Harry was just injured and not killed is because Voldemort was still alive. If the snake had been dead as Dumbledore expected that encounter would have produced very different results. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Aug 19 16:58:03 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 19 Aug 2007 16:58:03 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 8/19/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1187542683.16.14051.m42@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175814 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday August 19, 2007 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 16:49:10 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:49:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175815 "lupinlore" wrote: > The books DON'T make much sense at several places. I disagree, I think JKR has been very successful in filling plot holes provided you accept the physics of the Potter universe. That is a remarkable achievement for such a complicated plot spread out over more than 4000 pages. But I don't claim she was 100% successful, I still can't quite figure out how Dumbledore knew the exact time Harry would evacuate Privet Drive so he could tell Snape so he could tell the Death Eaters. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Aug 19 17:07:41 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:07:41 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort offer to spare Lily? (was: Reactions to Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175816 Zara: > Addressing your question, Dumbledore in the second meeting with > Snape in "The Prince's Tale" states that Snape, like the Potters, > placed his trust in the wrong person. I took that to mean > Voldemort. Had Voldemort refused, it would make no sense to state > that Snape placed any trust in him. So, I think Snape must have > gone to Dumbledore after obtaining some sort of reassurance from > Voldemort. If it was not a lack of trust in that assurance, perhaps > Snape meant to cover all his bases from the start, and approached > Voldemort first simply because that was easier for him as a Death > Eater. Meeting Dumbledore required making some arrangements to see > him, and a greater degree of personal risk. Jen: I understood Snape made a request to Voldemort and that was the end of it; he and Dumbledore only ever mention the request and not an answer. Isn't that right or have I missed something? At the end when Harry is talking to LV about Snape, Snape's request is mentioned and LV doesn't mention agreeing to the request. Voldemort wouldn't feel obligated to offer assurances to a follower requesting something, at least he doesn't read that way to me. Snape's love for Lily and his request were foolish ('fools who love'), a matter of Snape's weakness, and Voldemort might spare Lily if he saw a use to do so. If not, he could exploit Snape's weakness to his own advantage. Well, he probably exploited Snape either way, holding the request over his head, taunting him, etc. Snape is desperate the night he meets Dumbledore, not acting like a man assured Lily will be saved. Going to Dumbledore read as an added protection, a request of the only one Voldemort ever feared in the hopes that Dumbledore might be able to intervene in some way *before* it reached the point where Snape would have to depend on LV. Jen From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 17:17:13 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:17:13 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175817 Mim: > > Like Dumbledore is some paragon if virtue himself and he should have > any business making moral judgments on others... > > And for the last time, yes, Snape didn't give a damn about James and > Harry. I know that, I'm ok with that as a Snapefan. I don't know who > said that he turned because he couldn't bear the thought of a baby > dying. That's ridiculous. If he couldn't bear the thought of a baby > dying he wouldn't have given the Prophecy to Voldemort in the first > place. Ceridwen: I'm one of the people who speculated that this was perhaps Snape's motives for returning to DD. The prophecy does not state that the "one with the power//born as the seventh month dies" (skewing the wording here, hence the double //) is an infant. It doesn't say that an infant must be killed. LV can take the prophecy any way he wishes when he hears it. If he takes the "one with the power etc." to be an infant when he hears the prophecy, or not even born yet since perhaps it isn't July when he hears this, this doesn't mean he has to kill an infant. With the mock sincerity LV displays to Harry in the graveyard, insisting on the proper etiquette of duelling, why believe he'll drop that to target a child? How does this enhance his creds among his followers? A person who would not naturally target an infant may very well not believe someone else might. Snape was a Death Eater, a loyal follower, and quite young, possibly impressionable as Regulus Black was, idealistic as teens and young twenty-somethings are. Delusion is a part of this idealism, and projecting one's own values onto the object of one's idealizing is common. Why would Snape automatically believe LV would kill an infant? Given what we had to work with at this time, the argument could go either way. Mim: > I kinda doubt that. He still didn't just incapacitate her and kill > Harry anyway. He didn't truly keep his word as Snape suspected. > > But he did value Snape and seemed to take an interest in Snape's > love life... After all, once Lily was gone he asked Snape and was > reassured that there were plenty of worthier witches for him. I'm > just wondering about the time frame of that conversation since once > Lily was dead, Voldie got hit with that rebounding AK. Since he > didn't reveal himself to Snape when he was on the back of Quirrel's > head and he wasn't really in CoS and PoA... I can only assume that > once Snape appeared back in the fray at the end of GoF Voldie was > eager to ask him how his love life had been... Ceridwen: While it does seem that LV was interested in Snape's love life, giving me entertaining mental images of his playing matchmaker to the Lestranges and Malfoys as well, I don't know why he would be. At age twenty-one or thereabouts, Snape was probably not in the top tier of DEs. If he was, my estimation of LV drops again, not in respect, because I don't respect him, but with more contempt. I'd place this scene at the end of GoF, too, since it's the first time they're together again. And it would be in LV's interest to find out if Snape was carrying a grudge over Lily's death. Snape is now a more mature, more powerful, wizard; LV doesn't need his opposition. I still don't see why Snape would be more valuable to LV at the age of twenty-one or so, than any of his other DEs. He was useful for bringing the prophecy, but to that point, that's all we know he ever did to prove himself to LV. Ceridwen. From lisa at bubblefarm.com Sat Aug 18 16:53:40 2007 From: lisa at bubblefarm.com (Lisa Champigny) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 09:53:40 -0700 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) Message-ID: <4B63CA4D-2FC7-4805-BF91-610619C9D13D@bubblefarm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175818 I wanted to know why Harry's green eyes and Lily's eyes were so important. Everyone who knew his mom (Lupin, Sirius, Snape, Slughorn Dumbledore and everyone else that Harry has come in contact with) comments on them. But it turns out that they didn't have any magic powers; they just looked like Lily's eyes. Lisa From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 17:28:20 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:28:20 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort offer to spare Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175819 In GOF Voldemort says "Lord Voldemort rewards his helpers", Snape was Voldemort's most important lieutenant, if he asked him to spare Lilly's life the Dark Lord was willing to grant him that favor provided she didn't cause too much trouble. Unfortunately she did cause too much trouble. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From p_yanna at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 17:44:47 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:44:47 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort offer to spare Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175820 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > In GOF Voldemort says "Lord Voldemort rewards his helpers", Snape was > Voldemort's most important lieutenant, if he asked him to spare > Lilly's life the Dark Lord was willing to grant him that favor > provided she didn't cause too much trouble. Unfortunately she did > cause too much trouble. > > Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald > I don't see how she caused trouble, really. She was standing in front of the baby's crib, wandless and pleading. It's not like she was shooting curses at him and he got her by accident. She was wandless. He could have stupefied her, petrified her, turned her into a slug... a number of things and then just killed Harry without a hitch. Lily wasn't really trouble to him but it was in his nature to kill (he thought it more prudent to finish them all) and so regardless of his promise he did kill her. Mim From bartl at sprynet.com Sun Aug 19 17:40:57 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:40:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Horcrux Question: PHILIP In-Reply-To: <46C73A30.00001C.00556@LIFESAVER> References: <46C73A30.00001C.00556@LIFESAVER> Message-ID: <46C880A9.6030609@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175821 Donna wrote: > Please help me understand something. To make a horcrux, a murder > has to be committed and a spell cast to put the torn piece of soul > into an object intended to be a horcrux. When was the spell cast to > make Harry a horcrux? Bart: An excellent question, with no definitive answer. But here's the best I can come up with. First of all, let us consider: it is established in DH that there ARE books on how to make a horcrux. And there are certainly evil wizards. WHY aren't there a bunch of immortal wizards with horcruxes? Here is my guess: having a piece removed from one's soul must be a truly horrible thing, with one exception: If one never had contact with one's soul in the first place, then it feels pretty much the same. And Tom Riddle, being a psychopath, was cut off from his soul. So, he was not only able to make one horcrux, he was able to make six. This is significant because it almost certainly makes the Pottercurx unique, and therefore, THERE WAS NO NAME FOR THE PHENOMENON OTHER THAN "HORCRUX". I'm calling the theory PHILIP: Potter's Horcrux Is Likely Introducing Precedent. What I am getting at is that there is no differential term in the Wizarding vocabulary for a piece of a soul that broke off and attached on its own. So, the only term we had for what happened to Harry was "horcrux." But what happened (interpreting the spirit formerly known as Dumbledore) was that, when Morty tried the first AK against Harry (you know, one definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results, but we KNOW Morty is insane) his soul was already in such a sorry state that the rip that would normally appear in his soul was sufficient to split off a piece without having to cast any spells. With no prepared container, the soul piece attached to the most suitable container: Harry. But this also meant that the soul piece never really attached properly; by allowing himself to be hit with YAAK, the Mortysoul was broken loose, and Harry was able to come back. Bart From p_yanna at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 17:41:02 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:41:02 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175822 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > Ceridwen: > I'm one of the people who speculated that this was perhaps Snape's > motives for returning to DD. The prophecy does not state that > the "one with the power//born as the seventh month dies" (skewing the > wording here, hence the double //) is an infant. It doesn't say that > an infant must be killed. Mim: But to be born to parents who had thrice defied the Dark Lord he couldn't have been very old. I think that it's vague as prophecies go but it's obvious that it refers to a small child. Ceridwen: > > A person who would not naturally target an infant may very well not > believe someone else might. Snape was a Death Eater, a loyal > follower, and quite young, possibly impressionable as Regulus Black > was, idealistic as teens and young twenty-somethings are. Delusion > is a part of this idealism, and projecting one's own values onto the > object of one's idealizing is common. Why would Snape automatically > believe LV would kill an infant? Given what we had to work with at > this time, the argument could go either way. Mim: True. I thought that perhaps he would be aware of Voldemort's nature enough to suspect it. Still, we definitely don't know whether Snape would have ran to Dumbledore to try and save Neville. JKR said that Snape wouldn't care one bit what happened to Harry if he wasn't Lily's son and in this case, it's not even that. Snape doesn't care about Harry period, it's all about Lily. > > Ceridwen: > While it does seem that LV was interested in Snape's love life, > giving me entertaining mental images of his playing matchmaker to the > Lestranges and Malfoys as well, I don't know why he would be. At age > twenty-one or thereabouts, Snape was probably not in the top tier of > DEs. If he was, my estimation of LV drops again, not in respect, > because I don't respect him, but with more contempt. > > I'd place this scene at the end of GoF, too, since it's the first > time they're together again. And it would be in LV's interest to > find out if Snape was carrying a grudge over Lily's death. Snape is > now a more mature, more powerful, wizard; LV doesn't need his > opposition. > > I still don't see why Snape would be more valuable to LV at the age > of twenty-one or so, than any of his other DEs. He was useful for > bringing the prophecy, but to that point, that's all we know he ever > did to prove himself to LV. > Mim: Voldemort asking Snape to gauge whether he was still mad at him about the Lily thing is a pretty good explanation, I hadn't thought of that at all. On the other hand, I'm not surprised Voldemort valued Snape among his followers. I think it is obvious from the notes in his Potions book that he is quite a remarkable wizard for his age. If he had proven himself magically among the DE then I don't see why Voldemort wouldn't want to keep him happy. He did try with Lily, not as much as he could have but that he even listened to Snape at all was telling. Mim > From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Aug 19 17:08:21 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:08:21 -0400 Subject: Kings Cross..... The end??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175823 My understanding is that the AK was divided between Harry and the bit of Voldemort's soul that was in Harry's body. Between that and the lingering blood-protection (which had been extended to the bit of Voldemort's soul when Voldemort used Harry's blood to reconstitute his body), Harry was able to make the choice--to get on the train and go on, or to go back. He chose the latter. Harry didn't know this would happen going into the Forest; in fact, he was sure that he would die. King's Cross was totally unexpected. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 18:04:44 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:04:44 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175824 Mim: > > But to be born to parents who had thrice defied the Dark Lord he > couldn't have been very old. I think that it's vague as prophecies > go but it's obvious that it refers to a small child. Ceridwen: Voldemort had been around as a Dark Lord for a while before Harry was born. He'd had eleven years of actively engaging the WW, according to PS/SS. He'd had followers before then, according to the Pensieve scene where he applies for the DADA position. The application for the position came ten years after his first application to Dumbledore's predecessor, Armando Dippet, who only refused him the post due to his youth and inexperience. He had applied shortly after leaving Hogwarts. That would put the second attempt somewhere in the 1950s. Dumbledore refusing him the position could be seen as a defiance of LV's wishes. There is no reason to suspect that, at least in the eleven years before the Potters' deaths, others had not thrice defied him. The One could have been eleven, or twenty-six, or a newborn, from the way I took this information. Someone could have defied LV thrice by 1981, and borne a child in July in the 1950s. To me, it could have been any age between twenty-six and zero, given a vague 1956-ish reapplication for the DADA position. Others may have had a different impression. Ceridwen. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 18:15:18 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0000 Subject: Reaction to Snape's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175825 > > Montavilla47: > > I'll bet the Slytherin students say the same thing about other > > teachers. > > > Prep0strus: perhaps. But again, then, it's Slytherins vs. the world. > Because anyone who isn't favoring them, must be working against them. > We don't hear anything, at all, about favoritism about any of the > other professors - not the heads of houses or anyone else. McGonnegal > is repeatedly shown and talked about as being strict, but fair. Montavilla47: Yes. And, and she is--most of the time. But I'm merely saying that to students with different perspectives she may not seem such a paragon of fairness. All we actually hear is the Gryffindor perspective. > Prep0strus: I have acquired my books 2-4 (still w/o 5 & 6, if anyone > would like to help me out), so spent a cursory time flipping through > looking for mentions of Potions. Sure I missed some stuff, but let's > see what else I came up with. > > In CoS, the narrator tells us, "Cruel, sarcastic, and disliked by > everybody except the students from his own house (Slytherin), Snape > taught Potions." > > Again, you can say Harry is biased, or the narrative voice is, or JKR > is. I still will tend to believe when told everyone dislikes Snape, > but Slytherins don't. You can have your own take on it, but I believe > this shows bias. Montavilla47: On the other hand, we see that four Ravenclaw students and Ernie Macmillan were interested enough in Potions, skilled enough, and *not* put off enough by Snape not to take advanced Potions. Ernie Macmillan praises Snape's teaching of the D.A.D.A. and seems to have no problem with Snape at all. Even if he dislikes Snape, he seems satisfied with Snape's ability to teach. Also, I'm not contending that Snape shows bias. My point is that his bias-showing is something that most students seem to take in stride, managing to learn potions just fine, thank you. > Prep0strus: > Also, "Snape prowled through the fumes, making waspish remarks about > the Gryffindors' work while the Slytherins sniggered appreciatively.." > > It's hard to twist that into a purely biased scenario, where Harry's > viewpoint changes reality. Snape IS making comments of some kind. > About Griffindor work. Slytherins are appreciative of the comments. > Griffindors aren't. It doesn't seem like comments are being directed > at Slytherins that Griffindors can appreciate. > > "Draco Malfoy, who was Snape's favorite student, kept flicking > puffer-fish eyes at Ron and Harry, who knew that if they retaliated > they would get detenion faster than you could say, 'Unfair'." > > Harry's view? Yes. But does anyone here doubt that it is true? Montavilla47: No, I don't doubt that it's true. I also don't doubt that the waspish comments are based on actual faults with the work-- and that probably any remarks made to Slytherin students are less "waspish." But, as the students have fundamentally different temperaments (as they are sorted by the hat accordingly), perhaps it's Snape finds it more effective to treat the students differently. And this difference, while recognized by more students than Harry and Ron, only really seems to bother Harry. Hermione, for example, takes it in stride. Neville, although intimidated by Snape, does as well as he can. > Prep0strus: > PoA: > Here we have that lovely scene where Snape is going to test Neville's > potion on his toad. I know some people don't care, or make excuses > about this, but it doesn't sound like Neville has been asked to leave > his toad in his room. And if Neville has messed his potion up to the > point that Snape expects, I doubt he can have the appropriate antidote > at his fingertips. Regardless, this belittling, cruel, predatory > method of teaching can in no way be considered good teaching. Montavilla47: And yet, Neville learns. He learns well enough to produce a potion that works perfectly. And the subsequent cheering by the Gryffindors earns no detentions or points-taking. Neville is allowed his triumph. > Prep0strus: > In this same scene, Malfoy get Griffindors to do his work because of > his 'injured' arm. First of all, Snape, who is well aware of the > relationship between Malfoy and Potter, makes Harry and Ron do this > purely out of spite - there is no reason not to ask a fellow Slytherin > to do it. Montavilla47: Perhaps Snape felt that Ron and Harry would benefit from more practice? And again, wouldn't most students... you know... get over it? > Prep0strus: > And another scene in PoA, when he takes over for Lupin, where he > treats the Griffindor class horribly, ignoring their lessons, ignoring > Hermione's ability to answer his questions. Because he hates Lupin? > Because he hates Griffindors? I don't care why. It is simply more > evidence of bad teaching. Montavilla47: I'll give you that one. But I think it's based on Lupin and his wanting to make the students aware of Lupin's condition, than on oppressing the Gryffindors. > GoF: > > Harry & Draco attack each other simultaneously after he calls Hermione > a Mudblood. Snape shows up, not only extraordinarily cruelly insults > Hermione's teeth, but takes FIFTY POINTS from griffindor and gives > harry and ron detentions... while giving Draco nothing. Ron hadn't > even done anything (ok, not nothing - he, like Harry, yelled at Snape > after he was cruel to Hermione), but considering the hexes that had > just happened, and knowing neither had hexed Hermione, it took quite a > bit of gall. Montavilla47: And that's why Snape deducts the points. Not for the hexing, but because both of them are screaming obscenities. As none of the Slytherins were disrespecting the authority of a teacher, he didn't take any points from them. > Prep0strus: > One more little scene shows Snape continuing to harass and taunt Harry > when he is written up by Rita Skeeter. He insults and demeans him in > front of the entire class. Montavilla47: Yep. I'll give you that one. And that he does it in his own classroom is inexcusable. Especially since it's taking away valuable classroom time. > Prep0strus: > Discipline and teaching go hand in hand. Just as a teacher who lets > his or her students run all over them in class would be a bad teacher. > It doesn't matter how good their lessons are if they have no > discipline and get no respect. Montavilla47: Yes, which is why Snape deducts so many points from Harry and Ron when they start screaming at him. He needs to maintain his authority--and we know from the many times that other teachers have to remind Harry to use Snape's proper title that Harry does no respect Snape as an authority figure. > Prep0strus: > A teacher that is biased will also not > receive respect, or a teacher that is cruel. And without respect, the > students have only fear to inspire them. They will not love a class; > they will not care about the class. They will care about staying out > of trouble. Montavilla47; And yet, a quarter of Harry's year cares enough about the class to take the advanced lessons--even though Snape's standards to continue are higher than McGonagall's. > Prep0strus: > Demeaning some students, favoring others - this is not the hallmark of > a good teacher. You talk about their work, but do you really think > Snape would compliment Hermione for making a perfect potion? I mean, > a lot of this comes down to what you can actually believe, shown or > not? Do you think he lets Draco get away with talking or making > gestures in class that he would come down on Harry or Ron for? If > not, then we just have a difference of opinion of what we read in the > text. > I think if it's repeated that students think Snape is unfair and > biased, it's likely true. All these kids aren't idiots, and JKR isn't > telling us it for no reason. No one thinks Minerva is a pushover, but > no one seems to think they're getting shafted by her either. Montavilla47: But we never hear from the kids who might feel that she was. We only hear from Ron and Harry, who are only mildly reprimanded by McGonagall (in GoF) for dueling in class with fake wands. >From the kids who are assigned no homework for the week leading up to a Quidditch match so that Harry can have more practice time. >From the boy who, far from getting the promised explusion for getting caught flying when he was told to stay on the ground, was rewarded by being made seeker of his team and given the best broomstick currently available. I imagine that Draco had something to say about that bit of favoritism. > Prep0strus: > And what he does to Neville... his poor performance is exacerbated by > his fear of Snape. Justified by his treatment by Snape. Cruel, > unnecessary, and poor teaching. Neville may never have been a potions > master, but he is unlikely to be able to accomplish even the smallest > task in potions, and that is 100% Snape's fault. Montavilla47: And yet, Neville thrives. He goes from being someone who, as you say, can't accomplish the smallest task in potions, to someone who, as Harry observes, seems to be doing just fine in his Potions O.W.L. > Prep0strus: > Snape doesn't give even chances. And his cruelty, especially when it > comes to Harry, Neville, and Hermione is absolutely uncalled for. He > might be good with potions, with dada, with any other branch of magic. > But he's a bad teacher. And let's not forget - these aren't adults > he's dealing with. 11, 12, 13 year old kids he treats like this. it's > absolutely despicable. And we're SUPPOSED to find it despicable. > It's only in the amazingly broad and wacky world of fandom that it > could be found not so. Which is a wonderful thing, I suppose, but > also frustrating. In RL, I think Snape would be having more > parent-teacher conferences, mediated by the headmaster, than I think > he'd be willing to put up with. Montavilla47: Are we supposed to find it despicable? A reader once asked JKR why Dumbledore allowed Snape to teach, and her reply was along the lines that Dumbledore believes that students need to learn about all sorts of things, including nasty teachers. As someone who has experienced different types of teachers, I got that quote immediately. We all meet up with teachers that we don't like, or don't respect. It's part of life to learn how to deal with them. Most of the students do seem to learn this lesson, as evidenced by Umbridge's grudging admittance of their O.W.L. scores. Also, as shown by the quarter of Harry's class who get Outstanding scores on their Potions O.W.L. Even Harry, whose hatred of Snape burns with the power of ten thousand stars, gets an E on his O.W.L. He does no better than that in any of his other classes, except for the D.A.D.A., in which he has had extraordinary practice (and extra lessons from Lupin, something no other student benefited from). Hermione, for the points *not* awarded to her from Snape, and all the compliments not received, receives as high a grade on her O.W.L.s. I conclude that I am *supposed* to see Snape's favoritism as something unpleasant, but not terribly detrimental to anyone's learning of the subject. The real obstacles to learning are 1) Boring delivery (as in the History of Magic), and 2) a teacher who accepts substandard work (as in Divination). Those are the classes that Harry and Ron do poorly in. Montavilla47 From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 18:37:47 2007 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:37:47 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175826 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > Mim: > > > > But to be born to parents who had thrice defied the Dark Lord he > > couldn't have been very old. I think that it's vague as prophecies > > go but it's obvious that it refers to a small child. > > Ceridwen: > Voldemort had been around as a Dark Lord for a while before Harry was > born. He'd had eleven years of actively engaging the WW, according > to PS/SS. He'd had followers before then, according to the Pensieve > scene where he applies for the DADA position. The application for > the position came ten years after his first application to > Dumbledore's predecessor, Armando Dippet, who only refused him the > post due to his youth and inexperience. He had applied shortly after > leaving Hogwarts. That would put the second attempt somewhere in the > 1950s. Dumbledore refusing him the position could be seen as a > defiance of LV's wishes. > > There is no reason to suspect that, at least in the eleven years > before the Potters' deaths, others had not thrice defied him. The > One could have been eleven, or twenty-six, or a newborn, from the way > I took this information. Someone could have defied LV thrice by > 1981, and borne a child in July in the 1950s. To me, it could have > been any age between twenty-six and zero, given a vague 1956-ish > reapplication for the DADA position. Others may have had a different > impression. Beatrice: Not to muddy the waters any more but, Doesn't the prophecy state that the one with the power to vanquish the dark lord "approaches" born as the seventh month dies, which does seem to indicate an impending birth rather than someone who is already born. > > Ceridwen. > From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 18:34:50 2007 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:34:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175827 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Zara" wrote: > > > The easiest way for Snape to overcome > > this obstacle, would be to provide > > Harry the memory in which Dumbledore > > told him about it. > >Eggplant: Easiest? So rather than simply hand over a bottle of his own memories > to Snape to give to Harry at the proper time Dumbledore proceeded to > lie to Snape for years because he figured Harry would someday stumble > upon the man seconds before his death and Snape would agree to give > Harry all his memories. It seems to me people are going through some > pretty wild contortions to avoid the simple fact that Dumbledore had > raised Harry for 17 years so he could be slaughtered like a pig. And I > don't see why you even want to turn him into another routine 100% good > guy when it would be much more interesting if Dumbledore loved Harry > and wished there was a way to avoid his death but couldn't think of > one. Generals in a time of war do things like that all the time for > the greater good. Beatrice: I think that DD does love Harry and KNOWS that there is a way to avoid Harry's death. DD tells Snape that Harry must die and lets Snape and for a brief period Harry believe that he is to be slaughtered, because Harry NEEDS to believe this inorder for DD's plan to work. Harry has to willingly sacrifice himself. It is Harry's willing sacrifice like his mother's that provides the most powerful protection. > >Zara: > If Harry allowed Voldemort to AK him, > > Voldemort would still be alive in the > > crucial moment when the AK hit Harry > > Eggplant: Voldemort was injured in that attack, besides destroying the Horcrux > inside Harry Voldemort was knocked unconscious for just as long as > Harry was. The reason Voldemort was just injured and not killed in the > attack is that he still had one Horcrux left, the snake; and the > reason Harry was just injured and not killed is because Voldemort was > still alive. If the snake had been dead as Dumbledore expected that > encounter would have produced very different results. Beatrice: This is a good point, but I think that there are two possibilities here that haven't been considered. First, DD is very explicit with Snape: Harry must learn this information when LV "seems to fear for the life of his snake." DD probably guessed that LV would discover Harry's horcrux hunt and would take precautions to protect his snake as it is the one horcrux he keeps close to him. Therefore DD probably guessed that Harry could not get to the snake without encountering LV first. So I think that DD knows that the protections on the snake won't be lifted until LV thinks that Harry is dead. So Dumbledore reasonably assumes that the Snake will still be alive after Harry sacrifices himself to LV. Second, I don't think that LV would have died in killing Harry. I think he was injured/knocked unconscious, because he destroyed his own horcrux. We know from DD discussion with Harry in King's Cross that the soul fragment in Harry wants desperately to live, because it is part of LV and that is LV's desire also. Therefore the horcrux actually defends itself and Harry when Harry excapes from Privet drive. I think therefore that we can conclude that LV's unintentional destruction of his own horcrux has consequences for LV's body as well as his last fragment of soul. I think that LV would have survived this encounter even if the snake had died (although if he wouldn't, I would accept that too, because of DD's instructions to Snape regarding when Harry needed to be given Snape's info.). The destruction of this horcrux hurt LV in a way that the destruction of the others did not simply because LV destroyed it himself and the consequences of murdering a part of himself caused him some harm, but would not necessarily have been fatal. Beatrice From p_yanna at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 19:25:00 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:25:00 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175828 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Beatrice23" wrote: > > > Beatrice: Not to muddy the waters any more but, Doesn't the prophecy > state that the one with the power to vanquish the dark > lord "approaches" born as the seventh month dies, which does seem to > indicate an impending birth rather than someone who is already born. > > Actually, at least in my copy of OotP the Prophecy is: The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches . . . born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies . . . and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not . . . and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives . . . the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies . . .' pg. 741, UK edition So when she repeats it she says it differently and it's much clearer that it's an infant not yet born. I don't know which part Snape heard, I would guess the first but it's pretty confusing :) From elfundeb at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 19:35:42 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:35:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Elder Wand mastery (was Re: need help for all of my confuse!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708191235oc0df683ufb65c43738f573f1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175829 Julie H: So -- the logic of this wand appears to be: 1) Stealing the wand does not make you 'master' 2) Somehow you must defeat the current 'master' in some kind of fight. This fight does NOT have to involve actual fighting with the Elder Wand. (Indeed, it seems to me that the only way to take legit possession is to win some kind of battle where the current master is NOT using the Elder wand, because... it's an unbeatable wand in the hands of the master, yes?) 3) The Wand has some sort of built in 'sensor' registering such defeats -- cumulatively, in fact. (Because for Harry to be "the master it would not kill," the wand has to have registered Draco's ownership, though Draco never touched it, and then Draco's disarming by Harry.) Debbie: I agree with these rules, except that Xeno Lovegood says only that the wand must be captured from its previous owner. The concept of capture does not necessarily involve a fight, although I agree that one does not capture the elder wand merely by picking it up ("the manner of taking matters" according to Ollivander). Rather, it must be picked up against the will of the owner, and perhaps it is also required to keep it by force ("where a wand has been won, its allegiance will change"). But I think these can be demonstrated to have happened in each instance. Julie H: All very murky, but you CAN make it make sense if you puzzle over it for a while. Nevertheless, there are still holes in the logic. To wit -- if Gregorevich was the master and if the Grindelwald ripoff did not make HIM the master, who WAS the master after Grindelwald stole the wand? Still Gregorevich? How did the defeat of Grindelwald make Dumbledore the master if Grindelwald truly was NOT the master to begin with? But if Grindelwald was NOT the master, then how did he amass such power in a way that was attributed at least in part to his possession of this wand? But if he WAS the master, then how the heck could Dumbledore beat him in a duel? But if he WASN'T the master, then wasn't Gregorevich still the master -- and presumably not actually defeated until LV killed him, which would have made LV the master???? Debbie: I think the rules can be made to work with the facts we're given: 1. Gregorovitch was the legitimate master of the wand. 2. Grindelwald became the master of the wand by picking up the wand in Gregorovitch's workroom, and then executing a Stunning Spell on Gregorovitch when he burst into the workroom; I believe that Grindelwald pocketed the elder wand, and then deliberately waited for Gregorovitch in the window in order to defeat him properly (presumably using his own wand, as the elder wand would have recognized Gregorovitch as the master). 3. Dumbledore became master by defeating Grindelwald in a duel. If, as the tale says, the elder wand must always win duels for its owner, then Grindelwald must not have been using the elder wand when he was defeated. Perhaps the key to Grindelwald's defeat was that Dumbledore switched the elder wand for another before the duel. Dumbledore would have known better than to duel Grindelwald if Grindelwald was using the elder wand. Dumbledore does tell Harry that he believed he had the greater skill, so Dumbledore can reasonably be believed to have won a duel with equal weapons. (For an alternative possible explanation, see #4.) 4. Draco took the wand from Dumbledore by force. Dumbledore did not permit Draco to take it (otherwise Draco could not be said to have captured it and would not be recognized as master). However, Draco executed the spell while Dumbledore was busy immobilising Harry. Draco took advantage of this opportunity, making the wand rightfully his. And the rest is history. The only additional rule I would add to your list is that the the power of the elder wand does not protect the master from having it taken from him unless the master is using the wand against the would-be taker. Dumbledore was busy putting a spell Harry, and therefore was vulnerable to Draco at that moment. I suppose Dumbledore could have similarly taken advantage of such a moment in capturing the wand from Grindelwald, except that I wouldn't call that beating Grindelwald in a duel. One more point: Julie H: LV thinks the Elder Wand isn't as juiced-up as it ought to be, according to its reputation, though why he thinks this is somewhat unclear ("The Elder Wand," page 656-57). Debbie: I think this is explained. He's expecting super performance from the wand, but he's only getting the same performance he always got. ("I have performed my usual magic. I am extraordinary, but this wand . . . no. It has not revealed the wonders it has promised. I feel no difference between this wand and the one I procured from Ollivander all those years ago.") Debbie who hopes her understanding of the elder wand is better than Voldemort's [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 19:43:56 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:43:56 -0000 Subject: The creature under the bench (again) (was: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175830 Carol: > What I mean by looking at the canon is looking closely at what is said > *in DH itself* about souls, soul bits, and the creature under the > chair (not asides in interviews about Slytherin as the water House). > Textual analysis, in other words, instead of, say, a Jungian > interpretation (which might be more appropriate *after* we analyze > what the text actually says). Please take a look at my arguments and > the canon I've presented in those earlier posts. I'd like to see them > actually answered. lizzyben: I have responded to your posts, and explained why I interpret this the way I do. If you don't agree, that's totally fine, but I don't understand the hostility here. It's like telling a bad Snaper "I demand that you come up w/all the reasons why Snape is a good guy! Stick to the canon!" That's not their view, so it's not what they're going to be arguing. Likewise, I don't interpret the LV-creature as something totally separate from Harry, so that's not the POV I'm going to be presenting. And, it is just my own interpretation, which might be totally wrong, but I'm sticking with it. Carol: > To reiterate briefly: I see no evidence that the thing under the chair > was ever a part of Harry. It appears to be Voldemort's own "flayed" > soul. Harry's compassion can't save it. Only Voldemort's own remorse > can. It is, therefore, pointless and perhaps worse than pointles to > try. (If it were a human child or any being capable of benefiting from > an act of mercy or compassion, DD would not dissuade Harry from > picking it up.) lizzyben: And, in contrast, I see quite a bit of evidence that the thing *is* a part of Harry - whether the creature is the Horcrux or some representation of LV himself. DD tells Harry that this is all happening in his head, not in any exterior place. Yet the Voldemort creature is there, in his head, uninvited. Just like the soul-piece of LV has been there, in his head, uninvited, for 16 years. The books reiterate, again & again, the deep connection between LV & Harry - a connection, not of minds, but of souls. Harry & LV share visions, emotions, blood & souls - they even share the same connection to life. After GOF, LV can't die unless Harry does, & Harry can't die while LV lives. DD says that "part of LV lives deep inside Harry." After GOF, LV used Harry's blood to resurrect & "doubled the bond" between them, creating a two-fold connection, wrapping their destinies together "more than ever two wizards were joined in history." Even Harry's wand took some of the power of LV's wand, and both wands share the same core. LV has been a part of Harry for almost his entire life. And Harry's blood becomes a part of LV. Harry *is* Voldemort, and Voldemort is Harry. It's creepy, but it's true. So after 16 years of this deep connection, I don't think we can say that LV's soul is a totally separate creature, & has nothing to do w/Harry. It does. King's Cross takes place in Harry's head, and is basically a type of dream. And like any dream, the metaphors become significant. Once you've got Harry & this "thing" that has been a part of him for his whole life, that's suffering & in pain, that he's told to stuff under a chair & ignore... for me, the metaphorical implications of that image are kind of hard to ignore. One one level, yeah it's LV, but on another level, it's a perfect metaphor for a part of himself that Harry is trying to hide & repress. Just like, yeah, it's just an Invisibility Cloak, but the cloak is also a perfect metaphor for Harry's childhood of being ignored & invisible to the Durselys. Carol: > The fault, if any, with this scenario (aside from the confusion it > creates in many readers) is not Harry's or Dumbledore's but in JKR's > conception of a personal, self-created hell for the unredeemed and > unrepentant. which, it appears, is repellant to many readers. But, > surely, Voldie's crimes differ in scope and substance from everyone > else's in the books, even Bellatrix, sadistic as she is, not coming > even close. (Grindelwald is another matter, but he seems to have > repented before the end.) Should Voldie, for all his crimes, have been > redeemed, in your view? lizzyben: Well, yeah, it is sort of repellent to me. JKR made quite clear in HBP that Voldemort was born a psychopath - he shows all the signs from childhood. Psychopaths simply *can't* feel remorse any more than a pig can fly - they're simply incapable of it. LV didn't have much choice in that. And in an interview, JKR said that LV was born evil because he was conceived through evil means - meaning that since Merope did something evil in marrying Riddle Sr., her child would be evil. God's punishment, and all. So, we're left w/this cosmology where God made LV incapable of remorse, then punishes him to eternal hell because he's incapable of remorse - seems like a rigged game to me. And in fact, the whole concept of predestination is basically a rigged game. But IMO it's how the series has been set up. JKR said that Snape is "more culpable" than LV because he was loved, & I tend to agree. Snape & Bellatrix & the Malfoys knew exactly what they were doing when they joined the Death Eaters - they weren't sociopaths, they knew what love was, and they understood the effects their actions might have. They're also capable of remorse & repentance in a way LV was not. So if anything, under JKR's own view, the Death Eaters are in some ways "more culpable" for their crimes. LV never had any chance to be redeemed - he was damned since birth. Carol: Why should Snape or any other character bother > to repent, then, if sins are so easily expiated or rather require no > expiation and the unrepentant have the same afterlife as the repentant > and there is no penalty for unnaturally dividing the soul from the > body through the murder of another to prevent your own death? lizzyben: Because they can? Because they can feel sincere remorse for their actions & try to make it better out of repentance - not out of a wish to get the loophole to heaven? Carol: I think > the difference between Voldemort's mangled soul and the soul of an > ordinary repentant sinner like Snape, who can receive redemption > through remorse and atonement if the flawed Dumbledore can, is crucial > to our understanding of this last book, and to think of the flayed > baby as the soul bit we *know* to have been destroyed and as part of > Harry is to completely miss the point of this symbolic rendering of > Voldie's remaining "main" soul. lizzyben: Now, does the flawed DD ever really express remorse for his crimes? Not really. He *was* a manipulative puppet-master, just like I'd always argued. DD has been responsible for many murders, while usually maintaining enough distance to avoid getting his hands dirty. He's indirectly responsible for the death of his sister, Harry's parents, various Order members, Harry himself, and Grindewald's victims during the time he avoided fighting him. Yet, here comes DD w/his perfect healed soul, all sin washed off him, to explain things to Harry in his self-involved way. DD is just as responsible as Snape for the Potters' deaths, yet he never expresses remorse for that - perhaps because Snape conveniently absorbed all the guilt & sin for that. And Harry quickly forgives DD for it all, telling DD "you never killed people... if you could avoid it." LOL. And DD takes comfort from the fact that, whatever his crimes, at least he was better than Voldemort. Because Gryffindors can always take comfort from being better than Slytherins. This scene seemed to show DD as a member of the Elect, whose sins will wash off him in the afterlife. While LV is a member of the damned, who has been condemned from birth. It's predestination in action. Did the flawed DD receive redemption through remorse & atonement, or because he was part of the Divine Elect? Since we don't really see DD expressing real remorse, I'm inclined toward the second interpretation, especially since that seems to fit w/the overall deterministic quality of this universe. DD was sorted Gryffindor, sorted among the saved, regardless of his actions. Can Snape receive redemption through atonement? IMO, that's an open question. As a Slytherin, he's got a tough road to how. And the novel never actually shows Snape's soul finding redemption or getting a ticket to heaven. Do we ever actually see anyone but Gryffindors in heaven? Nope. Not even Hufflepuff Tonks seems to make the cut. IMO, if we interpret the "baby" solely as LV, it seems pretty clear he never had a hope of redemption, because he was predestined to be among the damned. This is a very Calvinist message, but IMO that seems to be the ultimate message, rather than a more Catholic message about the importance of penance, faith & good works. LV never had a chance; his fate was predestined since birth, just as (perhaps) DD was saved since birth. And the contrast between the cleansed DD soul and the flayed, suffering LV soul really brings this home. Carol: > That the King's Cross scene is happening in Harry's head only means, > IMO, that his now-healed mind/soul (DD tells Snape that with LV and > Harry, mind and soul can't be distinguished) is having an out-of-body, > near-death experience (which LV seems to be having, too, but learning > nothing from). See my earlier posts for more details on this aspect of > the argument. lizzyben: I'll give you this, the baby is probably meant to be a representation of LV himself rather than the Horcrux alone. But in many ways it's a distinction w/o a difference. Both the Horcrux & LV have been sharing Harry's head for 16 years - as Harry has been sharing in LV's head. LV has become so much a part of Harry that they have connected souls, connected emotions & thoughts, connected blood, connected lives & deaths. When Harry has a "near-death" experience in his own head, LV's soul is there too. DD tells Harry that "King's Cross" is *Harry's* party, but LV is crashing it. If LV truly had no connection to Harry anymore, why wouldn't he be going to his own "near-death" vision instead of showing up in Harry's? The two remain linked together in profound ways - as they have been linked together for 16 years. In some way, they do share the same mind/soul/body. LV *is* a part of Harry, and has been so almost his entire life. So when DD tells Harry to reject & ignore & stuff that part of himself out of sight, it sets up some rather odd symbolic resonances, IMO. lizzyben From muellem at bc.edu Sun Aug 19 19:49:05 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:49:05 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175831 > Mim: > > Like Dumbledore is some paragon if virtue himself and he should have > any business making moral judgments on others... > > And for the last time, yes, Snape didn't give a damn about James and > Harry. I know that, I'm ok with that as a Snapefan. I don't know who > said that he turned because he couldn't bear the thought of a baby > dying. That's ridiculous. If he couldn't bear the thought of a baby > dying he wouldn't have given the Prophecy to Voldemort in the first > place. > > colebiancardi here: uhhhh....I had written prior to DH's release and I don't believe that many people chimed in on it, that perhaps the reason why Snape turned was that he didn't *know* that the prophecy was intended for a harmless, unprotected baby. The way the prophecy (the first part, that is, the part that Snape heard) was stated, it could have meant a fully grown wizard who was coming into their powers to defeat Voldemort. My theory at that time, and I don't believe it is *ridiculous* based on what we didn't know prior to DH's, was that Snape had a moral code about murdering defenseless people, in this case a babe. Battle amongst wizards who could hold their own is one thing; but to kill a baby was another. Sure, I was wrong in that theory. But a) I didn't see a lot of members jumping on this theory of mine (it could have been presented before, but I don't remember it) and b) we were all struggling to see what Snape's reason was for defecting and DD's *ironclad* reason for trusting Snape would be. After DH's came out, I still believe that the LILY!Snape reason is trite and crud and ridiculous, but hey, that is just my opinion. colebiancardi From srpripas at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 18:26:42 2007 From: srpripas at yahoo.com (srpripas) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:26:42 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175832 > Mim: > But does Remus know one way or the other? When he says that bit > about "height of dishonour" he's trying to get Harry to see that he > should be a little less trusting. Using James as an example, good or > bad always works with Harry. Until Harry uses it against Remus in > the end, that was fun. I'll give you that it's possible that James > didn't know and it had been all Sirius but we truly don't know one > way or another. James certainly didn't tell Remus and if Remus would > have expected Sirius to have told him, the same applies to James. > > Maybe he knows, maybe he doesn't. Possibly he discussed it with Sirius, who probably would know the answer to this question. I do think Remus probably wondered about it a lot, though, and I don't think he would have worded his rebuke to Harry in quite the same way if he knew or suspected that James had once suspected him. Maybe he would have said something like "James put his faith in the wrong people." What he actually said gives off a different message, though, IMO. > > > Mim: > Of course Tonks shares responsibility for the pregnancy but we're > talking about the woman who had been pursuing Remus relentlessly no > matter what. She was even stalking him in the middle of the battle > of Hogwarts. I bet she would want the kid regardless. She doesn't > seem to have any problem with it but Remus throws a hissy fit about > it. So if wolfie doesn't want little wolfies around (and it was a > crap shoot, they really didn't know what the kid would be) all > forgetful wolfie had to do was cover it up. It's simple. He did get > Tonks pregnant, her responsibility doesn't matter here. 1. Sort of an unrelated point, but I do wonder if lycanthropy is even a genetic trait. To me it doesn't make sense that it would be, because it's not an acquired trait. It's like saying that someone who lost a limb in an accident might produce a child with a missing limb--it doesn't make sense. So I'm not sure whether Remus' ramblings about the child ending up like him were truly rational, or whether he was just so upset and unsettled by the whole situation that he wasn't thinking rationally at all. Possibly he feared passing lycanthropy on via the bite, not through inheritance. Of course Rowling doesn't really seem to have a terribly good grasp on genetics, so this may all be a moot point. 2. I think you're selling Tonks a bit short here. Just because she seems clearly devoted to Remus doesn't mean she wasn't anything but thrilled about having a kid right then. I don't think we know enough about the relationship, or the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy, to draw any conclusions from it. I just think it's a leap to use the pregnancy *itself* as evidence of Remus' "irresponsibility" when there's so much we don't know. (Then again, I admit that my opinion of his character is also relatively unaffected by his forgetting the Wolfsbane in PoA. I don't weight events which clearly had to happen for the sake of the plot as much as other things, but that's my personal preference. Certainly Remus does act irresponsibly on occasion (most particularly including the early chapters of DH), but I don't see him as an irredeemably irresponsible person, due to his various rather admirable actions. Perhaps this is because he is one of the few people in the Potterverse who habitually admits his mistakes. YMMV. > Mim: > They were deliciously ambiguous and when it comes to Snape, he was a > bully to his students which is almost worse. But we're talking about > fandom here, not the most rational reaction to everything. Yes, > Snape did follow them about and try to get them in trouble but they > were bullying him and others, looking for any chance to jump him if > they outnumbered him. I don't agree with these conclusions. We have one documented instance of MWPP ganging up on Snape, but we don't really know the frequency of the bullying, either against Snape or others. But we have some secondhand reports of what went on: 1. Sirius (in OotP) tells us that Snape never missed a chance to hex James even in their seventh year. By that point James had stopped "hexing people for the fun of it" (according to Remus), but Snape still persisted in hexing James on occasion. Sirius also tells us that Remus, despite his cowardly silence in SWP, did sometimes make James and Sirius feel ashamed of themselves. 2. Snape tells us (at the end of HBP) that James and his friends never attacked him unless it was "four against one." (which was a truly cringe-worthy moment for me when I first read it, but I also have to point out that if the SWP scene is any indication, these "attacks" weren't really four against one. Peter clearly enjoyed the show and Remus watched with disapproval but was too afraid to speak up, but neither actively participated. James and Sirius seem to have done the bulk of the actual bullying. (Not that Remus' sin of silence is excusable, mind, but we don't see him or Peter actively bullying Snape. It's hard to speak of MWPP as a monolithic group for these reasons.) 3. We have the many detention records which Harry looked at in HBP. Most of these were from James and Sirius; only occasionally did Remus and Peter obtain detentions, too. The problem with this record is that it's hard to say whether the bulk of James and Sirius' misdeeds were truly malicious, mostly harmless pranks, or something in between. JKR draws a parallel between the J&S duo and Fred and George in the text, but it's hard to say how accurate the parallel is. Of course I realize some fans are disturbed by some of F&G's pranks, but I think Harry, JKR, and the bulk of the Hogwarts student body see them as fun pranksters, not bullies. Which category S&J fall into is less clear. I tend to think that they were *sometimes* bullies and *sometimes* "fun pranksters." I note that McGonagall--who I suspect has very little tolerance for bullying--fondly recalls S&J as likeable and talented troublemakers (like F&G). >Mim: >For better or for worse, the books never gave > us one scene of young Snape himself bullying others or using that > awful dark magic to hurt others in school. Well, yes, but the fact remains that he invented the "Levicorpus" spell and it gained quite a lot of popularity during MWPP/S' time at Hogwarts. Surely Snape must have *used* this spell (probably more than one time) for it to catch on, as it were. Young Snape wasn't merely a victim, he was also something of a trendsetter in hexes. S&R also tell us that Snape did sometimes hex James first. You're free to disbelieve them, but I don't, at least not entirely. >Mim: >Except for James from > what we hear from Remus and Sirius, not the most reliable narrators > out there. Fair point, but I think Snape's an equally unreliable narrator. That's part of what makes it hard to discern what actually happened and who the real victims were. Sirius and Remus tell us that Snape persisted in hexing James; Snape tells us that MWPP only attacked him when it was four against one--though we now know that Snape had his own "gang" of sorts. What to make of this? I'm not entirely sure, but I tend to think that there is at least some truth in both accounts. That's why I'm not comfortable in reducing MWPP/Snape relations as a simple bully/victim relationship. (And I also note that cannon shows us it wasn't generally MWPP against Snape so much as James & Sirius vs. Snape or James vs. Snape.) > > Mim: > > I'm sure that Dumbledore and everyone else could have tried harder > if they truly believed in Sirius. But we'll never know one way or > another. I don't know about that. The books indicate that Dumbledore's power in political affairs was always somewhat limited. In a world which had just seen a terrible war, in which Barty Crouch Sr. was shipping people (including Sirius) off to Azkaban without a trial, I'm not sure how much Dumbledore could have done for Sirius even if he believed his innocence. And when there were tons of eyewitnesses who thought they saw Sirius kill thirteen people, and when Dumbledore believed that Sirius had been the Potters' Secret-Keeper, how could he believe in Sirius' innocence? Was he really supposed to imagine that Sirius, Peter, and James had become illegal Animagi without his knowledge, switched Secret-Keepers, and that slow, untalented Peter had faked his own death before casting a very powerful curse? It is a rather fantastical story. > Sarah > As > > for Remus, it's not clear what Dumbledore *could* have done for him > > during the "missing years" gap. > > > Mim: > > He could have hired him. In a position other than a cursed one, that > is. Assuming that there was an available position to which Remus was suited for, that is. We don't know whether he's qualified to teach a position other than DADA, and besides it seems like job turnover at Hogwarts is pretty slow. I also assume that it probably wasn't easy to convince the rest of the Hogwarts staff/the board of governors to hire a werewolf--especially before the invention of the Wolfsbane potion. > > Mim: > > I was referring merely to the fact that he believed Sirius to be > guilty. And so did Remus. That's a big deal. But I guess you have a > point, Dumbledore was such a user that we can't really draw > conclusions from his behaviour. He was probably glad that he had had > Sirius out of the way so that Harry could grow up miserable among > Muggles and I'm sure that Sirius' death was a relief too because > then he could continue grooming Harry to march to his death without > any distractions. > > Gads, I hate Dumbledore but that's a different story. I don't hate Dumbledore as much as you do, but I agree that he was so consumed by his Grand Plans that actual concerns about people--Harry, Sirus, Snape, Remus--took a bit of a backseat. Sarah From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Aug 19 17:18:40 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:18:40 -0400 Subject: The Baby @ Kings Cross Re: Of Sorting and Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175833 In Dante's Inferno, there is one place where Dante starts to feel sorry for the souls in Hell. His Guide, Virgil, tells him, "Here either pity or piety must die." Having taken her degree in Classical & Romance Languages, I am sure that JKR knows her Dante quite well. In Pilgrims Regress, CS Lewis has the pilgrim's Guide that the fixed pains of Hell are God's "last severe mercy for those who will let Him do nothing further for them." DD's words are chosen precisely. He doesn't say that we may, or should, or must do nothing for the bit of Tom Riddle's soul, but that we cannot. That is, that it is impossible for us to do anything for it. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 20:37:58 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:37:58 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175834 > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175641 > > Mim: > And there is trust and there's mind-boggling stupidity. Now, unless > it's canon that when James' friends came over for a visit they'd > blast his door open I just don't see why James would sprint to the > hall wandless to see what the hell just happened. It sucks that the > ended up in this situation and it sucks that he died but I just > don't see WTF he was thinking. Mike: I'm not sure how you equate James' "blind trust" in his friends to his running to meet Voldemort without his wand. How does one have anything to do with the other? And I don't get James not having his wand either, makes no sense. I agree, it is a stupid thing for this character in this situation to do. > Mim: > > > No, he probably didn't stand a chance. But his death could have been > a little less ridiculous, is all. And they definitely needed a > backup plan as to getting out of there besides the whole Secret > Keeper crap. Ever heard of portkeys? Apparition? Oh, well... JKR > needed her sacrifice and all but there are more holes in that plot > than swiss cheese. Mike: Dumbledore explained to Harry in HBP that most wizards have anti- disapparition charms on their homes so other wizards (and unfortunately, themselves) can't apperate in or out of the house. In DH, the Weasley's house had to be approached on foot from quite a distance due to the apparition protections. I have no problem believing the Potters had one, too. And Portkeys need to be set up in advance, activate at a certain time and are controlled by the MoM. It's not something you can put in a closet and pull out when you need one in an emergency. I equate it to calling a very persnickity taxi cab, one that will leave to it's destination when you told him you were leaving whether you are ready or not. > > Mike previous: > > Sirius - suicide mission? Going after Peter? Could you explain > > that reasoning? > > > > Mim: > He tells Hagrid he won't be needing his motorcycle anymore. It > doesn't sound to me like a man who sees any future ahead.He does > not alert the authorities about Peter thinking that he can take > him. And big surprise, he couldn't. Mike: OK, but it doesn't sound like a suicide mission. He gives his pleasure vehicle to Hagrid because he thinks he'll have to move around unencumbered. That makes sense to me, he's not gonna be an effective tracker of Peter when his approach is heard from a long way off and by someone who knows of his unique method of transport. And I don't buy reckless for Sirius to think he could have caught Peter. From everything I know of the Marauders, it seems to be a reasonable assumption. Besides, Peter didn't beat Sirius, he pulled a fast one that allowed him to escape. Had Peter been forced to duel Sirius, I'm confident Sirius would have won. Many have questioned why Sirius didn't run to Dumbledore. But Sirius was distraught and thought he could catch Peter himself. It my have been a rash decision, but was it really that unreasonable thing for him to do? Besides, these people didn't seem to be that dependent on Dumbledore, didn't feel they needed his protection. > Mim: > > Again, James didn't trust Remus. Mike: So how do you square this with your "blind faith" comment? > Mim: > > I think that fandom gives them [Marauders] a hell of a lot of > slack, myself. But I guess it depends also on where you place > yourself in regards to them, a bully or a victim? A cool animagus > or some random guy in the street getting attacked and barely > escaping with his life because they are out having their fun? Mike: Hmm, fandom gives them a hell of a lot of slack, unless you count calling them a bunch of bullies based on Snape's worst memory and Snape's selection of detention files. Or unless you take Snape's view of the Prank, that Sirius tried to get Snape killed. Or if you accept that their arrogant, teenage, full-moon escapades mean they are callous, uncaring, privledged brats - exploiting their talents while putting others in mortal danger. Did I miss some of the ways fandom cuts them slack? I could refute those readings, I have done so in the past. And with the relevations from DH regarding the Prank, there is new reason to refute that one. But it takes a different reading and/or understanding of teenage boys that many don't share. Teenage boys down through the ages have felt a need to prove themselves. There are still many 'rights-of-passage' used by cultures and tribes that give the boy his chance to prove he is worthy of being called a man. Modern society has no structure for this kind of transitional acknowledgement, this test of fortitude for boys. So they have invented trials for themselves. And many of them seem foolhardy and they are. But that's not the point, the actual trial is secondary to the need to have one. Lately, modern society seems to think that boys are not *civilized* enough. They see things that boys do and remark that girls don't feel the need to do foolhardy things like that. So they try to medicate away these impulses to make boys act more like the girls, because that's the way *civilized* people act. It is one of the most abominable things being done to boys, imo, especially how casually this medication is being prescribed. We read or hear about some teenagers getting killed for doing stupid things and wonder "What were they thinking?" And we try to keep our own children from attempting the most foolhardy of those *trials*. But for every death due to stupid pranks we hear about, there are probably ten times as many attempts happening out there they we don't hear about because the kids got away with it. And there are twenty times as many other kids that hear about these guys that got away with it that are now wondering if they could do the same. And some are going to try, others are going to be emboldened to try something more 'death defying'. Condemn it all you want, it's going to happen. So the Marauders found an outlet for their desire to prove themselves. Remus can look back on it and shake his head, say how stupid it was. At the same time admit how they didn't stop, how they thought it was all good fun despite the close calls. Adults can find perspective where teens won't even look for it. Teens all over are looking to prove themselves. We heard about a couple of Slytherins that try out some "Dark Magic" on a girl, probably to see if they can do it. Secondarily to see if they can get away with it. But they probably would've tried even if they never had an inkling that they could get away with it unpunished, just to see if they could do it. I'll bet there were some Hufflepuff boys trying to dig a tunnel from their dorm room to the kitchens. And some Ravenclaw boys were busy trying to defeat those slides that prevented them from getting into the girl's dorm rooms. (Not that they would know what to do once they got in there ) Yes, the last bits were all non-canonical speculation. But I'll eat the Sorting Hat if there wasn't some shenanigans going on in all the houses. Lastly, everyone thinks this running with the werewolf is especially egregious. I attribute part of that to our non-magical fear of this mythical being and our prejudice from reading other's stories. But there are many werewolves in the Potterverse and they are not locked up during the full moon nights. Lupin said he was out among his "fellows", so we know they are out there and they are not all like Fenrir. (In fact, I submit that very few if any are like Fenrir) The wizarding world has figured out how to cope with loose werewolves, they must have or they would have overrun the wizarding population by now. Nobody is cataloguing the locations of all the other werewolves to be sure that none of them are in Hogsmeade during full moon nights. So, despite what we may perceive as a very dangerous game, imo is not so unfathomable of a situation that the WW cannot cope with it. In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175653 > > va32h: > > I think it's pretty lame myself, and just another piece of evidence > that JKR really didn't give two figs about whether this book was > any good or not. > > And I know I'll get accused of being an ungrateful nit-picker, so > let me just add my usual disclaimer. Mike: Well, I won't call you ungrateful, and I think your nit-picking is justified - I do it myself. But I do wonder where you've been, because this book isn't so different than the previous six. There have been plot holes galore and uncharacteristic (yeah, some downright stupid) actions by characters. I suppose you can choose to overlook them or try to explain them. Or you can stew over them and allow them to ruin the story for you. I guess I don't understand why these failings, that have been there all along, are suddenly reason to condemn this last installment. Mike From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 21:37:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:37:59 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175835 Pippin wrote: > I think many Snape fans (and I am definitely including me) invested so much in a Snape who wasn't about vengeance. But he is, he really is. "Vengeance is sweet" he breathes. Much as I would have hoped he was acting, he wasn't. Snape wanted retaliation for each and every injury, real or imagined. > > Ironically, he got more revenge than he wanted. > > Between relaying the prophecy and his interference in the Shrieking Shack which led to Pettigrew's escape, those whom Snape hated ended up dead, just as Harry said: all the Marauders and Harry himself. > Carol responds: I'm rather pressed for time and can't give you a detailed response here, but don't you think that you're laying a little too much at Snape's door? What, exactly, happened because of his interference? Not vengeance, just Harry actually listening to Lupin's and Black's story, as he might not have done if Snape hadn't tried to take matters into his own hands. And if Snape hadn't "interfered," who would have conjured the stretchers to get the kids to the hopsital wing and Black off the grounds (admittedly into Fudge's hands temporarily)? None of it would have happened if Lupin hadn't rushed out without his potion, not to mention Black breaking out of prison to kill Pettigrew, dragging Ron into the Shcck, etc. And if *Harry* hadn't "interfered, Lupin and Black would have killed Pettigrew and voldemort would not have been resurrected a year later. Also, Lupin and Black would have been murderers. Pettigrew's escape can be traced to a number of people, chiefly Black, Lupin, Harry, and Pettigrew himself. Snape is the least responsible of the group, IMO. At the time of PoA, he still thinks that Sirius Black murdered thirteen people and betrayed the Potters to their deaths (it's surely Lily's death for which he wants revenge). Later, he learns that the traitor was Pettigrew, whom it's much less satisfactory to hate (an experience shared by Harry). Perhaps Black's innocence with regard to the Potters' deaths (neither he nor Lupin is very "innocent" in terms of their behavior in PoA) forced Snape to see his own role as eavesdropper more clearly once he can no longer scapegoat Black (compare Harry's scapegoating of Snape with regard to Black's death). At any rate, revenge is *not* what it's all about for Snape. It's all, or mostly, about Lily and about protecting Harry (and helping him to defeat Voldemort even when he thinks Harry must sacrifice himself). The whole point of "The Prince's Tale" is to show that it isn't about James Potter or Sirius Black at all. And if there's any revenge that Snape still finds "sweet" after PoA, it's against Voldemort. But in HBP, at least, his focus appears to be on saving lives. That's hard to chalk up to revenge. Pippin: > But Snape was allowed to finish the task which Dumbledore set him, even if he did not live to see victory, so I would like to think he died redeemed. After all Dumbledore made it to the next world, if in a more damaged state than Harry. Carol responds: The only "damage" to DD is his still-broken nose and his half-moon spectacles. Perhaps he thinks he *deserves* to retain the broken nose. His blackened hand is completely healed and he looks younger than Harry remembers him. The twinkle in his eye is restored, as well. James, too, still wears his glasses, so either myopia/astigmatism or whatever continues into the afterlife (boo!) or they appear as Harry expects them to appear, glasses and all. *Harry's* missing glasses symbolize his cleared perception (IMO), but a less prejudiced and more compassionate view of Snape and his own mission, but neither James nor DD shares that epiphany. Nor is he actually dead; he's just making a visit to the afterlife (like an epic hero from Greek myth). When he returns to the world of the living, he needs his glasses again. At any rate, I think that Lupin's and Black's more youthful appearance, the one healed of lycanthropy and the other of the taint of Azkaban certainly suggests hope that Snape, too, can be healed of sin and suffering through repentance and/or heroism. Carol, agreeing that Snape appears to be redeemed but not that he's chiefly motivated by revenge From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 21:42:42 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:42:42 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175836 Beatrice: > > Not to muddy the waters any more but, Doesn't the > prophecy > > state that the one with the power to vanquish the dark > > lord "approaches" born as the seventh month dies, which does seem > to > > indicate an impending birth rather than someone who is already > born. > > > Frumenta: > Actually, at least in my copy of OotP the Prophecy is: > > The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches . . . > born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month > dies . . . and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will > have power the Dark Lord knows not . . . and either must die at the > hand of the other for neither can live while the other > survives . . . the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will > be born as the seventh month dies . . .' > > pg. 741, UK edition > > > So when she repeats it she says it differently and it's much clearer > that it's an infant not yet born. I don't know which part Snape > heard, I would guess the first but it's pretty confusing :) Ceridwen: Snape supposedly only heard the first part of the prophecy, and that was the part he delivered to Voldemort. "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches" - could mean physically (some people suggested that this actually meant Snape, since he had approached the room where the prophecy was being given), or someone returning from exile; or it could mean figuratively - coming into his or her (no sex stated yet) powers, as colebiancardi mentioned, which I would take as either beginning or ending his or her education as well as other possible interpretations. "Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies" Was born, will be born, or is being born? We know two of the criteria: this person's parents have thrice defied LV, and is born at the end of the seventh month. Some have speculated that LV got it wrong in interpreting July as the seventh month - September actually translates as "seventh month", because it was the seventh month in much earlier times. So far, we don't know if this just defines the One With The Power, or if this prophecies an impending birth. We don't even know the sex of the One at this point in the prophecy. I think this is all Snape was supposed to have heard. I don't know how to interpret Trelawney hearing the commotion and seeing Snape brought into the room. If Snape had heard the rest, LV would have been aware that he would mark this individual, that this individual was male, and that one or the other of them would have to die. The second repeat of the opening lines makes it clear that the One *will be* born at the end of July, but, in my opinion, the beginning doesn't, given how screwy prophecies can be. Ceridwen. From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Aug 19 21:49:42 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:49:42 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175837 Magpie: > I still don't see what that has to do with the metaphor > that's being put forward, that Grimmauld Place being cozy > while the Trio lives there shows the beauty of the > Slytherin nature. Yeah, it's great that Kreacher got > to tell his secret and that we found out Regulus did > something brave. I'm still not seeing the transformation > of the house reflected in Slytherin or Slytherins. houyhnhnm: One more post on this subject, not because I'm going to change your opinion (or need to change your opinion). Just because I'm still intrigued by the notion of gift-giving as an aspect of Slytherin culture. Yes, other wizards give gifts (because I can see someone making that objection). They give presents for birthdays and Christmas. They have people over to dinner ("Molly's making meatballs"). But among Slytherins, I see the offering of food and the giving of gifts as having a ritualistic, symbolic aspect beyond that of the meaning of these behaviors for Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, or Ravenclaw families. I see it as an extension of the Slytherin patronage system. Slytherin interactions are transactions. Horace Slughorn is the best example. He offers pies and pheasant to the students he's invited to his compartment on the train. He offers to loan McLaggen a book. He gives a party with huge silver platters of food carried around by house elves. He brings bottles to Aragog's funeral. He even feels the need to offer refreshment after being roused out of bed to make an antidote for the love potion Ron has accidently imbibed. I can't think of an instance where he gives a gift, but he certainly receives a lot of them. So I see Harry's sudden inspiration to offer Regulus's locket to Kreacher as a very Slytherin thing to do. And of course it's quid pro quo. It wouldn't be Slytherin-like if it weren't. Kreacher's reaction is very Slytherin-like, too. He responds with food. There are two kinds of growth, it seems to me. There is the soul-searching self-confrontation of Lizzy Bennet coming to terms with her prejudice or Pip facing his selfishness. Then there is a slow kind of evolution that takes place without the subject even being conscious of it. Like Snape, who may still tell himself he's doing it all for Lily, but who the reader can see has evolved way beyond that motive ("Lately, only those whom I could not save.") Likewise I think Harry grows toward an understanding of a worldview different from his own by experiencing it, without necessarily being conscious of it, without a "moment of truth" or a "dark night of the soul". One of those experiences is of the Slytherin brand of courage when he walks cold-bloodedly to his own destruction. I think another may be when he participates in the Slytherin ritual exchange of gifts and food. This doesn't mean Harry will ever have a sudden realization--"Aha, now I understand Slytherins". It may mean that when his son is sorted into the House or when his nephew marries a Malfoy, he will be prepared to deal with it in a constructive rather than a destructive way. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Aug 19 23:04:18 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 23:04:18 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175838 > Magpie: > > > I still don't see what that has to do with the metaphor > > that's being put forward, that Grimmauld Place being cozy > > while the Trio lives there shows the beauty of the > > Slytherin nature. Yeah, it's great that Kreacher got > > to tell his secret and that we found out Regulus did > > something brave. I'm still not seeing the transformation > > of the house reflected in Slytherin or Slytherins. > > houyhnhnm: > > One more post on this subject, not because I'm going to > change your opinion (or need to change your opinion). > Just because I'm still intrigued by the notion of > gift-giving as an aspect of Slytherin culture. Yes, > other wizards give gifts (because I can see someone > making that objection). They give presents for birthdays > and Christmas. They have people over to dinner ("Molly's > making meatballs"). But among Slytherins, I see the > offering of food and the giving of gifts as having a > ritualistic, symbolic aspect beyond that of the meaning > of these behaviors for Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, or Ravenclaw > families. I see it as an extension of the Slytherin > patronage system. Slytherin interactions are transactions. > > Horace Slughorn is the best example. He offers pies and > pheasant to the students he's invited to his compartment > on the train. He offers to loan McLaggen a book. He > gives a party with huge silver platters of food carried > around by house elves. He brings bottles to Aragog's > funeral. He even feels the need to offer refreshment > after being roused out of bed to make an antidote for > the love potion Ron has accidently imbibed. I can't > think of an instance where he gives a gift, but he > certainly receives a lot of them. > > So I see Harry's sudden inspiration to offer Regulus's > locket to Kreacher as a very Slytherin thing to do. > And of course it's quid pro quo. It wouldn't be > Slytherin-like if it weren't. Kreacher's reaction > is very Slytherin-like, too. He responds with food. Magpie: It seems a bit of a stretch to me to be reading in a subtle Slytherin culture of gift-giving here when it could just be normal behavior that seemed to fit their scenes. Slughorn especially is all about one hand washes the other. If he gives you something, you owe him. He's also a glutton. If his guests are eating he's eating. Harry is holding the fake locket in his hand and Kreacher just told him the story. It seems like an obvious gesture to make. Harry hands the thing to Kreacher and it's almost comical how OTT his reaction is- -doesn't Ron even comment, "Too much, mate?" It reads to me like most of Harry's interactions with other House Elves, saying more about them than about a gift-giving culture Kreacher knows from living with Slytherins (as does his natural inclination to offer to cook for everyone). houyhnhnm: > > There are two kinds of growth, it seems to me. There > is the soul-searching self-confrontation of Lizzy Bennet > coming to terms with her prejudice or Pip facing his > selfishness. Then there is a slow kind of evolution that > takes place without the subject even being conscious of > it. Like Snape, who may still tell himself he's doing > it all for Lily, but who the reader can see has evolved > way beyond that motive ("Lately, only those whom I could > not save.")> > Likewise I think Harry grows toward an understanding of > a worldview different from his own by experiencing it, > without necessarily being conscious of it, without a > "moment of truth" or a "dark night of the soul". One > of those experiences is of the Slytherin brand of courage > when he walks cold-bloodedly to his own destruction. > I think another may be when he participates in the > Slytherin ritual exchange of gifts and food. Magpie: So Harry doesn't have the moment of actual realization and humiliation where he's forced to look at his own behavior, like Lizzie and Pip. We know that. I know your goal isn't to change my mind, but this second kind of change reads a bit like writing in a kind of change that isn't there. The Slytherin ritual exchange of gifts and food isn't even established canon to begin with, and I don't see it as a sign that Harry's dong anything Slytherin or really having much to do with them at all. (Though Harry has certainly shown Slytehrin *qualities* before too--the qualities are cool when Harry uses them.) His walk to his own destruction (DD's plan) doesn't seem all that Slytherin to me. It's courage. And he's faced his own destruction before, also with courage. houyhnhnm > This doesn't mean Harry will ever have a sudden > realization--"Aha, now I understand Slytherins". It > may mean that when his son is sorted into the House or > when his nephew marries a Malfoy, he will be prepared to > deal with it in a constructive rather than a destructive way. Magpie: *When* his son is sorted into the house? I see no reason to believe that kid would be sorted into the house. He seems as pure as Tiny Tim, and already knows to ask for "not Slytherin" to soothe his fears. Nor have any of his nephews married Malfoys, so neither of these things say anything to me about the story. But Harry would never have dealt with those things in a destructive way that I can imagine. He's not Mrs. Black who'd be blasting his kids off the family tree for marrying the wrong person. I'm sure if he had a family member who married a Slytherin it'd be handled with the type of humor JKR probably used for the Weasley's awful Slytherin cousin. (A cousin whose personality actually did mark her as Slytherin, unlike little Albus' seems to in the epilogue.) Harry's never been about attacking Slytherin. He treats his inferiors okay. -m From urghiggi at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 00:04:47 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:04:47 -0000 Subject: Elder Wand mastery (was Re: need help for all of my confuse!) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0708191235oc0df683ufb65c43738f573f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175839 > > Debbie: > I think the rules can be made to work with the facts we're given: > > 3. Dumbledore became master by defeating Grindelwald in a duel. If, as the > tale says, the elder wand must always win duels for its owner, then > Grindelwald must not have been using the elder wand when he was defeated. > Perhaps the key to Grindelwald's defeat was that Dumbledore switched the > elder wand for another before the duel. > Julie H: Ah, well, sure. If we want to give Grindelwald a different wand, then the problem dissolves. But it's a pretty key point to be totally ignored in the text. Because the facts we're given are: a) Grindelwald "acquired" the Elder wand from Gregorevich; b) Grindelwald and Dumbledore had a very famous duel in which Dumbledore beat Grindelwald; and c) Dumbledore became master of the wand by virtue of that duel. If the wand's unbeatable in a duel, then there only seem to be a few choices -- Grindelwald wasn't really 'master' due to the manner of taking (despite the fact of his great power partially being attributed to his possession of the wand), or Dumbledore did something we can't possibly imagine to defeat him, outside the normal context of a duel, or, as you said, Grindelwald was not using that wand (though we're given no reason to think that he wouldn't be). (A fourth choice of course being Steve's hypothesis that the wand is, in actuality, NOT unbeatable.) My point I guess is, in part, that the whole thing is just irksome, and interferes with my enjoyment as a reader who would prefer to see the puzzle more elegantly constructed. Not irked so much at JKR -- with such a complex and inventive plot there are bound to be 'issues' -- but with the editors who are supposed to be keeping her honest. It is hard for me to believe that any editor worth his/her salt would not have raised this point with her, at least on a second reading. All they would've had to say was, "umm, Jo, about that Elder wand, very cool plot device, but how did Grindelwald lose to Dumbledore in a duel if Grindelwald had an unbeatable wand?" And a good author (who presumably already had an answer for that question in her head) would've listened to that editor and thought, "hey, good question, I'd better put a bit in to clarify that." Just a comment from Ollivander, for instance, implying that Dumbledore cheated somehow, or that he was such a genius dueler that he thought of some never-before-imagined strategy, or even that grindelwald's mastery was illegitimate (though that raises its own problems). Lord knows the book is long enough, a couple more sentences woudn't have screwed it up. This is what a productive editor/author relationship is all about. At least since OoP I've thought that JKR's editors have not served her that well, in terms of asking her to make some tougher choices and clean up inconsistencies. She herself says that OoP is too long (and I agree with that). I don't like to think Jo's hard to work with -- there is no way of knowing, of course -- but it's certainly possible that the editors were blinded by book 6 and beyond by all the stardust. It's hard to argue with a woman who's become a kajillionaire with her books (and made a kajillion for her publishers who employ the editors). But a good author knows she needs good editors to backstop her, especially in a pressure situation like this, where the stakes are high, the plot is extremely intricate, and the readers are obsessive. I think her editors let her down. > Julie H: > LV thinks the Elder Wand isn't as juiced-up as it ought to be, according to > its reputation, > though why he thinks this is somewhat unclear ("The Elder Wand," page > 656-57). > > Debbie: > I think this is explained. He's expecting super performance from the wand, > but he's only getting the same performance he always got. ("I have > performed my usual magic. I am extraordinary, but this wand . . . no. It > has not revealed the wonders it has promised. I feel no difference between > this wand and the one I procured from Ollivander all those years ago.") > Julie H: Oh, certainly, certainly. I read that, but I don't think it's all that clear. What I was looking for I guess were some examples as to what kind of performance evidence would've made LV feel that way, and worry enough to kill Snape to supposedly ensure his mastery. Because we're given no real info about what kind of "wonders" the wand can do beyond an ordinarily good wand, other than being unbeatable in a duel. Thus it seems unfair of LV to be expecting any kind of super performance beyond... being unbeatable in a duel. (Which is why he wanted it -- to be sure of beating HP.) All LV says is he "feels no difference" -- which implies that he expected the wand to provide some sort of different sensory feedback than his own very powerful wand. Since the only real evidence of his mastery would seem to be ... that he would be unbeatable in a duel, and we know no one has beaten him at that point, with that wand or any other. But, you know, we don't have enough info to really surmise what sort of difference would be expected, beyond the obvious, so ... we're back to "complex and mysterious" again. I think his comment about the wand "not revealing the wonders it has promised" actually muddies the water in that it implies that he expected to SEE something different than with an ordinary wand (again, a performance proof). If she'd left that out, the "feels no difference" would probably have been a stronger statement, since there is a good bit in DH about how the wand feels to a wizard, a feeling of affinity. Julie H, Chicago From judy at judyshapiro.com Mon Aug 20 00:43:19 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:43:19 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort offer to spare Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175840 Thanks for the many replies to my question of why Voldemort offered to spare Lily. Basically, When I posted that question, my thoughts were, "When Snape goes to Dumbledore and asks him to save Lily, Snape seems awfully desperate for a guy just setting up a back-up plan. So, does anyone think there was some different reason, not Snape's love for Lily, that would have caused Voldemort to give Lily the chance to step aside?" >From the answers so far, it seems that everyone thinks Snape's feelings for Lily were the reason Voldemort offered Lily a chance to live. So, the question becomes, "If Voldemort was willing to spare Lily, why did Snape run frantically to Dumbledore, desperately begging his to save Lily?" The options seem to be that Voldemort either refused to spare Lily, or Voldemort did say he'd spare Lily, but Snape really, really didn't trust him at all. Alla said: > I remember so many preDH arguments that Snape came to Dumbledore > because he could not bear to see Voldemort killing the baby. > Looks like he could bear it quite well to me.And Mim said: > I don't know who said that he turned because he couldn't bear the > thought of a baby dying. That's ridiculous. If he couldn't bear > the thought of a baby dying he wouldn't have given the > Prophecy to Voldemort in the first place. I think I was the first person who argued that Snape turned to the side of good because he couldn't bear Harry dying. However, I proposed this theory back in February 2002, and at that point, Book 5 wasn't out yet and we hadn't been told that there was a prophecy about Harry; we also didn't know until Book 6 that Snape was the one who revealed it. At any rate, I think it would be possible for a person to not care about some random baby dying, but still want to save the child of the woman he loved. So, it wouldn't be ridiculous for Snape to reveal the prophecy, and yet freak out when he learns that it's LILY'S baby who will die. But why did I think, way back in 2002, that Snape couldn't bear to have Harry die? My reasoning was that I believed Voldemort told Snape that he would spare Lily, so Snape would need some reason (other than Lily's safety) to go to Dumbledore and tell him that the Potters were in danger. But what we learn in DH is that even if Voldemort promised to spare Lily, Snape couldn't trust him. In DH we see that Voldemort has very, very little regard for his followers: He kills Snape to try to get control of the Elder Wand; he kills a whole room full of DEs simply because he's ticked off that the Horcrux Cup has been stolen. But prior to DH, we had no idea that Voldemort was willing to simply throw his supporters away like that. (We did see him abandon Quirrell in Book 1, but Voldemort was in a pretty desperate way at the time, so he didn't have a lot of other options.) So, maybe the answer here is that Voldemort DID tell Snape he would spare Lily, but Snape was still frantic and desperate because he knew how untrustworthy Voldemort was. zgirnius said: > Brava! Brava!! > Wow, I thought (politely!) that you folks were all nuts when I joined > the fandom about a month before HBP came out. That book converted me > to LOLLIPOPS, but people who saw LOLLIPOPS and TOO EWWW back after > PoA/GoF - wow, you folks have some Seer credentials! Thank you! I think I have to agree with the idea that I must be nuts, though -- I did (and DO) spent entirely too much time hypothesizing about the Harry Potter stories! I wish I was a Seer -- I'd know what stocks to pick! The way I came to the conclusion about TEWW EWWW, though, was mostly by thinking about where JKR was probably planning to take her story: 1) Snape has to be good. Otherwise, Voldemort would be right and Dumbledore would really be a "muggle-loving old fool." JKR can't intend that; Voldemort can't be right about human nature, and Dumbledore wrong. 2) Since Snape is good, he is trying to protect Harry. 3) We therefore need a reason for Snape to hate James, despise Harry, and yet protect Harry. The simplest answer is that Snape loved Lily; he despises Harry because Harry reminds him of James and of the fact that Lily married James, yet protects Harry because he is Lily's child. 4) In PoA, we learn that Dumbledore's spy told Dumbledore that Voldemort was after the Potters. The only spy for Dumbledore that we know of is Snape. Therefore, the Snape is likely to be the person who warned Dumbledore that the Potters were in danger. 5) We need a reason for Snape to start working for Dumbledore; it has to be something that Dumbledore would consider sincere enough to trust Snape. Since Snape loved Lily, and was probably the one who warned Dumbledore that she was in danger, that is probably why Snape worked for Dumbledore. This also has the advantage of explaining why Dumbledore would keep Snape's reason a secret; Snape wouldn't want Harry to know that he had lost Lily to James. Goddlefrood said: > Possibly the last person many here would ever expect to jump in > uninvited on a Snape thread. There is one matter relative to Snape > / Lily that I would like to put forward for further discussion. The > view I formed of Harry's initial survivial is that it had something > to do with Lily's sacrifice, which was in many ways a condition > precedent for his survival, or so we have always believed. As far > as I can ascertain it also has a good deal to do with Lord Voldemort > not honouring his promise to Severus to not kill Lily. That really > came back to bite him. This is always how I envisioned it, prior to DH and the scene where Snape is frantic to find a way to spare Lily -- Voldemort promised Snape that he would spare Lily, but Voldemort went back on his word. Boy, would he have been better off keeping his word. Goddlefrood also said: > My question for discussion is this: "Did Snape's request to > Voldemort play a larger or a smaller role in Harry's initial > survival because Voldemort failed to abide the terms of the > contract?" Very interesting question -- so what you are saying was that maybe it wasn't just Lily's willing sacrifice that gave Harry his protection, but also the fact that Voldemort broke his promise to Snape? Could be, although there is nothing in canon to support this that I can think of. We've always been told that Lily's willing sacrifice was what protected Harry. -- JudySerenity, spending WAY too much time posting From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Aug 20 00:40:49 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:40:49 -0400 Subject: How did Dumbledore Win the Duel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C8E311.5060608@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175841 Bart: I'm going to get a bit Sherlockian here: Once you have eliminated the impossible, what you have left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Points I am taking as given (either canon or simple logic): 1) The holder of the Elder Wand cannot be beaten in a magical duel. 2) It's been establshed that wizards, IF PROPERLY PREPARED, cannot be injured by muggle means (look at the description of real wizards and witch burnings). 3) It has also been established (for example, Quidditch injuries, the fistfight with Draco in OOP), that wizards are vulnerable to normal physical injury if unprepared, although the injuries tend to be trivial to cure. 4) It's hard to concentrate when someone is whacking your head with a baseball bat (there is no canon to support this). 5) Magic generally requires concentration, although we have one occasion where a wand DID act on its own. So, here is my idea of how DD won the duel with Waldo: He used PHYSICAL means to disarm him. Bart From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 00:49:19 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:49:19 -0000 Subject: Elder Wand mastery (was Re: need help for all of my confuse!) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0708191235oc0df683ufb65c43738f573f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175842 --- elfundeb wrote: ... > > Debbie: > I think the rules can be made to work with the facts > we're given: > > 1. Gregorovitch was the legitimate master of the wand. > 2. Grindelwald became the master of the wand by > picking up the wand in Gregorovitch's workroom, and > then executing a Stunning Spell on Gregorovitch when > he burst into the workroom; I believe that Grindelwald > pocketed the elder wand, and then deliberately waited > for Gregorovitch in the window in order to defeat him > properly .... > 3. Dumbledore became master by defeating Grindelwald > in a duel. If, as the tale says, the elder wand must > always win duels for its owner, then Grindelwald must > not have been using the elder wand when he was > defeated. ... > 4. Draco took the wand from Dumbledore by force. > Dumbledore did not permit Draco to take it (otherwise > Draco could not be said to have captured it and would > not be recognized as master). However, Draco > executed the spell while Dumbledore was busy > immobilising Harry. Draco took advantage of this > opportunity, making the wand rightfully his. > > And the rest is history. > bboyminn: I agree this is the most fair and reasonable interpretation of the information we have. But I will take one small exception to item number 3. I don't think the Elder Wand MUST ALWAYS win duels. I really don't think it is undefeatable under any circumstance. I think if you have the wand and are its Master, then you can cast extremely powerful spells that are near impossible to block, and you can cast Shield Charms that are near impossible to break through. But having superior weapons does not always guarantee victory, as Harry himself has proven countless times. But it sure does give you a powerful advantage in a fight. I think the undefeatable, always wins, aspect is part of the fairytale regarding the wand, and given the immense power that can be wielded by its master, it seems a likely legend to spring forth from rumors of Elder Wand duels. It creates a Wand and Master that are extremely difficult to defeat, but they are not unbeatable. That simply takes too much of a stretch of the imagination to make fit into the story. So, the Wand and Master are figuratively unbeatable, but not literally so. Other than that, I think you are presenting a pretty fair and reasonable interpretation of events. Steve/bboyminn From urghiggi at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 01:08:52 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:08:52 -0000 Subject: The Baby @ Kings Cross Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175843 -Bruce: > In Dante's Inferno, there is one place where Dante starts to feel sorry for the > souls in Hell. His Guide, Virgil, tells him, "Here either pity or piety must > die." Having taken her degree in Classical & Romance Languages, I am sure that > JKR knows her Dante quite well. > snip:> DD's words are chosen precisely. He doesn't say that we may, or should, or must > do nothing for the bit of Tom Riddle's soul, but that we cannot. That is, that > it is impossible for us to do anything for it. > Julie H: Oh, good on ya, Bruce, for coming up with that. I do understand lizzyben's criticism of what JKR has done here (she is not alone in this of course), but it seems to me that in the author's view, at least, the "baby" is the LV soul portion that survives (2/8 by this point). Harry's comment in the duel scene... the whole "try for some remorse ... I've seen what you'll be otherwise" ... I'd submit that's not just Harry's view but the author's as well. Notwithstanding that King's Cross is "Harry's Party" and "inside his head," the insistence that it is in some measure "real" must mean that the insights to be gained there are true, at least in Potterverse logic. The theology presumably shared by both Dante and JKR would assert that Harry actually cannot do anything about the state of LV's soul which he is (i presume) observing in the King's Cross scene. The soul is mangled and incomplete (6/8 of it is, after all, kaput), and only LV could do anything about that. (Now, whether this sociopath COULD actually do anything about it, given how he's painted, is of course an open question -- but either way, it's nothing Harry could fix. Again, within the Potterverse. Where, presumably, a Dantesque choice is presented -- where pity would actually offend piety, since the pious response would be to reflect on the ultimate justice to be meted out. (Whether this means that the justice is deserved because LV is an unrepentant sinner, or that the justice is deserved because LV, being not of the elect, could do no other, is another open question.) I don't think JKR is a Jungian; the other reading seems more obvious but (applying Occam's razor here) also seems the most likely. Which is not to say that , even in a purely calvinistic interpretation that does not involve this 'baby' being any part of Harry, there isn't a lot to argue about.... Julie H, chicago From cbmischief at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 00:59:05 2007 From: cbmischief at yahoo.com (Robin) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:59:05 -0000 Subject: Ron's Kids names Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175844 I'm brand new to the group, so maybe this has been covered before and I apologize for then bringing it up again. I don't understand where Ron and Hermione's kids' names come from. Rose and Hugo?? You would think that they would have at least named their son Fred! I suppose they don't HAVE to name them after dead loved ones like Harry and Ginny did, but.... Am I missing something? Are Hugo and Rose in previous books somewhere and I've just forgotten? Robin From cbmischief at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 01:03:14 2007 From: cbmischief at yahoo.com (Robin) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:03:14 -0000 Subject: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: <4B63CA4D-2FC7-4805-BF91-610619C9D13D@bubblefarm.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175845 > Lisa: > ... it turns out that they didn't have any magic powers; they > just looked like Lily's eyes. Robin: And they also make the point at the end that Harry's son Albus inherited Lily's eyes also. From juli17 at aol.com Mon Aug 20 01:46:23 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:46:23 EDT Subject: Why did Voldemort offer to spare Lily? (was: Reactions to Snape) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175846 Way back in early 2002 (Message #34801), Cindy Sphinx said: >> The Snape-Loves-Lily theory, on the other hand, says that Snape >> performs all of these heroic tasks and puts himself in harm's way >> for the stale memory of a relationship with a woman Snape never had. >> If that's true, then that makes Snape, well, kinda pitiful, no? And I responded: (Judy) > I prefer to think of it as a tragic and touching, not pitiful. Now that Snape "putting himself in harm's way for a relationship he never had" is actually canon, I still see it as tragic and touching. But boy, is it sad! I cried when Snape died looking into Harry's eyes. In fact, the only thing that made me feel better was imagining (as several others did here), that Snape "woke up" in the afterlife (in his equivalent of King's Cross station, perhaps) looking into Lily's eyes. We see that in the afterlife, everyone (except Voldemort) has at least some degree of physical healing. I'd like to think that Snape is healed emotionally, as well. (Who knows, maybe his hair is even clean.) Julie: The thing is, it isn't a "stale" memory of a relationship Snape never had, because they DID have a relationship, a close friendship, for 6-7 years, depending on when it started. So it's a memory of a real relationship, the most positive one in Snape's life, that Snape lost, first because of his own mistakes in judgment (choosing his budding-DE friendships over Lily's) and then because he unintentionally got her killed and lost her *forever.* So, yes it was tragic and sad, but I still don't see it as pitiful in any way, except perhaps n relation to Snape--not because he loved Lily and promised to keep her son alive to honor her memory, but that his guilt kept him from moving beyond it all and having any prospects of a normal life. Oh, and as for why Voldemort offered to spare Lily--whether he did or didn't promise Snape he would *try*, it cost him nothing to offer Lily her life. It also would have cost him nothing to simply stupefy her, and then release her once he'd taken care of Harry, but I can only assume he didn't do that because then there would be no plot about the Boy Who Lived and the grieving DE who turned and helped that boy defeat evil, thus no Harry Potter saga at all! Julie ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Aug 20 01:46:44 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:46:44 -0000 Subject: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175847 Robin wrote: > > I don't understand where Ron and Hermione's kids' names come from. > Rose and Hugo?? You would think that they would have at least named > their son Fred! > > I suppose they don't HAVE to name them after dead loved ones like Harry > and Ginny did, but.... > > Am I missing something? Are Hugo and Rose in previous books somewhere > and I've just forgotten? Potioncat: Rose and Hugo sort of jump out at you, don't they? (A lot like the twins, they are.) To some extent, JKR has provided names for characters who don't need names. She may have given them names just to make the scene warmer, but had no real reason behind them. Or it could be that: Harry, who has always wanted a family, has created a feeling of extended family by naming his kids after important people in his life. I imagine that Ginny, already surrounded by her siblings' growing families, doesn't need to use Weasley names. Ron has always hated getting hand-me-downs. Even his middle name belonged to someone else. So he gives his kids completely different names. Ones that don't come with any legacies. Assuming of course, Rose and Hugo aren't Hermione's parents' names. In an interview, JKR says that George named his son Fred. Potioncat, who wonders how many post-war wizarding boys are named Severus. From elfundeb at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 02:04:13 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:04:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Elder Wand mastery (was Re: need help for all of my confuse!) In-Reply-To: References: <80f25c3a0708191235oc0df683ufb65c43738f573f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708191904s43e010en2bf9e05ef92e6740@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175848 Julie H: Ah, well, sure. If we want to give Grindelwald a different wand, then the problem dissolves. But it's a pretty key point to be totally ignored in the text. Because the facts we're given are: a) Grindelwald "acquired" the Elder wand from Gregorevich; b) Grindelwald and Dumbledore had a very famous duel in which Dumbledore beat Grindelwald; and c) Dumbledore became master of the wand by virtue of that duel. If the wand's unbeatable in a duel, then there only seem to be a few choices -- Grindelwald wasn't really 'master' due to the manner of taking (despite the fact of his great power partially being attributed to his possession of the wand), or Dumbledore did something we can't possibly imagine to defeat him, outside the normal context of a duel, or, as you said, Grindelwald was not using that wand (though we're given no reason to think that he wouldn't be). (A fourth choice of course being Steve's hypothesis that the wand is, in actuality, NOT unbeatable.) Debbie: There are other possible explanations that are hinted at in the text. Elphias Doge implies that the Dumbledore-Grindelwald duel was an awesome spectacle between two spectacularly talented wizards. Rita Skeeter implies that the historic duel never took place at all and Grindelwald basically surrendered. Neither of these correspondents is reliable, but it suggests that the truth is somewhere in between. In King's Cross, Dumbledore says merely, "I won the duel. I won the wand." He also says he was not afraid magically of the confrontation, suggesting that either he knew that the wand was not unbeatable, or that his profession of greater skill meant that he could divert Grindelwald's focus from himself and take the wand that way (as Draco did on the Tower). The latter alternative would not be too different from Rita Skeeter's version. Interestingly, in the reading of the tale of the three brothers, the eldest asked for a wand that must always win duels for its owner. The power of the actual gift was not described, whereas Death specifically told the second brother what the stone would do. So maybe the wand was more powerful than any in existence, but would still not necessarily win duels against another wizard of greater skill. I see a number of alternatives that might work, so I'm less frustrated by the failure of JKR to spell it out, or for her editors to make her do so. Julie H: All LV says is he "feels no difference" -- which implies that he expected the wand to provide some sort of different sensory feedback than his own very powerful wand. Since the only real evidence of his mastery would seem to be ... that he would be unbeatable in a duel, and we know no one has beaten him at that point, with that wand or any other. But, you know, we don't have enough info to really surmise what sort of difference would be expected, beyond the obvious, so ... we're back to "complex and mysterious" again. I think his comment about the wand "not revealing the wonders it has promised" actually muddies the water in that it implies that he expected to SEE something different than with an ordinary wand (again, a performance proof). If she'd left that out, the "feels no difference" would probably have been a stronger statement, since there is a good bit in DH about how the wand feels to a wizard, a feeling of affinity. Debbie: I don't find this to be a problem. Voldemort was not particularly learned in wand lore, so he's listing the ways in which the elder wand has disappointed him. He expected to feel the power of the elder wand and he expected superior performance, which I take to mean stronger spells. He got neither, so he knew something was wrong, and correctly determined that he was not the master of the wand. Debbie wondering how psychopath Voldemort could feel an affinity for any wand [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Aug 20 02:25:45 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 02:25:45 -0000 Subject: How did Dumbledore Win the Duel? In-Reply-To: <46C8E311.5060608@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175849 -- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > 1) The holder of the Elder Wand cannot be beaten in a magical duel. > 2) It's been establshed that wizards, IF PROPERLY PREPARED, cannot be > injured by muggle means (look at the description of real wizards and > witch burnings). > 3) It has also been established (for example, Quidditch injuries, the > fistfight with Draco in OOP), that wizards are vulnerable to normal > physical injury if unprepared, although the injuries tend to be trivial > to cure. > 4) It's hard to concentrate when someone is whacking your head with a > baseball bat (there is no canon to support this). > 5) Magic generally requires concentration, although we have one occasion > where a wand DID act on its own. > > So, here is my idea of how DD won the duel with Waldo: He used PHYSICAL > means to disarm him. > > Bart > Perhaps DD used "wingardium leviosa" on a baseball bat and whacked Grindelwald on the head with it, a la Harry, Ron, and the troll in PS. :) Due to the fact that he was now unconscious, Grindelwald then DROPPED the Elder Wand, and Dumbledore accio'd it. Allie (who is American, but reads this forum frequently enough that it's automatic for her to call the first book Philosopher's Stone) From elfundeb at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 02:40:12 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:40:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Inferi (was Re: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708191940w7abe2efexf7bced1bd560fc6d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175850 Potioncat: > So what was up with all the talk about Inferi in HBP? Why did JKR give us that DADA lesson about Inferi? I thought it'd be very important for someone to know that the animated body wasn't the person at all. va32h: I wondered that too (why bother bringing up Inferi if she wasn't going to use them). Maybe she just had too many action packed escapes already. Despite the lengthy camping scenes, I really think DH has more action and dramatic escapades than any other book. Debbie: JKR used Inferi in HBP; they inhabit the lake in the cave. And I thought JKR used at least one Inferi in DH. As I read the text, Bathilda Bagshot was an Inferius, which Dumbledore defined in HBP as a dead body that has been bewitched to do a Dark Wizard's bidding." It gets a bit confusing when Nagini emerges from her neck, but I think the body collapsed at that point. Nagini appears to have been wrapped around the body and hidden under Bathilda's heavily muffled figure. Certainly Nagini wasn't doing the walking around Godric's Hollow. At least that's how I read the scene. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 02:52:10 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 02:52:10 -0000 Subject: DADA Curse? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175851 > Judy: > We know that Voldemort put a curse on the DADA position, and JKR > said in an interview that the curse was broken when Voldemort died. Mike: Not directed at your comment, but I'm not paying much attaention to JKR's interviews, past, present, or future. She has been in the obfuscation and deflection mode for so long that she can't seem to allow herself to reveal the full truth and/or be bothered to review her notes for the logical answers. Maybe in the future, if JKR ever publishes that encyclopedia of backstories, she'll start giving us thought out answers with reasonable basis. > Judy: > What I find interesting is that in the seven books, most of the > people who fall victim to the curse are in fact Voldemort > supporters (or in the case of Snape, someone whom Voldemort > *believed* to be his supporter.) > > We have four Death Eaters/Voldemort supporters who fall victim to > the curse: > > > So, does that mean Voldemort wasn't able to lift the curse even > when he wanted to? Mike: Let's see: 1) Quirrell - couldn't lift it, he couldn't use a wand 2) Barty Jr - only expected him to be there for the year. He certainly wasn't planning to bequeath Jr to continue as DADA prof as some consolation prize. 3) Snape - again, a one year plan, And probably a one year plan fifteen years previous for the same reason. Killing DD was probably always in Voldemort's cards for Snape. 4) Carrow - expendable. Besides, if all went according to plan the first DA part of DADA was going to be eliminated. So Carrow *could* have continued teaching a new subject, like Snape could stay with a new position. I don't think he wanted to lift the curse for any of these. But it's entirely possible that he couldn't either. Afterall, Dumbledore knew about it, had around 50 years to work on it and never managed to eliminate it. You would have thought a wizard with his prowess could have. > Judy: > If so, what was he planning to do if he had won the war and kept > control of Hogwarts? Mike: Keep putting his screw up DEs in the position as a form of punishment. Thereby using their ineptitude as case studies to get government grants to continue studying the mystery of the DADA curse. Voldemort would've become a bureaucrat by then, and that's what bureaucrats do. > --JudySerenity, wondering if Stan Shunpike would have eventually > gotten the job Mike, thinking Stan would be the first case study ;) From judy at judyshapiro.com Mon Aug 20 03:00:17 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 03:00:17 -0000 Subject: The Afterlife (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175852 Adam (Prep0strus) proposed a lot of ideas about the afterlife in the Potterverse, and asked how these different forms of the afterlife fit together. Before I respond, let me first say that for someone who claims she will never bring a character back to life, JKR seems to have an awful lot of forms of life-after-death. Ok, here are my comments on these various forms of afterlife: Ghosts -- these seem to me to BE the actual person, except the person is now devoid of a body, and thus can not eat and do other physical things. Ghosts seem very much stuck in the situation they were in when they died (perhaps with the exception of the Fat Friar, who seems happy rather than stuck.) As I said previously, I would really like to have seen at least one ghost "move on." (And, if ghosts can never move on, Hogwarts is going to get quite crowded with them over time.) The Resurrection Stone: This seems to summon something almost exactly like a ghost, except that the person summoned HAS moved on, and therefore may appear in a healed form that a ghost would not have. I would assume that you can not use the Resurrection Stone to summon someone who is already a ghost; instead you would just go talk to the ghost. It's unclear to me why, in the "Three Brothers" story, the woman who was summoned back was unhappy, but Harry's loved ones are not unhappy. Perhaps the woman in the story was unhappy because she had been summoned back for a less noble reason, or because she wasn't just summoned back briefly, as were Harry's loved ones? The Wand Regurgitation from GoF: JKR has said that these were "echos" of the people killed. My interpretation is that these were not souls, but that rather the wand had a sort of memory of each person it had killed. Therefore, when the wand regurgitated its spells, the "echos" acted as the original people had. However, like an echo, these "regurgitations" faded away very quickly; that's what I see as the reason they drifted away. I would expect that there would be no real connection between these echos and the actual souls in the afterlife, just as a recording of a voice has no real connection with the person whose voice was recorded. Therefore, when Harry summoned his parents with Resurrection Stone, I would not expect them to remember seeing him in the graveyard three years earlier. The Diary Horcrux: This had so much of Voldemort (his memories and a piece of his soul), that I would expect it to become a real person if Ginny had died and Tom had fully escaped from the Diary. However, I don't see this version of Tom Riddle then going on to compete with Voldemort. Instead, I would expect it and Vapor!Mort to merge. (I think JKR said something that led me to believe that this merger would happen, but I don't remember what.) I do not think this would repair Voldemort's soul, however. Instead, his soul would still be fragmented, just both fragments would be in the same body. Other Horcruxes: These seem to have personalities, as we saw when the Locket taunted Ron. However, I'm not sure they contain the same amount of information as the Diary, so I don't know if they could turn into a real person the way Diary!Riddle almost did. Portraits and Photos: Now, the ways these are presented just don't seem consistent to me. At first, I thought wizarding photos were just like a silent movie ? they showed the movement that the subjects of the picture showed at the time that the photo was taken, but didn't have any feelings, intelligence, etc. And, most of the time, photos are presented that way. When Hagrid gets a photo album of pictures for Harry, the pictures of Harry's parents wave, as James & Lily were presumably doing when the pictures were taken, but don't point to Harry, mouth "we love you", hold out their arms to him, cry, or do anything else that you'd expect parents to do upon seeing their child for the first time in a decade. On the other hand, there are times when photos act like they have feelings (Percy's girlfriend's photo tries to hide behind the frame when she gets damaged by water), or even interact with the real world (the people in the photo of the Order move along when Moody tells them "Budge up.") I can't come up with a consistent theory of photos from this. Portraits have similar problems. There were actually a lot of arguments, back before Book 5 came out, about whether the portrait of the Fat Lady had feelings and suffered when Sirius slashed her picture. JKR implied, sometime around then, that the portraits didn't have feelings. So, I assumed that portraits were like very simple computer simulations ? they acted similar to how the person acted during life, could answer questions about at least some things that the person knew during life, and could even move simple messages from place to place, but didn't have thoughts or feelings, nor contain any of the actual person's soul. I assumed that portraits would have little or no ability to adapt to how the world had changed since their deaths. But in Book 7, we see Dumbledore's portrait weighing information, making decisions, and giving advice (or even orders.) The portrait seemed almost like a two-dimensional Dumbledore, acquiring new information and responding to it. And, Adam, I agree completely that if portraits could do this, you'd expect everyone to want a portrait of every person they ever cared about, and Harry would have a whole portrait gallery by now. (I liked your "I'll always be with you ... in the den" line!) So, I can't come up with a workable theory of portraits, either. I see ghosts, people summoned by the Resurrection Stone, and Horcruxes to contain souls (or soul pieces, in the case of Horcruxes.) Therefore, I would expect that a person could not have two or more of these forms at the same time. Photos, portraits, and wand "echos" I see as not containing any part of the person's soul. So, a ghost could talk to his own portrait, if he wanted to, for example. --JudySerenity, knowing that she is speculating here. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 03:13:55 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 03:13:55 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175853 > > Alla: > > > > It does not look to me that Snape gives a fig about them dying, > > personally and he disgusts me in that scene just as much as > > Dumbledore. > > > > And even when he asks to hide them all, he says to keep her safe. > > > > > > I remember so many preDH arguments that Snape came to Dumbledore > > because he could not bear to see Voldemort killing the baby. > > > > > > Looks like he could bear it quite well to me. > > > > Mim: > > Like Dumbledore is some paragon if virtue himself and he should have > any business making moral judgments on others... Alla: Oh, I don't know - I thought Dumbledore's judgment on Snape was spot on. Mim: > And for the last time, yes, Snape didn't give a damn about James and > Harry. I know that, I'm ok with that as a Snapefan. Alla: Okay. Mim: I don't know who > said that he turned because he couldn't bear the thought of a baby > dying. That's ridiculous. Alla: Not you. But people speculated AFAIR that Snape's conversion pretty much depended on the fact that Snape did not realise that baby would be killed as a result of Snape giving the prophecy and when it became too real for him, he felt all that remorse and came to Dumbledore. Which was totally valid speculation of course at the time, nothing wrong with it. I am just amused that it turned out to be so opposite. Mim: If he couldn't bear the thought of a baby > dying he wouldn't have given the Prophecy to Voldemort in the first > place. Alla: Yes indeed on that we agree completely. > colebiancardi here: > > uhhhh....I had written prior to DH's release and I don't believe that > many people chimed in on it, that perhaps the reason why Snape turned > was that he didn't *know* that the prophecy was intended for a > harmless, unprotected baby. Alla: Right, as I said I see nothing wrong with this theory, except that I think that it turning out incorrect shows Snape's moral code being not very , well moral at the time at least. And hey, I was majorly wrong on Snape's loyalty :), we all were wrong on something. > colebiancardi: After DH's came out, I still believe that > the LILY!Snape reason is trite and crud and ridiculous, but hey, that > is just my opinion. Alla: Let me put it this way - the way it was done, I certainly do not give Snape's much respect for his deflection and his reasons. EWWWW. BUT after reread I do see that he changed a bit over the time, sure and began to give a damn about saving people, not using the word mudblood, saving Lupin, etc. But I do not see any ethical Snape, who initially turns at all and as I said I totally side with Dumbledore - Snape who came to him disgusts me a great deal. But even somebody who still dislikes Snape's immensely, I do see him change **some** over the years, but not in regards to Harry, no way. IMO of course. From random832 at fastmail.us Mon Aug 20 02:24:42 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:24:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DADA Curse? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C8FB6A.8080907@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 175854 Judy wrote: > We know that Voldemort put a curse on the DADA position, and JKR said > in an interview that the curse was broken when Voldemort died. > > What I find interesting is that in the seven books, most of the > people who fall victim to the curse are in fact Voldemort supporters > (or in the case of Snape, someone whom Voldemort *believed* to be his > supporter.) > > We have four Death Eaters/Voldemort supporters who fall victim to the > curse: > Book 1: Quirrel - Dies after Voldemort stopped possessing him. May > not have had a Dark Mark, but certainly a Voldemort supporter. > Book 2: Lockhart - brain fried after trying to fry Ron and Harry's brains Book 3: Lupin - driven from post after it became known that he was a werewolf (you can't count Snape without counting Lupin, they _both_ got it easy.) > Book 4: Barty Crouch, Jr - Soul sucked. Death Eater and according to > Voldemort, his "most faithful servant." > Book 4: Moody Book 5: Umbridge - unspecified incident with Centaurs. > Book 6: Snape - Fled. Former Death Eater; belived by Voldemort to be > loyal at the time he held & lost the DADA post. > and subsequently became headmaster. > Book 7: Carrow - Captured prior to Voldemort's death & last seen > trussed up in the Ravenclaw common room; presumably sent to Azkaban. > Death Eater. > > So, from what we've seen, most of the victims of the DADA curse were > actually people whom Voldemort believed to be on his side. That's because a narrow majority of DADA teachers (not counting Moody, who I think was also a victim) in the seven years we've seen, all of whom fell victim to the curse with no exceptions, have fit those criteria. -- Random832 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 04:19:09 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:19:09 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request/Ungrateful Werewolf/Sorting and Snape/Dumbledore Duel Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175855 Fifth post today, so I shall attempt to emulate Catlady's inimitable style with responses to Lanval, Sarah, Magpie, and Bart. Lanval wrote in: Re: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: Snape/Dumbledore thingummy) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175810 > Not too ambiguous, is it? > This, I believe goes for all the short Pensieve vignettes. They are meant to clear things up, to give crucial information that had been lacking -- not to provide red herrings, steer the reader off the trail, confuse, raise doubts, whatever. zgirnius: It is all crystal clear and open to only one interpretation? I don't find them so at all. They are meant to clear big picture things up, and they do. Snape loved Lily, he was a true Death Eater, later he was loyal to Dumbledore and killed him on his orders, Harry has to go die. The business of George's ear and the sword is explained. (Personally, I don't see what the function of excusing the ear bit is in the larger story. Dumbledore told Snape to play the part in the raid, it could have been left at that, though I am so grateful it was cleared up, because it really ran counter to my ideas about Snape and was a big source of doubt while reading the book). What is being discussed (about why he turned and what he cared about, and to what extent that changed by the end of the series) is finer detail of Snape's character and relationships as they come across in the text. I think it is clear that Rowling was attempting a bit of that as well. (That cutting off George's ear was shown not to be a Machiavellian act to help Snape's cover, but a rescue attempt for Lupin, surely says something). But that's less crucial to her project, and also far more subjective. Someone who came into the book thinking the worst of Sev may need more along those lines than someone who came in with a rosier view of the guy. Finally, the scenes are still, also, a work of art. It does not (to me, anyway) read like an infodump, since I find it the single most beautiful chapter in the series. The dialogue and interactions are carefully presented and convincing, we see evolution in how Snape is presented (he was rather inarticulate as a boy and young man), Dumbledore's relationship with him changed, etc. Something like that is going to be ambiguous. OK, examples in the second scene, by your rules (all that is said is true), we learn that Snape had no prejudice against Muggleborns personally, and even, lived blissfully unaware that such a thing as blood prejudice existed in the Potterverse, before he came to Hogwarts. After all, he tells Lily that it makes no difference. Of course, if we start thinking what his hesitation, followed by his eager look at her, mean, we might draw a different conclusion. In that same scene, we learn that things are fine at the Snape house. Snape says so. The leaves? Snape must just like playing with them. And Snape did not drop a branch on Tuney, accidentally or otherwise, it was a remarkable coincidence. Oh wait, the narrator calls that a lie. But we should not consider the possibility that anything else is, I guess. The discussion about whether Snape trusted Voldemort happening on another thread is a waste of time ? Dumbledore says he did in their second meeting, so that's it. (Care to enlighten the posters on that thread why, then, Snape seemed to desperate to obtain Dumbledore's protection for Lily in the first meeting?) > Lanval: > The story is almost over, here's what *really* happened. If Snape anwers DD's question whether he has come to care for Harry with a cry of "For *him*?", and produces the doe patronus, to which DD replies, "After all this time?", then that's exactly what it means. Snape only cared for Lily, and not for Harry. zgirnius: That scene, by the way, has a very interesting omission, which I noticed yesterday night. Snape does not agree to the plan. Not in that scene, not in any other scene. I wonder what that means. Seems like a really big thing to leave open if we are supposed to have all our answers maybe she just forgot. I do wonder when he decided he would play along, and why. > Sarah wrote in: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175832 Which category S&J fall into is less clear. > I tend to think that they were *sometimes* bullies and *sometimes* "fun pranksters." I note that McGonagall--who I suspect has very little tolerance for bullying--fondly recalls S&J as likeable and talented troublemakers (like F&G). zgirnius: Hmm. That's not how I would characterize her discussion of her memories of that group. It comes up only once, in PoA, and she does not sound all that fond, and uses negative terms to describe them, except for their talent. (They must have been truly *outstanding* in her class, Transfiguration, given their Animagus accomplishments.) > PoA: > "The worst?" said Madam Rosmerta, her voice alive with curiosity, "Worse than murdering all those poor people, you mean?" > "I certainly do," said Fudge. > "I ca'A believe that. What could possibly be worse?" "You say you remember him at Hogwarts, Rosmerta," mur- mured Professor McGonagall. "Do you remember who his-best friend was?" > "Naturally," said Madam Rosmerta, with a small laugh. "Never saw one without the other, did you? The number of times I had them in here -- ooh, they used to make me laugh. Quite the double act, Sirius Black and James Potter!" > Harry dropped his tankard with a loud clunk. Ron kicked him. > "Precisely," said Professor McGonagall. "Black and Potter. Ringleaders of their little gang. Both very bright, of course -- exceptionally bright, in fact -- but I don't think we've ever had such a pair of troublemakers --" > "I dunno," chuckled Hagrid. "Fred and George Weasley could give 'em a run fer their money." zgirnius: She calls them ringleaders of their gang, and troublemakers. There is no `stage direction' softening her statement, either. (No fond smile, no adverb modifying `said', no twinkle in her eye, etc.) Hagrid and Rosmerta clearly remember them fondly, as they definitely express fondness and amusement at their antics. I would say you are free to interpret her as fond if that is your preference, but she could have said exactly the same thing of bullies who grew up to be in the Order . And I am free to think the latter. Rowling does a thing in her writing, with having several characters give an impression, and not having any flat contradiction, to hide stuff. SWM was supposed to be a shock, because while PoA introduced the idea the Marauders may have bullied Snape, an awful lot of that was presented by Snape and the Marauders themselves, and Snape definitely looked worse to a lot of readers, so why believe him? (It worked on me !) If this was intended as corroboration of sorts, adding Rosmerta and Hagrid's positive statements hides it nicely. > Sarah: > Well, yes, but the fact remains that he invented the "Levicorpus" spell and it gained quite a lot of popularity during MWPP/S' time at Hogwarts. Surely Snape must have *used* this spell (probably more than one time) for it to catch on, as it were. zgirnius: And Harry used it on Ron, which both considered good fun. Perhaps Snape amused his dormmates in like manner, and *they* used it elsewhere, making it all the vogue . We really don't know. I find Lily's complaint in fifth year about nasty hexing/cursing by Mulciber, and comments about her future husband the toerag, suggestive of the idea that Snape was not, in fact, doing much of this sort of thing at all. If he were, would Lily not have complained about that? > Magpie wrote in: Re: Of Sorting and Snape http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175838 > His walk to his own destruction (DD's plan) doesn't seem all that Slytherin to me. It's courage. And he's faced his own destruction before, also with courage. zgirnius: Well, yes, courage is the Gryffindor quality. But the biggest symbol of that courage is the Sword of Gryffindor, the tool of a warrior. When James expresses his enthusiasm for that house, he mimes brandishing a sword. While courage can take many forms, what seems to be the `typical' idea of Gryffindor courage is a specific sort of courage, valor, boldness, daring, something like that. A hot-blooded sort of courage. The walk into the Forest did not require courage of that sort. It was a cold-blooded action. (Sorry, alchemy/elements ignoramus here, but it seems to me that's more Slytherinish and watery, right?) Further, two prominent characters display this `type' of courage in DH and Harry hears of it (in Regulus's case) and sees it (in Snape's case ? yes, Snape did not know he would be dying when he entered the Shack, but the death Harry sees is something that was always a possibility whenever Snape came into Voldemort's presence, and he's been doing it for years). Magpie: He treats his inferiors okay. zgirnius: On a purely formal level, as in Harry's view Snape is probably the bravest man Harry ever knew, Harry acknowledges him as at least an equal in this one regard. Personally, I doubt he regards Regulus Black as an inferior either. They are both dead, of course, and I get that this disappoints you (not the specific characters, the lack of a living Slytherin Harry must respect in this way). But you are presuming that he would still reflexively assume, upon encountering a Slytherin not already known to him, that the Slytherin is an inferior. Whereas it seems to me that the respect Harry demonstrates for both of the dead Slytherins in question shows that he would not. > Bart wrote in: How did Dumbledore Win the Duel? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175841 Bart: > So, here is my idea of how DD won the duel with Waldo: He used PHYSICAL means to disarm him. zgirnius: Not at all an unreasonable suggestion. It is how Harry became Master of the Elder Wand, after all! Though it was Draco's own wand he wrested from Draco's hand by main force. This action was enough to win him Draco's wand's allegiance, proving Muggle means can be used to win the allegiance of *a* wand, and therefore, of the Elder Wand. From juli17 at aol.com Mon Aug 20 06:21:11 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:21:11 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories (Re: Snape's request...etc) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175856 > > > Lanval: > > The story is almost over, here's what *really* happened. If Snape > anwers DD's question whether he has come to care for Harry with a cry > of "For *him*?", and produces the doe patronus, to which DD > replies, "After all this time?", then that's exactly what it means. > Snape only cared for Lily, and not for Harry. > > zgirnius: > That scene, by the way, has a very interesting omission, which I > noticed yesterday night. Snape does not agree to the plan. Not in > that scene, not in any other scene. I wonder what that means. Seems > like a really big thing to leave open if we are supposed to have all > our answers maybe she just forgot. > > I do wonder when he decided he would play along, and why. Julie: Funny you ask that, because I was just thinking today, "How does Dumbledore's "Severus...please..." on the Tower fit into Snape's Pensieve memories?" We get the impression Snape has agreed to the plan, and he has promised to kill Dumbledore when the time comes. Dumbledore seems to take that promise as a certainty ("You gave me your word, Severus") but he does at the final moment pressure--or encourage--Snape to go through with the promise. I think once Snape committed this act, he committed himself finishing the plan, even though the plan had "changed" from what he had always thought it was (saving Harry and preparing him to defeat Voldemort) to sacrificing Harry to destroy Voldemort/ save the WW. Which does make me wonder about Snape's look of hatred and disgust when he killed Dumbledore. I'm sure the look reflected in part his feeling Dumbledore at that moment, who'd extracted a promise out of him to do something he didn't want to do, and in part his own self-disgust (so reminiscent of Harry's self-disgust at forcing the cave potion down Dumbledore's throat). But I think this look also reflected Snape's feelings about the plan in its *totality*, both disgust with Dumbledore for setting up Harry (and Snape), and with himself for now committing to this plan which would undo what he'd worked toward, his only focus for 16 years (saving Harry). Rather ironic I think that it is in this moment, when Snape KILLS Dumbledore, that he proves himself truly Dumbledore's Man rather than merely Lily's Man. I.e. he decides to do what is *right*-or what is best for the WW and everyone in it-rather than what easier (to serve his own self-interest by following his long-held vow to keep Lily Potter's son safe in proof of his love and remorse.) On another point, I don't believe young Snape, when he first came to Dumbledore begging for Lily to be saved, ever said or implied that he *wanted* Harry or even James to die. It was Dumbledore who said "Could you not ask for mercy for the mother, in exchange for the son?" and Snape replied "I have--I have asked him--" At which point Dumbledore says "You disgust me" and notes that Snape doesn't care about the lives of the father and son, that they can die as long as Snape gets what he wants (Lily spared). It's a small difference, but it is a difference. Snape did not say he offered up Harry (or James) in "exchange" for Lily's life. It wouldn't even make sense for him to do so, because Voldemort is already determined to kill Harry anyway, believing he's a threat. So there is no choice of "one or the other." The best Snape can do is beg Voldemort to spare Lily. Which is surely what Snape meant when he said "I have--I have asked him--." (Though, yes, if Voldemort gave him a choice, Snape surely would have been willing to sacrifice Harry for Lily, which was the implication in Dumbledore's words). Finally, what are everyone's thoughts on when Snape began teaching at Hogwarts? I've always assumed it was at the beginning of the term, in September (and the Potters died the following month, on October 31). But that timeline doesn't seem clear in the Prince's Tale chapter. While Dumbledore does ask Snape "What will you give me in return, Severus?" to which Snape replies "Anything", we then get a fade out to Snape in Dumbledore's office after James and Lily have been killed. It is at this point that Dumbledore says "If you loved Lily Evans, if you truly loved her, then your way forward is clear...Help me protect Lily's son." On my first reading I was assuming Snape went back to Voldemort after the first conversation with Dumbledore, then became a teacher once he promised to help protect Lily's son. But now I wonder if the "What will you give me in return?" is a reference to Dumbledore turning Snape into *his* spy, and a double-agent (with Snape telling Voldemort he is spying "on" Dumbledore for him--and I think it's canon Voldemort wanted Snape to get a teaching position at Hogwarts for just that purpose). So Snape was already enscounced at Hogwarts when the Potters were killed, as has always seemed to be implied. Any other thoughts? Julie, thinking there are quite a few unspoken moments in those Pensieve memories, just as in real life... From judy at judyshapiro.com Mon Aug 20 06:40:22 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:40:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175857 Before I get to my main post, let me say Thank You, Sherry Gomes for your post (Message #175778) responding to my question about why people feel as they do about Snape. Wow, that teacher you had sounds awful! I'm glad that you found a better teacher later. OK, now on to my main topic -- Dumbledore saying that he is disgusted with Snape when Snape asks him to protect Lily. Alla quoted from DH: "If she means so much to you," said Dumbledore, "surely Lord Voldemort will spare her? Could you not ask for mercy for the mother, in exchange for the son? "I have - I have asked him" "You disgust me," said Dumbledore, and Harry had never heard so much contempt in his voice. Snape seemed to shrink a little. "You do not care, then, about the deaths of her husband and child? "They can die, as long as you have what you want?" Snape said nothing, but merely looked up at Dumbledore. "Hide them all, then," he croaked. "Keep her - them - safe. Please" - p.677 - 678 Alla said: > I read it as Snape indeed **wanting** Harry dead in exchange for > Lily. Ok, so it seems one reading of the above exchange is the following: Dumbledore says, "Snape, if you love Lily so much, couldn't you say to Voldemort that it's fine with you if he kills Harry, you'll let him kill Harry, if in exchange he'll let Lily live?" Snape says, "Yep, that's exactly what I told His Voldieness." Dumbledore responds, "That's disgusting." If that's really what's going on, then I agree, what Snape wants is disgusting, and it's OK for Dumbledore to say so. The thing is, though, I don't think such a reading fits at all. Snape did not bargain with Voldemort, he did not OFFER Harry to Voldemort in exchange for Lily. It's not like Snape will let Voldemort kill Harry if Lily is spared. Snape isn't in a position to bargain with Voldemort or to LET Voldemort do anything. Voldemort is far, far more powerful than Snape; he doesn't need Snape's permission to kill Harry, or anyone else for that matter. And, since Voldemort believes Harry is a threat, of course he's going to want him dead, and there's nothing at all Snape can do to stop that. (As Mim said, "Snape cannot ask for the son to be spared. He cannot because that's the whole point of the prophesy.") So, my interpretation of the phrase, "mercy for the mother, in exchange for the son" is that since Snape has ALREADY given Voldemort the prophecy (therefore telling him of the boy who may be able to defeat him), Snape could ask for Lily's life as his reward. So, I read the exchange between Snape and Dumbledore as: Dumbledore says, "Snape, if you love Lily so much, couldn't you remind Voldemort that you did him a great service by informing him of the risk that Harry poses, and ask him to let Harry's mother live as your reward?" Snape says, "Yep, that's exactly what I asked His Voldieness." Dumbledore responds, "That's disgusting." To me, there's a world of difference between these two readings. In the first reading, Snape will LET Voldemort kill Harry, if he gets what he wants. In the second reading, Snape CAN'T do anything to stop Voldemort from trying to kill Harry, all he can do is try to prevent the additional, senseless murder of Harry's mother. In the first reading, Dumbledore's disgust seems reasonable to me; in the second reading it doesn't. And,as I've said, I think reading this exchange as Snape LETTING Voldemort kill Harry doesn't fit, because Snape can't stop Voldemort from trying to kill Harry. Therefore, I don't think Dumbledore's disgust is justified. Next topic -- Dumbledore's demand that Snape *give him something* to save Lily, which strikes me as even more unreasonable. Mim said: > And then he manipulated Snape to > get him to promise to do anything. Snape didn't have to do anything > and whether Snape did anything for Dumbledore or not, Dumbledore > would have to help the Potters. He's supposed to be a good guy. Alla replied to Mim: > Snape did not have to do anything? Well of course not. He after all > already **did** something - he delivered prophecy to Voldemort. He > did not have to come to Dumbledore. I read Mim as saying, "Snape shouldn't have to do anything in order for Dumbledore to try to save the Potters. The Potters are on Dumbledore's side, therefore Dumbledore already has the responsibility to try to help them, regardless of whether Snape does what Dumbledore wants or not." I agree with Mim here. Suppose Snape had refused to do what Dumbledore wanted. Would Dumbledore have therefore done nothing to save the Potters? If so, YIKES! If Dumbledore would have tried to save them anyway, then he's definitely just manipulating Snape here. Anyway, Alla, at this point Snape HAS done something very important besides his evil act of telling Voldemort the Prophecy. He has performed the *good* act of giving Dumbledore vital information about how Voldemort has interpreted the Prophecy and what Voldemort plans to do. Don't you think that Voldemort would kill Snape if he found out that Snape had gone to Dumbledore with this information? Doesn't Snape's risking his life to give Dumbledore information count for *something* here? At any rate, even if I find a way to justify Dumbledore's treatment of Snape during the scene where Snape begs Dumbledore to help Lily, I still have a real problem with how cruel Dumbledore is to Snape when Snape learns of Lily's death. The most positive reading I can come up with is that Dumbledore is acting here; he is pretending to be cruel in order to manipulate Snape into helping save Harry. A while ago, Jen reponded to my disappointment with Dumbledore. Jen Reese said: > After a second reading and cutting Dumbledore back down to human > size from the almost Aslan-like creation I'd made of him in my > head - the > noble heir of Gryffindor, the tireless fighter of evil, the word of > Truth, sacrificing himself for the WW - once again his words seem > congruent with the ideals he holds, even after the discovery [snip new interpretation of Dumbledore] Jen, you made many good points in your post. Still, I felt the only way I could be even somewhat comfortable with Dumbledore's behaviors in Book 7 was by coming up with reevaluations for his actions. (For example, when he seems cruel to grief-stricken Snape, perhaps Dumbledore's real goal is to manipulate Snape into helping Harry.) This is the sort of thing that I meant when I said that I really had to dig to get even a slightly uplifting message from the books. Leah said: > On a somewhat related topic, I remain puzzled by the fact that DD > let Snape loose with the prophecy. Before HBP, my opinion was that > DD could not have known he was overheard on the night in question, > that the eavesdropper had been thrown out purely as an undesirable > by someone who didn't query further and that DD was only informed > of the overhearing later by, most likely, Snape. > That went by the board after HBP. > So why let Snape out into the night with a > prophecy that DD had had no chance to mull over. Would DD really > want to let a DE go with a piece of information that was > interesting to put it at its mildest? > And what responsibiliy does DD bear as a > consequence for the deaths of James and Lily. I was just thinking about this yesterday, and I believe it is yet another of JKR's inconsistencies. In OoP, Dumbledore says the Prophecy was overheard, but the eavesdropper was detected partway into the Prophecy and thrown from the building. The way I pictured it, Aberforth threw Snape out halfway through the Prophecy, and Snape went straightaway to Voldemort. Aberforth then told Albus about the eavesdropping after the Prophecy had been completed, either naming Snape as the eavesdropper, or describing him so that Albus knew who it was. (Which would have been easy, since Albus was expecting Snape to be there for a job interview.) Reviewing his memories in the Pensieve could have told Albus exactly how much had been overheard, since he might have been able to hear Aberforth confronting Snape. In HBP, though, we learn that Trelawney was aware of Snape's eavesdropping, and that she knew Albus was aware of it as well. Since she was in a trance during the Prophecy itself, that seems to imply a confrontation between Albus and Snape, in Trelawney's presence, immediately after the Prophecy had been told. In that case, why doesn't Albus wipe Snape's memories? The only answer I can think of here is the one Potioncat suggested, that Dumbledore deliberately let Snape go, presumably so that Voldemort would go after the Potters and cause the Prophecy to take effect. Still, even if Dumbledore were cold and calculating enough that he would want Voldemort to target the Potters, how would Dumbledore know that Voldemort would end up with his own curse rebounding on him? The whole thing about Trelawney *knowing* that Snape heard the Prophecy seems like a plothole to me. Ok, let me append a few comments about Lily here. I said: > Lily, who is presented as practically a saint, isn't much better [than Dumbledore]. > I've wondered ever since Book 5 whether Snape ever apologized for > calling her a Mudblood. I never would have dreamed that he did > apologize and in response Lily slammed the door in his face, but > that's pretty much how it happened. Pippin replied: > It wasn't just about her. It was about him using Mudblood to others > of her blood. He didn't apologize for that or for lending his > support to others who did. His tragedy was that he > didn't yet see why he should. I agree completely that Snape's infraction here was not just calling *Lily* a mudblood, it was using the term at all. However, after Lily points that out to Snape, she turns her back and leaves, with Snape "struggling on the verge of speech." It seems to me that Snape might have acknowledged how wrong he had been to use "mudblood" at all, if Lily had let him. Lily missed an opportunity to get Snape to realize that it was wrong to use that term for anyone, for him to grow and see the error of his ways. Yes, it is asking a lot of the character of Lily, who is only 16, to get over her anger at Snape, who has offended her. But, I think it is reasonable to ask this of Lily, because we are supposed to see Lily as being far superior, morally, to Snape. (When asked in an interview if Lily had ever been a Death Eater -- as Snape had been -- JKR said, "How dare you!") Refusing to forgive, walking away as Snape tries to apologize, strikes me as mean and vindictive, which adds to my impression of the books as not promoting forgiveness. -- JudySerenity, whose husband suggested that when Dumbledore said to Snape, "You disgust me," Dumbledore was actually refering to Snape's *hair*. From judy at judyshapiro.com Mon Aug 20 06:53:01 2007 From: judy at judyshapiro.com (Judy) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:53:01 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175858 I thought I had posted this response to Lupinlore days ago, but I just searched for the post and it doesn't seem to be here. So, I'm trying again. Lupinlore: > the venomous, bile-filled > man was killed by literal venom, thus ending his physical life in > much the same way he had ended his emotional life. The potions > master, and presumably master of poisons, was killed by poison. > The man who spent so much time showing favoritism to the House of > the Snake was killed by a snake. The spinner of webs was caught > in a trap that he evidently did not see coming (i.e. he seemed to > know nothing about the Elder Wand). The sarcastic, cruel voice he > used to torment his students is silenced by the symbol of his own > house. The man who loved the Dark Arts was slain by the Dark Arts. > The man who has abused Harry for years must rely on Harry for one > last glimpse of the woman he "loved." And Severus Snape, who brooded > and nursed his bitterness about the Prank for twenty years, ends up > dead on the floor of the Shrieking Shack after all. This post strikes me as very strange because on the one hand it seems to be saying that Snape is an awful person because he was vengeful and vindictive, yet it also seems to say that revenge against Snape is a good thing. Lupinlore, do you think revenge is bad, or don't you? I don't think Snape was killed by poison. His death scene repeatedly refers to his losing blood; there's nothing about poison. (Nagini may have poison that causes anti-coagulation, but it would be pretty hard to survive huge fang wounds to the neck even without that, and anti- coagulation poisons don't usually kill so fast.) As for Snape not knowing about the Elder Wand, I actually think he DID know about the Elder Wand. It would be strange if Dumbledore intended for him to take possession of it, and yet never told him about it. I didn't find it the least bit ironic or surprising that it was Voldemort, symbol of the Dark Arts, who killed Snape. As a believer in DDM!Snape, I felt all along that Snape was in great danger from Voldemort. Snape is written as knowing that he was constantly risking danger from Voldemort, too -- he mentions this at least twice to Dumbledore. I would also say that Snape was only killed by Voldemort because Snape was loyal to Dumbledore. True, Voldemort didn't know Snape was Dumbledore's Man; Voldemort killed Snape because Snape had killed Dumbledore, making Voldemort think Snape was master of the Elder Wand. But, if Snape hadn't been Dumbledore's man, Snape *wouldn't* have killed Dumbledore; Snapefan thought I am, I don't think Snape had the ability to kill Dumbledore unless Dumbledore wanted him to. It was Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore that resulted in Dumbledore's death, and therefore Snape's own death at the hands ? er, fangs ? of Nagini. So, I don't see Snape's death by Voldemort, by the Dark Arts, by a snake as being some sort of karmic justice at all. I see it as a willing sacrifice by Snape, as something he's knowingly risked ever since he tried to save Lily. As for Snape's dying in the Shrieking Shack, I do think JKR was deliberately echoing the Prank. She even had Snape die by an animal bite, the same as if James hadn't saved him. But Snape never wanted to have a life debt to James. This way, he dies trying to help James' son, and he dies the same way that he would have died if James had never intervened. I think Snape would have liked that: Debt Paid in Full. As a reader, I wish Snape's death had been "bangier," more dramatic, and that we were shown more of his motivations (and what become of his body.) But if I were Snape, bleeding to death in that shack, I think I would have been pleased, knowing that all was going according to plan (Nagini was under protection), I had just completed my mission and given the information to Harry, and I had gotten to be DADA professor, and Hogwarts Headmaster to boot. Frankly, I think that ever since Lily died, Snape had felt that life was a burden. He meant it when he told Dumbledore that he wished he were dead. He only hung around to complete his mission. I don't think he minded dying. -- JudySerenity, who sees a bunch of other posts she would like to repond to, but is out of both posts for the day, and time. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 20 06:56:41 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:56:41 -0000 Subject: The Afterlife (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175859 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > The Resurrection Stone: This seems to summon something almost > exactly like a ghost, except that the person summoned HAS moved on, > and therefore may appear in a healed form that a ghost would not > have. I would assume that you can not use the Resurrection Stone to > summon someone who is already a ghost; instead you would just go talk > to the ghost. It's unclear to me why, in the "Three Brothers" story, > the woman who was summoned back was unhappy, but Harry's loved ones > are not unhappy. Perhaps the woman in the story was unhappy because > she had been summoned back for a less noble reason, or because she > wasn't just summoned back briefly, as were Harry's loved ones? Geoff: I think that your ideas are part of the answer. The second brother was acting out of selfishness and also arrogance: 'Then the second brother, who was an arrogant man, decided that he wanted to humiliate Death even further and asked for the power to recall others from Death.' (DH "The Tale of the Three Brothers" p.331 UK edition) 'Meanwhile, the second brother journeyed to his own home, where he lived alone. Here, he took out the stone that had the power to recall the dead and turned it thrice in his hand. To his amazement and his delight, the figure of the girl he had once hoped to marry before her untimely death appeared at once before him. Yet she was sad and cold, separated from him as by a veil. Though she had returned to the mortal world, she did not truly belong there and suffered.' (ibid. p.332) Compare this with Harry's experience: 'And, again, Harry understood without having to think. It id not matter about bringing hem back for he was about to join them. He was not really fetching them, they were fetching him. He closed his eyes and turned the stone over in his hand three times.' (DH "The Forest Again" p.560 UK edition) Harry was not trying to drag his loved ones back to selfishly hold them in the mortal world. He was seeking company for what he thought would be his last journey and his last hours in the mortal world. It was a brief reunion before "shuffling off this mortal coil" and promised better things to come. So they came willingly and warmly to encourage and accompany Harry through this as he "screwed his courage to the sticking point". For me, as I believe it is also for many other readers, this is one of the crowning and pivotal moments of the whole HP series. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Mon Aug 20 07:29:22 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 03:29:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: <786936.99330.qm@web86203.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <786936.99330.qm@web86203.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C9B112F6529641-B74-378@MBLK-M16.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175860 Irene: All in all, I think it's very clear that JKR wrote the scene in such a way that allows Snape haters to enjoy it greatly. Sandy: I can;t believe I'm getting involved in a Snape discussion - groan! Even though Snape is dead, he refuses to die on this list. But I just have to jump in on this. I hated Snape. I had been converted to DDM!Snape, but I still hated him. However, I did not enjoy his death as it was written. Frankly, I had no desire for him to die, but? I knew he would. I expected him to die showing his true loyalties in the heat of battle, possibly protecting Harry. I certainly didn't expect him to be killed by that damned snake over a wand that he didn't even possess. I thought his death was horrifying and it nearly brought me to tears. And I HATED him. Nope, I didn't enjoy it at all. Sandy ? ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From p_yanna at hotmail.com Mon Aug 20 07:29:19 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:29:19 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175861 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > > > > Leah said: > > On a somewhat related topic, I remain puzzled by the fact that DD > > let Snape loose with the prophecy. Before HBP, my opinion was that > > DD could not have known he was overheard on the night in question, > > that the eavesdropper had been thrown out purely as an undesirable > > by someone who didn't query further and that DD was only informed > > of the overhearing later by, most likely, Snape. > > That went by the board after HBP. > > So why let Snape out into the night with a > > prophecy that DD had had no chance to mull over. Would DD really > > want to let a DE go with a piece of information that was > > interesting to put it at its mildest? > > And what responsibiliy does DD bear as a > > consequence for the deaths of James and Lily. > > I was just thinking about this yesterday, and I believe it is yet > another of JKR's inconsistencies. > > In OoP, Dumbledore says the Prophecy was overheard, but the > eavesdropper was detected partway into the Prophecy and thrown from > the building. The way I pictured it, Aberforth threw Snape out > halfway through the Prophecy, and Snape went straightaway to > Voldemort. Aberforth then told Albus about the eavesdropping after > the Prophecy had been completed, either naming Snape as the > eavesdropper, or describing him so that Albus knew who it was. (Which > would have been easy, since Albus was expecting Snape to be there > for a job interview.) Reviewing his memories in the Pensieve could > have told Albus exactly how much had been overheard, since he might > have been able to hear Aberforth confronting Snape. > > In HBP, though, we learn that Trelawney was aware of Snape's > eavesdropping, and that she knew Albus was aware of it as well. Since > she was in a trance during the Prophecy itself, that seems to imply a > confrontation between Albus and Snape, in Trelawney's presence, > immediately after the Prophecy had been told. In that case, why > doesn't Albus wipe Snape's memories? > > The only answer I can think of here is the one Potioncat suggested, > that Dumbledore deliberately let Snape go, presumably so that > Voldemort would go after the Potters and cause the Prophecy to take > effect. Still, even if Dumbledore were cold and calculating enough > that he would want Voldemort to target the Potters, how would > Dumbledore know that Voldemort would end up with his own curse > rebounding on him? The whole thing about Trelawney *knowing* that > Snape heard the Prophecy seems like a plothole to me. Mim: Dumbledore didn't know exactly how the Prophecy would work but he wanted Voldemort to act and go after that baby who had powers that he didn't know. Otherwise he could have stopped Snape. It appears to me that at that point Dumbledore had been running out of ideas so the thought of this newborn saviour who the Dark Lord would mark as his equal and who would have extraordinary powers, was actually needed. Perhaps the Potters were never meant to survive. I've been going WTF ever since reading in HBP that Trelawney was aware of Snape's interruption. I'll guess that even though in a trance she retained some awareness of what was going on (doubtful) or that someone later told her about what had happened. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Aug 20 11:48:14 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:48:14 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175862 > Magpie: > I still don't see what that has to do with the metaphor that's being > put forward, that Grimmauld Place being cozy while the Trio lives > there shows the beauty of the Slytherin nature. Yeah, it's great that > Kreacher got to tell his secret and that we found out Regulus did > something brave. I'm still not seeing the transformation of the house > reflected in Slytherin or Slytherins. The Blacks don't even resolve > their family issues since they're all dead. (Harry watched the > Crouches disintegrate as well.) We know Mrs. Black was wrong for > zapping people off her tree--Harry already knew that. Pippin: The Blacks aren't all dead, just extinct in the male line, as canon makes clear by giving us the terminology. Teddy and Scorpius survive. Harry came by the house lawfully, not by forcing out its original owners, so I don't see how an ethnic cleansing metaphor applies. Presumably some day Teddy's and Scorpius's descendants will occupy the house, all wizard families being interrelated. The transformation of the GP shows that the transformation of Slytherin *could* happen, IMO. > > Pippin: > What I meant is that when the House is restored to what its Slytherin > founders intended it to be, it's not creepy, gloomy and full of > traps. It's warm, gracious and welcoming. > > Magpie: > Gloomy and creepy was more a factor of nobody living there for years. Pippin: Ahem. Kreacher was living there. He could have restored it, if he had not been distraught over his inability to fulfill Regulus's command and Mrs. Black's deterioration. He restores it according to his understanding of what it is supposed to be like, which had to come from the Blacks. I accept your correction about the traps, they are intrinsic and in fact the Order adds traps of their own. But Kreacher was able to change his mind about who the wrong sort are, so presumably Slytherins can too. Pippin: By the end of the story Harry knows that parseltongue is not the mark of a Dark Wizard, and by extension neither is membership in Slytherin House. Nonetheless I'm sure there are still people who get the shivers when they hear about parseltongue, have a gut level distrust of Slytherins and are okay with it. The question is, does Harry still feel that way? Harry's introspection is not missing from the story. On the night of the celebration, though all he wants to do is sleep, he takes Ron and Hermione to Dumbledore's office, and there, in the presence of the headmaster portraits, he tells them "slowly and painstakingly" IIRC, everything he saw in the pensieve and everything that happened in the forest. He can't be doing that for himself. He only wants to sleep. It's not like Ron and Hermione are begging him to know. He does it without magic, even though the pensieve is right there, even though one of those memories is one he can hardly bear to think about. I've got to see that as Harry feeling that Hermione and Ron need to know, ASAP, the truth of what Snape and Narcissa did. The chorus of headmasters needs to know too, though they know part of the story already. In my tradition, the honor you give to the dead is supposed to be the most selfless and purest act of goodness because the dead can't give you anything back. It's really hard for me to see Harry wanting Snape's story to be told, or naming his son after Snape, as a cheap gesture. Magpie: > Slytherins and Slytherin did not transform like the > Black House under Kreacher's renewed cleaning and it was never > intended to be warm, gracious or inviting to Mudbloods. Pippin: But that's not true, is it? The House was not enchanted so that it could only be owned by a pureblood, although it could have been. It isn't enchanted to exclude mudbloods, it's enchanted to exclude whoever the householder decides are enemies. The basilisk is the same -- it hat nothing personal against mudbloods. Magpie: >Not one of them rises to even the level of someone you'd really want to be > friends with. Pippin: Okay, I think I see what you're getting at here. But transforming the culture of Slytherin, like transforming the culture of the House Elves, is something only the Slytherins and the House Elves can do. What Harry did is win them some space and freedom in which they can attempt it should they choose to do so. He can cajole and persuade and use his considerable influence, but in the end they're going to have to march to the arena themselves. I wouldn't be comfortable if JKR showed Harry trying to make the Slytherins change, just like I wasn't comfortable with Hermione's efforts to pressure the House Elves into seeking their freedom. I'm really unhappy with the comparison of the House Elves to pets. Some Slytherins believe, mistakenly IMO, that the natural order of things is that some should be slaves and some should be masters. Some House Elves, mistakenly, believe the same thing. I don't think it should make either group subhuman in our eyes. I wouldn't want to be friends with any of the House Elves, their servility would drive me crazy. The Slytherin assumptions about superiority would bug me too. But Harry counted Dobby as his friend, and Lily counted Snape as her best friend, until civil war tore them asunder. Like we said back in the sixties, different strokes for different folks. But you don't have to be tolerant towards your friends, the whole point of tolerance is showing kindness and respect towards people you wouldn't care to have as friends, or who wouldn't care to have you. > Magpie: > He saves the lives of people he doesn't care for. I don't see him > treating them with particular kindness or respect or feeling that he > needs to; maybe I'm forgetting what you're referring to. Pippin: I'm thinking about Dobby in CoS and GoF, when he thought Dobby was just plain weird. He didn't want to socialize with Dobby, he couldn't be comfortable with him, he certainly didn't expect that Dobby would ever be of any use, but he still was kind and respectful. Pippin: Realizing that Dobby's last act was to disobey Harry's order never to try to save his life again From leahstill at hotmail.com Mon Aug 20 11:44:16 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:44:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175863 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "frumenta" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: >> > I was just thinking about this yesterday, and I believe it is yet another of JKR's inconsistencies. (massive snip) > The whole thing about Trelawney *knowing* that > > Snape heard the Prophecy seems like a plothole to me. > Mim: > > Dumbledore didn't know exactly how the Prophecy would work but he > wanted Voldemort to act and go after that baby who had powers that > he didn't know. Otherwise he could have stopped Snape. It appears to > me that at that point Dumbledore had been running out of ideas so > the thought of this newborn saviour who the Dark Lord would mark as > his equal and who would have extraordinary powers, was actually > needed. > > Perhaps the Potters were never meant to survive. >(snip) Leah: So we have either Puppet master Dumbledore or inconsistent JKR. I think there may also be a third possibility, Que Sera, Sera Dumbledore. If PMDD is intended, then I would agree with Mim that DD was wanting somehow to kick start the prophecy. It is a commonplace of classical myths, Perseus, Oedipus, Paris, that a prophecy is activated by an attempt to avoid it. This is of course exactly how Voldemort reacts. By trying to destroy Prophecy Boy he marks him as his equal, and sows the seeds of destruction. This reading of course has the problem of making DD as culpable in the deaths of James and Lily as Snape himself. We don't get any hint of this in DH, whereas we are shown other instances of DD's flaws, so I think it is probably not the right interpretation. If I am wrong, then Snape becomes the scapegoat for DD's guilt, takes it entirely on himself and eventually redeems himself (making Snape rather than DD or Harry the Aslan-like figure in the books. I am not sure that this would have been consciously intended by the author :)). Taking the third option second: it is a given fact that Snape has heard some of the prophecy. With the information DD has on that night, he can surmise that this may be (a) very helpful in the fight against VM, (b) very unhelpful or (c) ultimately of no importance at all. If he obliviates Snape's memory, then he destroys those possibilities. Having Snape arrested and mulling over the prophecy probably wouldn't give DD any more possibilities. If Snape is sent to Azkaban and has his mind destroyed by Dementors, then possibility (a) is lost (though I suppose DD could himself have let the prophecy `slip out' himself later if he thought it necessary.). There is a two-thirds chance that letting Snape go will either be helpful or simply won't matter and a one-third chance that it will damage the fight against VM, so why not let Snape go? QSS Dumbledore doesn't have the same level of responsibility for the subsequent events as PMDD, but he must have some. A major problem with either PMDD or QSSDD is: how exactly did DD know how much of the prophecy Snape had heard? If DD used Leglimancy, then Snape was not yet the superb Occlumens of OOTP. DD can hardly have asked, "So..what exactly did you hear, Severus?' This would not be a problem if Snape only told DD about the eavesdropping on his return; he could produce a pensieve memory if necessary. On the whole, I tend to agree with Judy that we have authorial inconsistency/plot hole here. In HBP, JKR needed to tell us that Draco had solved his little difficulty, and also a reason for DD and Harry not to be able to discuss this properly. The encounter with Trelawney effected this, allowed there to be an episode of throwing doubt on Snape's motives to prepare us for ESESnape on the Astronomy Tower, and as a further bit of icing gave Harry yet another reason for hating Snape. I think it quite possible that having resolved all this very satisfactorily, the author didn't reflect on what questions Trelawney's memories raised about DD's motives. Leah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 11:52:39 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:52:39 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175864 JudySerenity: > So, my interpretation of the phrase, "mercy for the mother, in > exchange for the son" is that since Snape has ALREADY given Voldemort > the prophecy (therefore telling him of the boy who may be able to > defeat him), Snape could ask for Lily's life as his reward. > > So, I read the exchange between Snape and Dumbledore as: > > Dumbledore says, "Snape, if you love Lily so much, couldn't you > remind Voldemort that you did him a great service by informing him of > the risk that Harry poses, and ask him to let Harry's mother live as > your reward?" > > Snape says, "Yep, that's exactly what I asked His Voldieness." > > Dumbledore responds, "That's disgusting." > > To me, there's a world of difference between these two readings. In > the first reading, Snape will LET Voldemort kill Harry, if he gets > what he wants. In the second reading, Snape CAN'T do anything to stop > Voldemort from trying to kill Harry, all he can do is try to prevent > the additional, senseless murder of Harry's mother. In the first > reading, Dumbledore's disgust seems reasonable to me; in the second > reading it doesn't. > > And,as I've said, I think reading this exchange as Snape LETTING > Voldemort kill Harry doesn't fit, because Snape can't stop Voldemort > from trying to kill Harry. Therefore, I don't think Dumbledore's > disgust is justified. Alla: Okay, I can see your reading, I have to think about it and maybe I will even accept it as more fitting. The thing is I totally think Dumbledore's disgust is justified in that instance as well. What do you mean Snape cannot do anything to save Harry? he can do the same thing as he did for Lily. Not from Voldemort of course, from Dumbledore, no? He is supposedly feeling that great remorse from selling prophecy couple to Voldemort and goes to Dumbledore for protection, etc. The thing is , he does not **ask** Dumbledore to save her innocent baby, he only has Lily on his mind. In that instance Dumbledore is disgusted that Snape would not spare a thought of remorse that baby would be killed and Snape would not even ask for his protection, does he not? Whether Dumbledore would protect all Potters or not regardless of Snape ask for that to me is irrelevant ( I totally think he would by the way - IMO), Dumbledore is disgusted by what on Snape's mind IMO and I think he has every reason to be in the reading you suggest as well. Mim said it is Okay with her, but it is totally NOT Okay with me, I find the thing that Snape would not even spare a thought that James and Harry will be dead because of him to be quite despicable. I know we would not have a story if that happened, but I wonder sometimes what If Voldemort indeed incapacitated Lily and killed Harry and James only, did Snape seriously thought Lily would become his? I think if Lily learned of what Snape did, she would not hesitate to kill him herself. > > -- JudySerenity, whose husband suggested that when Dumbledore said to > Snape, "You disgust me," Dumbledore was actually refering to Snape's > *hair*. Alla: LOLOLOL > Mim: > > Dumbledore didn't know exactly how the Prophecy would work but he > wanted Voldemort to act and go after that baby who had powers that > he didn't know. Otherwise he could have stopped Snape. Alla: Can we have some canon for Dumbledore **could have** stopped Snape? From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Aug 20 11:57:01 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:57:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175865 Mim: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175861 I've been going WTF ever since reading in HBP that Trelawney was aware of Snape's interruption. I'll guess that even though in a trance she retained some awareness of what was going on (doubtful) or that someone later told her about what had happened. Judy: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175857 The only answer I can think of here is the one Potioncat suggested, that Dumbledore deliberately let Snape go, presumably so that Voldemort would go after the Potters and cause the Prophecy to take effect. Still, even if Dumbledore were cold and calculating enough that he would want Voldemort to target the Potters, how would Dumbledore know that Voldemort would end up with his own curse rebounding on him? The whole thing about Trelawney *knowing* that Snape heard the Prophecy seems like a plothole to me. Ceridwen: In trying to reconcile Trelawney's statement with everything else, I have to think it was just a convenient vehicle for informing Harry and the reader who the eavesdropper was. Within the story, it's a lot harder to explain. The only ways, in my opinion, are, one: Snape listened and heard the first part, Aberforth discovered him and distracted him through the second part, then burst into the room with him at about the same time Trelawney was emerging from her trance; or, two: Aberforth found Snape listening at the keyhole and dragged him into the room, just as Trelawney began to feel funny as she fell into her trance, and this was the last thing she noticed before beginning the prophecy, during which DD motions to Aberforth to remove Snape from the room, or casts some muffling spell to prevent Snape from hearing the rest. There are calesthenics any way you try to make it fit within the story. Judy: So, my interpretation of the phrase, "mercy for the mother, in exchange for the son" is that since Snape has ALREADY given Voldemort the prophecy (therefore telling him of the boy who may be able to defeat him), Snape could ask for Lily's life as his reward. Ceridwen: Right. Snape had already delivered "the One". Now, he can bargain for "the One's" mother. I'd asked elsewhere why LV might honor Snape with even considering his request; this is probably the answer. I can't see LV entertaining Snape thinking he can "allow" him to do what he intends to do. It would be like the scene with Lucius apparently thinking for a moment that he and LV were going to exchange wands, only worse, since the prophecy has to do with LV's continued existence, while the wand thing is secondary to that, in that it was just a movement, not something said outright by Lucius. Snape would be dead and gone if he said anything along the lines of, "I won't let you kill the Potter boy if you don't spare his mother." Even if he bowed and scraped and said it in a much more subservient way, the result would be the same, in my opinion. The master orders, the servant makes a tentative request. And there is no reason to believe that LV's relationship with his DEs is anything but master and servants. Judy: I agree with Mim here. Suppose Snape had refused to do what Dumbledore wanted. Would Dumbledore have therefore done nothing to save the Potters? If so, YIKES! If Dumbledore would have tried to save them anyway, then he's definitely just manipulating Snape here. Ceridwen: Dumbledore held Lily's life up like a carrot on a stick here, didn't he? I expect he would have warned the Potters, though, no matter what Snape answered. Which, yes, makes his badgering into manipulation. On a related note, was the information supplied to the Potters by Bathilda Bagshot the reason why they refused his offer of being their SK? Lily's letter could be interpreted to imply that: hard to believe DD and GG were friends. At twenty-one or twenty-two, they could still be idealistic enough to think that what once was, always is, and that DD is not trustworthy. It apparently is supposed to be bothering Lily. She doesn't think DD would like them to know some of the things Bathilda has told them, and she doesn't "know how much to believe, actually, because it seems incredible that Dumbledore" (DH, US, 181) "could ever have been friends with Gellert Grindelwald." (DH US 689) To be honest, she does say that she thinks BB's mind is going, as also mentioned by Rita Skeeter. Judy: At any rate, even if I find a way to justify Dumbledore's treatment of Snape during the scene where Snape begs Dumbledore to help Lily, I still have a real problem with how cruel Dumbledore is to Snape when Snape learns of Lily's death. The most positive reading I can come up with is that Dumbledore is acting here; he is pretending to be cruel in order to manipulate Snape into helping save Harry. Ceridwen: That's just less negative, not positive, in my opinion. This casts Dumbledore as the manipulative puppetmaster some have proposed before DH. His mercy is short, going only to the end of his broken nose. His backstory would suggest more empathy than we get in these scenes - because of his actions and bad associations, his sister was killed. He made a bad choice of companions at about the same age, definitely in the same age group, as Snape. He can't see the "tough love" approach as working - the fistfight with Aberforth at Ariana's funeral and the resulting bad feelings Aberforth held over the decades, should have shown him that grieving people need compassion, not harsh treatment. But, we got something similar between DD and Harry after Sirius's death, didn't we? And people jumped over backwards to try and explain it, myself included, I think. He was much less cruel to Harry than to Snape, and Snape had known Lily longer than Harry knew Sirius. Judy: I agree completely that Snape's infraction here was not just calling *Lily* a mudblood, it was using the term at all. However, after Lily points that out to Snape, she turns her back and leaves, with Snape "struggling on the verge of speech." It seems to me that Snape might have acknowledged how wrong he had been to use "mudblood" at all, if Lily had let him. Lily missed an opportunity to get Snape to realize that it was wrong to use that term for anyone, for him to grow and see the error of his ways. Yes, it is asking a lot of the character of Lily, who is only 16, to get over her anger at Snape, who has offended her. But, I think it is reasonable to ask this of Lily, because we are supposed to see Lily as being far superior, morally, to Snape. (When asked in an interview if Lily had ever been a Death Eater -- as Snape had been -- JKR said, "How dare you!") Refusing to forgive, walking away as Snape tries to apologize, strikes me as mean and vindictive, which adds to my impression of the books as not promoting forgiveness. Ceridwen: Teens of under sixteen years of age, or just at sixteen, have been harshly condemned in the Potterverse for going against the ethical rules. Marietta is condemned to permanent scarring (per JKR interview, recent) because she betrayed the DA. Never mind that, to remain loyal to them, she would have to choose between them and her mother. She was a traitor either way, and once she went to that first meeting, where the DA was misrepresented to her, she had no choice but to be a traitor. Draco at fourteen is turned into a ferret and bounced off the floor from a great height, which, though McGonagall admonishes Crouch!Moody, is presented as something to laugh about. Montague spends a while in the Vanishing Cabinet courtesy of the twins, and a longer time in the hospital wing, for trying to take points. Nothing is done. So I would put Lily at sixteen at the same moral place as everyone else in the series is supposed to be. She definitely shut the door against Snape without giving him a chance. She is culpable, according to what we have seen of others of nearly the same age. (me being bitter) But, she's one of the Elect, the future mother of the Chosen One. She can get away with it. Never mind that she got an apology, never mind that Dumbledore is held up as being somehow saintly for offering second chances, she can shut the door and have no repercussions. None of the Good Guys have comeuppance for anything. The closest we get is the twins selling Peruvian Darkness Powder to Draco's DEs, which results in the karmic scarring of their brother, but those lemons turn to lemonade because Fleur is found to be loyal to Bill himself, not the handsome guy he once had been. I suppose one could make a case for Lily being punished by being killed based on Snape's information, but the text gives us a more noble reason: she and James had defied Voldemort three times. Ceridwen. From p_yanna at hotmail.com Mon Aug 20 12:57:08 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:57:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175866 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "littleleahstill" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "frumenta" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > >> > I was just thinking about this yesterday, and I believe it is > yet another of JKR's inconsistencies. (massive snip) > > The whole thing about Trelawney *knowing* that > > > Snape heard the Prophecy seems like a plothole to me. > > > Mim: > > > > Dumbledore didn't know exactly how the Prophecy would work but he > > wanted Voldemort to act and go after that baby who had powers that > > he didn't know. Otherwise he could have stopped Snape. It appears > to > > me that at that point Dumbledore had been running out of ideas so > > the thought of this newborn saviour who the Dark Lord would mark > as > > his equal and who would have extraordinary powers, was actually > > needed. > > > > Perhaps the Potters were never meant to survive. > >(snip) > > Leah: > > So we have either Puppet master Dumbledore or inconsistent JKR. I > think there may also be a third possibility, Que Sera, Sera > Dumbledore. > > If PMDD is intended, then I would agree with Mim that DD was > wanting somehow to kick start the prophecy. It is a commonplace of > classical myths, Perseus, Oedipus, Paris, that a prophecy is > activated by an attempt to avoid it. This is of course exactly how > Voldemort reacts. By trying to destroy Prophecy Boy he marks him as > his equal, and sows the seeds of destruction. This reading of > course has the problem of making DD as culpable in the deaths of > James and Lily as Snape himself. Mim: Not necessarily. Dumbledore doesn't explicitly know that if he lets the Prophecy be known it will lead to the death of the Potters. But he wants the child attacked since he has some reassurance that the child will have power the Dark Lord knows not. Both PPDD and QSSD can justify this to themselves. We don't get any hint of this in > DH, whereas we are shown other instances of DD's flaws, so I think > it is probably not the right interpretation. If I am wrong, then > Snape becomes the scapegoat for DD's guilt, takes it entirely on > himself and eventually redeems himself (making Snape rather than DD > or Harry the Aslan-like figure in the books. I am not sure that > this would have been consciously intended by the author :)). Mim: But unconsciously it is a possible reading and either way, Snape isn't blameless in this. He did deliver the Prophecy to his master, he did make his bad choices and he did play his part in causing Lily's death. That Dumbledore would not acknowledge any possible guilt for himself doesn't seem impossible to me, he's at war and sacrifices are necessary. He sees the bigger picture. Leah: > Taking the third option second: it is a given fact that Snape has > heard some of the prophecy. With the information DD has on that > night, he can surmise that this may be (a) very helpful in the fight > against VM, (b) very unhelpful or (c) ultimately of no importance > at all. Mim: a) Means that he wants to use the Chosen One rather than protect him. b) Seems unlikely, it's not like Voldemort will hear the Prophecy and not act and c) Very unlikely since Dumbledore obviously believes the Prophecy to be true. Leah: > A major problem with either PMDD or QSSDD is: how exactly did DD > know how much of the prophecy Snape had heard? Mim: Trelawney said that at some point during her interview Snape was discovered (and could have been apprehended if Dumbledore wanted to stop him from going to his Master) and thrown out. We're not exactly sure how she knew but since Dumbledore became aware of Snape listening at the keyhole, he probably knew at which part of the prophecy this happened. From p_yanna at hotmail.com Mon Aug 20 13:00:38 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:00:38 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175867 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Mim: > > > > Dumbledore didn't know exactly how the Prophecy would work but he > > wanted Voldemort to act and go after that baby who had powers that > > he didn't know. Otherwise he could have stopped Snape. > > > Alla: > > Can we have some canon for Dumbledore **could have** stopped Snape? > Mim: from HBP: (Trelawney) 'Yes, there was a commotion outside the door and it flew open, and there was that rather uncouth barman standing with Snape, who was waffling about having come the wrong way up the stairs, although I'm afraid that I myself rather thought he had been apprehended eavesdropping on my interview with Dumbledore He was apprehended eavesdropping. Aberforth (I'm guessing) is pretty much holding him by the scruff of his neck here. Dumbledore could do what he wanted with him but chose to let him go. From rlpenar at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 13:17:51 2007 From: rlpenar at yahoo.com (R. Penar) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:17:51 -0000 Subject: Resurrection Stone folks Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175868 You all are so much smarter that I am; I am wondering what your take is on this: Why is it that *only* James, Lily, Remus and Sirius come out of the resurrection stone for Harry? Why not Dumbledore, who has consumed more of Harry's thoughts in the last year than any of the others - in fact, Lupin has just died and Harry really hasn't had time to process and think on that at all? Why not Cedric, Tonks, Fred, Moody, or heck, even Dobby or Hedwig? And, related, it seems that Lily and James are as they were the night that they died; however Remus and Sirius are described as looking "less tattered" and "younger". Why? Did they revert to how they looked on October 31, 1982? If so, why? From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 13:15:07 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:15:07 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request/Ungrateful Werewolf/Sorting and Snape/Dumbledore Duel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175869 > Lanval wrote in: > Re: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance? (Was: > Snape/Dumbledore thingummy) > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175810 > > Not too ambiguous, is it? > > > This, I believe goes for all the short Pensieve vignettes. They are > meant to clear things up, to give crucial information that had been > lacking -- not to provide red herrings, steer the reader off the > trail, confuse, raise doubts, whatever. > > zgirnius: > It is all crystal clear and open to only one interpretation? I don't > find them so at all. They are meant to clear big picture things up, > and they do. Lanval: No, of course not. :) As you put it, they clear up the big picture and that's it. For example, Lily and Severus argueing in the aftermath of the prank: p.541: Lily's bright green eyes were slits. Snape backtracked at once. "I didn't mean -- I just don't want to see you made a fool of -- he fancies you, James Potter fancies you!" The words seemed wrenched from him against his will. "And he's not...everyone thinks... Big Quidditch hero --" Snape's bitterness and dislike were rendering him inconherent, and Lily's eyebrows were travelling further and further up her forehead. "I know James Potter's an arrogant toerag," she said, cutting across Snape. "I don't need you to tell me that. But Mulciber and Avery's idea of humour is just evil. *Evil*, Sev. I don't understand how you can be friends with them. End of quote. So, what is IMO beyond discussion here? For once, the obvious -- Lily going snake-eyed on him, Lily interrupting him, Lily and Sev actually having this conversation (as opposed to, for example, Sev and polyjuiced Sirius. This kind of speculating was great while we were dealing with a WIP, but now it would be just... silly, IMO). Also Severus' description of 'bitterness' and 'dislike'. Just as the author saves us the trouble of figuring out whether little Sev lied about being involved in the branch-dropping incident, she gives us his emotional state here, and I think we are simply meant to accept it (as opposed to, say, he's just faking the jealousy thing, and really kind of admires James Potter). Why? Because it's crucial for the plot delevopment. Severus *must* be understood, IMO, as bitter and disliking James Potter, because it matters to the plot. Same goes for Lily detesting Avery and Mulciber. What's open for further speculation? A lot, really. We can debate what Mulciber actually did (I must add here my apologies to Avery, creepy little future DE that he is; I previously had him involved in the Mary Macdonald incident, but canon names only Mulciber. *g*), we can debate whether that beats the Marauders' idea of fun in Sheer Evilness, we can debate whether Snape would have been involved in similar acts, whether Mary was hurt (not much, I'd say, since Lily says he 'tried' to do something to her), whether Sectumsempra measures up to whatever Dark Deed it was... The possibilities are endless. But, if Lily says she finds it evil, then that's exactly what she thinks, (again, because her disgust is vital to further plot development), and I can't see it as a very useful to argue she's perhaps just being tought with him, or is secretly having a laugh but wants Sev all to herself and is trying to talk him out of his friends, or is bewitched by James and just trying to tick poor Sev off. The same can be extended, IMO, to things not said -- if, for example JKR had wanted for Snape's main problem with Werewolf Lupin to be concern for Lily's safety, she would have said so. Since she does *not*, I think it's fruitless to argue that Snape wasn't acting out of malice, trying to catch James & Co, but *mainly* worried about Lily's safety. He may have done so as an aside, but what's the point in making it his prime motivation, except to make him look good? And it goes totally against the rest of canon. Sorry for extreme wordiness; hope I've made my point a bit clearer. :) > zgirnius: Snape loved Lily, he was a true Death Eater, later he > was loyal to Dumbledore and killed him on his orders, Harry has to go > die. The business of George's ear and the sword is explained. > (Personally, I don't see what the function of excusing the ear bit is > in the larger story. Dumbledore told Snape to play the part in the > raid, it could have been left at that, though I am so grateful it was > cleared up, because it really ran counter to my ideas about Snape and > was a big source of doubt while reading the book). > > What is being discussed (about why he turned and what he cared about, > and to what extent that changed by the end of the series) is finer > detail of Snape's character and relationships as they come across in > the text. I think it is clear that Rowling was attempting a bit of > that as well. (That cutting off George's ear was shown not to be a > Machiavellian act to help Snape's cover, but a rescue attempt for > Lupin, surely says something). But that's less crucial to her > project, and also far more subjective. Someone who came into the book > thinking the worst of Sev may need more along those lines than > someone who came in with a rosier view of the guy. > Lanval: Precisely, and I think it's important. She saying, See, Snape really *was* doing something good here. No use trying to twist this into, "Oh, he was just throwing around spells, trying to appear fighting so as to not blow his cover, but wasn't really concerned about what happened to anyone save Harry." The DE's hand was pointed at Lupin, Snape's curse is described as *intended for the DE's wand hand* but missing and hitting George. And dammit, that's what happened. :) > zgirnius: > Finally, the scenes are still, also, a work of art. It does not (to > me, anyway) read like an infodump, since I find it the single most > beautiful chapter in the series. The dialogue and interactions are > carefully presented and convincing, we see evolution in how Snape is > presented (he was rather inarticulate as a boy and young man), > Dumbledore's relationship with him changed, etc. Something like that > is going to be ambiguous. > Lanval: Oh, agreed. I find them a work of art too. I really admire her skills of characterization, especially in little Snape and Tuney. > zgirnius: > OK, examples in the second scene, by your rules (all that is said is > true), we learn that Snape had no prejudice against Muggleborns > personally, and even, lived blissfully unaware that such a thing as > blood prejudice existed in the Potterverse, before he came to > Hogwarts. After all, he tells Lily that it makes no difference. Of > course, if we start thinking what his hesitation, followed by his > eager look at her, mean, we might draw a different conclusion. > Lanval: Yes, exactly. The moment of hesitation makes all the difference. What we are meant to understand and take as fact here, IMO, is that he is *not* utterly certain that it makes no difference. As to *why* -- start speculating. :) A pointless argument here would be, again IMO, to say: Oh, he probably got whacked about the head by his evil dad so badly just that morning that he didn't catch what Lily was saying; of *course* he sees absolutely no difference! > zgirnius: > In that same scene, we learn that things are fine at the Snape house. > Snape says so. The leaves? Snape must just like playing with them. > And Snape did not drop a branch on Tuney, accidentally or otherwise, > it was a remarkable coincidence. Oh wait, the narrator calls that a > lie. But we should not consider the possibility that anything else > is, I guess. > Lanval: No, I don't think we should. If she tells us flat out that Severus is lying, IMO there's no point is arguing that he is not. Why would the author lie to us here? She doesn't write: "But his words did not convince Lily". She does not write "His words sounded false to Harry, and Lily seemed not convinced either." She very clearly writes "his lie". *What exactly* was he lying about? Why was he lying? What was he feeling? Hey, let's start discussing. > zgirnius: > The discussion about whether Snape trusted Voldemort happening on > another thread is a waste of time ? Dumbledore says he did in their > second meeting, so that's it. (Care to enlighten the posters on that > thread why, then, Snape seemed to desperate to obtain Dumbledore's > protection for Lily in the first meeting?) > Lanval: Hm, can you point me to the exact words in the text, and the posts in question? Not sure I remember what was said there. > Lanval (previously): > The story is almost over, here's what *really* happened. If Snape anwers DD's question whether he has come to care for Harry with a cry of "For *him*?", and produces the doe patronus, to which DD replies, "After all this time?", then that's exactly what it means. Snape only cared for Lily, and not for Harry. > zgirnius: > That scene, by the way, has a very interesting omission, which I > noticed yesterday night. Snape does not agree to the plan. Not in > that scene, not in any other scene. I wonder what that means. Seems > like a really big thing to leave open if we are supposed to have all > our answers maybe she just forgot. > Lanval: Are you referring to DD's plan that after DD's death, Snape must tell Harry about his intended sacrifice, when the time is right (once LV starts keeping Nagini under magical protection)? From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Aug 20 13:26:14 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:26:14 -0000 Subject: Letting Snape go (was Re: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175870 > Mim: > > Not necessarily. Dumbledore doesn't explicitly know that if he lets > the Prophecy be known it will lead to the death of the Potters. But > he wants the child attacked since he has some reassurance that the > child will have power the Dark Lord knows not. Both PPDD and QSSD > can justify this to themselves. Potioncat: It all happened quickly---or from Trelawney's point of view it does--- There could have been two reasons for letting Snape go. One is that DD knows he is a DE, but doesn't want LV to know he knows. The second is that DD knows what LV will told. DD knows Snape has heard that a Chosen One is coming (I'm part of the small knot of people who do not think the first part is clear that the one is not yet born) and he knows that LV will try to find that person. Letting Snape go allows DD to know what information LV has, and what LV will be putting his efforts into. DD can, in the meantime, make his own attempts at indentifying that person. DD knows more details about it. (And I'll bet Lily and Alice thought it was so sweet of DD to take such interest in their up-coming blessed events.) It would have been interesting to know whether Snape was there by chance---seems like the place DEs might have a drink, or where a young man who needs some shady potion ingredients might come--whether he was following Trelawney, or whether he was following DD. Potioncat From p_yanna at hotmail.com Mon Aug 20 13:36:42 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:36:42 -0000 Subject: Letting Snape go (was Re: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175871 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > It would have been interesting to know whether Snape was there by > chance---seems like the place DEs might have a drink, or where a > young man who needs some shady potion ingredients might come-- whether > he was following Trelawney, or whether he was following DD. > > Potioncat > Mim: Maybe he had an appointment with Dumbledore for a teaching position. Trelawney said he was going after one and thought he had been eavesdropping on the conversation to get tips. Which he might have been, actually and got more than he'd bargained for. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 20 13:41:37 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:41:37 -0000 Subject: The Afterlife (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175872 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > > > Before I respond, let me first say that for someone who claims she > will never bring a character back to life, JKR seems to have an awful > lot of forms of life-after-death. > You noticed that too, eh? For someone who "isn't going to pull a Gandalf" Dumbledore had a rather large speaking part in DH! I agree with your and Geoff's comments about ghosts and those summoned by the ressurection stone. I don't count horcruxes as part of an afterlife since their whole purpose is to anchor their creator to this life. I suppose there are a number of questions that the text naturally raises about them and then fails to answer. The one place that they do touch on the afterlife is the pitiful state of Riddle in the afterlife. Is that due to having lost so much of his soul to destroyed horcruxes? Or is it due to the fact that the soul he has left is so riddled (groan) with damage from the evil he has done and shown no remorse for? Or some of each? I think of photos, wand echoes, and portraits as examples of an idea that you sometimes find in science fiction stories. The basic idea is that the essence of a human soul or personality can be replicated and given existence independent of the original human being, who in some cases has died. Most often this is done by making a computer program that *is* the person in some significant sense. In Frank Hebert's *Dune* series this was done by copying the deceased (by cloning or an analog of cloning I suppose) and somehow imbuing the clone with the original personality creating a "ghola". In David Brin's *Kiln People* you can buy artificial "clay" human templates and download copies of your soul into them. You can make multiple copies if you like but each copy only lasts a day and at the end of the day you upload their experiences back into your own soul. If you have ever felt that if only you had three or four of yourself you could make a day go right, this the the technology for you! Photos, echoes, and portraits in the Potterverse seem to me to be this kind of copy of a human's essance with varying degrees of capability. The headmaster portraits seem to be nearly full blown copies of the original in terms of knowledge and experience. Evidently they cannot do magic so they are almost like eternal, Muggle versions of their subjects. I wonder if they can communicate with their prototypes in the afterlife? That would seem to violate the "Gandalf clause" but then Rowling strikes me as very much the sort of author for whom *any* consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Ken From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 13:43:29 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:43:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175873 > Ceridwen: > Teens of under sixteen years of age, or just at sixteen, have been > harshly condemned in the Potterverse for going against the ethical > rules. Marietta is condemned to permanent scarring (per JKR > interview, recent) because she betrayed the DA. Never mind that, to > remain loyal to them, she would have to choose between them and her > mother. She was a traitor either way, and once she went to that > first meeting, where the DA was misrepresented to her, she had no > choice but to be a traitor. Draco at fourteen is turned into a > ferret and bounced off the floor from a great height, which, though > McGonagall admonishes Crouch!Moody, is presented as something to > laugh about. Montague spends a while in the Vanishing Cabinet > courtesy of the twins, and a longer time in the hospital wing, for > trying to take points. Nothing is done. So I would put Lily at > sixteen at the same moral place as everyone else in the series is > supposed to be. She definitely shut the door against Snape without > giving him a chance. She is culpable, according to what we have seen > of others of nearly the same age. > > (me being bitter) But, she's one of the Elect, the future mother of > the Chosen One. She can get away with it. Never mind that she got > an apology, never mind that Dumbledore is held up as being somehow > saintly for offering second chances, she can shut the door and have > no repercussions. Alla: Sure if Lily had something to answer for, I would agree that characters in Potterverse at sixteen are held to it. But Lily is culpable? I find it truly mind boggling. The girl at whom Snape threw the worst insult in WW, girl who was making excuses for him for years, just had enough. In my view she is not giving Snape not second chance here, but probably tenth or twentieth. **She** is culpable? Even if she did not give Snape just a second chance, since when it is a reason to hold character culpable? I cannot help but having RL metaphors again. Trust me, if somebody called me what I consider to be the RL metaphor of that name and while apologising to me continued to think that it is okay to call other jewish people that name, there would be slamming of the door for sure. Why? Because I would realise what an idiot I had been and this person while considering me to be **the good jew** would still think that all other people of my descent are beneath him. I would run for my life from such a person. I give a lot of credit to Lily for sticking with Snape for so long. She must have really liked him as a friend, if she was willing to ignore that for so long IMO. > > Alla: > > > > Can we have some canon for Dumbledore **could have** stopped Snape? > > > > Mim: > > from HBP: > > (Trelawney) > > 'Yes, there was a commotion outside the door and it flew open, and > there was that rather uncouth barman standing with Snape, who was > waffling about having come the wrong way up the stairs, although I'm > afraid that I myself rather thought he had been apprehended > eavesdropping on my interview with Dumbledore > > He was apprehended eavesdropping. Aberforth (I'm guessing) is pretty > much holding him by the scruff of his neck here. Dumbledore could do > what he wanted with him but chose to let him go. > Alla: Thank you, but this part I remember. I do not see how it follows from Aberforth holding him to Dumbledore could do whatever he wanted and chose to let him go. For example Snape nonverbally hexed Aberforth and run for his life and yeah, Dumbledore could not stop him. As we saw Dumbledore can get hurt in the battle. IMO of course. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 13:47:50 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:47:50 -0000 Subject: Resurrection Stone folks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175874 > R. Penar: > You all are so much smarter that I am; I am wondering what your take > is on this: Why is it that *only* James, Lily, Remus and Sirius come > out of the resurrection stone for Harry? Why not Dumbledore, who has > consumed more of Harry's thoughts in the last year than any of the > others - in fact, Lupin has just died and Harry really hasn't had time > to process and think on that at all? Why not Cedric, Tonks, Fred, > Moody, or heck, even Dobby or Hedwig? And, related, it seems that > Lily and James are as they were the night that they died; however > Remus and Sirius are described as looking "less tattered" > and "younger". Why? Did they revert to how they looked on October > 31, 1982? If so, why? zgirnius: I believe that Harry brought back those he most wanted to see - those among the dead whom he considered his dearest loved ones. Cedric was just a nice boy he knew, Tonks was funny and nice, but he only met her a few times, and knew her so little that he thought all HBP that she was moping over Sirius, Moody again he knew only from a few meetings in OotP, Hedwig may not qualify, she is non-sentient and may not have a soul. Fred's the only one on that list I would consider debatable, but I do think he was merely good friend, not someone Harry truly loved and turned to in difficult times. This begs the question of why Dumbledore was not on the list - but this makes sense in light of the revelations Harry had just received from Snape's memories. Like Snape, Harry now believed that Dumbledore had cold-bloodedly raised him to die. Were Harry ever to use the Stone again, I would expect to see Dumbledore, after their conversation in King's Cross, when Harry understood that Dumbledore really did not want him to die, and even expected he could survive. The more youthful appearance of some characters may reflect how Harry wants to think of their fate in the afterlife. Or it may be a symbolic representation that the people who die redeemed, do experience happiness and healing in the afterlife. I prefer the latter, since the ugly baby under the chair makes the most sense to me as the probable future condition of Voldemort, and is far *worse* than Voldemort's actual physical condition in life. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 14:12:55 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:12:55 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175875 > Mim: > > Dumbledore didn't know exactly how the Prophecy would work but he > wanted Voldemort to act and go after that baby who had powers that > he didn't know. Otherwise he could have stopped Snape. It appears to > me that at that point Dumbledore had been running out of ideas so > the thought of this newborn saviour who the Dark Lord would mark as > his equal and who would have extraordinary powers, was actually > needed. > > Perhaps the Potters were never meant to survive. > > I've been going WTF ever since reading in HBP that Trelawney was > aware of Snape's interruption. I'll guess that even though in a > trance she retained some awareness of what was going on (doubtful) > or that someone later told her about what had happened. > lizzyben: Yep. IMO, Dumbledore definitely let the prophecy go deliberately. The proof of this is in how he reacts to Snape when Snape returns to beg for Lily's life. Snape waits, & DD appears - the first thing he says is "Well, Severus? What message does Lord Voldemort have for me?' He already knows who Snape is, and knows that he works for Voldemort. Snape hasn't said a single word about being a DE yet - DD knew this already. He also knows Snape is the eavesdropper - does DD say "Oh noes, the eavesdropper was a Death Eater?!". No. He's calm, he's not surprised, he already knew Snape was a DE when Snape was caught outside the door. Snape says he has a request & DD says - "What request could a Death Eater make of me?" Further confirming DD knew Snape was a DE. Snape mentions the prophecy & DD gets down to business: "Ah, yes,' said Dumbledore. `How much did you relay to Lord Voldemort?'" This is very important. DD wanted to be sure that LV only receives the first half of the prophecy, so that he doesn't know that attacking the child will create a "Chosen One" w/special powers. Snape begs for him to protect Lily, & DD says "you disgust me". This is really the height of hypocrisy, since DD also didn't care about who might be killed when he let Snape relay the prophecy to LV. He also asks Snape for payment for protecting the Potters, implying his original plan involved allowing the attack to take place. And come on, after DH, can anyone say that this is something DD wouldn't do? Snape knows what he's dealing w/here, and promises DD "anything" if he protects the Potters. The contract is arranged - Snape's life for the Potters' protection. Now DD has a problem - he can't let the Potters die w/o losing his valuable agent. Now, this is speculation, but I still think it's likely that DD orchestrated the attack - but it got more complicated, because he had to make sure the betrayal would be traced to a third party instead of him. He takes the Potters' invisibility cloak the very week that the attack occurs. After the attack, he seems to have a .. suspicious amount of knowledge of exactly how, when & why the attack occured. How did DD know when it happened, or what Lily did, or when to send Hagrid? It was a set-up, I tell you. But, he's made sure that his hands remain clean, so Snape never suspects anything - he keeps his double agent, gets a Chosen One, and gets rid of the parents & guardian that might have interfered w/his Plan. And he, of course, allows Snape to take all the guilt & blame for this occurance. DD totally does scapegoat Snape for his sins. And he totally does treat his followers as pawns & sacrifices in his Machievellian plans. One thing I did like about DH was the exposure of Puppetmaster!Dumbledore. Thank you, Rita Skeeter. :) lizzyben From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 14:25:52 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:25:52 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request/Ungrateful Werewolf/Sorting and Snape/Dumbledore Duel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175876 > Lanval: > This kind of speculating was great while we > were dealing with a WIP, but now it would be just... silly, IMO). zgirnius: Before my time. Ahhh, all those wasted years.... > Also Severus' description of 'bitterness' and 'dislike'. zgirnius: Yup, Sev despised James Potter. Still does! I always thought so. This never bothered me all that much. Still doesn't! > Lanval: > we > can debate whether that beats the Marauders' idea of fun in Sheer > Evilness, > Lanval: > But, if Lily says she finds it evil, then that's exactly what she > thinks, (again, because her disgust is vital to further plot > development), and I can't see it as a very useful to argue she's > perhaps just being tought with him, or is secretly having a laugh > but wants Sev all to herself and is trying to talk him out of his > friends, or is bewitched by James and just trying to tick poor Sev > off. zgirnius: Sure! And then she breaks off the relationship over the Worst Memory. > Lanval: > Sorry for extreme wordiness; hope I've made my point a bit > clearer. :) zgirnius: You have. My main interest in entering this discussion was the 'pig to slaughter' scene. You seemed to say that this could only be read in one way. I disagree. Just as we can bring our previous uinderstanding on the characters to bear in other scenes, and can consider things besides what is actually said in other scenes, we can do so there. My opinion that Snape cared about Harry (but would never admit it to a living soul, and may not have been admitting it even to himself) comes from the details of the scene. > Lanval: > A pointless argument here would be, again IMO, to say: Oh, he > probably got whacked about the head by his evil dad so badly just > that morning that he didn't catch what Lily was saying; of *course* > he sees absolutely no difference! zgirnius: LOL! > Lanval: > No, I don't think we should. If she tells us flat out that Severus > is lying, IMO there's no point is arguing that he is not. zgirnius: I agree. What I meant here was that, since Sev lied once, we have license to suppose he might again/previously. It is something Snape does. > Lanval: > *What exactly* was he lying about? Why was he lying? What was he > feeling? Hey, let's start discussing. zgirnius: IMO, the branch dropping was accidental magic, and Sev knows it. (I think one thing that may have impressed Sev was the way Lily could do magic in a planned manner, and in a happy set of circumstances, as when flying off the swing). > Lanval: > Hm, can you point me to the exact words in the text, and the posts > in question? Not sure I remember what was said there. zgirnius: The discussion started with responses to this post by JudySerenity: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175786 Unfortunately the threading feature seems not to be working, so I can't find all the responses. I made one...and Judy has another post that addresses a few different responses that I remember reading. The line I had in mind was: "She and James put their faith in the wrong person," said Dumbledore. "Rather like you, Severus. Weren't you hoping that Lord Voldemort would spare her?" But I see now that your position is not as fixed as it sounded. The line above is certainly not more than Dumbledore's opinion, and could be taken to mean even less. (Like, DD is manipulating Sev, as proposed in an ongoing discussion I shal probably join ) or guiding Sev to the right choices in a "tough love" manner (probably where I come out, though my views of DD are still in flux). > Lanval: > Are you referring to DD's plan that after DD's death, Snape must > tell Harry about his intended sacrifice, when the time is right > (once LV starts keeping Nagini under magical protection)? zgirnius: Yes. That is what I meant by the plan. He had already agreed to kill Dumbledore when the time came. Of course, in light of the argument in the Forest, I suppose a possible reading is that Snape considered backing out of that part of the plan as well. He certainly never restated his consent to that part of the plan after saying DD takes too much for granted and looking mutinous. But the end of HBP proves that at some point, he decided to do it. -- zgirnius, who is amused to note that Dumbledore characterizes the agreement to kill him as 'you gave me your word, Severus', when what we actually see is a 'curt nod'. Yeah, I think DD did trust him just a bit. From Estama02 at aol.com Mon Aug 20 14:34:31 2007 From: Estama02 at aol.com (secretkeeper24) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:34:31 -0000 Subject: Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175877 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "srpripas" wrote: > 1. Sirius (in OotP) tells us that Snape never missed a chance to hex > James even in their seventh year. By that point James had stopped > "hexing people for the fun of it" (according to Remus), but Snape > still persisted in hexing James on occasion. Sirius also tells us > that Remus, despite his cowardly silence in SWP, did sometimes make > James and Sirius feel ashamed of themselves. > 2. Snape tells us (at the end of HBP) that James and his friends never > attacked him unless it was "four against one." (which was a truly > cringe-worthy moment for me when I first read it, but I also have to > point out that if the SWP scene is any indication, these "attacks" > weren't really four against one. Peter clearly enjoyed the show and > Remus watched with disapproval but was too afraid to speak up, but > neither actively participated. James and Sirius seem to have done the > bulk of the actual bullying. (Not that Remus' sin of silence is > excusable, mind, but we don't see him or Peter actively bullying > Snape. It's hard to speak of MWPP as a monolithic group for these > reasons.) > Sarah I really liked and agreed your post in general, but I wanted to just focus on this one part and add some more points. Now that we know 'the prank' came before SWM (a fact I'm still trying to come to terms with. Not to mention it completely ruins the plot of my fanfic that I started writing before DH came out) I can't help thinking that this might have been another reason Remus kept quiet in this instant. I'm not saying it excuses his silence, especially since Remus admits in OotP that on other occassions he never told James and Sirius to 'lay off' on Snape. Perhaps Remus was worried that if he did make his presence more known to Snape and put Snape's focus on him (instead of James and Sirius who were actively hexing him), Snape might just let it slip that he's a werewolf. We don't know how Dumbledore got Snape to keep quiet about that, though it was effective. We do know under distress Snape called his *friend* Lily a mudblood, so it's not going out on a limb to think Remus might have been worried that if he did intervene, Snape would spill his secret. Snape believes Remus was in on 'the prank', even though Remus was as much a victim as Snape in this instance. I'm surprised Snape lashed out against Lily, instead of against Remus, which would have also angered James and Sirius. Again not that it excuses his silence, I wonder if Remus had stepped in if it would have done much. I know Remus was a prefect and he could have deducted points, but going by all the detentions James and Sirius received, this was hardly a deterrent. Lily's attempt to stop James and Sirius did little to help the situation. I also believe Remus somehow conveyed his dissaproval when they were alone at times since Sirius states in OotP, 'you made us feel ashamed of ourselves sometimes...That was something...'. I think only a friend's dissapproval could have made the arrogant James and Sirius feel ashamed and I think it's something to keep in mind when discussing Remus's character. ~Secretkeeper24 From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Mon Aug 20 14:52:10 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:52:10 -0400 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago Message-ID: <002e01c7e339$b02ba5c0$80c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 175878 Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald said: >>But I don't claim she was 100% successful, I still can't quite figure out how Dumbledore knew the exact time Harry would evacuate Privet Drive so he could tell Snape so he could tell the Death Eaters.<< Personally, I'm blaming it on Hagrid. He went into DD's office 'just to chat' with the old guy's portrait, told him the plan, "See, sir, we're still protecting Harry for ya! We've passed a fake date to the Ministry, and we're moving him early in case the wrong folks get wind of it." Then DD told Snape...etc., etc. CathyD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Aug 20 15:04:19 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:04:19 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175879 > Pippin: > The Blacks aren't all dead, just extinct in the male line, as canon > makes clear by giving us the terminology. Teddy and Scorpius > survive. Harry came by the house lawfully, not by forcing out its > original owners, so I don't see how an ethnic cleansing metaphor > applies. Presumably some day Teddy's and Scorpius's descendants > will occupy the house, all wizard families being interrelated. > > The transformation of the GP shows that the transformation of > Slytherin *could* happen, IMO. Magpie: I don't think when the person brought up ethnic cleansing they meant to imply Harry killed anyone, it just pointed out that Harry's living in the house after the original owners and that's when the house is nice. Many people benefit from situations like that without killing the person themselves. (I consider myself to be doing this, certainly, as an American.) Anything could happen in the future if we write it ourselves. It doesn't happen in canon. > > Pippin: > > What I meant is that when the House is restored to what its Slytherin > > founders intended it to be, it's not creepy, gloomy and full of > > traps. It's warm, gracious and welcoming. > > > > Magpie: > > Gloomy and creepy was more a factor of nobody living there for years. > > Pippin: > Ahem. Kreacher was living there. He could have restored it, if he had > not been distraught over his inability to fulfill Regulus's command and > Mrs. Black's deterioration. He restores it according to his understanding > of what it is supposed to be like, which had to come from the Blacks. Magpie: But so what? We know the house presumably was comfortable when the Black lives there and that Kreacher is inspired to act like a good House Elf again when he's got kind owners. I accept it for what it is, it just seems like it's being made into more than it is, namely a profound, positive point about Slytherin. Pippin: > > I accept your correction about the traps, they are intrinsic and in fact > the Order adds traps of their own. But Kreacher was able to change his > mind about who the wrong sort are, so presumably Slytherins can too. Magpie: There's a lot of things I would presume that Slytherins could do, independently of Kreacher. The happy ending is not about them doing it, though. This was obviously presented as something the story could tackle, but since the story doesn't go this way, I can't say that it will happen. > Pippin: > By the end of the story Harry knows that parseltongue is not the > mark of a Dark Wizard, and by extension neither is membership in > Slytherin House. Nonetheless I'm sure there are still people who > get the shivers when they hear about parseltongue, have a gut > level distrust of Slytherins and are okay with it. The question is, > does Harry still feel that way? Magpie: It still seems like again reaching for symbolic things about Harry that aren't about change in Slytherin's status because the status of Slytherin isn't a big change in the story. They're not all Dark Wizards. Harry's not terrified of them or out to kill them. He never was. But they are what they are and they stay what they are/were at the end of the story. Pippin: > Harry's introspection is not missing from the story. On the night > of the celebration, though all he wants to do is sleep, he takes > Ron and Hermione to Dumbledore's office, and there, in the > presence of the headmaster portraits, he tells them "slowly and > painstakingly" IIRC, everything he saw in the pensieve and everything > that happened in the forest. He can't be doing that for himself. He > only wants to sleep. It's not like Ron and Hermione > are begging him to know. He does it without magic, even though > the pensieve is right there, even though one of those memories > is one he can hardly bear to think about. Magpie: He tells them the new information he's learned, which is a lot of new information about Snape and Dumbledore. Iirc, Dumbledore's information about Harry was that he was awesome. Pippin: > > I've got to see that as Harry feeling that Hermione and Ron need to > know, ASAP, the truth of what Snape and Narcissa did. The > chorus of headmasters needs to know too, though they know part > of the story already. > > In my tradition, the honor you give to the dead is supposed to be > the most selfless and purest act of goodness because the dead can't > give you anything back. It's really hard for me to see Harry wanting > Snape's story to be told, or naming his son after Snape, as a cheap > gesture. > > Magpie: Yes, he does let people know what they did. I wasn't implying he didn't. This information isn't connected to a huge difference in Harry. Narcissa lied to save her son, we know. That's no big change. The information about Snape is more important for Harry. It explains the very question Harry couldn't figure out earlier--why would Snape be protecting him? Harry was never obsessed with proving Snape a DE exactly--that was just one expression of the larger problem, which was that he couldn't trust Snape to really be on his side when Snape so obviously hated him. He could accept the concept--he did back in PS when Quirrel tells him Snape hated him (and DD verifies that yes, Harry is right that Snape has reason to hate him because of his father) but didn't want him dead. But as Harry says in HBP, why would Snape regret getting his father killed? The Pensieve explains Snape so that he makes sense by giving him the information Harry lacked: No, Snape didn't care about getting James killed. But he was in love with Lily and vowed to protect Harry because of that relationship. Snape makes sense now. He really was mean to Harry but always loyal to Dumbledore and protected Harry from Voldemort, just as he was supposed to be. The effect on Harry is...well, there's not much specific written about it. He undertands Snape now, it does not seem to shake Harry's ideas about himself--understandably. Obviously Harry does think Snape needs to be honored for that, and if you think it's a pure act of goodness to name his child after him that's fine with me. Pure acts of goodness aren't new for Harry, as characters often remind us. I didn't say it was a cheap gesture, I just disagreed with the type of change in the world at large that you feel is there. (I do think it's a weird gesture, but that's me.) > Magpie: > > Slytherins and Slytherin did not transform like the > > Black House under Kreacher's renewed cleaning and it was never > > intended to be warm, gracious or inviting to Mudbloods. > > Pippin: > But that's not true, is it? The House was not enchanted so that it could > only be owned by a pureblood, although it could have been. It > isn't enchanted to exclude mudbloods, it's enchanted to exclude > whoever the householder decides are enemies. The basilisk is the > same -- it hat nothing personal against mudbloods. Magpie: The Blacks had something against mudbloods and cut off family members who didn't share that view (and Mrs. Black put a sticking charm on her portrait that screamed about them all the time). You're still left defending the neutrality of a house and a reptile when they've never been the ones who are at issue here. Nobody thinks the basilisk is evil for killing Muggle-borns--it's Tom Riddle who's killing them. The basilisk is just a weapon. The house is just architecture. It's welcoming to Muggle-borns when the Order is there, because the Order is welcoming to Muggle-borns. (Similarly, arguments that Harry acts Slytherin-ish himself also avoid Slytherins.) > Magpie: > >Not one of them rises to even the level of someone you'd really want to be > > friends with. > > Pippin: > Okay, I think I see what you're getting at here. But transforming the > culture of Slytherin, like transforming the culture of the House Elves, > is something only the Slytherins and the House Elves can do. What > Harry did is win them some space and freedom in which they can > attempt it should they choose to do so. He can cajole and persuade > and use his considerable influence, but in the end they're going to > have to march to the arena themselves. Magpie: Exactly! Slytherins suck and they still suck the way they always sucked. They don't march into the arena themselves, and Harry knows that. They end the series the way they began it. Pippin: > > I wouldn't be comfortable if JKR showed Harry > trying to make the Slytherins change, just like I wasn't > comfortable with Hermione's efforts to pressure the House Elves > into seeking their freedom. Magpie: Well, I wouldn't want Harry pressuring them. I don't think a little encouragement or reaching out would be a problem, one person to another. But my whole view on that is obviously very different from the author's so not relevent. What we get are the Slytherins on their own showing who they are, and it's not too great. Pippin: > I'm really unhappy with the comparison of the House Elves to pets. > Some Slytherins believe, mistakenly IMO, that the natural order of > things is that some should be slaves and some should be masters. > Some House Elves, mistakenly, believe the same thing. I don't > think it should make either group subhuman in our eyes. Magpie: I don't think we can blame just Slytherins for believing this is the natural order of things. Harry ultimately learns to be a good master of a slave--he's the only person we see by the end of canon who actually owns one. Which I think is partly why people go with the pet analogy. It maybe makes them more happy than Harry comfortably owning a human being. But either way he certainly is the master of a slave and it does seem like the natural order of things to him too. I think the books are actually full of confirmations about the natural order of things with some higher than others, myself. > > Magpie: > > He saves the lives of people he doesn't care for. I don't see him > > treating them with particular kindness or respect or feeling that he > > needs to; maybe I'm forgetting what you're referring to. > > Pippin: > I'm thinking about Dobby in CoS and GoF, when he thought Dobby was just > plain weird. He didn't want to socialize with Dobby, he couldn't be > comfortable with him, he certainly didn't expect that Dobby would ever > be of any use, but he still was kind and respectful. Magpie: Yes, Harry is often this kind of kind and respectful and is praised for it. It's the same thing with the Goblin, iirc. I don't consider what he's doing to be all that out of the ordinary from my perspective--I mean, would you have treated Dobby cruelly just because he was odd? Especially when he's worshipful of you? I was thinking more about the way Harry treats people he really doesn't like meaning people who don't like him and treat him badly, not Harry not openly insulting people like Neville and Luna when he thinks they're weird. -m From leahstill at hotmail.com Mon Aug 20 15:17:59 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:17:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175880 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > > Yep. IMO, Dumbledore definitely let the prophecy go deliberately. > The proof of this is in how he reacts to Snape when Snape returns to > beg for Lily's life. > > Snape waits, & DD appears - the first thing he says is "Well, > Severus? What message does Lord Voldemort have for me?' > > He already knows who Snape is, and knows that he works for > Voldemort. Snape hasn't said a single word about being a DE yet - DD > knew this already. He also knows Snape is the eavesdropper - does DD > say "Oh noes, the eavesdropper was a Death Eater?!". No. He's calm, > he's not surprised, he already knew Snape was a DE when Snape was > caught outside the door. > Leah: This is more a Devil's Advocate post than anything else. It might just be possible that when Snape was caught eavesdropping, his occlumency skills were already such that DD believed the 'picking up interview tips' cover story. There must, I think, have been a genuine interview coming up, otherwise Snape's cover story to the person who would be doing any interviewing is rubbish, and I don't think Snape does rubbish cover stories. It's possible Snape wasn't ear to the door when Aberforth caught him but had swung round and away at an approach, so no real proof that he's actually heard anything. At this stage, DD doesn't know Snape is a DE (surprising that, but still....) Snape then arrives for the interview. (VM has decided it would be useful to have a spy teaching at Hogwarts, and Snape is the most academically able DE he's got. Or perhaps Snape simply needs a job, he has no family money). Something that happens at the interview leads DD to conclude that Snape is in fact a DE, but by that time it's too late. It's DD's inability to break through and see exactly what has happened re the prophecy that gives him respect for Snape's occlumency skills and shows what a great spy the boy could be. Or possibly DD doesn't know Snape is a DE until Snape comes for Lily's protection. Perhaps when DD apparates in front of him, Snape's mental state means he's letting it all out. Leah (not really convincing herself) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 20 15:45:29 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:45:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175881 "Beatrice23" wrote: > DD tells Snape that Harry must die and > lets Snape and for a brief period Harry > believe that he is to be slaughtered, > because Harry NEEDS to believe this > inorder for DD's plan to work. Harry > has to willingly sacrifice himself. That would explain why Dumbledore lied to Harry but it would not explain why Dumbledore lied to Snape. Besides, if it were true don't you think Dumbledore would have said at King's Cross "I knew you would live from day 1 Harry". > DD probably guessed that Harry could > not get to the snake without > encountering LV first. Not according to the book: "If I know him [Harry] he will have arranged matters so that when he does set out to meet his death, it will truly mean the end of Voldemort". I don't think Dumbledore could have been much clearer on the subject. > I think he was injured/knocked unconscious, > because he destroyed his own horcrux. And the fact that one Horcrux remained greatly cushioned the blow. > The horcrux actually defends itself > and Harry when Harry excapes from Privet drive. That had nothing to due with a Horcrux, it was Harry's wand. Dumbledore said "Your wand recognized him [Voldemort] when he pursued you, recognized a man who was both kin and mortal enemy, and it regurgitated some of his own magic against him". Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Mon Aug 20 15:50:56 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:50:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175882 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > Easiest? So rather than simply hand over a bottle of his own memories > to Snape to give to Harry at the proper time Dumbledore proceeded to > lie to Snape for years because he figured Harry would someday stumble > upon the man seconds before his death and Snape would agree to give > Harry all his memories. It seems to me people are going through some > pretty wild contortions to avoid the simple fact that Dumbledore had > raised Harry for 17 years so he could be slaughtered like a pig. Rowena: As I have observed before from Gof on DD had good reason to hope that Harry could survive the final confrontation. However as he himself says it's 'just a guess, though my guesses are usually good.' IMO Dumbledore does not confide this hope to either Snape, or by extension Harry, precisely because he is *NOT* sure and doesn't want to raise false hopes. Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 14:27:19 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of Sorting and Snape (also Fidelius Charm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <713876.97654.qm@web55013.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175883 [snip] Pippin: > They knew the DE's couldn't get in because they were keeping watch > on the square instead of invading the House. > They assumed that whatever > Moody did to stop Snape from letting the DE's in worked. Presumably > Snape's tongue would curl up if he tried to tell > anyone the exact location of the doorstep. > I have to imagine they know there are ways of keeping > Snape from communicating the location by some other means than > talking... [snip] JudySerenity: >Pippin, you make a valiant effort to fill this plot hole, but I can't >help thinking that JKR was thinking about this far less logically >that you are! >You make a good point that the Trio can tell they are safe because >the Death eaters are hanging around outside, and not getting inside. >Still, I don't see how Snape would get out of telling the Death >Eaters how to get in, or why the Trio don't worry that he will get >around to revealing the secret at some point. [snip] There is one fact that we shouldn't overlook: Snape was loyal to Dumbledore (it doesn't matter whether or not we know that at the time). Mad-Eye, by setting "up a couple of curses against Snape in case he turns up there again" (p. 90) gives Snape a means to protect Grimmauld Place. It doesn't really matter whether or not Mad-Eye's curses truly prevent Snape from revealing the location of the Order's headquarters -- they give Snape a ready-made excuse why he can't. He can honestly tell Voldemort that the Order had abandoned their headquarters, that he has searched it, and that curses has have been put in place to prevent him from revealing the location (the tongue-tying curse) or allowing anyone else inside (the figure of Dumbledore). (The best lies are grounded in truth.) Perhaps, this is our first clue in DH as to Snape's true loyalties and we overlooked it... Harry, Ron, and Hermoine, once they get to Grimmauld Place, no longer fear that Snape can compromise them -- however, they do have reservations beforehand: "We need a safe place to hide," said Ron. "Give us time to think things through." "Grimmauld Place," said Harry. The other two gaped. "Don't be silly, Harry, Snape can get in there!" "Ron's dad said they've put up jinxes against him -- and even if they haven't worked," he pressed on as Hermoine began to argue, "so what? I swear, I'd like nothing better than to meet Snape!" "But --" "Hermione, where else is there? It's the best chance we've got, Snape's only one Death Eater. If I've still got the Trace on me, we'll have whole crowds of them on use wherever we go." (p. 168 - 169) At the time they make the decision to go, they consider it the best among their limited options -- they are making their decision based on what they know (the Fidelius Charm *can* be compromised), what they experienced (the Death Eaters can track them somehow), and what they fear (Harry still has the Trace on him); and the fact that they need to get somewhere where they'll be as safe as possible. Once they get to Grimmauld Place, they find no threat to them inside its protections. However, they soon discover they are being watched. Nevertheless, they are confident that Snape can't compromise them. Hermione offers a logical explanation why the death eaters are there; plus, they have spoken Voldemort's name since arriving, which also can explain why the death eaters are there. "Death Eaters, for sure," said Ron, as he, Harry, and Hermione watched from the drawing room windows. "Reckon they know we're in here?" "I don't think so," said Hermione, though she looked frightened, "or they'd have sent Snape in after us, wouldn't they?" "D'you reckon he's been in here and had his tongue tied by Moody's curse?" asked Ron. "Yes," said Hermione, "otherwise he'd have been able to tell that lot how to get in, wouldn't he? But they're probably watching to see whether we turn up. They know that Harry owns the house, after all." "How do they --?" began Harry. "Wizarding wills are examined by the Ministry, remember? They'll know Sirius left you the place." (p. 201 - 202) The best the Death Eaters can hope for is to catch someone (other than Snape) going into or coming out of 12 Grimmauld Place. Christy --------------------------------- Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 17:03:11 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:03:11 -0000 Subject: Holding Court With Voldemorte Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175884 There's been some talk of Voldemorte's motivation to not kill Lily recently, and I just wanted to make the comment that since book 4, I've found Voldy to be a fairly interesting villain. He starts out as this paragon of evil. This complete, irredeemable, incomprehensible, ruling by fear, crazed sociopath villain. And, in a lot of senses, that's how he winds up ? from his dispatching of Snape, his death, even the creepy baby-thing, depending on how you interpret that scene. But he doesn't always fit the stereotype I had in my head. I guess I was just thinking of a Sauron from LOTR or some other superpowerful villain, almost removed from humanity. As it turns out, Voldemorte is often quite human. He can be gracious, forgiving. He certainly has a tendency to even be loquacious ? sometimes he's downright a chatty cathy! I suppose it comes from that he wasn't always their twisted, soul shattered leader of evil. In his youth, first he was isolated, but then he was something else entirely. Early on, he was charismatic, attractive, intelligent. He could flatter when he needed to and make others feel good about joining him. Towards the end, he ruled by fear, but at first, he had to rule, if not by inspiring love, at least inspiring a desire to follow him. For their own benefit, because of the force of his personality it wasn't all fear. And I think we see that in some of his actions. It was horrid the way Peter loses a hand. But the gift he gets in return is rather spectacular ? and it makes a point to the other DE too. It is the carrot to the stick Voldy so often shows. And this, to me, is interesting (maybe not to everyone else). I never pictured him HAVING carrots. Just big sticks. He doesn't instantly eliminate any DE who he thinks may have faltered, as I picture many supreme evil rulers doing ? he has a modicum of patience, of forgiveness, of willing to give second chances. This is why attempting to spare Lily fits for me. I mean, he's not going to do it if she becomes even a minor nuisance but to offer her that chance, multiple times, this mudblood who has defied him before, and stands in his way now that is really something, considering who we know Voldemorte to be. And, at this point, his soul already is fragmented. But I think he is willing to reward his followers. I don't think his party line is all hype ? He doesn't say anything for power. I think he really does mean to create a world that he rules, where his captains have power and luxury. And he is willing to reward them on the way, to entice them with what he can give them, and not just keep them afraid of what happens if they defy him. I do see that Voldemorte appears even more shattered, more crazy, after his first attempt on Harry's life. His beauty is gone, his temper shortened. But he doesn't become a recluse ? he still holds what seemed like a legion of villains board meeting at the beginning of the book, and he still chats up his followers (and the Hogwarts defense) more than I would expect. Which is why I was SO disappointed in the way he dispatched Snape. I guess doing it alone, where his other followers couldn't see, was a good move, but, it wasn't what I wanted. Besides my desire to see Snape throw off the mantle of secrecy in front of other people ? betray Voldemorte publicly, perhaps save a life, or kill a villain, I didn't like how it immediately reverted Voldemorte in my mind to what I guess he was always supposed to be. I liked the slight slight duality that allowed him to be almost generous with his followers. How one could almost, just barely, understand Bella's infatuation. See how a charismatic, attractive, talented, but ultimately amoral man could have this impact on his followers. And dispatching his `most loyal' servant, while making the point very strongly how Voldy really does care for no one, and will do whatever it takes to win, took a little of that from me. I liked that he played both sides ? continuing to offer something to those who he wanted to follow him as well as threatening to take it all away. Or maybe I just wanted to see the look on his face when he learned that someone really had betrayed him, completely and totally, and he had no idea. I think that would have been a nice shock to this crazed man, who, for all his initial cautiousness, had eventually become overconfident and prideful, obsessed with his own superiority and infallibility, which really led to his downfall, more, I think, than any lack of ability to `love'. A trait he shares with many villains ? and also, many tragic heroes. I know Voldy is no Snape, no lightening rod for controversy ? he's definitely evil. But maybe because there isn't as much interest, maybe because JKR did give him more layers than I expected, I really did find him to be an interesting character. We talk of the afterlife, and it's never more interesting than wondering what happens to voldy when all his soul pieces are torn from this world. An orphan, with potential out the wazoo, who becomes the worst creature imaginable. What waits for him, and is he truly relegated to that state forever? ~Adam (Prep0strus), who is sure that his finding Voldy more interesting than Snape is more a product of so many people finding Snape so interesting than Voldy actually being written as a more interesting character, but nonetheless is more intrigued by the real villain than by Sadsack Severus From kennclark at btinternet.com Mon Aug 20 17:24:13 2007 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (kenneth9840) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:24:13 -0000 Subject: Holding Court With Voldemorte In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175885 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: > > There's been some talk of Voldemorte's motivation to not kill Lily > recently, Ken says: Why, o why does anyone believe Voldemort was telling the truth here? All the books, especially Deathly Hallows is full of baddies promising to do something if only their opponents will "drop their wands" or whatever without any intention of actually fulfilling their 'promise/offer', so why on earth should anyone think that Voldemort was doing anything other than making a false offer to Lily to get her out of the way so he could kill Harry, fully intending to turnm on Lily and kill her too when he had done so. So many people tell lies in the Potterverse, for reasons good or ill, such as Dumbledore telling Snape Harry had to die while knowing full well that he was protected by his sharing of blood with Voldy. Really we must look at people's motivation for saying what they say rather than blithely accepting that if they say it they mean it. A little more critical analysis needed. Ken Clark From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 17:26:46 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:26:46 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175886 > Lupinlore: > > the venomous, bile-filled > > man was killed by literal venom, thus ending his physical life in > > much the same way he had ended his emotional life. The potions > > master, and presumably master of poisons, was killed by poison. > > The man who spent so much time showing favoritism to the House of > > the Snake was killed by a snake. The spinner of webs was caught > > in a trap that he evidently did not see coming (i.e. he seemed to > > know nothing about the Elder Wand). The sarcastic, cruel voice he > > used to torment his students is silenced by the symbol of his own > > house. The man who loved the Dark Arts was slain by the Dark Arts. > > The man who has abused Harry for years must rely on Harry for one > > last glimpse of the woman he "loved." And Severus Snape, who > brooded > > and nursed his bitterness about the Prank for twenty years, ends up > > dead on the floor of the Shrieking Shack after all. > Judy: > This post strikes me as very strange because on the one hand it seems > to be saying that Snape is an awful person because he was vengeful > and vindictive, yet it also seems to say that revenge against Snape > is a good thing. Lupinlore, do you think revenge is bad, or don't you? > I don't see Snape's death by Voldemort, by the Dark Arts, > by a snake as being some sort of karmic justice at all. I see it as > a willing sacrifice by Snape, as something he's knowingly risked ever > since he tried to save Lily. zgirnius: As I see it, Snape *was* one of the characters that definitely received karmic punishment. Only, this did not happen during Harry's schooldays. Nope, angry young Sev cared about nothing and noone and joined the DEs. Only to discover that, by doing so, he caused the death of the one person he *did* actually care about. Oops. But yeah, DDM!Snapem who moved hismelf into the role of Voldmeort's right hand man for the greater good, getting killed by Voldemort for whatever reason, is no more karmic that Neville getting beat up by the Carrows for refusing to practice the Cruciatus Curse. Both consequences are ones a rational person could foresee as possible outcomes for the (right) actions each undertook. > Judy: > But if I were Snape, bleeding to death in that shack, I > think I would have been pleased, knowing that all was going according > to plan (Nagini was under protection), I had just completed my > mission and given the information to Harry, and I had gotten to be > DADA professor, and Hogwarts Headmaster to boot. Frankly, I think > that ever since Lily died, Snape had felt that life was a burden. He > meant it when he told Dumbledore that he wished he were dead. He only > hung around to complete his mission. I don't think he minded dying. zgirnius: Well, he did not know that Harry would look at the memories, unless this is what he saw in Harry's eyes as he died. Nor does he know for sure that Harry would act on them. (Though, since I believe Snape did respect Harry's courage on some level, I think he probably believed he would). Nor does he know Harry will live, and go on to the final defeat of Voldemort (both of which I think he would care about). So I guess that scene was a lot sadder for me, though I do agree that Snape probably had little use for his life other than wanting to get his job done. The dead people in the afterlife seem to know what is happening, though, so at least he knows now. From mjanetd at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 17:20:07 2007 From: mjanetd at yahoo.com (mjanetd) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:20:07 -0000 Subject: Harry's friends Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175887 I'm listening to the Deathly Hallows and I'm catching some stuff I missed on my first read. I was pretty much in a race to get to the end bc I NEEDED to know how it ended but I wouldn't allow myself to peek. Somewhere in the middle of the long camping trip I realized that Harry never would have been able to complete his mission without Hermione. Harry & Ron only know very basic magic while Hermione knows some pretty advanced stuff. I think Harry could have made until book 7 without Hermione. All the adventures in the previous books Hermione helped but wasn't really necessary like she is in book 7. I think Harry would have been captured by the Death Eaters within a week after the wedding without Hermione. Ron on the other hand is pretty much useless in all the adventures (except in book 1 where he was the chess master). Ron was necessary for Harry to have a childhood. Ron was everything fun for Harry while Hermione was more like a work partner. Btw, does it bother anyone else that Harry and Ron never bother to learn any thing on their own? They learn the spells they have to for class but nothing else. If they'd had something that interesting to teach me I would have done a lot better in school and would have put up with even Snape as a teacher. And another thing. I liked the consistancy of Snape always writing the instructions for potions on the board. We find out why in book 6 when Hermione follows the instructions in the potions book and the potion doesn't come out right. But Snapes version in Harry's book makes it perfect. You would think Snape would demand a change in books if most of the postion directions are clearly wrong like they seem to be from Hermione's results. Ok, I think that's it. mjanetd From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Mon Aug 20 16:02:46 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:02:46 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175888 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jkoney65" wrote: > Jack-A-Roe: > What else could Dumbledore do? He had promised Snape that he wouldn't > reveal the secret that he was actually supposed to be protecting > Harry. There is also the possibility of a life debt forming when > James saved Snape. If there was a life debt it could also be true > that was acting in response to the life debt. Therefore Dumbledore > didn't lie, he just didn't tell the entire truth Interestingly Harry finds himself doing the exact same thing - telling only part of the truth - to friends and allies in DH. Even he notes he's become like Dumbledore in that respect. As for DD he's caught between promises - to tell Harry the truth and to keep Snape's confidence - and does the best he can. Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch From e_jobe at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 17:29:36 2007 From: e_jobe at yahoo.com (e_jobe) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:29:36 -0000 Subject: deathly hallows and the wands. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175890 I AM SO CONFUSED!!! I just finished "Deathly Hallows" and there are so many wands in this story I can't keep track. I understand that Voldemort stole the Elder Wand from Dumbledore's tomb and I think I understand why it won't work for him. But what I don't get is that in the final battle Harry says that he stole the Elder Wand from Draco and that that makes him the master of it, but at the same time he is holding another wand which he says he stole from Draco. I just do not understand. Please explain. Thanks. Eric From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Aug 20 17:42:20 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:42:20 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175891 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > So, I read the exchange between Snape and Dumbledore as: > > Dumbledore says, "Snape, if you love Lily so much, couldn't you > remind Voldemort that you did him a great service by informing him of > the risk that Harry poses, and ask him to let Harry's mother live as > your reward?" > > Snape says, "Yep, that's exactly what I asked His Voldieness." > > Dumbledore responds, "That's disgusting." > > To me, there's a world of difference between these two readings. In > the first reading, Snape will LET Voldemort kill Harry, if he gets > what he wants. In the second reading, Snape CAN'T do anything to stop > Voldemort from trying to kill Harry, all he can do is try to prevent > the additional, senseless murder of Harry's mother. Pippin: Dumbledore is saying that if Snape believed that Voldemort would do as Snape had asked and spare Lily, Snape would have continued as a servant of Voldemort. It wouldn't have bothered him if James and Harry had died. He wouldn't have told Dumbledore of their danger. I agree, that's disgusting. Judy: > Next topic -- Dumbledore's demand that Snape *give him something* to > save Lily, which strikes me as even more unreasonable. Pippin: Dumbledore has a couple of reasons for asking this, IMO, some merciful, some less so. He's testing the strength of Snape's resolution to go against Voldemort, and also giving Snape the opportunity to make amends for what he's done, not just to the Potter family but to everyone who's against Voldemort. I think it's important that at this point Snape doesn't grasp that Dumbledore will let Lily, James and Harry die only if he cannot save them. That understanding comes later. Snape's great shock that Dumbledore has thought for a long time that Harry's life will be one he cannot save makes no sense otherwise. Dumbledore is not devious about his goal: it's the defeat of LV, and everything he's doing *is* towards that purpose, so I wouldn't call his tactics manipulative. Devious and shrewd, oh yes, but not for a secret purpose. It'd be more manipulative if he was gentle, IMO. He doesn't succumb, as he almost did with Harry, to Riddle's tactic of building a bond of affection and then using it for his private ends. The same goes for the scene where he's being harsh with Snape over his grief about Lily. Snape, one of the abandoned boys, would have been very vulnerable to that. I don't think Dumbledore knew how much of the prophecy Snape had heard or that he could have erased a memory being hidden by occlumency. In any case, he doesn't seem to have known until Snape told him that Voldemort was hunting the parents; he may have thought, as Harry did, that Voldemort would wait until the child grew to be dangerous. In that case, James and Lily might actually be safer for Voldemort's knowing about the prophecy. Going after them would be tempting fate, would it not? > > Pippin replied: > > It wasn't just about her. It was about him using Mudblood to others > > of her blood. He didn't apologize for that or for lending his > > support to others who did. His tragedy was that he > > didn't yet see why he should. > > I agree completely that Snape's infraction here was not just calling > *Lily* a mudblood, it was using the term at all. However, after Lily > points that out to Snape, she turns her back and leaves, with > Snape "struggling on the verge of speech." Pippin: Before that, she says he's planning to become a Death Eater, and Snape can't deny it and doesn't try to apologize for it. It's not a false accusation. It's not like he doesn't know what the DE's are capable of. Unlike Regulus, he's got no trouble imagining that wizards are capable of murder. JKR confirms that Snape's tragedy was that he wanted Lily and he wanted Mulciber too. The "you've chosen your way and I've chosen mine" speech is very close to what Dumbledore says to Fudge -- if you persist in this we've come to a parting of the ways. I think Snape understood perfectly well that Lily thought it was wrong for him to use the term about anyone, and wrong to be a Death Eater -- he just didn't understand why it should be more important to her than their friendship. Why would anyone care more about strangers than they cared about a friend? I don't think he really understood until Dumbledore commented on his bravery. He saw Fleur and Roger together, and he looked stricken. I think it was then that he realized that if he'd been willing to declare his opposition to Voldemort back then, he might not have lost her. Pippin From p_yanna at hotmail.com Mon Aug 20 17:44:29 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:44:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175892 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: Now, this is speculation, but I still think it's > likely that DD orchestrated the attack - but it got more > complicated, because he had to make sure the betrayal would be > traced to a third party instead of him. He takes the Potters' > invisibility cloak the very week that the attack occurs. After the > attack, he seems to have a .. suspicious amount of knowledge of > exactly how, when & why the attack occured. How did DD know when it > happened, or what Lily did, or when to send Hagrid? It was a set- up, > I tell you. But, he's made sure that his hands remain clean, so > Snape never suspects anything - he keeps his double agent, gets a > Chosen One, and gets rid of the parents & guardian that might have > interfered w/his Plan. > > And he, of course, allows Snape to take all the guilt & blame for > this occurance. DD totally does scapegoat Snape for his sins. And he > totally does treat his followers as pawns & sacrifices in his > Machievellian plans. One thing I did like about DH was the exposure > of Puppetmaster!Dumbledore. Thank you, Rita Skeeter. :) Mim: As much as I'm inclined to think the worst of Dumbledore, I don't think his plan was quite that elaborate. However I'm intrigued about how Dumbledore was the one to suggest the Fidelius Charm and wanted to be Secret Keeper himself. If he had been it would have been hard to sell out the Potters without being exposed himself. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 18:14:47 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:14:47 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175893 > Pippin: > The funny thing is, when I read King's Cross I thought of a LeGuin character > too, but it was the burned child Theru in Tehanu, "trying to breathe, > and trying again to breathe" (quoting from memory.) In that story there is > no magic that can be used to heal her, and no witch or wizard will dare > to try. They're pretty cold about saying so. They have no power to reverse > such evil and it seems that it would be a sort of arrogance, a misuse > of their powers, to make the attempt. lizzyben: I haven't read that story, but it sounds like maybe that's what it was supposed to symbolize. But Theru is the protagonist of that story, right? The hero, the one readers are supposed to identify with. So, the characters may not empathize w/the hero, but that would make readers empathize even more w/the hero's suffering. (Again, correct me if that's wrong, haven't read that book.) Pippin: > The awful truth is that people do more harm than they can mend. I was in > tears with Kings Cross that mankind's power to injure is so great and our > power to heal so pitifully small. That point would be lost if there had > been something Dumbledore or Harry could do. If they wept it would be > for their own helplessness, and what good would that do? lizzyben: IMO, it would do a lot of good. In "the ones who walk from omelas," the young people don't free the suffering baby, either. They can't mend the harm, can't ease it's pain, can't even offer a kind word. But they do weep for their own helplessness, & the story says that this gives them more compassion for the sufferings of others, & more appreciation for the beauty & love in their own lives. The compassion is helpless, but it isn't wasted. Compare that w/"King's Cross", where Harry actually feels *less* compassion & empathy over time, where he learns to tune out & ignore the other's pain... that's a weird message. Pippin: > There was, maybe, a time when compassion could have helped Tom > Riddle but it was when he was a real child; I am sure this reflects > JKR's own experiences. I have never talked to a teacher who didn't > bewail the fact that the system so often neglects children in need > until they are school age. Often enough they are irreversibly damaged > before anyone finds out they need help. > If we're meant to think of Snape in connection with the ruined child, I > think it's only that it's what Snape and even Dumbledore might have > become if they had not been given second chances. lizzyben: Yes, that is tragic. In many ways, I think Snape, Merope & Riddle are the real faces of abandoned or damaged children. Harry is the fantasy - someone who lives w/neglect for eleven years & comes out of the experience w/o any real problems. That's not very realistic, IMO. But this just makes the sorting system at Hogwarts even weirder - so the damaged children get sorted Slytherin & good riddance? At eleven years old, it's too late for any of them? Pippin: > When Dumbledore says, "Sometimes I think we Sort too soon" I don't think > he's only talking about Snape growing to be someone who could have > been a Gryffindor. I think it's about Dumbledore wondering > whether he himself hadn't grown closer to Salazar Slytherin's idea of a > great wizard than Godric Gryffindor's. lizzyben: Hmm... I don't see that degree of honesty or self-reflection in DD. IMO he honestly thinks he's paying Snape a compliment w/that line. Pippin: > I think many Snape fans (and I am definitely including me) invested > so much in a Snape who wasn't about vengeance. But he is, he > really is. "Vengeance is sweet" he breathes. Much as I would have > hoped he was acting, he wasn't. Snape wanted retaliation for each > and every injury, real or imagined. lizzyben: But was he really more driven by revenge than everyone else? The "good guys" take revenge against their enemies *all the time*, and it's generally characterized as cool & funny when we do it - Marietta's scars, Dudley's tail, Ton-Tongue Toffee, ferret-bouncing, etc. The difference between revenge & karmic justice mostly depends on which side of the fence you stand. I think Snape thinks his actions are "karmic justice" too - Harry looks at his hidden memories, Snape will break a potion bottle. Harry steals his potion ingredients, Snape will read an embarrasing article out loud. Sirius sends Lily to her death, Snape will send Sirius to his death. See - it's justice! It's funny, cause "Revenge is sweet - and it works!" was one of my suggested themes for the series at large. Readers are totally encouraged to cheer & laugh when the "good guys" exact revenge on their enemies. We're supposed to get a sense of satisfaction when DD bullies the Dursleys, or Fred & George bully Montague. And we're also supposed to hate Snape because he's this AWFUL PERSON who's always trying to bully people & get revenge! In some ways, Snape becomes our scapegoat as well. And I was surprised to find out that Snape didn't actually seem to be motivated by hatred in his effort to bring down LV; he was motivated by love. Protecting Lily, & then protecting Harry were his main missions - bringing down LV was an extension of this mission. But Snape truly didn't seem consumed by hatred or a need for vengence; making him perhaps less vengeful than many of the other characters. In the end, I think Snape mostly hated himself. Pippin: > Ironically, he got more revenge than he wanted. > > Between relaying the prophecy and his interference in the Shrieking Shack > which led to Pettigrew's escape, those whom Snape hated ended up > dead, just as Harry said: all the Marauders and Harry himself. lizzyben: Well, is it fair to blame Snape for Pettigrew's escape? Harry first saved Pettigrew from being killed, then Pettigrew escaped when Lupin transformed. I don't think any of that was Snape's fault. It was Harry's act of mercy that ended up allowing Pettigrew to escape, which allowed LV to return. Frodo's act of mercy allowed them to get a guide, destroy the Ring & defeat evil. Harry's act of mercy allowed evil to return. Leading the reader to think that he probably shouldn't have bothered. It's just one of ways that traditional mythic themes get... I want to say twisted. Pippin: > But Snape was allowed to finish the task which Dumbledore set him, even if he > did not live to see victory, so I would like to think he died redeemed. lizzyben: Oh, me too! Pippin: After all Dumbledore made it to the next world, if in a more damaged state than Harry. lizzyben: *Grumblings about the Elect here* LOL, I think my main problem w/King's Cross might be that DD showed up there, especially after we learned that he had actually been training Harry to be a child sacrifice. Wait, I have to read about HIM again? Oh, DD, just shut up already. (Not a DD fan). > Pippin: > How can there be a final resolution to the problem of evil? What kind of > resolution is tricking the bad guy into using the wrong wand? Well, what > kind is throwing a magic ring into a volcano or killing a dragon or blowing > up a space station? Ursula LeGuin said the people who dislike the unreal > resolutions to evil in fantasy are the ones who think there is a solution to evil > in real life. :) lizzyben: I've been thinking about this, and it seems like the difference is in the way evil is characterized. In LOTR & other fantasy epics, evil is seen as some external force, some supernatural being. And there's no way to end that force. But in HP, evil is very human - LV isn't a demon, but a disturbed human being. And he's mostly just a symptom of a totally corrupt society. So, defeating LV doesn't solve anything at all, and doesn't address or resolve the real evils in that society. Which, you know, might be realistic. But do people really read fantasy to see realistic, unsatisfying resolutions to problems? Pippin: > We do see Snape and Fleur as healers, and on the rare occasions when we > see Slytherins and water types without the Harry filter, they *are* gracious > and compassionate. lizzyben: I agree w/you there, but it's more of a JKR filter. We really aren't given many positive Slyths traits, and have to sort of squint & tilt our heads to find some. Pippin: I am thinking of Snape welcoming Narcissa and Bella into his home, Draco sickened for Charity Burbage, the peacocks at Malfoy manor, Snape gripping his chair when he learns Ginny has been taken, Grimmauld Place cheerful and welcoming once it has been restored and above all to Draco saving Goyle. You could even argue that Pansy is thinking of saving her classmates when she fingers Harry. After all, Harry ends up doing exactly what she wanted him to do: give himself up. She'd have to be pretty dumb to believe that Voldemort would keep his promises, but she'd hardly be the the only witch who ever trusted the wrong person. lizzyben: And I just remembered that Harry almost killed Pansy's boyfriend! In HBP, she goes up to visit Draco after the Sectumsepra curse & tells the other Slyths what Harry did. I can see why Pansy might not be willing to risk her life for Harry Potter. But the thing is, as readers we can come up valid reasons why Pansy, or Marietta, or Montague did what they did, but I really don't think we're supposed to. We're totally encouraged to see Harry's POV, and only Harry's POV - so Marietta & Pansy are simply traitors, Montague deserved what he got, etc. In the same way, we as readers can try to come up w/independent ways in which Slytherin House might have positive or good traits, but I really don't think we're supposed to do that. Slytherins are the bad guys, & that's about it. And I have to agree w/Magpie about the "cleaning" of the Black house. The imagery of that isn't so much in how great Slytherins are, but how nice their stuff is once the taint of the unclean people has been removed. Man, why didn't I see where this was headed in OOTP? The house "waging war" & fighting to maintain its own identity while the new, better group attempted to eradicate any sign of the former group... ugh. Yeah, bad image. lizzyben From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 17:38:44 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:38:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Holding Court With Voldemorte Message-ID: <8ee758b40708201038k4d2db39fr53a244c3e83d2df2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175894 > > prep0strus wrote: > > > > There's been some talk of Voldemorte's motivation to not kill Lily > > recently, > > Ken says: Why, o why does anyone believe Voldemort was telling the > truth here? All the books, especially Deathly Hallows is full of > baddies promising to do something if only their opponents will "drop > their wands" or whatever without any intention of actually fulfilling > their 'promise/offer', so why on earth should anyone think that > Voldemort was doing anything other than making a false offer to Lily > to get her out of the way so he could kill Harry, fully intending to > turnm on Lily and kill her too when he had done so. > > So many people tell lies in the Potterverse, for reasons good or ill, > such as Dumbledore telling Snape Harry had to die while knowing full > well that he was protected by his sharing of blood with Voldy. Really > we must look at people's motivation for saying what they say rather > than blithely accepting that if they say it they mean it. A little > more critical analysis needed. > > Ken Clark montims: people believe he was telling the truth because JKR says that is what happened, and that Lily had a choice - that was what invoked the ancient magic after all. Now it could be that what JKR says is no longer treated as canon, but Harry lived BECAUSE Lily didn't have to die. (I'd quote JKR, but Lexicon refuses to open to me just now...) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 18:34:26 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:34:26 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175895 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > > I don't see Snape's death by Voldemort, by the Dark Arts, > > by a snake as being some sort of karmic justice at all. I see it > as > > a willing sacrifice by Snape, as something he's knowingly risked > ever > > since he tried to save Lily. > I don't know that the fact that Snape's death at the hands of Voldemort was perfectly foreseeable has anything at all to do with it satisfying several karmic arcs. Many fitting things are quite predictable and foreseeable -- that, in part, is why they are fitting. Karmic arts have to do with a fitting price paid for a sin or set of sins. Irony, which is what you may be speaking of, is often not foreseeable. Now, irony can certainly be a part of karma, but the two things are very different. I would say that Snape's death at the hands of Voldemort and by the Dark Arts is karmic and fitting, if not particularly ironic. His death by Nagini, however, is much more ironic, but still karmic. I would agree with Zara that the backlash from Snape's decision to join the DEs, i.e. the death of Lily, is also karmic. It is also bitterly ironic. Once again, the two things go together in this instance, but they aren't the same thing. Lupinlore, who finds the way JKR handled abusive Snapey-poo's death even more delightful the more he examines it From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 18:44:33 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:44:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What things that you wanted did you get? (was: Killing Harry) In-Reply-To: References: <4B63CA4D-2FC7-4805-BF91-610619C9D13D@bubblefarm.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0708201144h5600dceeoea74c878a87cfeed@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175896 Lisa: it turns out that they didn't have any magic powers; they > just looked like Lily's eyes. Lynda: I never expected that Harry's eyes looking like Lily's meant that they had special magical abilities. One of the first things people say when they see a baby or young child is "Oh! he/she has his mother's/father's eyes." I know that a lot of people wanted there to be more behind it than that, but I really did not think it was going to show up. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kennclark at btinternet.com Mon Aug 20 19:07:40 2007 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (kenneth9840) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:07:40 -0000 Subject: Holding Court With Voldemorte In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708201038k4d2db39fr53a244c3e83d2df2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175897 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > > > > prep0strus wrote: > > > > > > There's been some talk of Voldemorte's motivation to not kill Lily > > > recently, > > > > Ken says: Why, o why does anyone believe Voldemort was telling the > > truth here? All the books, especially Deathly Hallows is full of > > baddies promising to do something if only their opponents will "drop > > their wands" or whatever without any intention of actually fulfilling > > their 'promise/offer', so why on earth should anyone think that > > Voldemort was doing anything other than making a false offer to Lily > > to get her out of the way so he could kill Harry, fully intending to > > turnm on Lily and kill her too when he had done so. > > > > So many people tell lies in the Potterverse, for reasons good or ill, > > such as Dumbledore telling Snape Harry had to die while knowing full > > well that he was protected by his sharing of blood with Voldy. Really > > we must look at people's motivation for saying what they say rather > > than blithely accepting that if they say it they mean it. A little > > more critical analysis needed. > > > > Ken Clark > > > montims: > > people believe he was telling the truth because JKR says that is what > happened, and that Lily had a choice - that was what invoked the ancient > magic after all. Now it could be that what JKR says is no longer treated as > canon, but Harry lived BECAUSE Lily didn't have to die. Ken says: No one is saying Lily didnt believe she had a choice. Its Voldemort we are talking about. The only choice he was really giving Lily was to die either before or after her son. Ken Clark From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 19:10:27 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:10:27 -0000 Subject: Snape's Request/Ungrateful Werewolf/Sorting and Snape/Dumbledore Duel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175898 > zgirnius: > The discussion started with responses to this post by JudySerenity: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175786 > Unfortunately the threading feature seems not to be working, so I > can't find all the responses. I made one...and Judy has another post > that addresses a few different responses that I remember reading. > > The line I had in mind was: > > "She and James put their faith in the wrong person," said > Dumbledore. "Rather like you, Severus. Weren't you hoping that Lord > Voldemort would spare her?" Montavilla47: This is a bit off-topic, but I find that quote very ironic. Because yes, Snape had put his faith in the wrong person. Not Lord Voldemort (who he obviously didn't have faith in, since he ran to Dumbledore after Voldemort said he'd spare Lily), but in Dumbledore. He put his faith in Dumbledore to prevent the tragedy, and he agreed to do "anything" in return. And Dumbledore let him down--and still insisted on full payment. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon Aug 20 14:45:59 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:45:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) Message-ID: <833162.25005.qm@web86208.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175899 lizzyben: And he, of course, allows Snape to take all the guilt & blame for this occurance. DD totally does scapegoat Snape for his sins. And he totally does treat his followers as pawns & sacrifices in his Machievellian plans. One thing I did like about DH was the exposure of Puppetmaster!Dumbledore. Thank you, Rita Skeeter. :) Irene: Someone brought up Dumbledore's conversation with Harry in the end of PS. People were excusing Dumbledore by saying that he just keeps his word to Snape, of course he could not tell Potter the real reason. But surely he could have chosen a different half-truth, not the one that makes sure Harry hates Snape even more than before? Not the one that makes sure Harry does not need to feel grateful, or tries to approach Snape in any way? It's like Dumbledore wants them as distrustful of each other as possible. Another small episode that annoys me is the referee in the Quidditch game. Dumbledore wanted Snape to keep an eye on Quirrel, most likely it was his idea to keep Snape in the air. Why didn't Dumbledore tell other teachers: "I want professor Snape to referee this game", why did Snape have to come across as wanting to prevent Gryffindor victory? It's like Dumbledore wanted him to be alienated from the rest of Hogwarts staff. Irene From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 19:31:52 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:31:52 -0000 Subject: Snape spy timeline in VW1 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175900 zgirnius: I was a proponent of the idea that Snape spied for Dumbledore for a considerable amount of time, in the neighborhood of a full year, in VW1. For a smaple discussion, see e. g.: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166136 In recent discussions of Snape and "The Prince's Tale" I noted a tidbit of canon which proves to me that I was right. First, let us recall that in Fall of the year OotP is set, Snape tells Umbridge he has been teaching for 14 years. That suggests he started teaching on Sept. 1 of the year the Potters died. Two monhts before 10/31, and a month after Harry's first birthday. There is absolutely no canon to support that he started mid-term. The previous Potions teacher did not die - he was alive, well, and teaching again in HBP. So it seems he retired, and that one would do in an orderly fashion, giving the school notice so a replacement could be hired. Now, I turn to my tidbit...(emphasis mine). > DH, "The Prince's Tale": > he stood on a hilltop, forlorn and cold in the darkness, the wind whistling through the branches of a few *leafless* trees. zgirnius: One can argue that it can be cold and windy any time of year in the British Isles, (as any number of discussions of the timing of the prophecy demonstrate) but trees there do follow the seasons in the usual manner. This scene cannot be just days before the Potters died, because why then would Snape choose to meet DD in this nasty place instead of a cozy office at the school where they both work? And why would he fear DD might kill him, before he has said a word? So it took place in the Fall or Winter of the previous year, months before Harry's first birthday in mid-summer. Additional evidence is available in the form of Lily's letter to Sirius. In it she makes clear that her family is in hiding. But I do not believe she wrote it within a week of her death on Halloween. In it, she thanks Sirius for Harry's birthday present, an item she received a full three months previously. The letter also describes the party they had. I don't think she would have waited close to three months to write that letter. So I conclude that they went into hiding after Snape came to Dumbledore. The figure of a year which I always favored, would be based on Sirius's angry accusation of Peter in PoA. During this time DD grew to suspect a spy in the Order, as someone was reporting on the Potters' movements, and Dumbledore got to see just how seriously Snape meant that "Anything". A far better reason for him to eventually decide he could hire Snape despite his DE past than just that Snape showed up one day and said he was sorry. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 19:43:43 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:43:43 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) In-Reply-To: <833162.25005.qm@web86208.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175901 > Irene: > > Someone brought up Dumbledore's conversation with Harry in the end of PS. People were excusing Dumbledore by saying that he just keeps his word to Snape, of course he could not tell Potter the real reason. But surely he could have chosen a different half-truth, not the one that makes sure Harry hates Snape even more than before? Not the one that makes sure Harry does not need to feel grateful, or tries to approach Snape in any way? > > It's like Dumbledore wants them as distrustful of each other as possible. Another small episode that annoys me is the referee in the Quidditch game. Dumbledore wanted Snape to keep an eye on Quirrel, most likely it was his idea to keep Snape in the air. Why didn't Dumbledore tell other teachers: "I want professor Snape to referee this game", why did Snape have to come across as wanting to prevent Gryffindor victory? It's like Dumbledore wanted him to be alienated from the rest of Hogwarts staff. lizzyben: Well, it's two-fold, IMO: 1. DD doesn't want his followers comparing notes. Look how much better we understood DD's true agenda w/just Snape's memories. If we saw what DD told the Potters, and Lupin, and Sirius, and the Weasleys, we'd get an even more complete picture of his manipulations. DD parcels out information jealously, and each follower gets the absolute minimum necessary to complete their mission (sometimes not even that). If Snape started sharing information w/other Order members & they compared stories, I think people would realize how much DD was using & exploiting them. DD has lied to Snape all along about his real mission, & never tells Snape about the Horcruxes or the Wand. He must have been worried that, if Snape became too emotionally close to Harry, he would never go along w/DD's Plan to sacrifice Harry. It's in DD interests to make sure Snape & Harry are antagonistic & don't ally against Dumbledore. 2. DD likes to bully & humiliate Snape. I noticed this from at least POA on - DD does seem to enjoy making Snape's life (more) miserable on many different occasions. IMO, this is because DD sees himself in Snape, has projected his unacknowleged faults upon Snape, and has done so since the beginning of their relationship. Snape comes to DD as a desperate man, a man who's ambition & association w/Dark Wizards has endangered the life of a woman he loves. Hmmm - now why would that situation push DD's buttons? "You disgust me," DD says. Snape accepts the abuse, because he doesn't really expect any better. DD can scapegoat & blame Snape for his own sins & feel superior & good about it. And the dsyfunctional relationship grows from there. Snape of course passes it forward onto Gryffindor students in general. lizzyben From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Aug 20 19:52:29 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Letting Snape go (was Re: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Message-ID: <13451148.1187639549489.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 175902 Potioncat: >It all happened quickly---or from Trelawney's point of view it does--- >There could have been two reasons for letting Snape go. One is that >DD knows he is a DE, but doesn't want LV to know he knows. The second >is that DD knows what LV will told. DD knows Snape has heard that a >Chosen One is coming (I'm part of the small knot of people who do not >think the first part is clear that the one is not yet born) and he >knows that LV will try to find that person. Bart: DD does not set much store by prophecy (OOP, explanation to Harry, among others). He believes that prophecies only come true if we allow them to come true. He also knows Morty to be superstitious, even by WW standards (or, more precisely, him giving as much value to symbols as he does to that which is symbolized, as shown to us, for example, by his need to acquire souvenirs) and would therefore fully believe the prediction. Given that, it makes great sense for DD to allow Snape to escape. There was a very popular mystery series (still widely shown in repeats) called COLUMBO. The stories almost always followed a very strict formula. Part of it was: Person commits murder, leaving a single clue. Lt. Columbo notices the clue, and becomes suspicious, but it is nowhere near enough for conviction. So he sets a trap, which causes the murderer to take additional action, that WILL serve as proof, when taken with all the other evidence (not to mention that the murderer, when confronted with the evidence, conveniently confesses to everything). This is what I believe to be DD's motivation: Morty is VERY effective at acting through agents, keeping himself out of the line of fire. DD was hoping that the prophecy would cause Morty to act, and expose himself to capture and maybe even defeat. Well, like a number of DD's plans, things go wrong (before people scream "Canon!": his being lured away during the COS raid and the PS/SS raid, the invasion of Hogwarts coming when he's partially disabled in HBP, just to name 3), and the secret keeper is the traitor. BTW, here's an interesting thought: RW poltergeists are often caused by extremely upset adolescents. In DH, it is mentioned that Peeves has been around 25 years. Doing the math (always a risky proposition in the HP series), it seems to be right around the time of SWM. In addition, Peeves spelled backwards is "Seveep" which is a contraction of Sev Snape, spelled sideways, sort of. Bart From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 20:03:44 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:03:44 -0000 Subject: deathly hallows and the wands. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175903 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "e_jobe" wrote: > > I AM SO CONFUSED!!! I just finished "Deathly Hallows" and there are so > many wands in this story I can't keep track. I understand that > Voldemort stole the Elder Wand from Dumbledore's tomb and I think I > understand why it won't work for him. But what I don't get is that in > the final battle Harry says that he stole the Elder Wand from Draco > and that that makes him the master of it, but at the same time he is > holding another wand which he says he stole from Draco. I just do not > understand. Please explain. Thanks. > Eric > Juli: Dumbledore came to posession of the Elder Wand in the duel between him and Grindewald in 1945, as he won the duel he won the wand. Grindewald had taken the wand from Gregorvich (sp?) the Bulgarian wand maker. In HBP, during the scene on top of the astronomy tower, right after DD and Harry had returned from their Horcrux hunt, Draco disarmed DD, therefore he came to ownership of the Elder Wand. In DH, when Harry & Co are taken to the Malfoy manor by the snatchers, HArry overtakes Draco 'stealing' his wand, the Hawthron wand. Then Harry comes to posession of both the Elder Wand and Draco's Hawthrone wand. Voldemort believing that since Snape had killed Dumbledore, he would be master of the Elder Wand, he was wrong of course. Two reasons: One, Draco had disarmed DD first. Second, Snape didn't 'kill' DD, he ended his life, but not to defeat him, it was to 'save' him. At this point Harry is the master of three wands: his own Phoenix Wand, Draco's Hawthron wand, adn the Elder Wand. Sure his Phoenix wand is broken at the moment, but when he fixes it using the Elder Wand, he's got the alliegance of three wands, all of them would work perfectly for him. Juli From CatMcNulty at comcast.net Mon Aug 20 19:01:23 2007 From: CatMcNulty at comcast.net (Cathy McNulty) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:01:23 -0000 Subject: deathly hallows and the wands. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175904 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "e_jobe" wrote: > > I AM SO CONFUSED!!! I just finished "Deathly Hallows" and there are so > many wands in this story I can't keep track. I understand that > Voldemort stole the Elder Wand from Dumbledore's tomb and I think I > understand why it won't work for him. But what I don't get is that in > the final battle Harry says that he stole the Elder Wand from Draco > and that that makes him the master of it, but at the same time he is > holding another wand which he says he stole from Draco. I just do not > understand. Please explain. Thanks. > Greetings Eric! Yes, things were happening rather fast and furious during Deathly Hallows. I had to go back and map things out. Let me see if I can slow things down a bit and follow the wand trail. First, Draco disarmed Dumbledore by force on the tower at the end of Half-Blood Prince. By that action he "conquered" the Elder Wand's master and the Elder Wand then changed it's allegance to his new master Draco, even though he (Draco) did not have physical possession of it (Elder Wand). Second, Harry disarmed Draco of his wand by force at Malfoy Manor. This action was unbeknownst(?)to the Elder Wand (now resting in Dumbledore's tomb). Third, Voldemort stole the Elder Wand from Dumbledore's tomb. Then LV thought that because Snape had killed Dumbledore he had "conquered" Dumbledore and therefore the allegance of the Elder Wand was transferred to Snape. (Not so, Snape had fulfilled Dumbledore's request by killing the already dying Dumbledore, he had not "conquered" the Elder Wand's master)LV killed Snape and thought in doing that, he was now the master of the Elder Wand. Until... In the final battle, Harry(using Draco's wand)let's Voldemort (and the Elder Wand(?)) know that he (Harry) had overcome the wand's master (Draco) by force and took his wand. Therefore, the Elder Wand finds out (if it didn't already know) that it was about to be used against his master (Harry). Finally, when the Elder Wand is "forced" to hex its master (Harry), the curse rebounds on LV. Is that as clear as muddy water? At least that is how I understand it! :-) Now, we know that Dumbledore had possession of the Elder Wand ever since he had conquered Grindewald. My question is ... Did Dumbledore always have it with him and use it on a regular basis? Or was it only brought out and used in special circumstances like the battle at the Ministery with Voldemort? Similiar to "everyday" china and china that is used for "special" occasions. Cat >^-.-^< From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Aug 20 20:17:32 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:17:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175905 Ceridwen: > > > So I would put Lily at > > sixteen at the same moral place as everyone else in the series is > > supposed to be. She definitely shut the door against Snape without > > giving him a chance. She is culpable, according to what we have > seen > > of others of nearly the same age. > > > > *(snip)* Never mind that she got > > an apology, never mind that Dumbledore is held up as being somehow > > saintly for offering second chances, she can shut the door and have > > no repercussions. > > > Alla: > > Sure if Lily had something to answer for, I would agree that > characters in Potterverse at sixteen are held to it. But Lily is > culpable? I find it truly mind boggling. Ceridwen: If what we're shown is the truth, and all of it, then yes, culpable, for not giving a second chance. The second chance seems to be a hallmark of the Good Guys. Harry gives second chances, Dumbledore gives second chances. Why not Lily? Alla: > The girl at whom Snape threw the worst insult in WW, girl who was > making excuses for him for years, just had enough. > > In my view she is not giving Snape not second chance here, but > probably tenth or twentieth. Ceridwen: Then, that's different. If what we were shown is the last of several similar incidents, then Lily has gone beyond second chances. Thing is, it could be either, the only time an apology was offered, or the twentieth time and she was fed up (and I wouldn't blame her). Alla: > **She** is culpable? Even if she did not give Snape just a second > chance, since when it is a reason to hold character culpable? Ceridwen: I'm not sure what you're asking here. If she didn't give Snape a second chance, still as a character, she should not be held culpable? Or it's strange to hold a literary creation culpable? I think, as I said above, that she should be held accountable for her own actions, within the story, of course. Lily Evans Potter of the HP series doesn't really exist. I expect more out of the Good Guys than I do out of the Bad. And if the Bad Guys make a mistake and don't offer a second chance and it comes back to bite them, then they get what they deserve. It's probably not the first time, since they're Bad, so the punishment will be according to the time we saw and the times we didn't see. There is a bit of wish fulfillment in seeing the Bad Guys punished in almost every story, I think. But I also prefer to see the Good Guys held to a higher standard because they're more capable of holding that standard, and it's what is expected of the term "Good Guys". I love to see the Good Guys being Good. It's what they're supposed to do best. Since giving second chances has been held up as some standard for the Good Guys in the series, I expect to see the Good Guys doing it, or suffering for the momentary lapse. Again, if this is the third, sixth, twentieth time, that chances the scene. But this is the only scene we have of Snape apologizing, if I recall correctly. Alla: > I cannot help but having RL metaphors again. Trust me, if somebody > called me what I consider to be the RL metaphor of that name and > while apologising to me continued to think that it is okay to call > other jewish people that name, there would be slamming of the door > for sure. Ceridwen: Yes, because this is real life. Our standards are colored in gray. Someone else might offer second or even third chances, because the person means a lot to them, and/or they hold out hope that the person can be educated. Lily is a fictitious character who has been presented, through not having much said about her, true, as nearly a saint. I expect fictionally saint-like behavior out of her. Alla: *(snip)* > I would run for my life from such a person. I give a lot of credit to > Lily for sticking with Snape for so long. > > She must have really liked him as a friend, if she was willing to > ignore that for so long IMO. Ceridwen: She's mentioned to him before about calling other people that word, but this was apparently the first time he's ever called her that. Yes, I think she really did like him a lot, as a friend. They were friends since childhood, and that's difficult to give up. It could have been a mix of the two issues, Snape calling others this name, then calling her the name, but when I put it like that, I think, so, Lily minded others being called this name but not enough to stop seeing her friend. It's only when it gets personal that she turns her back. I don't like this interpretation at all. Mim: *(snipping canon)* > > He was apprehended eavesdropping. Aberforth (I'm guessing) is > pretty > > much holding him by the scruff of his neck here. Dumbledore could > do > > what he wanted with him but chose to let him go. > > Alla: > > Thank you, but this part I remember. I do not see how it follows from > Aberforth holding him to Dumbledore could do whatever he wanted and > chose to let him go. > > For example Snape nonverbally hexed Aberforth and run for his life > and yeah, Dumbledore could not stop him. As we saw Dumbledore can get > hurt in the battle. IMO of course. Ceridwen: I think Mim mentioned earlier, or someone did, that DD could have Obliviated the memory from Snape - we saw how quickly that can be done when Shacklebolt modified Marietta's memory in OotP. It would have taken as much time, or less, than it would have taken Snape to nonverbally hex Aberforth, and DD is the more powerful wizard, especially at this point. If Snape had been ordered by LV to seek a position already, Snape wouldn't want to duel Dumbledore, either. (I think he wouldn't have run, or he would have had to answer to LV for botching this or any other future chance to get into Hogwarts, but this part is really speculating, so YMMV) Ceridwen. From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Mon Aug 20 20:08:12 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:08:12 -0000 Subject: Snape spy timeline in VW1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175906 > zgirnius: > I was a proponent of the idea that Snape spied for Dumbledore for a > considerable amount of time, in the neighborhood of a full year, in > VW1. > in HBP. > > Now, I turn to my tidbit...(emphasis mine). > > > DH, "The Prince's Tale": > > he stood on a hilltop, forlorn and cold in the darkness, the wind > whistling through the branches of a few *leafless* trees. > So it took place in the Fall or Winter of the previous year, months > before Harry's first birthday in mid-summer. Do we know exactly when the prophecy was given? We know that Snape overheard it in part and reported it to V. I wondered whether at the time he reported it that he was unaware of Lily's pregnancy. It would give added weight to his horror if he only subsequently discovered that this gem of info he had delivered did not refer to some unknown and 'inconsequential' child but to the child of 'his' Lily. In fact I even speculate that the provision of the prophecy was the price of Snapes admission to the inner circle of 'marked' Death Eaters. That would be truly ironic, the price of his coveted entry to 'the club' is likely to be the life of the only person he has ever cared for. allthecoolnamesgone From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 20:23:42 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:23:42 -0000 Subject: Holding Court With Voldemorte In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175907 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kenneth9840" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > > > > > > > prep0strus wrote: > > > > > > > > There's been some talk of Voldemorte's motivation to not kill > Lily > > > > recently, > > > > > > Ken says: Why, o why does anyone believe Voldemort was telling > the > > > truth here? All the books, especially Deathly Hallows is full of > > > baddies promising to do something if only their opponents > will "drop > > > their wands" or whatever without any intention of actually > fulfilling > > > their 'promise/offer', so why on earth should anyone think that > > > Voldemort was doing anything other than making a false offer to > Lily > > > to get her out of the way so he could kill Harry, fully intending > to > > > turnm on Lily and kill her too when he had done so. > > > > > > So many people tell lies in the Potterverse, for reasons good or > ill, > > > such as Dumbledore telling Snape Harry had to die while knowing > full > > > well that he was protected by his sharing of blood with Voldy. > Really > > > we must look at people's motivation for saying what they say > rather > > > than blithely accepting that if they say it they mean it. A > little > > > more critical analysis needed. > > > > > > Ken Clark > > > > > > montims: > > > > people believe he was telling the truth because JKR says that is > what > > happened, and that Lily had a choice - that was what invoked the > ancient > > magic after all. Now it could be that what JKR says is no longer > treated as > > canon, but Harry lived BECAUSE Lily didn't have to die. > > Ken says: > > No one is saying Lily didnt believe she had a choice. Its Voldemort > we are talking about. The only choice he was really giving Lily was > to die either before or after her son. > > Ken Clark > Prep0strus: That's a possible interpretation; Voldemorte was cruel. But I don't think it shows any greater critical analysis. "...and there she stood, the child in her arms. At the sight of him, she dropped her son into the crib behidn her and threw her arms wide, as if this would help, as if in shielding him from sight she hoped to be chosen instead...." this, is from the perspective of Harry/Voldy - even HE gives thought to the idea of being chosen instead. "'Not Harry, not Harry, please not harry!' 'Stand aside, you silly girl... stand aside, now.' 'Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead-' 'This is my last warning-' 'Not Harry! Please...havemercy....havemercy....Not harry! Not Harry! Please - I'll do anything - ' 'Stand aside. Stand aside, girl!'" Three times he asks her to move. Uses the phrase stand aside 4 times. Why? If anything, Voldemorte was about expedience. Kill, then kill the kid. If anything, just to shut her up. Why does the kid need to come first? No one is a threat in his mind, but if anyone would be, it would be the mother. Mow them down as they come - why push her aside, just to get her afterwards? What's the point? 'He could have forced her away from the crib, but it seemed more prudent to finish them all.... Again, more specifically, he gives thought to possibly NOT 'finishing them all'. he could have forced her away, BUT it seems prudent not to... meaning, the consideration was there, to move her aside and NOT finish her off - not to do it later. Something he might have done were she cowering in the corner instead of standing in front of her child. "The green light flashed around the room and she dropped like her husband." He gives thought to not killing her, gives words to not killing her. Never does he think (and we are privy to his thoughts) 'first the babe, then the girl'. Never does he think, 'ooh, more fun to make her watch the child die'. And what reason could he have to NOT kill her? Because he's such a nice guy, and he only wants to eliminate the threat - the baby? Because 'waste not-want not'? Because he has to conserve his magic? None of these are in character. Because he wants to do something for an underling? Possible. Very possible. And here is where I find the intrigue in the character of Voldemorte. Feel free to interpret it any way you feel fit, but don't pretend that it's some higher order of reasoning that makes you think that way. We see not only voldy's words, but his thoughts. We've seen voldy do things for subordinates before. And I find it more logical, if Voldy were to want to destroy her as well, for her to do it first, not for him to waste time asking her to move, then going back and getting her later. I think it's a very valid assumption to feel that he might indeed have left her alive if she had simply gotten out of his way. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 20:32:09 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:32:09 -0000 Subject: Lily shutting the door WAS: Re: Dumbledore Disgusted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175908 > > Alla: > > > > Sure if Lily had something to answer for, I would agree that > > characters in Potterverse at sixteen are held to it. But Lily is > > culpable? I find it truly mind boggling. > > Ceridwen: > If what we're shown is the truth, and all of it, then yes, culpable, > for not giving a second chance. The second chance seems to be a > hallmark of the Good Guys. Harry gives second chances, Dumbledore > gives second chances. Why not Lily? Alla: And I am asking why Lily. NOT all good guys give second chances as far as I can remember, no? I mean, it is great and all that, but since when the refusal of injured party to forgive is something to hold the injured party for as culpable, real or fictious. Since when is it their fault? We are not even talking about injured party pursuing revenge against the attacker here, we are just talking about refusal to forgive, no? I think it is an absolute right of the victim to do so. And no, I am not talking about Snape and even Sirius holding grudges, I am not talking about victim going out and doing bad things to the attacker, just refusing to have anything to do with him. > Alla: > > **She** is culpable? Even if she did not give Snape just a second > > chance, since when it is a reason to hold character culpable? > > Ceridwen: > I'm not sure what you're asking here. If she didn't give Snape a > second chance, still as a character, she should not be held > culpable? Or it's strange to hold a literary creation culpable? Alla: See above. It is very strange for me that you are suggesting that injured party should be hold accountable for refusal to forgive. I give extra points for being forgiving in my mind, I do **not** hold it against the victim if she says no. And again, I am sure I will get the response what about Snape. I am not talking about Lily going out and doing bad things to Snape, THEN I would hold her accountable, for sure. But just refusing to have anything to do with him? No, not in my book IMO. Ceridwen: > But I also prefer to see the Good Guys held to a higher standard > because they're more capable of holding that standard, and it's what > is expected of the term "Good Guys". I love to see the Good Guys > being Good. It's what they're supposed to do best. Since giving > second chances has been held up as some standard for the Good Guys in > the series, I expect to see the Good Guys doing it, or suffering for > the momentary lapse. Again, if this is the third, sixth, twentieth > time, that chances the scene. But this is the only scene we have of > Snape apologizing, if I recall correctly. Alla: I do not really care if it is second time or twentieth, honestly. But I think the possibility that it is more than second time is suggested by " I had been making excuses for you for years" I do not believe that it is Lily's obligation to do so. > Ceridwen: > Yes, because this is real life. Our standards are colored in gray. > Someone else might offer second or even third chances, because the > person means a lot to them, and/or they hold out hope that the person > can be educated. Lily is a fictitious character who has been > presented, through not having much said about her, true, as nearly a > saint. I expect fictionally saint-like behavior out of her. Alla: Why do you expect not even human behaviour but Saint behavior from her? I think it was clear in this book that she is so not a saint, she is IMO strong **good** girl, but so not a saint and I would not hold her to saint standards, IMO. How much hurt in your opinion Lily should have taken from Snape before it would be Okay for her to shut the door? Would something like what happened with Mary suffice whatever it was? Or maybe she knows that this word is a code word that means that anybody who uses it, would be quite Okay to do bad things to mudbloods? Maybe she finally got scared that despite Snape claiming that she is okay, he will not stop before doing bad things to her? IMO of course. Alla. From p_yanna at hotmail.com Mon Aug 20 20:58:30 2007 From: p_yanna at hotmail.com (frumenta) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:58:30 -0000 Subject: Lily shutting the door WAS: Re: Dumbledore Disgusted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175909 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > Alla: > > > > > > Sure if Lily had something to answer for, I would agree that > > > characters in Potterverse at sixteen are held to it. But Lily is > > > culpable? I find it truly mind boggling. Mim: I see all this talk about Lily not forgiving Snape and she doesn't really have to answer for that in my book. I'd like her to answer as to why she didn't truly interfere in the worst memory. Because we have her wandless friend, who has not yet called her a mudblood, choking on soap bubbles on the ground and Lily doesn't bother to lift the spell. Then her friend who has not yet called her a mudblood, is turned upside down and she's amused. She's too busy doing her little mating dance with James to truly do much. And after her friend does call her a mudblood she insults him in turn and then leaves him to his fate, namely James removing his pants. She doesn't interfere magically and she doesn't, from what we can tell, alert a teacher. All in good fun. Then Snape begs her forgiveness but she's already made her choice. And it looks like she had made her choice before, anyway. She's sick of making excuses (to her friends, I presume who can't see why she would hang out with someone slimy, unpopular and bigoted). Lily isn't a saint and the mudblood incident is a perfect chance to end the friendship while on the moral high ground. I wonder what she would have done if Snape had said he wouldn't join the Death Eaters. According to JKR she could love him back if he hadn't chosen the DE over her but I somehow don't really see it from what we've seen on the text. The popular and pretty girl had to end up with the rich and handsome jock, not the poor goth weirdo :) Mim From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon Aug 20 19:52:43 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:52:43 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's friends In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C9F10B.4070203@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175910 mjanetd wrote: > > Btw, does it bother anyone else that Harry and Ron never bother to > learn any thing on their own? They learn the spells they have to for > class but nothing else. If they'd had something that interesting to > teach me I would have done a lot better in school and would have put > up with even Snape as a teacher. > It bothered me all along, but especially in book 7. I could understand that Harry isn't an academic type of person, and he has more "interesting" things to do while at school, like Quidditch. But in book 7, all those camping trips, the absolute boredom and loneliness of the thing, and he never, ever thinks to pick up one of the books that Hermione has brought along. Not my kind of hero, I'm afraid. :-) Irene From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 20:39:46 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:39:46 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Holding Court With Voldemorte In-Reply-To: References: <8ee758b40708201038k4d2db39fr53a244c3e83d2df2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40708201339l6860cad7ofe7e25cae12ccb27@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175911 > > Really > > > we must look at people's motivation for saying what they say > rather > > > than blithely accepting that if they say it they mean it. A > little > > > more critical analysis needed. > > > > > > Ken Clark > > > > > > montims: > > > > people believe he was telling the truth because JKR says that is > what > > happened, and that Lily had a choice - that was what invoked the > ancient > > magic after all. Now it could be that what JKR says is no longer > treated as > > canon, but Harry lived BECAUSE Lily didn't have to die. > > Ken says: > > No one is saying Lily didnt believe she had a choice. Its Voldemort > we are talking about. The only choice he was really giving Lily was > to die either before or after her son. montims: OK - lexicon let me in - http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-1.htm *ES: This is one of my burning questions since the third book - why did Voldemort offer Lily so many chances to live? Would he actually have let her live?* JKR: Mmhm. *ES: Why?* JKR: [silence] Can't tell you. But he did offer, you're absolutely right. Don't you want to ask me why James's death didn't protect Lily and Harry? There's your answer, you've just answered your own question, because she could have lived and chose to die. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Aug 20 21:16:07 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:16:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175912 Potioncat, snipping all of Ceridwin's post, and agreeing with 99% of it. Now snipping parts of Alla's post: > > Alla: > Why? Because I would realise what an idiot I had been and this person > while considering me to be **the good jew** would still think that > all other people of my descent are beneath him. > > I would run for my life from such a person. I give a lot of credit to > Lily for sticking with Snape for so long. > > She must have really liked him as a friend, if she was willing to > ignore that for so long IMO. Potioncat: I agree. It's a common theme in literature of Antebellum and Segregated Southern US. Childhood friends who reach a point toward adulthood where the difference becomes a major barrier. Severus has been overlooking Lily's unfortunate circumstance of birth. He likes her in spite of it. He pays no attention to the elephant in the room. But it is an important issue where anyone else is concerned. That is, he judges others by their birth. Whether he grew into that, or felt that way all along, I'm not sure. I can't really blame Lily. But it's telling that she doesn't break until he calls 'her' a Mudblood. I still can't grasp why Severus was so well accepted by the Slytherins. His mother 'married' a Muggle. He's a Half-blood. But Half-bloods seem to be tolerated among the Pureblood sector. Of course, I wonder if Severus would have been allowed to date Mulciber's sister? (Alla's post about DD letting Snape leave the Hogshead.) > Alla: > > I do not see how it follows from > Aberforth holding him to Dumbledore could do whatever he wanted and > chose to let him go. Potioncat: I think DD could have stopped Snape from leaving if he had chosen to do so. He had some reason. Prior to DH, I might have thought DD was giving him a chance---but now I don't think so. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Aug 20 21:35:38 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:35:38 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175913 This message is a Special Notice for all members of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups In addition to being published onlist (available in webview), this post is also being delivered offlist (to email in boxes) to those whose "Message Delivery" is set to "Special Notices." If this is problematic or if you have any questions, contact the List Elves at (minus that extra space) HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 1, The Dark Lord Ascending Two men Apparate into a lane bordered by low brambles on one side and a manicured yew hedge on the other. They challenge each other with their wands, and then recognize each other. Snape has news. He and Yaxley walk down the lane to a drive, which is blocked by a wrought iron gate. Lifting their left arms "in a kind of salute," they pass through the gates as if they were smoke. There is a white peacock on the hedge and its noise alerts the men in the darkness. Yaxley comments that "He always did himself well, Lucius. *Peacocks*..." Gravel crunches as a fountain plays beyond the hedge. We know this is an upper-class property. The house at the end of the drive looms out of the darkness and the doors open to the two men. They enter a dimly lit and sumptuously furnished hall, then Snape opens the door to a drawing room where the usual furniture has been pushed aside to make room for a table and chairs. Something is rotating slowly above the table, the body of a person. Only one occupant of the table looks at it occasionally, Draco Malfoy, who is described as "a pale young man sitting almost directly below it." Voldemort sits at the head of the table, in front of the fireplace. He tells Snape to sit at his right hand and sends Yaxley down the table. Everyone watches Snape as he goes to the head of the table. Voldemort encourages Snape to speak. Everyone at the table listens as Snape reports that the Order of the Phoenix will move Harry Potter from his home "on Saturday next, at nightfall." Voldemort looks at Snape so intently that others look away, but Snape does not look away. Voldemort's mouth approximates a smile and he confirms the identity of the informant, who is a source he and Snape have discussed earlier. Yaxley disagrees with Snape's report. "Dawlish, the Auror, let slip that Potter will not be moved before the thirtieth, the night before the boy turns seventeen." Snape disagrees, saying that the Order does not trust the Ministry, especially since it seems as if the Ministry is being infiltrated. An unidentified Death Eater confirms that this is happening by saying, "The Order's got one thing right, then, eh?" Voldemort contemplates the revolving body. Yaxley tries to continue, but Voldemort stops him and asks Snape where the boy will be hidden. He will be taken to the home of an Order member. Every protection the Order and the Ministry can give has been put on this place. If the Ministry falls before the boy is moved, they have a chance of discovering the various charms so they can be undone enough to go after him. Yaxley reports that the Imperius Curse has been cast on Pius Thicknesse, head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement. He has access to Minister Scrimgeour, and to the heads of the various departments. The other heads can be subjugated easily through this, and Scrimgeour will be brought down. However, it may not happen by Saturday. Yaxley informs Voldemort that the Death Eaters have several people in the Department of Magical Transport, which oversees floo travel and Apparition. Snape says that the Order will not use either method of travel that is controlled or regulated by the Ministry. Voldemort says this will be better, because they will have to move in the open. Harry will be easier to take this way. Voldemort goes on to say that he will take the boy in person. There have been too many mistakes, and Voldemort accepts some of the blame, saying that Potter's living has more to do with his errors than Harry's triumphs. Voldemort understands now that he has to be the one to kill Harry. A wail is heard. Voldemort dispatches Wormtail to keep the prisoner quiet. Wormtail is described as a small man who sat low in his chair that the chair appeared unoccupied. Wormtail leaves the room. Voldemort says he needs to borrow a wand from one of his followers. Everyone is shocked: "he might have announced that he wanted to borrow one of their arms." No one volunteers. Voldemort says there is no need for Lucius to have a wand anymore. Lucius does not immediately hand over his wand. He is described as being "yellowish and waxy in the firelight," with eyes that are "sunken and shadowed." His voice is hoarse. Lucius looks at his wife, who does not acknowledge him with a look, but closes her hand around his wrist under the table. Lucius hands over his wand. It is elm with dragon heartstring core. Voldemort draws his wand to compare to Lucius', and Lucius moves as if he thinks Voldemort will exchange wands with him. Voldemort makes fun of him for thinking this, and some people snigger. Voldemort says that he has given Lucius liberty, which should be enough, but Lucius' family have been "less than happy of late." He asks what about his presence disturbs them. Lucius says nothing, Voldemort calls that a lie. It seems that Voldemort continues to hiss when he has finished speaking, but it is Nagini under the table. She climbs the chair and drapes herself on Voldemort. She is very large: her neck is as thick as a man's thigh. She seems to climb endlessly. Her eyes are unblinking. Voldemort strokes her and asks why the Malfoys look "unhappy with their lot." Haven't they wanted Voldemort's return? Lucius says of course this is what they wanted - want. Narcissa nods as she avoids looking at Voldemort and the snake. Draco glances at Voldemort, then away, "afraid to make eye contact." It is left to Narcissa's sister, Bellatrix, to say it is an honor to have Voldemort in their home. She leans toward Voldemort, unlike her sister. Voldemort mentions the marriage of Black relation Nymphadora Tonks to the werewolf, Remus Lupin, describing it as "the happy event." Other Death Eaters jeer. Bellatrix and the Malfoys are humiliated, even though Bellatrix has said sincerely that it was an honor and the greatest pleasure to host Voldemort. Bellatrix disowns Tonks, saying she and Narcissa have not seen their sister since she married the Mudblood, and that Tonks's marriage has nothing to do with either of them. Voldemort asks Draco if he will babysit the cubs. Draco looks at his father, who is staring at his own hands in his lap, then at his mother, who gives him an imperceptible shake of her head before she resumes staring ahead of her. Voldemort says "enough" and the laughter dies. Voldemort says that family trees become diseased over time, and they must be pruned to keep them healthy. Bellatrix takes his message to heart. Voldemort likens the pruning of the family tree to the larger pruning of the world. Voldemort releases the spell on the revolving body. The person struggles. Voldemort asks Snape if he recognizes the "guest." All of the Death Eaters now look at the person. It is a woman, who sees Snape as she faces the fireplace. Terrified, she calls for him to help her. Voldemort asks Draco if he knows the woman. Draco shakes his head. He is now unable to look at the woman. Voldemort introduces her as Charity Burbage, who "taught the children of witches and wizards all about Muggles." A Death Eater spits on the floor. Charity Burbage revolves and sees Snape again. She pleads with him. Voldemort orders her to be silent, and gags her with a spell. Burbage has also written in defense of Mudbloods in the Daily Prophet. "Wizards, she says, must accept these thieves of their knowledge and magic." She is for the dwindling of the Pureblood families. Voldemort is angry and contemptuous. Burbage is crying as she faces Snape again. Snape looks at her impassively. As she revolves away, Voldemort kills her with the Avada Kedavra. Burbage falls to the table. Several Death Eaters jump back. Draco falls to the floor. Voldemort turns the snake loose and invites her to dine on the corpse. Questions: 1. Snape and Yaxley "raised their left arms in a kind of salute." Is this a reference to World War II and the likening of the Death Eaters to the Nazis, in Deathly Hallows? 2. Saluting the gate with their left arms makes them able to pass through the wrought iron gate. Is this a tacit confirmation that there was indeed a blocking spell on the tower in HBP which only allowed Death Eaters to enter? 3. The peacock at Malfoy Manor is mentioned at least twice in the book. What is its significance? 4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think might be the person hanging unconscious above the table? 5. Only one person already in the room looks up at the unconscious revolving body above the table: Draco Malfoy. Once the body is resuscitated, he no longer looks at her. Why? 6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat of honor at his right hand. Is this because Snape is his "right-hand man"? Or is Voldemort "keeping his friends close, and his enemies closer"? 7. Yaxley's information is different from Snape's. Is anyone in the Ministry who is not a member of the Order of the Phoenix aware that the Order will move Harry earlier than expected? 8. Several things that happen later in the book are alluded to in this chapter. When discussing the Imperiusing of Pius Thicknesse, Yaxley suggests that Thicknesse can subjugate the other heads of departments at the Ministry to bring down Minister Rufus Scrimgeour. Was Scrimgeour killed by the Imperiused heads of the various departments under Thicknesse's direction? 9. Who is Snape's informant? Who does Voldemort think it is? Is it the same person? 10. Lucius and his family are clearly not happy with Voldemort's presence. Is this because Lucius is still disgraced from his botched mission at the Ministry and his use of the diary Horcrux? Does their apparent discomfort at the situation foreshadow their lack of involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts? 11. Wormtail is described as sitting so low that his chair looks unoccupied. Is this further sign of his physical deterioration as seen in HBP? Is this because he would rather not be there? Is it just that he is a small man? Or is it symbolic in some way? 12. The Malfoys do not make much eye contact with Voldemort. When Voldemort looks at Snape, other Death Eaters look away. Are all of the Death Eaters at the manor happy with Voldemort's return? 13. Snape looks comfortably into Voldemort's eyes when the other Death Eaters turn away. We see an example of Voldemort's Legillimency later in the book. How strong is Snape's Occlumency? 14. Why does Voldemort praise Bellatrix, then humiliate her? 15. Where were the Lestrange brothers? 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she pleads and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this the first time he could not save someone? Was Charity Burbage someone Snape could not save? 17. Voldemort refers to "Mudbloods" as "thieves" of the Wizarding World's "knowledge and magic." This charge is repeated later in the book. Is it possible for a witch or wizard to have her or his magic stolen? Is it possible to steal knowledge without leaving that knowledge for others as well? 18. When Charity Burbage's body falls to the table, several Death Eaters jump back in their chairs. Draco falls off his chair to the floor. Is this symbolic of some Death Eaters not being fully behind Voldemort's agenda? Or was it simply surprise? 19. Why are the Purebloods dwindling? 20. Voldemort has no issues with "pruning" the family tree of undesirables, even though they may be pure-blood or half-bloods. Yet, he is displeased with Burbage's article and her assertion that the dwindling of Pureblood families is a good thing. Voldemort says, of Charity Burbage, "She would have us all mate with Muggles... or, no doubt, werewolves..." He includes himself with the Purebloods here. Does he think his Muggle father's family doesn't count? Or is he actively enforcing the idea that he, too, is a Pureblood? 21. Why does Voldemort think that Lucius does not need his wand anymore? 22. Do you think Voldemort is planning on dispensing with the Malfoys eventually? 23. Voldemort invites Nagini to dine on the corpse of Charity Burbage. What do you imagine the reactions of the others around the table might be? This idea has been presented in the books before. When do you think Nagini has disposed of the evidence before? Is this part of her value to Voldemort, or is Voldemort giving his pet a treat? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From thaijasmine1 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 19:44:13 2007 From: thaijasmine1 at yahoo.com (jasmine) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:44:13 -0000 Subject: The Missing Mirror (really missing) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175914 I remember being frustrated with Harry in book 5 (OotP)when, after the dream that he had about Sirius being tortured, he did not think about using the mirror to communicate but instead break into Umbridge's office to use her fireplace. Subsequently, as we all know, Kreacher lied to Harry that Sirius is in the Department of Mystery etc. In thinking that his godfather is in danger, Harry & Co. went to MoM to do a "rescue mission". In DH the mirror becomes very important, as it is a way for Aberforth to check on Harry and ultimately aided him by sending Dobby to rescue Harry & Co. from Malfoy Manor (in which Dobby died..Sob!). I'm not sure if it matters much, but in the film version of OotP, there was no mention of Sirius giving Harry the mirror at all. I know JKR told the film maker to make sure they include Kreacher in the film because they would have been tied in a knot in the film version of DH (I assumed it is because of Kreacher's tale/locket/RAB etc). So, I wonder how they are going to do: (1)Rescue Harry & Co. from Malfoy Manor (2)Dobby's death scene (3)Aberforth finally getting involved (4)Well, some of the deus ex machina from ch 2 "In Memoriam" onwards Dunno... Just a thought from a rabid fan of both the books and films versions.:D Jasmine. From juli17 at aol.com Mon Aug 20 22:32:00 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:32:00 -0000 Subject: Holding Court With Voldemorte In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175915 Adam wrote: > > And what reason could he have to NOT kill her? Because he's such a > nice guy, and he only wants to eliminate the threat - the baby? > Because 'waste not-want not'? Because he has to conserve his magic? > None of these are in character. Because he wants to do something for > an underling? Possible. Very possible. And here is where I find the > intrigue in the character of Voldemorte. > > Feel free to interpret it any way you feel fit, but don't pretend that > it's some higher order of reasoning that makes you think that way. We > see not only voldy's words, but his thoughts. We've seen voldy do > things for subordinates before. And I find it more logical, if Voldy > were to want to destroy her as well, for her to do it first, not for > him to waste time asking her to move, then going back and getting her > later. I think it's a very valid assumption to feel that he might > indeed have left her alive if she had simply gotten out of his way. > > ~Adam (Prep0strus) Julie: I think he might have left her alive too, and you are right that in this case he is doing something for an "underling." But I believe it is simple expediency. Snape at any age was a very gifted wizard, and Voldemort appreciates that fact. He has no reason *not* to let Lily live when it will cement Snape's loyalty--i.e. usefulness--to Voldemort. Of course, he's not going to go to much effort, not even bothering to do a simple stupefy spell rather than bothering with all the talk (though this is plot-driven I'm sure, since it makes little sense). One thing I don't believe is that Voldemort gave a damn about his DEs beyond their usefulness. After all he killed Snape, his most talented and (supposedly) loyal DE years later without the least compuction, merely because that usefulness had ended. Julie > From dezice at yahoo.com.ar Mon Aug 20 22:21:05 2007 From: dezice at yahoo.com.ar (Desire Moravenik) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:21:05 -0300 (ART) Subject: Harry's friends In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <711025.35413.qm@web56213.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175916 mjanetd wrote: You would think Snape would demand a change in books if most of the postion directions are clearly wrong like they seem to be from Hermione's results. Dezice: I don't think Snape would demand a change because he feels that potions isn't for everyone, but only for those who have it in them. So I think he would expect that those wizards or witches that have the "art" of potions in their being would be able to achieve the right mixing without the books' help. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 22:48:05 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:48:05 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175917 ...snip... > Questions: > > 1. Snape and Yaxley "raised their left arms in a kind of salute." > Is this a reference to World War II and the likening of the Death > Eaters to the Nazis, in Deathly Hallows? Juli: I never thought of that, but you're probably right. Not being european, and with only far european ancestry, I don't think often about the holocaust. But yes, I've seen enough movies to make me realize of the likeness. > > 2. Saluting the gate with their left arms makes them able to pass > through the wrought iron gate. Is this a tacit confirmation that > there was indeed a blocking spell on the tower in HBP which only > allowed Death Eaters to enter? Juli: I do think so. Back in HBP Harry does says something like that. If we asume this to be true, then Draco was marked before the beginning of the term. He was a Death Eater from the end of his fifth year, or sooner. > 3. The peacock at Malfoy Manor is mentioned at least twice in the > book. What is its significance? Juli: In India the peacock is a sacred animal, also because its multiplicity of "eyes" was said to alert it to approaching evil. I don't think the Malfoys have any indian ancestry, but perhaps they do have knowledge of this, and therefore use it as an alert. Also Peacocks in the 14-18th centuries were owned only by the very rich and powerful. According to the Sufi legend the peacock gives alertness, watchfulness, immortality and vanity... It doesn't seem futile, the Malfoys put the peacock(s) there to show their wealth and power, and perhaps also to add a little extra protection to their home. > 4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think might be the person hanging unconscious above the table? Juli: I was sure it was an Order member. > 5. Only one person already in the room looks up at the unconscious > revolving body above the table: Draco Malfoy. Once the body is > resuscitated, he no longer looks at her. Why? Juli: I'm guessing he is ashamed. Draco may put on his mask and pretend he's a death eater, but deep inside he's a softy. Even if Charity wasn't his teacher I'm sure he respects all Hogwarts faculty, and perhaps even admires them. > 6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat of honor at his right hand. Is > this because Snape is his "right-hand man"? Or is Voldemort "keeping > his friends close, and his enemies closer"? Juli: He is definitively giving his a place of honor, and why shouldn't he? He killed Dumbledore, his biggest enemy, has provided him with information on how to capture Harry. I'm pretty sure he holds him in higher steem than the Malfoys or even dear Bella. > 7. Yaxley's information is different from Snape's. Is anyone in the Ministry who is not a member of the Order of the Phoenix aware that the Order will move Harry earlier than expected? Juli: I don't think so. The Order is well aware that the MoM is no longer to be trusted, specially with the life of the 'chosen one'. They must have told the Ministry that Harry would be kept in one of the 12 houses, therefore giving all of them the highest security. But Scrimegour did know where Harry was, otherwise how could he have visited him to give him DD's inheritance? If Scrimgeour knew, he must have been one of the very few. > 8. Several things that happen later in the book are alluded to in > this chapter. When discussing the Imperiusing of Pius Thicknesse, > Yaxley suggests that Thicknesse can subjugate the other heads of > departments at the Ministry to bring down Minister Rufus Scrimgeour. Was Scrimgeour killed by the Imperiused heads of the various departments under Thicknesse's direction? Juli: Probably. Scrimgeour must have had even higher security than Harry, not everyone could have gotten close enough to him. Thicknesse surely Imperio'd some of his fellows, and either one of them fired the AK that killed him. > 9. Who is Snape's informant? Who does Voldemort think it is? Is it the same person? Juli: Dumbledore tells Snape how to act, when Harry's being moved, and where to. The question is, how does DD know all this? Is there another portrait of DD in other Order Member's house? Voldemort probably thinks Mundungus is the informant, he's the Order Member with the shabbiest past, the one most likely to crumble under pressure. > 10. Lucius and his family are clearly not happy with Voldemort's presence. Is this because Lucius is still disgraced from his botched mission at the Ministry and his use of the diary Horcrux? Does their apparent discomfort at the situation foreshadow their lack of involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts? Juli: Lucius was most happy when Voldemort was gone, he was a prestigious member of society, influencing the Ministry and Hogwarts, then LV comes back, he gets thrown into Azkaban, his son had a death sentence on him, his name doesn't mean anything anymore... He sure isn't happy about it. Plus he even gets his wand 'stolen' the very thing that makes a wizard a 'wizard'. I'm surprised he didn't try to betray him. Well, not surprised, he's too mcuh of a coward to do so, but I bet he wanted to. Lucius and Narcissa are loving parents, once they cared about the Pureblood Supremacy, perhaps they still do, but at the moment of the truth, they take their son above everyhting else. > 11. Wormtail is described as sitting so low that his chair looks > unoccupied. Is this further sign of his physical deterioration as > seen in HBP? Is this because he would rather not be there? Is it > just that he is a small man? Or is it symbolic in some way? Juli: I don't think his physical health is deteriorating. He IS small (shorter than Harry in his third year), and more importantly, he feels small, he feels unworthy. Or he just wants to remain unnoticed, almost invisible. > 12. The Malfoys do not make much eye contact with Voldemort. When > Voldemort looks at Snape, other Death Eaters look away. Are all of > the Death Eaters at the manor happy with Voldemort's return? Juli: Some of them are, specially those who went to Azkaban. But those like Lucius, Nott, Crabbe, and Goyle who had a good life for those years are probably a bit unhappy. They had a good, productinf life, now they are all puppets of a mad man. > 13. Snape looks comfortably into Voldemort's eyes when the other Death Eaters turn away. We see an example of Voldemort's Legillimency later in the book. How strong is Snape's Occlumency? Juli: Probably the best occlumens in the world, IMO. He's been able to remain as DD's spy for about 16-17 years. Only about 4 or 5 or those were with LV alive, but it's still a great accomplishment. Voldemort is said to be the greatest legimens, the only person able to fool him would be the greatest occlumens. > 14. Why does Voldemort praise Bellatrix, then humiliate her? Juli: Because he's evil ;) He may consider Bella as a faithful servant, therefore he appreciates her, but she isn't his friend, she's just a minion. And evil rulers take pleasure on mocking their servants. Bella is just his servant, nothing more, even if she may consider herself otherwise. > 15. Where were the Lestrange brothers? Juli: We see them during Harry's flight from Privet Drive. They're probably there, just not mentioned. > 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she pleads and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this the first time he could not save someone? Was Charity Burbage someone Snape could not save? Juli: HOW could Snape save Charity in a room full of DEs and Voldemort? It would have been suicide. I don't think Severus ever lied to Dumbledore, he may have hidden a thing ot two, but never lied. And the first time, heck no, as a DE he must have seen a zillion deaths. > 17. Voldemort refers to "Mudbloods" as "thieves" of the Wizarding World's "knowledge and magic." This charge is repeated later in the book. Is it possible for a witch or wizard to have her or his magic stolen? Is it possible to steal knowledge without leaving that knowledge for others as well? Juli: NO, no way. It's in your genes, you can't steal genes, it's just impossible. > 18. When Charity Burbage's body falls to the table, several Death Eaters jump back in their chairs. Draco falls off his chair to the floor. Is this symbolic of some Death Eaters not being fully behind Voldemort's agenda? Or was it simply surprise? Juli: They must have asumed that she was there for two possible reasons: One to be killed, or two, to go back to Hogwarts and spy. Since they all knew the short-term plan was to take over the Ministry, and Hogwarts afterwards, that only leaved one option. Even if you're a DE, a body falling from the sky is always a big surprise. > 19. Why are the Purebloods dwindling? Juli: Sirius explains this in OoP, since they are only allowed to marry other purebloods, their choices are getting smaller, most of the purebloods are relatives, and it is always unwise to marry a relative (Just think of the Gaunts). Soon they'll have to start mingling with new people, people without their specific genes, and that translates to Half-Bloods or Muggle-Borns. If they marry either one of those, their kids will no longer be purebloods. > 20. Voldemort has no issues with "pruning" the family tree of undesirables, even though they may be pure-blood or half-bloods. Yet, he is displeased with Burbage's article and her assertion that the dwindling of Pureblood families is a good thing. Voldemort says, of Charity Burbage, "She would have us all mate with Muggles... or, no doubt, werewolves..." He includes himself with the Purebloods here. Does he think his Muggle father's family doesn't count? Or is he actively enforcing the idea that he, too, is a Pureblood? Juli: As far as the world is concerned, Voldemort is a Pureblood, that's been his credo for about 20 years. In OoP, at the MoM, Harry tells Bella that LV is a half-blood, and she acts surprised. If Bella, one of his 'closest' doesn't know, them nobody knows. And he did some pruning of his own family tree, he killed his muggle relatives, therfore vanishing all traits of his muggle ancenstry from the world. One thing does make me wander, Wormtail must know, he did the entire 'ceremony' from his resurrection, and then LV says that his muggle father's bone helped him. The question is whether Wormy told anyone about ir. > 21. Why does Voldemort think that Lucius does not need his wand anymore? Juli: Because he's 'locked' inside his house. LV was punished him by not letting him leave the manor. If he's never to go outside then he wouldn't need a wand. And I don't see him using a wand to help with household chores. > 22. Do you think Voldemort is planning on dispensing with the Malfoys eventually? Juli: Not while they are of any help, and at the moment their money and their house are needed, so they are kept alive, at least for a while. Perhaps if LV had survived the final battle he would have killed them all. > 23. Voldemort invites Nagini to dine on the corpse of Charity Burbage. What do you imagine the reactions of the others around the table might be? This idea has been presented in the books before. When do you think Nagini has disposed of the evidence before? Is this part of her value to Voldemort, or is Voldemort giving his pet a treat? Juli: They surely were disgusted. I know I would. Seeing a gigantic snake eat a human been is scary. Juli - Glad to see the Chapter Discussions starting, and hoping it will bring a lighter side to all members From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 22:54:55 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:54:55 -0000 Subject: Bigotry in Potterville (was:Re: Of Sorting and Snape (+others) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175918 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > That lame little speech about "I knew a brave Slytherin once" was > > not enough for me. It smacked too much of "there are honest > > negros out there" for me. IOWs, praise that reveals the inner > > bigotry. An "honest negro" is strange enough to remark on, just > > as a brave (or worthy) Slytherin is a one in a million thing. > >>Prep0strus: > Except that, in the world of JKR, it seems to me that a brave or > worthy Slytherin IS a one in a million thing. Not exactly what I > wanted to see, and I too would've liked to see some more growth from > Harry. But I don't see him as being condescendingly prejudiced or, > at least, not without good reason. Betsy Hp: Yes, Slytherins are as bad as Harry was told they were in PS/SS. And yes, JKR, I think, set it up to be so. But she took an odd direction in doing so, IMO. If anyone is familiar with the books of Roald Dahl, he almost always has "bad people" in his books. And they are unquestionably bad. Very cartoony, very villainy. Consider, for example, James's aunts from "James and the Giant Peach". "Their names were Aunt Sponge and Aunt Spiker, and I am sorry to say that they were both really horrible people. They were selfish and lazy and cruel, and right from the beginning they started beating poor James for almost no reason at all. They never called him by his real name, but always referred to him as "you disgusting little beast" or "you filthy nuisance" or "you miserable creature," and they certainly never gave him any toys to play with or any picture books to look at. His room was as bare as a prison cell." [JatGP chp. 1] Obviously horrible women, who don't even get connected to James by familial ties (IIRC, we're never told which parent these two are related to). We don't see them frightened by James's powers and strength. We don't see them show any sort of love or affection for each other. When they do get squished (IIRC) by the giant peach of the title there's no sympathy felt. JKR isn't nearly this clear about her poor Slytherins. Draco, for example, gets sat on almost from the get go. He certainly doesn't have any power over Harry. Any threatening noises he makes are just that, noises. The Dursleys spend most of the series powerless in front of Harry too. (When Dudley stands up for himself when Harry is taking his anger out on him in OotP, I actually was proud of the poor kid. That took a bit of guts on his part.) But also, Aunt Sponge and Aunt Spiker are their own horrible people. They don't belong to a certain class or a certain race or a certain house. They just are who they are. Whereas the Slytherins are a group that get sorted out at age eleven. As far as Roald Dahl has it, Aunt Sponge and Aunt Spiker never *were* age eleven. So JKR is entering into a rather bizarre conundrum where she has this entire group of people who are put into a certain box while still children, who get kissed goodnight by their mothers, and protected by their fathers, and have silly crushes, and worry about their grades and... they're not quite as human as our heroes for some reason. If one of them is deemed worthy it's so noteworthy as to garner comment. Because for the most part their love is twisted and their hearts aren't pure and their souls are kind of small. And everything that goes wrong is essentially their fault. And yet, their mothers love them. How am I supposed to reconcile that? > >>Pippin: > > Grimmauld Place cheerful and welcoming once it has been restored > > >>houyhnhnm: > > What I wanted was one clear, strong metaphor showing the potential > of the Slytherin nature (not some trying-too-hard Lovegoodesque > flight of fancy about the Delacours). I think the transformation of > 12 GP is that metaphor and I missed it. > Betsy Hp: Probably too much thinking about Freud, but this makes me think that the implication is that a cold, dark, unwelcoming woman (Slytherin house) just needs a good man (Gryffindors) to get inside her. Maybe give her a cheap bauble. And then the kitchen is warm and cozy again. Betsy Hp From MorganAnnAdams at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 22:53:14 2007 From: MorganAnnAdams at yahoo.com (Morgan) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:53:14 -0000 Subject: Voldemort - 2 bodies? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175919 When Voldemort's soul is ripped from his body in Godric's Hollow, was a body left there? He certainly doesn't have a body when Wormtail finds him later - Wormtail had to help him create one. And he only created his man-sized body at the end of Book 4. Then, he dies again at the end of Book 7. Did Voldemort somehow have 2 physical bodies, or was his body blasted away somehow when he tried to kill Harry the first time? --Morgan From renata_souza_e_souza at yahoo.com.br Mon Aug 20 18:36:01 2007 From: renata_souza_e_souza at yahoo.com.br (Renata Souza) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:36:01 -0300 (ART) Subject: [HPforGrownups] deathly hallows and the wands. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <439152.87835.qm@web50404.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175920 Eric wrote: I AM SO CONFUSED!!! I just finished "Deathly Hallows" and there are so many wands in this story I can't keep track. I understand that Voldemort stole the Elder Wand from Dumbledore's tomb and I think I understand why it won't work for him. But what I don't get is that in the final battle Harry says that he stole the Elder Wand from Draco and that that makes him the master of it, but at the same time he is holding another wand which he says he stole from Draco. renata_souza_e_souza at yahoo.com.br replies: That is because Draco DISARMED DUMBLEDORE before Snape killed him. So, Draco was the master of the elder wand. When Harry disarmed Draco, Harry turned out to be the new master of the elder wand, even though Draco was not using the elder wand. Got it ? :) From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 23:15:41 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:15:41 -0000 Subject: deathly hallows and the wands. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175921 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jlnbtr" wrote: > At this point Harry is the master of three wands: his own Phoenix > and, Draco's Hawthron wand, adn the Elder Wand. I wonder what happened to the Hawthorn wand. Did Harry return it to Draco? Would it work for Draco after it was taken from him by force and used by Harry? zanooda From juli17 at aol.com Mon Aug 20 23:22:38 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:22:38 -0000 Subject: Lily shutting the door WAS: Re: Dumbledore Disgusted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175922 > > > > > > Alla: > > > > > > > > Sure if Lily had something to answer for, I would agree that > > > > characters in Potterverse at sixteen are held to it. But Lily > is > > > > culpable? I find it truly mind boggling. > > Mim: > > I see all this talk about Lily not forgiving Snape and she doesn't > really have to answer for that in my book. I'd like her to answer as > to why she didn't truly interfere in the worst memory. Because we > have her wandless friend, who has not yet called her a mudblood, > choking on soap bubbles on the ground and Lily doesn't bother to > lift the spell. Then her friend who has not yet called her a > mudblood, is turned upside down and she's amused. She's too busy > doing her little mating dance with James to truly do much. And after > her friend does call her a mudblood she insults him in turn and then > leaves him to his fate, namely James removing his pants. She doesn't > interfere magically and she doesn't, from what we can tell, alert a > teacher. All in good fun. Julie: In retrospect, this scene reflects badly on Lily. JKR wanted to keep Lily and Snape's relationship a surprise for Book 7, so on first reading we can't even tell that Lily and Snape *know* each other, let alone have been friends for years. I believe there was even a moment where she suppressed a smile (as if admitting "It is amusing that you're making fun of this creepy little weirdo, but even so I have to maintain my higher moral position here.") I have to admit, if Snape had brought up this part of the incident ("That's what you call being a friend?") my sympathy would have been with him. (But Lily did get screwed here by JKR's devotion to plot over character.) mim: > > Then Snape begs her forgiveness but she's already made her choice. > And it looks like she had made her choice before, anyway. She's sick > of making excuses (to her friends, I presume who can't see why she > would hang out with someone slimy, unpopular and bigoted). Lily > isn't a saint and the mudblood incident is a perfect chance to end > the friendship while on the moral high ground. Julie: I wouldn't say she's sick of making excuses about Snape's lack of popularity or "slimy" looks, as she's never cared about that before. The bigotry though has been canonically bothering her, and Snape calling her a "Mudblood" was the final straw (on top of a lot of other straws relating to his bigotry, choice of friends, and reverence of Voldemort and the DEs). However, I think blaming Lily for ending the friendship is too harsh. Here I am with Alla. Yes, Lily walked away, leaving Snape sputtering. But...but *if* Snape had wanted to prove her wrong, to show he hadn't chosen that different path from hers, he could have. If he had abandoned his junior DE friends, and proved by actions that he valued her friendship over the DEs, I fully believe she would have forgiven him and their friendship would have recovered, probably grown stronger. This would have been a huge choice for Snape, of course, and he wasn't capable then of making that choice, of abandoning his comfort zone among the Slytherins for a chance with Lily. By the time he understood what he'd given up, when he might have found that courage and ability to change, it was too late. At which point he steeped himself in self-recrimination and bitterness at his fate and at the world. But none of that was Lily's fault, IMO. Julie From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 23:58:19 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:58:19 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175923 > va32h: > > What do you think could have (or perhaps ought to have) happened in > Deathly Hallows to change this outcome? Would "one good Slytherin" in > the RoR have been enough to change this tendency to treat Slyterins > as the "other"? lizzyben: Well, in my parallel universe , I thought it would be less about a token "good Slytherin" & more about Harry understanding & integrating the good qualities of the House itself. Sort of like learning about & understanding another culture. It seemed to be going this direction in HBP. First, he'd have the P&P-style moment of revelation & reversal that would shake his previous world-view (Snape is good??? LOLLIPOPS??) Then he'd have to actually work w/the guy & get over their differences. So, by actually interacting w/Snape & learning from him, Harry would learn how to see beyond his (incredibly narrow) Gryffindor-only perspective. (and vice versa for Snape). He'd also have to work w/the people like Zacharias & Marietta that they've just blown off in the past - again, showing reconciliation, compromise, growth. Also, I thought that we'd see some parallels w/Harry's generation "righting the wrongs" of the Marauder's generation - Draco saving Hermione the way Snape couldn't save Lily, Draco becoming part of the Trio instead of a hated rival. (Yes, delusional, I know). Basically ending on a note of reconciliation, integration & hope. House Unity, and all. "The other" becomes part of "us". va32h: > I ask because I have some of the same discomforts you've expressed > about the book, and while I've been blaming this particular book for > being a poor end to the series, I am starting to wonder whether one > book could do enough to rectify the kind of scapegoating and > projecting that has been going on for the past six books. > > va32h lizzyben: It probably couldn't. I've come to the reluctant conclusion that JKR wrote the story she intended to write here. IMO, it's basically a Calvinist allegory dressed up as a children's fantasy tale - and the moral involves a lot of the Elect self-righteously smiting the unbelievers. And that moral is sort of abhorrent to me, but there it is. The Slytherins were cast, early on, as the "evil people" that the Gryffindors can smite. And the Gryffindors were always good & right. A lot of us thought that wouldn't end up being the message, but we were wrong. Since Slyths are the bad guys, the good guys can & do scapegoat them & project upon them, but the text doesn't see it that way - because it sees human psychology very simplistic terms. The good guys are just good, and so can do bad things to the bad guys. There's no sympathy or understanding for people w/different perspectives. You are either for Harry, or you are against him. Projection & scapegoating are practically encouraged. My reaction to the series is sort of similar to Harry's reaction to the Prince's potion book - it's so brilliant & creative & innovative that you're just awed; then you start noticing that some of the spells seem a little mean-spirited - but, hey, it's all in good fun, right? Then - SECTUMSEMPRA! And it all explodes into hate & ugliness. It's like a beloved pet suddenly turned vicious. LOL. And you're shocked, but really the signs were there all along. lizzyben From brandy_muth at alltel.net Mon Aug 20 23:44:45 2007 From: brandy_muth at alltel.net (Brandy) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:44:45 -0000 Subject: Voldemort - 2 bodies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175924 > Morgan wrote: > When Voldemort's soul is ripped from his body in Godric's Hollow, > was a body left there? > Did Voldemort somehow have 2 physical bodies, or was his body > blasted away somehow when he tried to kill Harry the first time? Interesting question. I'm pretty sure that he lost his body. There's chatter out there calling the Voldemort post first attack on Harry "Vapormort". I think JKR herself called him that, but can't find evidence on accio-quote. He, Voldemort, also comments at the end of GOF when he is reborn about how he was without a body for all those years. His body must have been blasted away, and a new one created in GOF. Brandy (new here, hope everything was OK) From Meliss9900 at aol.com Tue Aug 21 00:41:20 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:41:20 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175925 In a message dated 8/19/2007 12:00:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time, eggplant107 at hotmail.com writes: I still can't quite figure out how Dumbledore knew the exact time Harry would evacuate Privet Drive so he could tell Snape so he could tell the Death Eaters. My only theory is that Dumbledore probably has portraits in several locations [perhaps one in the MOM since he was the Chief of the Wizengamot (sp)] and one of those portraits discussed it or suggested it to Arthur or Kingsley. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 01:06:43 2007 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:06:43 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175926 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > The good guys are just good, and so can do bad things to the bad > guys. There's no sympathy or understanding for people w/different > perspectives. You are either for Harry, or you are against him. > Projection & scapegoating are practically encouraged. This reminded me of one of my favorite of Pippin's posts, so I'll link to it here, and bring up the bit that Yahoo's (mercifully new and improved--I remember when I couldn't have done this, and relied on memory and hazy lists of post numbers) search function found me: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/100012 Pippin: > I'm not sure it's a question of JKR not understanding fans, or > seeing only black-and-white versus seeing something good about > Slytherin. Fan fiction and fanon often treat Slytherin House as not > only redeemable but already redeemed or simply misunderstood. Racism > gets downgraded (upgraded?) to pardonable ethnic pride, and Dark > Arts fanatics are merely people who look good in black. (By the way, Pippin, cheers on pegging so many of the issues so early) At least from my reading of the books, the problem is that Slytherin House, particularly as epitomized by Draco and his crew--although Draco does turn at least partially away from it, to his credit--is not simply a difference of opinion, it's an ideology out to get rid of everything that doesn't live up to its own standards, and thus excludes itself from being considerable as one choice equal among many. But then we get into classic problems of liberalism, etc. etc. etc. I would have liked to have seen more in canon of the reckoning that needed to finally come on with Slytherin ideology, but JKR chose to focus more on the personal story than the larger social one, alas. -Nora sighs with nostalgia for those far-off listie days From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 01:11:37 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:11:37 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175927 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: >> Questions: > > 1. Snape and Yaxley "raised their left arms in a kind of salute." > Is this a reference to World War II and the likening of the Death > Eaters to the Nazis, in Deathly Hallows? Alla: Oh yeah, totally says me. Although I completely missed it on the first reading. DE equals Natzis in many aspects I would say is quite loud symbolism. Not that I am complaining. > 3. The peacock at Malfoy Manor is mentioned at least twice in the > book. What is its significance? Alla: Somebody mentioned it before, and I totally agree - symbolises proud, vain Malfoys IMO and here we see total contrast of what they are now - eyes down and all that. > 4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think might > be the person hanging unconscious above the table? Alla: I had no idea, frankly. > 5. Only one person already in the room looks up at the unconscious > revolving body above the table: Draco Malfoy. Once the body is > resuscitated, he no longer looks at her. Why? Alla: I would like to hope that he knows what to expect and does not want to see it. > 6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat of honor at his right hand. Is > this because Snape is his "right-hand man"? Or is Voldemort "keeping > his friends close, and his enemies closer"? Alla: In hindsight I see no reason to think that Voldemort doubted Snape's allegiance one bit IMO. So, yes, I go with right hand man, of course the right hand man till he is useful to Voldy. > 9. Who is Snape's informant? Who does Voldemort think it is? Is it > the same person? Fletcher, I thought. Is there another candidate? > 10. Lucius and his family are clearly not happy with Voldemort's > presence. Is this because Lucius is still disgraced from his botched > mission at the Ministry and his use of the diary Horcrux? Does their > apparent discomfort at the situation foreshadow their lack of > involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts? Alla: Yeah, I think so. I think Malfoys by that time clearly had enough of Lord Voldemort, although Lucius is still a bit delusional if you ask me. > 12. The Malfoys do not make much eye contact with Voldemort. When > Voldemort looks at Snape, other Death Eaters look away. Are all of > the Death Eaters at the manor happy with Voldemort's return? Alla: No clue, I at least do not think that they are that unhappy, or maybe they are too scared. Otherwise they would not have been there IMO. > 13. Snape looks comfortably into Voldemort's eyes when the other > Death Eaters turn away. We see an example of Voldemort's Legillimency > later in the book. How strong is Snape's Occlumency? Alla: Looks like really really strong to me. > 14. Why does Voldemort praise Bellatrix, then humiliate her? Alla: Eh, it is not like Voldemort seems to care about his followers feelings IMO. I think he humiliates her to make sure she knows her place. > 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape > tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not > save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she pleads > and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this the first time > he could not save someone? Was Charity Burbage someone Snape could > not save? Alla: Of course he could not save her IMO. From all deaths I blame Snape for, this is the last one. But do you know what this scene reminded me of? Tower. Wierd I know. Here we hear "Severus, please" again and three times ( DH too) and green light. I so thought of Tower. > 17. Voldemort refers to "Mudbloods" as "thieves" of the Wizarding > World's "knowledge and magic." This charge is repeated later in the > book. Is it possible for a witch or wizard to have her or his magic > stolen? Is it possible to steal knowledge without leaving that > knowledge for others as well? Alla: We do not know one way or another, no? But I think this is another crap Voldemort is ready to blame Muggleborns for. And in chapter 13 we see so. > 20. Voldemort has no issues with "pruning" the family tree of > undesirables, even though they may be pure-blood or half-bloods. > Yet, he is displeased with Burbage's article and her assertion that > the dwindling of Pureblood families is a good thing. Voldemort > says, of Charity Burbage, "She would have us all mate with Muggles... > or, no doubt, werewolves..." He includes himself with the Purebloods > here. Does he think his Muggle father's family doesn't count? Or is > he actively enforcing the idea that he, too, is a Pureblood? Alla: Yes, I totally think he is ashamed of him being half-blood and absolutely sincere to make sure "purebloods are better and they rule" ideology is spread around. > > 21. Why does Voldemort think that Lucius does not need his wand > anymore? Alla: HAHA. I thought of total submission, Lucius not needing his manhood metaphor and all that. Seriously I did. > 22. Do you think Voldemort is planning on dispensing with the > Malfoys eventually? Alla: Oh yes, IMO. I gave you your freedom Lucius does not sound to me that Voldemort wants to keep it that way for too long. > 23. Voldemort invites Nagini to dine on the corpse of Charity > Burbage. What do you imagine the reactions of the others around the > table might be? This idea has been presented in the books before. > When do you think Nagini has disposed of the evidence before? Is > this part of her value to Voldemort, or is Voldemort giving his pet a > treat? > Alla: I think it was just a yummy dinner for snakey. EWWWW. Thanks dear for cool questions. From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 01:02:20 2007 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending Message-ID: <710320.18126.qm@web51901.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175928 Ceridwen summarized DH chapter 1, in part: > Voldemort mentions the marriage of Black relation Nymphadora Tonks to > the werewolf, Remus Lupin, describing it as "the happy event." Other > Death Eaters jeer. Bellatrix and the Malfoys are humiliated, even > though Bellatrix has said sincerely that it was an honor and the > greatest pleasure to host Voldemort. Bellatrix disowns Tonks, saying > she and Narcissa have not seen their sister since she married the > Mudblood, and that Tonks's marriage has nothing to do with either of > them. Voldemort asks Draco if he will babysit the cubs. > Voldemort says that family trees become diseased over > time, and they must be pruned to keep them healthy. Bellatrix takes > his message to heart. Voldemort likens the pruning of the family > tree to the larger pruning of the world. Question 14 - > Why does Voldemort praise Bellatrix, then humiliate her? Question 20 - > Voldemort has no issues with "pruning" the family tree of > undesirables, even though they may be pure-blood or half-bloods. Petra: Not sure what Q20 is really asking so I'll leave it to better minds, but in considering that first sentence and Q14, I think we may have the motive as to why Bellatrix wants Tonks quite as much as she wants Harry (DH, US HB pg. 76). In humiliating Bellatrix about the marriage of Tonks and Lupin, Voldemort fans Bella's desire to get *back* into Voldemort's good graces. By pruning her family tree of Tonks and others of her ilk, Bella continues the power struggle amongst the Death Eaters to be their leader's "right-hand" person. Or at least, to *not* be humiliated as the omega. Lupin may be despised as the werewolf but the fact is he doesn't run with a pack that is this vicious! It seems to me that this develops the group dynamics of the Death Eaters and serves to emphasize the precarious nature of Snape's current position as Voldemort's trusted first lieutenant. We see this struggle elsewhere in this chapter with Yaxley, "who seemed determined to receive some portion of approval." (DH, US HB pg. 6) Interesting that Bella misattributes the cause of her humiliation to Tonks. After all, it is Voldemort's choice to bring the topic up. To me, a lot of the Dark wizards demonstrate this form of poor logic. Very convenient for Voldemort, who exploits this to his great advantage. Petra a n :) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Aug 21 01:27:50 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:27:50 -0000 Subject: Snape spy timeline in VW1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175929 > > > zgirnius: > > I was a proponent of the idea that Snape spied for Dumbledore for a > > considerable amount of time, in the neighborhood of a full year, in > > VW1. > in HBP. > > > Now, I turn to my tidbit...(emphasis mine). > > > > > DH, "The Prince's Tale": > > > he stood on a hilltop, forlorn and cold in the darkness, the wind > > whistling through the branches of a few *leafless* trees. > > > So it took place in the Fall or Winter of the previous year, months > > before Harry's first birthday in mid-summer. Potioncat: I agree. > > asthecoolnamesgone: > Do we know exactly when the prophecy was given? We know that Snape > overheard it in part and reported it to V. I wondered whether at the > time he reported it that he was unaware of Lily's pregnancy. Potioncat: No, we don't know. I think it was just before Trelawney started teaching. So summer/fall. Harry would have been conceived on-or-about Halloween. So, no, Snape would not have any reason to expect the prophecy had anything to do with the Potters. Not even DD would know who the prophecy was about (if my time line is correct.) From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 01:59:13 2007 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:59:13 -0000 Subject: Kings Cross..... The end??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175930 super_tattoo_queen wrote: > > I thought that AK curse was supposed to kill outright?? I get why > > Harry > > survived the 1st time, but the second?? I thought that the > > destruction > > of the horcrux would have ultimately destroyed him also?? > > super_tatto_queen grindieloe wrote: > > I think that Harry survived when the horcrux was destroyed because > of > > the Elder Wand. Harry was the true master of the Elder Wand, and > > thus it would not work properly against him - just as he states in > > the final battle scenes in the Great Hall with Riddle. Niru now: I don't think the Elder Wand played a part in the Forest scene. Harry did not attempt to defend himself as he DID do in the final battle in the great hall. I think the wand relationships are complicated in this instance. To simplify it, in the Forest, the Elder Wand would not have known that Harry was its master because Harry was not the wizard who had disarmed Dumbledore. He was the wizard who disarmed Dumbledore's disarmer. Meaning that the Elder Wand might have recognized Draco Malfoy even he hadn't raised a wand, but it wouldn't have recognized Harry. It did however recognize Draco's hawthorn wand (which Harry did use in the Great Hall). Because the hawthorn wand had transferred its allegiance to Harry, and the Elder Wand recognized the hawthorn wand as the wand that had disarmed its previous master, its allegiance was also transferred to Harry. I think that AFTER the battle in the Great Hall, the Elder Wand would have recognized Harry anywhere and in any situation. But until then it didn't have the means to do so. From e_jobe at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 00:39:15 2007 From: e_jobe at yahoo.com (eric jobe) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:39:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Deathly Hallows and the wands. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <540650.24050.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175931 > > Eric earlier: > > But what I don't get is that in the final battle Harry says > > that he stole the Elder Wand from Draco and that that makes > > him the master of it, but at the same time he is holding > > another wand which he says he stole from Draco. I just do > > not understand. > Juli: > In DH, when Harry & Co are taken to the Malfoy manor by the > snatchers, Harry overtakes Draco 'stealing' his wand, the > Hawthorn wand. Then Harry comes to posession of both the Elder > Wand and Draco's Hawthorn wand. HEY: Thanks, but I still don't get when Harry got the Elder wand. He got the Hawthorn from Draco at Malfoy Manner and at the end Harry says that he got the Elder wand from Draco, but how and when did it actually happen? Eric From e_jobe at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 00:49:20 2007 From: e_jobe at yahoo.com (eric jobe) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Deathly Hallows and the wands. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <835968.99796.qm@web33010.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175932 > > Eric previously: > > But what I don't get is that in the final battle Harry says > > that he stole the Elder Wand from Draco and that that makes > > him the master of it, but at the same time he is holding > > another wand which he says he stole from Draco. > Cat (with snipping): > First, Draco disarmed Dumbledore by force on the tower at the > end of Half-Blood Prince. By that action he "conquered" the > Elder Wand's master and the Elder Wand then changed it's > allegance to his new master Draco > Second, Harry disarmed Draco of his wand by force at Malfoy > Manor. > Third, Voldemort stole the Elder Wand from Dumbledore's tomb. > In the final battle, Harry(using Draco's wand)let's Voldemort > (and the Elder Wand(?)) know that he (Harry) had overcome the > wand's master (Draco) by force and took his wand. Thanks Cat--See that's why it is so confusing because there is no occurrence where Harry actually gets or "wins" the Elder wand until the very end. Harry got Draco's Hawthorne wand, thereby "conquering" Draco. But I don't see why that would also get him ownership of the Elder wand as well. I thought you had to actually get the Elder wand itself, not just conquer it's owner at an unrelated time or event. She made that very hard to follow. Eric From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Aug 21 01:51:27 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:51:27 -0400 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175933 Someone--I'm not sure--suggested that Hugo was after the French writer VICTOR Hugo (an allusion to Krum) and Rose was to Mme. ROSEmerta. But I like the idea of Ron deciding to bring in new names because he was sick of hand-me-downs. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 02:50:45 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:50:45 -0000 Subject: Voldemort - 2 bodies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175934 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Morgan" wrote: > When Voldemort's soul is ripped from his body in Godric's Hollow, was > a body left there? He certainly doesn't have a body when Wormtail > finds him later - Wormtail had to help him create one. And he only > created his man-sized body at the end of Book 4. > Then, he dies again at the end of Book 7. Did Voldemort somehow have > 2 physical bodies, or was his body blasted away somehow when he tried > to kill Harry the first time? The way I understand it, it doesn't matter if LV's body was "blasted away" or remained intact as a result of the events in Godric's Hollow. Even if the body was still there, it was dead, and therefore, unusable. LV had to find a way to regenerate his body, which he managed to do at the end of GoF. The same thing would have happened at the end of DH, if LV still had at least one H-x left. His dead body would have been lying in the Great Hall, but Vapormort would have flown away hoping to regenerate again. Fortunately, LV was out of H-xes, so this time he died for good. I don't know if this answers your question, because I'm not sure that I understood the question correctly, but I tried :-)! BTW, the last book seems to imply that LV left behind his dead body in GH, because DD says in King's Cross chapter: "He (LV) left more than his body behind" (p.709 US). In this case it seems strange that so many wizards thought he might return. If the body was found, wasn't it logical for everybody to assume that LV was dead (I don't mean DD here, but the rest of the WW)? zanooda From teddyb14 at swbell.net Tue Aug 21 02:48:03 2007 From: teddyb14 at swbell.net (teddyb142002) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:48:03 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? (was Re: Appeal of the story ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175935 I have been following the discussions about the message of the Harry Potter series from a distance, but I have decided to chime in... I feel no need to defend JKR's book or message or be disappointed in them. Is revenge part of the book? Yes. Many of the characters get revenge in Book seven. The reasons for revenge range a wide spectrum and trying to blanket them in a revenge is not a positive message cloak totally undercuts the complexity of the plot and characters. I think what JKR was trying to get at is that there are no easy answers and draw your own conclusions. What struck me about the book was how much pain, suffering, and sacrifice one man's evil could cause. Yet it seems there are examples all over the world of how the evil intentions of a few can cause so much suffering to the masses of people who are, at their best, good and just, and at their worst, just trying to get by. What's so uplifting about that you say? The second thing that struck me about the books was the courage that many of the characters showed even when facing the worst. Neville telling Harry that they would continue to fight when Harry was walking into the Forbidden Forest, and doing just that thinking that Harry was dead in front of him, for example. What made them do that? Their love of each other and ability to trust that even in death love was the truest path. It is easy to sit up on a moral pedestal and judge those who are fighting, their methods, and their motivations. It is necessary to debate all of these things. Challenging morals are what helps cultures and societies refrain from sinking into blood thirsty chaos, but those who judge should walk a mile in their shoes as the saying goes. It takes courage to fight. Many of those who fight make the ultimate sacrifice. All of those who fight give something of themselves to the battle. Ask the war veterans who have nightmares 60 years after their encounters if they have sacrificed. Many of them have given part of their soul to make better world. Their courage should be celebrated, not disparaged. That's my take on what the message of the books is. Ted- Longtime fan of Harry Potter and quite satisfied with the message of the series From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 03:04:58 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:04:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Horcrux Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <206862.55901.qm@web55012.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175936 :Donna: > Please help me understand something. To make a > horcrux, a murder has to be committed and a spell > cast to put the torn piece of soul into an object > intended to be a horcrux. When was the spell cast > to make Harry a horcrux? bboyminn: >It wasn't. >Making a Horcrux is a specific and intentional act. >What happened to Harry was a random unintentional >unlikely event that resulting in something >approximating a Horcrux. Or something that could >be described has resulting in a Horcrux-like result, >but only because 'Horcrux' is the only frame of >reference we have for the result. >So, Harry wasn't a Horcrux, he was just Horcrux-ish. >Functionally he was the same as a Horcrux, but he >wasn't literally a Horcrux in the way a Horcrux in >normally created. Some people like to refer to this >as an 'Accidental Horcrux', but I think even that >is over stating it. >For what it's worth. As is often the case, you make good sense, Steve. In Chapter 33, The Prince's Tale, Dumbledore says to Snape: "Tell [Harry] that on the night Lord Voldemort tried to kill him, when Lily cast her own life between them as a shield, the Killing Curse rebounded upon Lord Voldemort, and a fragment of Voldemort's soul was blasted apart from the whole, and latched itself onto the only living soul left in that collapsing building. Part of Lord Voldemort lives inside Harry, and it is that which gives him the power of speech with snakes, and a connection wit Lord Voldemort's mind that he has never understood. And while that fragment of soul, unmissed by Voldemort, remains attached to and protected by Harry, Lord Voldemort cannot die." (p. 686 US) We know that by the time Voldemort killed James and Lily Potter, he had made five Horcruxes (the diary, ring, locket, cup, and diadem), splitting his soul into at least six pieces (more, if one believes the soul is split with every murder one commits, whether or not a Horcrux is made). Hermoine points out that the book, Secrets of the Darkest Art, "warns ...how unstable you make the rest of your soul by ripping it, and that's just by making one Horcrux!" (p. 103 US) The fact that a soul piece was blasted apart without Voldemort even being aware of it is indicative of how unstable Voldemort's soul is. In Chapter 35, King's Cross, Dumbledore says, "What you must understand, Harry, is that you and Lord Voldemort have journeyed together into realms of magic hitherto unknown and untested" (p. 710 US) -- Even though Dumbledore says this after Harry has asked him to give his best guess to explain why his wand behaved as it did, I think the statement applies to more than just the wand. Christy --------------------------------- Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 03:21:39 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:21:39 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Snape from a non Snape Fan (uh-oh) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175937 Just a question -- is Snape's behavior as a teacher the main reason that you hate him? (As opposed to, say, Snape's having been a Death Eater as your reason.) I'm trying to get a handle on the whole Snape- hatred phenomenon. -- JudySerenity, whose affection for Snape seems to grow the more > that people here criticize him. (The poor guy!) The question has been presented, in various forms, why NonSnapeFans are that way. I've been meaning to write something for a while, expressing how I feel about it ? originally how I feel about him as a character, but I'm sure some other judgments will come into play. So, if you are a SnapeFan, and have a tendency to take criticism of him personally I encourage you not to read this. I will do my best to write considerately and with respect, but I have a tendency to pepper my writing with sarcasm, hyperbole, and extended parenthetical tangents. Also, I occasionally forget to use `IMO' every 4 words. So, you should all just take to heart that everything I'm about to say is just my opinion. Indeed, I will affirm that there is not one fact in the entire post. Absolutely everything is the deranged ranting of someone who couldn't possibly see reason or reality, or would already worship at the alter of Severus Snape. Ok. Forewarning over. It's complicated, I guess. Why doesn't Snape work for me? First of all, let me get the D: `Good Guy disguised as Bad then Redeemed = usually awesome character in my opinion.' thing out of the way. I guess this is the case for some people. For me, that's not gonna be enough. I just don't care. This analogy may not work for everyone, but there was a time when I felt that every female character on tv was dating the same guy. A good looking guy, introduced into the show as an arrogant jerk, possibly a business nemesis to the protagonist gal. However, eventually, their attraction to each other brought them together, and then we see the goodness underneath, even niceness, though they still have that `edge' that makes them so attractive. But to me `No, you fool! He's just a JERK.' Now, I know Snape isn't this ? he's not good looking, and it's not about attraction. But to me, it's the same thing. Just as I was watching show after show do the same thing, trying to make me like a big jerk, I feel like good guy disguised as bad then redeemed is pass?. It's not interesting to me, because it's been done. Snape worked great for me in the first book ? ooh, he's so nasty! Could he be the bad guy? Nope! Sixth sense revelation, with clues the whole way ? it's Quirrel! And Snape is just that ? a big jerk! Perfect children's story. It's only as the books got more complicated, as did Snape, did it become a problem for me. Because I pretty much stayed there. Snape's a jerk ? he was a red herring villain, but in reality he's only a jerk. The rest of it.. I don't think a story of redemption makes him an awesome character. I think there are lots of people who are instantly drawn to that. Like the simple fact of a jerk who's not evil gives depth and intrigue, and I'm sorry. But I don't care. Then, there's the identifying thing. Let me get that out of the way as well, because a lot of people bring stuff to the story that leads them to identify with a character. I never had any horrific teachers. I was never really bullied much, and I wasn't a bully. I wasn't a sports star or really all that adventurous. If anything, I was more like Snape than the Marauders, but only inasmuch as Dean or Seamus was more like Snape. There's no one for me to identify with ? I made jokes, had my own friends, did my own thing. More academic than athletic. I had a perfectly fine childhood, with decent parents, friends, etc. So, if people identify with Snape because they were bullied, because they had it tough growing up, no one can really argue with that. It's how they responded to the story. But again, for me I didn't care. Finding out Snape was bullied meh. And even more so in the final book, when we find out that he wasn't a complete loner, picked on by the school. There were Marauders, but there were also Young Death Eaters. He was bullied, but he also invented nasty hexes and was a sneak and a snitch. I'm not saying this to defend the Marauders, but just to show how it didn't make me like him any better. And every time I'm shown something that should make me like Snape better, there's another character who I think exemplifies it as well. Snape had a tough childhood? Well, Harry had it worse. Yeah, we saw Harry's childhood more through the `Roald Dahl' glasses that made it unrealistic, and by the time we saw Snape's childhood the story and writing had grown up a bit, so his looks harsher, but he had not nice clothes, but he had a real friend. Snape had his mother and schoolmates that made him lean towards Slytherin? Sirius had family indoctrination on a grander scale than that. Snape infiltrated a dangerous group to spy on them? Lupin did the same, and not to atone for anything, just because he had the ability. Snape gave his life for the cause? Sure, who didn't? I'm just saying, he didn't connect with me. And, if he doesn't connect, either because you're intrigued by someone who seems bad being good, or because he was put upon as a child, or because he was a double agent, then what are you left with? Well, a big jerk. I don't need to list his good qualities, but I will ? talented, intelligent, brave, dedicated. But he's also mean, sometimes cruel, to children. He made some terrible choices, worse than almost every other character. He was but for the grace of Lily, evil. And I don't say that against him, but against the character. I don't see his transformation as something that inspires me. For me, the love of Lily thing didn't connect. If that's how he turned back towards the good side, but for me, it wasn't that powerful. You know what was much more powerful for me? Dudley. A caricature, really, and I liked his character arc more. The glimpses we saw of him growing up. Wow. That's what I wanted, and didn't get, in Draco. I even enjoyed Voldy's character more ? not to say I `liked' him ? he's evil. But I found his character interesting. Snape I was bored and frustrated with. I just wanted him to grow up, which I don't think he ever did. NonSnapeFans have been accused of wanting him to be evil, and didn't get their wish in this book. Not me. I was pretty sure he was good, and Dumbledore had asked him to kill him ? though I thought the reason was much more to do with Draco, and therefore wanted more of a Draco arc in 7, but whatever. I did want Snape to get a more powerful (for me) demise ? I thought he would die, just by defying Voldemorte openly, and either killing someone bad or saving someone's life, or both. So, I didn't think he'd really bad evil. I hoped he would do something powerful for good. But either way, I still don't think I'd care about, or especially *like* his character. My impression of some SnapeFans (not all, ok, fine, maybe not ANY ? but just the way it comes across sometimes, to ME ? no judgment on anyone else) is that there is some moral and intellectual superiority associated with being a SnapeFan. That somehow, it's more enlightened to connect with him, and other characters (and people who identify with them) are bourgeois. Some quotes: Lenore: I don't care about superficial things, like personality pleasantness or unpleasantness, or external forms of things, like dress, fashion sense, status, etc. D: Casual readers of these books won't be joining and reading hundreds of long discussion threads daily would they? And they're usually the kind of readers who will say their favorite characters (if they're any) are 'Hagrid' and other obvious 'lovable' characters. Most of us here (=fandom) are the *fans* with a certain obsessive quality and some tend to find the 'unlovable' moral conflicting characters more lovable. Why do majority of discussions goes to characters with moral struggle (ie: Snape, "a flawed man like all of us" in JKR's own words) instead of pure-and-stay-good and supposedly more 'lovable' characters Carol, agreeing with your characterization of Snape with regard to both his powers/genius and his teaching philosophy, which does not suffer fools gladly, or rather, does not suffer fools at all Adam again I hope it's easy to see at least how these can come across to other people who don't share the same views. Not caring about superficial things like personality? I don't exactly consider that superficial, in a person or a character. The powers/genius, the not suffering fools ? these are portrayed with admiration, maybe awe, or at least a slight sense of camaraderie. And I was accused of using the phrase `pure-and-stay-good', which I did not ? I said good and stay good. Which is not the same. None of these characters are pure. And I think anyone can identify with any character, and it does not need to be the `lovable' Hagrid (we've seen many readers not find him lovable at all) or the `moral struggle' character of Snape ? I, for one, don't think he's the only character with a moral struggle, and his particular moral struggle doesn't interest me. Look at Dumbledore ? I've noticed he is getting a really hard rap on the board, and I think it's because he's never been someone most SnapeFans would be drawn to, and he's also turned away people who wanted him to be better than he was. I don't know how I feel about him, but if Snape is a moral lesson that not all that seems gross is evil, then Dumbledore is the opposite ? that not all that seems perfect is truly flawless. In fact, why wouldn't Dumbledore appeal to SnapeFans? Sure, he was bullied, and he isn't a copy of Snape but this brilliant man, with terrible memories of his childhood he made bad choices which may have hurt those he loved, he used to be arrogant, and he turned his life around, fought for good most of his life. He was manipulative, secretive to a fault, lonely, arrogant, and he puts people in harm's way for what he sees as good reasons ? of course, he also is willing to sacrifice himself for his cause as well. But with all that, a complex character with a checkered past who fights for good while keeping secrets of his own can we really not see Snape in that? What is it that SnapeFans like in Snape, but not in Dumbledore? My personal theory: he's nice. For book after book we've seen quirky Dumbledore, who likes candy and joking around and appreciates the lighter side of life. No, he's not Gandalf or Aslan, but I don't think that part of him was put-on, or fake. I think it was just another facet of him. It doesn't mediate his faults, but it makes him whimsical. And if there's anything a SnapeFan (theoretically, in my fake world of the consummate snape fan, who loves snape and is bored by good characters, who looks down on nonsnapefans and who identifies a little too much with severus) hates, it's whimsy. Snape is interesting because he's seemed like a big jerk; Dumbledore is a dolt, and now a manipulative bastard because he seems nice and jokes around. And that's how I feel many Snape fans look at all other characters. Snape is basically one big flaw, who is redeemed. Other characters who they lambaste are good, with flaws, but every flaw they have is thrown in their face ? `see, see, mr. perfect isn't so perfect', be it harry, ron, Hermione, hagrid, Dumbledore, Sirius, lupin, james, or even lily. And it's enough to make a non-snape fan tear his hair out. Because why oh why does he get so much slack while these others don't? Because they identify with Snape. I started to say I think that SnapeFans find something superior about identifying with Snape. Something about a really smart jerk, who doesn't take crap from anyone, even kids, who plays double agent ,who is the `anti-hero'. And everybody loves an anti-hero. I guess. Maybe I would if done differently. I don't want to have to work hard to like a character, or a person. That may make me shallow, as I will miss out on friendships of people who you have to get through that shell to get to know the person underneath, but to me, it's like don't be a jerk, then? I think how we treat other people does matter. And I think there's an appeal of characters who don't take crap from people or deal with people they think are below them or are smarter and better in all these ways but are misunderstood by the people around them, and that's fine, but neither that person nor that character appeals to me, because I know enough people who are talented and complex and don't treat children or their peers like dirt. Well, I'm winding down. I'm sure after the flame war that this post creates (maybe not? Maybe no one will read this much endless blather?) I'll remember other things and say in response. But why does this Snape fan dislike Snape? Because he just didn't connect to him. Because he's bored by the whole was bad is now good storyline, not intrigued. Because he wasn't bullied as a child, maybe. Because a spade's a spade and a big jerk is a big jerk. Because I'm a patsy who thinks whatever JKR wants me to think. I just know that Snape worked as a character for me in the first book, and ever since, I've just been like ok, so here's why he's a big jerk now could he maybe, you know, stop being a big jerk? ~Adam (Prep0strus), who isn't good with remembering all the acronyms, so thinks, if anything, he would be a SnapeMeh. Because Snape? Meh. From elfundeb at gmail.com Tue Aug 21 03:32:21 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:32:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708202032x3bf28870p734ff485b266d952@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175938 lizzyben: IMO, it would do a lot of good. In "the ones who walk from omelas," the young people don't free the suffering baby, either. They can't mend the harm, can't ease it's pain, can't even offer a kind word. But they do weep for their own helplessness, & the story says that this gives them more compassion for the sufferings of others, & more appreciation for the beauty & love in their own lives. The compassion is helpless, but it isn't wasted. Compare that w/"King's Cross", where Harry actually feels *less* compassion & empathy over time, where he learns to tune out & ignore the other's pain... that's a weird message. Debbie: It's a uniquely Dumbledorean message. The flayed baby cannot be helped, so turn away and save the world instead. This is the same Dumbledore who chastised himself in OOP because he had allowed himself to care about Harry -- "the flaw in my brilliant plan" for Harry to be slaughtered like a pig. But Dumbledore is wrong. Not that the baby cannot be helped; the first step to helping an alcoholic is for the alcoholic to understand that he has a problem and wants to cure it. The baby may be beyond help, but it has made its own grave Dumbledore is wrong because Harry does not defeat Voldemort because of his saving-people thing. He defeats Voldemort because Narcissa loves her son, because Snape loved Lily, because Lily loved Harry, etc. So, I don't think this is the message of the books. lizzyben: Yes, that is tragic. In many ways, I think Snape, Merope & Riddle are the real faces of abandoned or damaged children. Harry is the fantasy - someone who lives w/neglect for eleven years & comes out of the experience w/o any real problems. That's not very realistic, IMO. But this just makes the sorting system at Hogwarts even weirder - so the damaged children get sorted Slytherin & good riddance? At eleven years old, it's too late for any of them? Debbie: We've been having this debate about Slytherin house on this list since at least 2002. As I see it, the system has always been broken because Salazar Slytherin's ideology ("We'll teach just those Whose ancestry is purest") corrupted the sorting process from the beginning. However, it wasn't until after Riddle's time that Slytherin became a Death Eater boot camp, so I still hold to the theory that all Slytherins were damned at age 11. I do often think that JKR has trouble separating ambition and cunning from megalomania, and bravery from good deeds (which are hardly synonymous, as Dumbledore could tell us). lizzyben: It's funny, cause "Revenge is sweet - and it works!" was one of my suggested themes for the series at large. Readers are totally encouraged to cheer & laugh when the "good guys" exact revenge on their enemies. We're supposed to get a sense of satisfaction when DD bullies the Dursleys, or Fred & George bully Montague. And we're also supposed to hate Snape because he's this AWFUL PERSON who's always trying to bully people & get revenge! In some ways, Snape becomes our scapegoat as well. Debbie: JKR does love comeuppance, doesn't she? I've said this before, but sometimes I don't think JKR understands how well she's drawn her characters. I think we're supposed to believe that James and Sirius are all in good fun because, unlike Snape, they don't use Dark Magic. But I'd bet big bucks that JKR has never been a target of bullies, in part because in her worldview, you fight back and exact eye for eye, tooth for tooth. But she also likes Harry, who (despite Dumbledore's exhortations in HBP for Harry to avenge the deaths of his parents by killing Voldemort) isn't the vengeful sort. He's a save-the-world sort who uses Expelliarmus in all life-threatening duels. JKR has created at least one character who is better than she. Even more, Harry executes the perfect karmic justice -- he allows Voldemort to destroy himself. > Pippin: > How can there be a final resolution to the problem of evil? What kind of > resolution is tricking the bad guy into using the wrong wand? Well, what > kind is throwing a magic ring into a volcano or killing a dragon or blowing > up a space station? Ursula LeGuin said the people who dislike the unreal > resolutions to evil in fantasy are the ones who think there is a solution to evil > in real life. :) lizzyben: I've been thinking about this, and it seems like the difference is in the way evil is characterized. In LOTR & other fantasy epics, evil is seen as some external force, some supernatural being. And there's no way to end that force. But in HP, evil is very human - LV isn't a demon, but a disturbed human being. And he's mostly just a symptom of a totally corrupt society. So, defeating LV doesn't solve anything at all, and doesn't address or resolve the real evils in that society. Which, you know, might be realistic. But do people really read fantasy to see realistic, unsatisfying resolutions to problems? Debbie: I don't read the books as fantasy, despite the fantasy setting. The characters are too human. Harry defeated one face of evil, but there are many evils left to combat against. Just like the defeat of Hitler didn't bring about an end to anti-Semitism, anti-gay laws, etc. Perhaps this is why I was relatively satisfied with the ending; I was not expecting more from Slytherin, and in fact, I expected much less than what we got. The epilogue passes the torch to a new generation (such original phrasing, ugh) to carry on the work Harry began by making the WW safe for muggleborns. There is still no house unity but the next generation appears open to new ideas. This seems like a simple, straightforward message of hope, though I agree that there are discordant notes that obscure it. lizzyben: And I have to agree w/Magpie about the "cleaning" of the Black house. The imagery of that isn't so much in how great Slytherins are, but how nice their stuff is once the taint of the unclean people has been removed. Man, why didn't I see where this was headed in OOTP? The house "waging war" & fighting to maintain its own identity while the new, better group attempted to eradicate any sign of the former group... ugh. Yeah, bad image. Debbie: I don't quite see the metaphor that others see, either, but it's not the taint of the unclean people being removed, it's the taint of Dark Magic anti-Muggleborn fever that was a legacy from Salazar himself. Many traces of the former occupants remain. Debbie who wonders if she liked DH better than others only because her expectations were so much lower [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From va32h at comcast.net Tue Aug 21 03:40:00 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:40:00 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175939 1. Snape and Yaxley "raised their left arms in a kind of salute." Is this a reference to World War II and the likening of the Death Eaters to the Nazis, in Deathly Hallows? va32h: Yes, that was my first thought. 2. Saluting the gate with their left arms makes them able to pass through the wrought iron gate. Is this a tacit confirmation that there was indeed a blocking spell on the tower in HBP which only allowed Death Eaters to enter? va32h: Yes again. 3. The peacock at Malfoy Manor is mentioned at least twice in the book. What is its significance? va32h: It shows that the Malfoys are pompous and pretentious. Or were, before they were Voldemort's whipping boys. 4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think might be the person hanging unconscious above the table? va32h: Someone we'd heard of before, at least. 5. Only one person already in the room looks up at the unconscious revolving body above the table: Draco Malfoy. Once the body is resuscitated, he no longer looks at her. Why? va32h: He's repulsed by the body, but like a motorist and a car wreck, can't tear himself away. Once he is forced to acknowledge that she is a real person, he is too horrified to look back. 6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat of honor at his right hand. Is this because Snape is his "right-hand man"? Or is Voldemort "keeping his friends close, and his enemies closer"? va32h: Snape is his right hand man. 7. Yaxley's information is different from Snape's. Is anyone in the Ministry who is not a member of the Order of the Phoenix aware that the Order will move Harry earlier than expected? va32h: No idea. Frankly, I found Harry's mistrust of the Ministry excessive and uncalled for. 8. Several things that happen later in the book are alluded to in this chapter. When discussing the Imperiusing of Pius Thicknesse, Yaxley suggests that Thicknesse can subjugate the other heads of departments at the Ministry to bring down Minister Rufus Scrimgeour. Was Scrimgeour killed by the Imperiused heads of the various departments under Thicknesse's direction? va32h: Again, no idea, too boring to even contemplate. I was disappointed that the takeover was accomplished soley via Imperius. An appeal to the hearts and minds of the wizarding world would have been more sinister. 9. Who is Snape's informant? Who does Voldemort think it is? Is it the same person? va32h: No clue again, and my very cynical side says JKR never thought of one either. It doesn't matter, it's just a way to show Snape seeming to be on Voldie's side, so we can all be shocked at the memories. 10. Lucius and his family are clearly not happy with Voldemort's presence. Is this because Lucius is still disgraced from his botched mission at the Ministry and his use of the diary Horcrux? Does their apparent discomfort at the situation foreshadow their lack of involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts? va32h: Yes. Lucius has failed Voldemort repeatedly now, and his son in turn. They have nothing to offer Voldemort except their home. Conversely, having given him everything, they most likely feel they have nothing to lose by defying him in the final battle. 11. Wormtail is described as sitting so low that his chair looks unoccupied. Is this further sign of his physical deterioration as seen in HBP? Is this because he would rather not be there? Is it just that he is a small man? Or is it symbolic in some way? va32h: He's just short. Wormtail is not a terribly complicated character, IMO. 12. The Malfoys do not make much eye contact with Voldemort. When Voldemort looks at Snape, other Death Eaters look away. Are all of the Death Eaters at the manor happy with Voldemort's return? va32h: We don't know enough to conclude either way. It would simply be guesswork. 13. Snape looks comfortably into Voldemort's eyes when the other Death Eaters turn away. We see an example of Voldemort's Legillimency later in the book. How strong is Snape's Occlumency? va32h: I think reports of Voldemort's Legillimency skills are greatly exaggerated. I would peg Snape as superior in both Legillimency and Occlumency. 14. Why does Voldemort praise Bellatrix, then humiliate her? va32h: Because that is his idea of entertainment. 15. Where were the Lestrange brothers? va32h: Probably there, just not named. Most of the DE are not. Either that, or dead. One DE was killed by accident at the end of HBP. Let's say it was Rabastan. 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she pleads and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this the first time he could not save someone? Was Charity Burbage someone Snape could not save? va32h: Well, he apparently sold out Emmeline Vance after all too. In the big picture, Burbage's death is one of those "for the greater good" things. He can always apologize to her in the afterlife. 17. Voldemort refers to "Mudbloods" as "thieves" of the Wizarding World's "knowledge and magic." This charge is repeated later in the book. Is it possible for a witch or wizard to have her or his magic stolen? Is it possible to steal knowledge without leaving that knowledge for others as well? va32h: No of course not, this is just the excuse they invent to round up and kill the muggleborns. 18. When Charity Burbage's body falls to the table, several Death Eaters jump back in their chairs. Draco falls off his chair to the floor. Is this symbolic of some Death Eaters not being fully behind Voldemort's agenda? Or was it simply surprise? va32h: It's a surprise. 19. Why are the Purebloods dwindling? va32h: Because they are all related, which reduces the marriage pool considerably. 20. Voldemort has no issues with "pruning" the family tree of undesirables, even though they may be pure-blood or half-bloods. Yet, he is displeased with Burbage's article and her assertion that the dwindling of Pureblood families is a good thing. Voldemort says, of Charity Burbage, "She would have us all mate with Muggles... or, no doubt, werewolves..." He includes himself with the Purebloods here. Does he think his Muggle father's family doesn't count? Or is he actively enforcing the idea that he, too, is a Pureblood? va32h: Voldemort is clearly lying about his blood status. Why would he think his Muggle father suddenly doesn't count? 21. Why does Voldemort think that Lucius does not need his wand anymore? va32h: It's a symbolic castration. 22. Do you think Voldemort is planning on dispensing with the Malfoys eventually? va32h: Yes. 23. Voldemort invites Nagini to dine on the corpse of Charity Burbage. What do you imagine the reactions of the others around the table might be? This idea has been presented in the books before. When do you think Nagini has disposed of the evidence before? Is this part of her value to Voldemort, or is Voldemort giving his pet a treat? va32h: It's a treat. Voldemort does not care if people know who he's killed. I'm sure the DEs are revolted, the are shown fearing the snake already. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Aug 21 03:55:34 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:55:34 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175940 Ceridwen: First, I was in such a rush to get going this afternoon that I completely forgot to credit SSSusan and colebiancardi for helping to polish this up so it was nice and shiny for the list. Thanks! Questions: > > 1. Snape and Yaxley "raised their left arms in a kind of salute." > Is this a reference to World War II and the likening of the Death > Eaters to the Nazis, in Deathly Hallows? Ceridwen: Since I haven't done my first re-read of DH, I can't point to other instances, but I got the impression several times during the book that there were more overt Nazi references. I think this was the first one. > 2. Saluting the gate with their left arms makes them able to pass > through the wrought iron gate. Is this a tacit confirmation that > there was indeed a blocking spell on the tower in HBP which only > allowed Death Eaters to enter? Ceridwen: In the absense of canon one way or another, I don't think we can know for sure. I think that it very well may indicate this. > 3. The peacock at Malfoy Manor is mentioned at least twice in the > book. What is its significance? Ceridwen: I thought of riches and vanity, and that white peacocks are rare. I halfway wondered if this could be someone's Patronus form, as we saw Umbridge's cat protecting the hearings later on. > 4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think might > be the person hanging unconscious above the table? Ceridwen: I thought it might be an Order member, someone we knew and perhaps didn't want to see die. I thought it was going to be an emotionally bangy book practically from the beginning. I'm sort-of glad it wasn't! ;) > 5. Only one person already in the room looks up at the unconscious > revolving body above the table: Draco Malfoy. Once the body is > resuscitated, he no longer looks at her. Why? Ceridwen: Going by Draco's actions throughout the book - except for the RoR and some argument here might make me reconsider - I don't think Draco wants to be any part of this. I think he's anticipating what's going to happen while he can avoid Burbage looking at him, but once she can, he avoids her seeing him, and him seeing her. > 6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat of honor at his right hand. Is > this because Snape is his "right-hand man"? Or is Voldemort "keeping > his friends close, and his enemies closer"? Ceridwen: I think he's keeping his enemies closer. Snape has just killed the only wizard Voldemort feared. LV thinks he is now master of the Elder Wand, the most powerful and unbeatable wand in the WW. I think he's keeping Snape close, to lull him into some false sense of security, and to keep him happy so he doesn't try a coup. It wouldn't look strange after what Snape has done, and it goes a ways to making his other DEs strive to outdo Snape in proving their loyalty. But I think he doesn't trust Snape any farther than he can throw him without a wand now. Someone that powerful can't be trusted by someone like LV. > 7. Yaxley's information is different from Snape's. Is anyone in the > Ministry who is not a member of the Order of the Phoenix aware that > the Order will move Harry earlier than expected? Ceridwen: I don't think so. > 8. Several things that happen later in the book are alluded to in > this chapter. When discussing the Imperiusing of Pius Thicknesse, > Yaxley suggests that Thicknesse can subjugate the other heads of > departments at the Ministry to bring down Minister Rufus Scrimgeour. > Was Scrimgeour killed by the Imperiused heads of the various > departments under Thicknesse's direction? Ceridwen: When Shacklebolt's message came, I thought it was just a bunch of DEs and a few Imperiused Ministry employees, with the DEs doing the bulk of the torturing and killing. Re-reading this chapter made me reconsider. I think the Imperiused heads of the various Ministry departments were the ones to do it. It served to make them a party to the assassination, even though they were under the curse. > 9. Who is Snape's informant? Who does Voldemort think it is? Is it > the same person? Ceridwen: I thought it was Mundungus, but the mystery around the identity did put a little doubt in my mind. On another note, is this how information from PP was given in VoldWarI, so no DEs other than the contact, knew his identity? > 10. Lucius and his family are clearly not happy with Voldemort's > presence. Is this because Lucius is still disgraced from his botched > mission at the Ministry and his use of the diary Horcrux? Does their > apparent discomfort at the situation foreshadow their lack of > involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts? Ceridwen: I thought the events of HBP were the ultimate turning point for the Malfoys. They could stomach LV back, not exactly happy about it, but once LV targeted their family and particularly Draco, they are very consciously against him. They only stay with him because they'll be hunted down and killed if they try to leave, see Karkarov. But they are clearly not behind LV or his agenda any more, in my opinion. > 11. Wormtail is described as sitting so low that his chair looks > unoccupied. Is this further sign of his physical deterioration as > seen in HBP? Is this because he would rather not be there? Is it > just that he is a small man? Or is it symbolic in some way? Ceridwen: He's a small man, as small as a thirteen year old. I thought the description was more than that, though. I think Wormtail is keeping a low profile so LV won't twist his body any further. I think even this DE is not too happy with LV's ascention. > 12. The Malfoys do not make much eye contact with Voldemort. When > Voldemort looks at Snape, other Death Eaters look away. Are all of > the Death Eaters at the manor happy with Voldemort's return? Ceridwen: I think the Malfoys don't make eye contact with LV because he's said to be the world's best Legillimens - we see an effortless example later in the book - and they have plenty to hide in their changed feelings about LV and his return. I think several people around the table have more or less seditious thoughts that they want to hide. > 13. Snape looks comfortably into Voldemort's eyes when the other > Death Eaters turn away. We see an example of Voldemort's Legillimency > later in the book. How strong is Snape's Occlumency? Ceridwen: Others are afraid to look into LV's eyes. Bellatrix isn't, she leans forward toward Voldemort when she assures him her family is pleased to have him back and staying with them. Bellatrix is a loyal if fanatic follower, the others aren't. I think this indicates that Snape is an excellent Occlumens. > 14. Why does Voldemort praise Bellatrix, then humiliate her? Ceridwen: I think he enjoys keeping his followers off-balance. He gives her enough praise to keep her lapping out of his hand, then punishes her to remind her of her place and keep her trying to beat Snape out of the right-hand seat. The reward is barely enough, but it makes her want to do better when he criticizes. > 15. Where were the Lestrange brothers? Ceridwen: I really don't know where they were in this scene. The Malfoys are all mentioned, and Bellatrix speaks for the family, but there is no mention of her husband and brother-in-law in any of these family moments. I wondered if this means Bellatrix only married because it was expected, and her husband and his family mean little to nothing to her. > 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape > tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not > save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she pleads > and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this the first time > he could not save someone? Was Charity Burbage someone Snape could > not save? Ceridwen: I think this was not the first time he had to sit by while someone was killed in this manner. He saved Katie Bell and slowed the progression of DD's lethal injury in HBP, but that was different. I agree that there was nothing he could do to save her in this situation, and his apparent ease of manner was another display of Occlumency. > 17. Voldemort refers to "Mudbloods" as "thieves" of the Wizarding > World's "knowledge and magic." This charge is repeated later in the > book. Is it possible for a witch or wizard to have her or his magic > stolen? Is it possible to steal knowledge without leaving that > knowledge for others as well? Ceridwen: This is genetic, people are born with magic and it can't be stolen. But there has been speculation about possibly losing magic due to some spell or Ministry intervention, or to voluntarily giving up magic in Harry's case in order to defeat LV. I don't think it can happen, except in cases of depression, like Merope Gaunt. This is such an outrageous claim that I'm amazed that people actually went along with it. > 18. When Charity Burbage's body falls to the table, several Death > Eaters jump back in their chairs. Draco falls off his chair to the > floor. Is this symbolic of some Death Eaters not being fully behind > Voldemort's agenda? Or was it simply surprise? Ceridwen: It was surprise, but I think the surprise could symbolize not being completely on-board with LV's plans. There were DEs who did not jump. Draco falls off his chair, and he's seen as being reluctant or squeamish through most of the book when in LV's presence. I think it was a hint, at any rate. > 19. Why are the Purebloods dwindling? Ceridwen: There's the matter of an ever-decreasing gene pool from which to choose marriage partners, and the matter of witches and wizards having few children. Many of the students from Pureblood families seem to be only children, which shrinks the gene pool farther. A community can't replace itself, let alone grow, if they don't at least have as many children as the previous generation they're trying to replace. > 20. Voldemort has no issues with "pruning" the family tree of > undesirables, even though they may be pure-blood or half-bloods. > Yet, he is displeased with Burbage's article and her assertion that > the dwindling of Pureblood families is a good thing. Voldemort > says, of Charity Burbage, "She would have us all mate with Muggles... > or, no doubt, werewolves..." He includes himself with the Purebloods > here. Does he think his Muggle father's family doesn't count? Or is > he actively enforcing the idea that he, too, is a Pureblood? Ceridwen: I think he may be reinforcing what the DEs already "know". His agenda is the Pureblood Supremacy thing, so he talks it up. Bellatrix was surprised in OotP, and angry at Harry, and not believing it, that he was a Half-Blood. It seemed to me that his encouraging pruning of the Pureblood family tree was worse than what Charity Burbage suggested, getting new blood into the families. His way, more Pureblood lives are lost. Burbage's way, new vitality is added and the gene pool expanded. It was oddly, and creepily, hypocritical, I thought. > 21. Why does Voldemort think that Lucius does not need his wand > anymore? Ceridwen: I think LV is still punishing Lucius. He won't be going out into society, either, so won't need it to potentially defend himself. I'm with Alla here, I also had a vague Freud moment about wizards and their wands. > 22. Do you think Voldemort is planning on dispensing with the > Malfoys eventually? Ceridwen: I think he's considering it a possibility. They're nothing but a liability, with the exception of having a house where these meetings can be held and various DEs and LV can stay. I don't think he's made up his mind yet, but it's a possibility, in my opinion. > 23. Voldemort invites Nagini to dine on the corpse of Charity > Burbage. What do you imagine the reactions of the others around the > table might be? This idea has been presented in the books before. > When do you think Nagini has disposed of the evidence before? Is > this part of her value to Voldemort, or is Voldemort giving his pet a > treat? Ceridwen: I think it's LV giving his pet a treat in about the same way he praised Bellatrix, only he didn't punish the snake as well. I think he also finds Nagini's appetite useful to get rid of bodies. I assume he also finds it useful to keep his DEs in line. I think it must be disgusting to sit around a table and watch a huge snake devour a fresh corpse. Ceridwen, thanking SSSusan and colebiancardi again. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 04:00:33 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:00:33 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175941 > 11. Wormtail is described as sitting so low that his chair looks > unoccupied. Is this further sign of his physical deterioration as > seen in HBP? Is this because he would rather not be there? Is it > just that he is a small man? Or is it symbolic in some way? > > va32h: > He's just short. Wormtail is not a terribly complicated character, > IMO. Alla: Heeeeeeee. > 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape > tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not > save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she pleads > and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this the first time > he could not save someone? Was Charity Burbage someone Snape could > not save? > > va32h: > Well, he apparently sold out Emmeline Vance after all too. In the big > picture, Burbage's death is one of those "for the greater good" > things. He can always apologize to her in the afterlife. Alla: Could you please clarify what you meant here? As you know I will be the last person to defend Snape, but I am not sure how Snape is guilty of her death ( if he is good faith spy). Are you saying that he helped Voldemort capture her or worse captured her himself and brought to Voldemort? Because if he did - BOOOO Snape, BOOOO. ;) But I am not sure where is it in canon, or did you mean something totally different? Thanks. Alla From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 04:02:52 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape spy timeline in VW1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <79576.22683.qm@web55011.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175942 > zgirnius: > I was a proponent of the idea that Snape spied for Dumbledore for a > considerable amount of time, in the neighborhood of a full year, in > VW1. > in HBP. > > Now, I turn to my tidbit...(emphasis mine). > > > DH, "The Prince's Tale": > > he stood on a hilltop, forlorn and cold in the darkness, the wind > whistling through the branches of a few *leafless* trees. > So it took place in the Fall or Winter of the previous year, months > before Harry's first birthday in mid-summer. allthecoolnamesgone >Do we know exactly when the prophecy was given? We know that Snape >overheard it in part and reported it to V. I wondered whether at the >time he reported it that he was unaware of Lily's pregnancy. It would >give added weight to his horror if he only subsequently discovered >that this gem of info he had delivered did not refer to some unknown >and 'inconsequential' child but to the child of 'his' Lily. In fact I >even speculate that the provision of the prophecy was the price of >Snapes admission to the inner circle of 'marked' Death Eaters. That >would be truly ironic, the price of his coveted entry to 'the club' >is likely to be the life of the only person he has ever cared for. In OOTP, before Christmas (which would be 1995), Trelawney tells Umbridge that she has taught at Hogwarts "[n]early sixteen years." (p. 313) Snape tells Umbridge that he has taught at Hogwarts fourteen years. (p. 363). At the end of OOTP (which would now be 1996), Dumbledore tells Harry that he interviewed Trelawney "on a cold, wet night sixteen years ago..." (p. 840). We know that Dumbledore hired Trelawney after she gave the prophecy -- the prophecy which says, "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches...". I interpret "approaches" to mean he hasn't yet been born. Harry was born July 31, 1980. I think we can assume that the prophecy was given either in the winter of 1979 or winter/early spring of 1980 and that Snape told Voldemort of the prophecy as soon as he could. Snape probably wouldn't know that Lily was pregnant since they had gone their separate ways long before. If in the fall/winter of 1995 Snape has been teaching 14 years, he began teaching in 1981. James and Lily were killed October 31, 1981. He might have started teaching September 1 or the term after they died. I suspect he started September 1, which would help explain why he was in Dumbledore's office as he mourned Lily. I can't help but think that Peter told Voldemort that Lily and Alice Longbottom both had given birth at the end of July. They were all in the Order so he was in a position to know. Its late, I'm tried, so I won't be offended when someone checks my math (which generally is not as good as JKR's). Christy --------------------------------- Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 04:27:35 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:27:35 -0000 Subject: DD disgusted/DD disgusted/DD lied Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175943 Fifth post today, so I shall be combining some responses, to Alla, lizzyben, KathyD and G. G. Eggplant. > Alla: Re: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/post? act=reply&messageNum=175873 > Sure if Lily had something to answer for, I would agree that > characters in Potterverse at sixteen are held to it. But Lily is > culpable? I find it truly mind boggling. > I cannot help but having RL metaphors again. Trust me, if somebody > called me what I consider to be the RL metaphor of that name and > while apologising to me continued to think that it is okay to call > other jewish people that name, there would be slamming of the door > for sure. zgirnius: But the whole point of suggesting Lily has any responsibility at all is that she *assumed* Sev continued to think it was OK to call other Muggleborns that name. We saw the scene, and in it, she did not let Sev complete a single sentence longer than "I'm sorry". (I hope we can agree that, no matter what else he may have wanted to tell her, this was the right place to start?) She posed the question to him quite clearly, and as he struggled to answer, closed the door of her Common Room in his face. She, and we, will never know for sure whether Sev was mustering some lame excuse, or was trying to say something different and unfamiliar, because she did not stick around to hear it. Rowling could have had Snape muster that lame excuse, and *then* had Lily tell him to get lost. But she didn't, and that means something. Both about Lily, and also, in my opinion, about Rowling's intentions in that chapter. Not to say it is all her fault, or she is a bad person, or anything like that. Just, the friendship ended, and she had something to do with that. > lizzyben: Re: Dumbledore Disgusted (was: Snape's Request gave Harry a second chance?) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/post? act=reply&messageNum=175875 > Yep. IMO, Dumbledore definitely let the prophecy go deliberately. > The proof of this is in how he reacts to Snape when Snape returns to > beg for Lily's life. > > Snape waits, & DD appears - the first thing he says is "Well, > Severus? What message does Lord Voldemort have for me?' > > He already knows who Snape is, and knows that he works for > Voldemort. Snape hasn't said a single word about being a DE yet - DD > knew this already. He also knows Snape is the eavesdropper - does DD > say "Oh noes, the eavesdropper was a Death Eater?!". No. He's calm, > he's not surprised, he already knew Snape was a DE when Snape was > caught outside the door. zgirnius: Alla's suggestion, made elsewhere in this thread, answers the objection. If Severus made good his escape by besting Aberforth in magical combat (it seems likely he would have no trouble, even at 19- 20, based on both characterizations) this would be when Dumbledore realized Severus was a Death Eater, and also that yeah, he probably went straight to Voldemort with what he had heard. Hence, no suirprise on either point when Severus later comes to him. (He does need clarification on what Voldmeort knows, reasonably, that is the one thing only Severus can tell him). It requires inserting one specific indident we were not shown, and supposing Dumbledore concealed it from Harry in OotP, but I find it at least as reasonable an insertion as the theory I snipped, which seems more elaborate to me. An even simpler alternative ? DD had no idea Snape was a DE, and believed Snape that he had not heard anything/had no ill intentions. Why? Because DD Legilimensed him and failed to detect a lie, without realizing that Snape already was an outstanding Occlumens. At some later point, Voldemort sent Snape to DD as a messenger, and DD realized `Oh crap, he must have been a DE already and may have heard the prophecy!' but it was too late to act. That Snape was used as a messenger at some point is even suggested by the text. CathyD posted: Re: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175878 >> Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald said: >> I still can't quite figure out how Dumbledore knew the exact time Harry would evacuate Privet Drive so he could tell Snape so he could tell the Death Eaters. > CathyD replied: > Personally, I'm blaming it on Hagrid. He went into DD's office 'just to > chat' with the old guy's portrait, told him the plan, "See, sir, we're still protecting Harry for ya! We've passed a fake date to the Ministry, and we're moving him early in case the wrong folks get wind of it." Then DD told Snape...etc., etc. zgirnius: I love the Hagrid idea! LOL What I want to know was how Snape got into the office to discuss ghe matter with DD in the first place. This was before the fall of the Ministry and the Prophet's smear campaign against Harry. From va32h at comcast.net Tue Aug 21 04:24:54 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:24:54 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175944 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: I said: > > 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape > > tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not > > save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she pleads > > and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this the first time > > he could not save someone? Was Charity Burbage someone Snape could > > not save? > > > > va32h: > > Well, he apparently sold out Emmeline Vance after all too. In the > big > > picture, Burbage's death is one of those "for the greater good" > > things. He can always apologize to her in the afterlife. > > > Then Alla said: > > Could you please clarify what you meant here? As you know I will be > the last person to defend Snape, but I am not sure how Snape is > guilty of her death ( if he is good faith spy). > > Are you saying that he helped Voldemort capture her or worse > captured her himself and brought to Voldemort? > > Because if he did - BOOOO Snape, BOOOO. ;) > > But I am not sure where is it in canon, or did you mean something > totally different? > va32h; Are you talking about Emmeline Vance? I'm referring to HBP, Spinner's End, when Snape says he provided information that led directly to the capture and murder of Vance. I had hoped, pre-DH that this was merely boasting, or a clever ruse (Emmeline's death faked a la the fake death Dumbledore offered Draco). However, Vance is not brought up at all in DH, and since Snape did sit by and let Burbage be murdered, and had just provided the information that led to Moody's death and the near-death of George (or would-be death of Lupin had Snape not been able to intervene at all) it would seem that both Snape and Dumbledore accept that Snape will have to let a few people get killed in order to keep Snape's cover. I have no idea if Snape captured Burbage - although since we do have canon that he was inside Hogwarts sometime after Dumbledore's murder but before he was announced Headmaster (his conversation with DD's portrait prior to the events in the Seven Potters chapter) it would not be unreasonable to conclude that Snape had access to the school and its occupants. I didn't expect Snape to try and save her, nor am I particularly upset that he didn't try to do so. It wouldn't have worked, and it is a necessary sacrifice for the greater good, although admittedly Charity would probably not have agreed at the time. Hope that makes sense. va32h From afn01288 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 03:34:05 2007 From: afn01288 at yahoo.com (afn01288) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:34:05 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175945 > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter > Questions: > > 1. ... Is this a reference to World War II and the likening of the >Death Eaters to the Nazis, in Deathly Hallows? afn: Certainly. The whole idea of blood purity and superiority, with Death Eaters as a special group surrounding a maniacal villain was enough to make me think of Nazi's back in SS. I think in DH, JKR makes this unmistakeable with with the salutes, prison name, etc. > 3. The peacock at Malfoy Manor is mentioned at least twice in the > book. What is its significance? afn: It emphasizes their vanity, but keeps us in mind of it as the change in DH of how they seem to really put aside vanity and false pride for the sake of their son in the big battle. > > 4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think might > be the person hanging unconscious above the table? afn: I really wondered who it was, thinking it might be one of the more central characters. When I found out it was Charity Burbage, it made sense, but I hardly remembered her. It was sort of a clever use of a former charachter we've haven't heard about lately. > > 8. Several things that happen late in the book are alluded to in > this chapter. When discussing the Imperiusing of Pius Thicknesse, > Yaxley suggests that Thicknesse can subjugate the other heads of > departments at the Ministry to bring down Minister Rufus Scrimgeour. > Was Scrimgeour killed by the Imperiused heads of the various > departments under Thicknesse's direction? afn: Never thought of that, but it makes sense. Good point. > 11. Wormtail is described as sitting so low that his chair looks > unoccupied. Is this further sign of his physical deterioration as > seen in HBP? Is this because he would rather not be there? Is it > just that he is a small man? Or is it symbolic in some way? afn: All of the above possibly. > 18. When Charity Burbage's body falls to the table, several Death > Eaters jump back in their chairs. Draco falls off his chair to the > floor. Is this symbolic of some Death Eaters not being fully behind > Voldemort's agenda? Or was it simply surprise? afn: I think it was meant to be both. First just surprise, but second, all of LV's DE's would have reasons to be afraid, and terrorism even among his closest followers was an important method of control. > 20. Voldemort has no issues with "pruning" the family tree of > undesirables, even though they may be pure-blood or half-bloods. > Yet, he is displeased with Burbage's article... afn: This is a good example of the difference between LV's ideology and the methods that are used because they serve his immediate ends. > > 21. Why does Voldemort think that Lucius does not need his wand > anymore? afn: It seems like he almost issues this as a challenge to Malfoy regarding his complete allegiance. It tests whether Lucius really believes in the reliability of LV's plan. If LV's plans succeed Lucius shouldn't need to put up any defense against those who oppose the DE's. Malfoy is emasculated by having his wand taken. This also shows that Malfoy won't possibly be using the wand against LV. Thanks for a good start to discussions. These were just a few questions I had ideas about. From coriandra2002 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 04:29:10 2007 From: coriandra2002 at yahoo.com (coriandra2002) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:29:10 -0000 Subject: Marietta's scarring was: Dumbledore Disgusted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175946 Ceridwen: > > > Teens of under sixteen years of age, or just at sixteen, have been > > harshly condemned in the Potterverse for going against the ethical > > rules. Marietta is condemned to permanent scarring (per JKR > > interview, recent) because she betrayed the DA. Never mind that, > to > > remain loyal to them, she would have to choose between them and her > > mother. She was a traitor either way, and once she went to that > > first meeting, where the DA was misrepresented to her, she had no > > choice but to be a traitor. I both agree and disagree with statement. Yes, DA was misrepresented to Marietta and she should have been allowed to get out. And no, she didn't deserved to be scarred for life, just taught a lesson until she left Hogswart. However, I think it was a perfectly fitting lesson for its time. Marietta could have gone to Dumbledore, or Flitwick (her Head of House) or McGonagil (Harry's Head of House) with her concerns. The fact that she went to Umbridge, however, when she knew or should have known what kind of person Umbridge was, I think says something about her character. Coriandra From rklarreich at aol.com Tue Aug 21 05:05:02 2007 From: rklarreich at aol.com (rklarreich) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:05:02 -0000 Subject: Laughing All the Way to the Bank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175947 Potioncat: > > Whatever might be said of her, JKR does have a sense of humour. There > are some very funny lines in the books. Sometimes there are scenes or > lines that could be (maybe) JKR teasing her fans; an "I know what > you're saying," sort of joke. For example, at some point in DH, LV > makes a comment about DD controlling Harry's strings (does anyone > recall that scene, or have I made it up?) > > So, has anyone else noticed places in any of the books where JKR > seems to be winking at her fans or laughing at herself? > > Potioncat, as ever, the nice old auntie offering plates of cookies. Roberta: I nominate the following, from OotP. Umbridge has banned Harry's Quibbler interview, which makes Hermione gleeful: "Oh Harry, don't you see? If she could have done one thing to make absolutely sure that every single person in this school will read your interview, it was banning it!" I've always thought this line was one in the eye for the anti- witchcraft crowd who have tried to ban the Harry Potter books. Roberta, checking that the cookies don't have any Canary Creams hidden inside, and helping herself to one From e_jobe at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 00:57:31 2007 From: e_jobe at yahoo.com (eric jobe) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Teddy Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <860587.37949.qm@web33013.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175948 With Tonks and Lupin dying and leaving Teddy without parents (who were killed by voldy and the de's), plus Teddy being part werewolf (?) and having unusual hair like his mom (just as Harry had spiked- up hair like his dad), does anyone else wonder if this is a set-up or at least a possible opening for JK to write a new series with Teddy as the new "boy who lived?" It just seemed too parallel and was not addressed in the book. Too big of a loose end to not do something with it. Eric From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 21 05:10:16 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:10:16 -0000 Subject: Marietta's scarring. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175949 "coriandra2002" wrote: > no, she didn't deserved to be scarred for life Quite correct, she deserved a bullet to the brain as would most certainly have happened in a real world situation where a member of the underground resistance betrays her comrades to sadistic murderous thugs. I find it incredible that even after reading book 7 and there can be no longer any doubt of what a serious game is being played here people are still weeping for Marietta. This is not kid's stuff this is life or death, and Marietta deserves a dirt nap. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 05:12:08 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:12:08 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Snape from a non Snape Fan (uh-oh) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175950 Adam (Prep0sterous) wrote; > It's complicated, I guess. Why doesn't Snape work for me?... Montavilla47: Adam, I just want to say that I found your answer really well stated and very interesting. I loved your story about that "guy" on the television shows that every girl falls in love with. I know just that you're talking about, and any character that becomes cliche is really frustrating to me, too. So, although I don't see Snape as "that guy," I totally sympathize with you dislike on that basis. Adam: > You know what was much more powerful for me? Dudley. A caricature, > really, and I liked his character arc more. The glimpses we saw of > him growing up. Wow. That's what I wanted, and didn't get, in Draco. Montavilla47: That's one of the way cool thing about these books to me. There's such a wealth of characters, that we can take any of their stories and enjoy them. I liked Dudley, too. Even before he was nice to Harry. Why? No good reason. I just found him funny. Adam: > Look at Dumbledore ? I've noticed he is getting a really hard rap on > the board, and I think it's because he's never been someone most > SnapeFans would be drawn to, and he's also turned away people who > wanted him to be better than he was. I don't know how I feel about > him, but if Snape is a moral lesson that not all that seems gross is > evil, then Dumbledore is the opposite ? that not all that seems > perfect is truly flawless. In fact, why wouldn't Dumbledore appeal to > SnapeFans? Sure, he was bullied, and he isn't a copy of Snape but > this brilliant man, with terrible memories of his childhood he made > bad choices which may have hurt those he loved, he used to be > arrogant, and he turned his life around, fought for good most of his > life. He was manipulative, secretive to a fault, lonely, arrogant, > and he puts people in harm's way for what he sees as good reasons ? of > course, he also is willing to sacrifice himself for his cause as well. > But with all that, a complex character with a checkered past who > fights for good while keeping secrets of his own can we really not > see Snape in that? What is it that SnapeFans like in Snape, but not > in Dumbledore? My personal theory: he's nice. Montavilla47: This isn't intended as an argument, but simply my response to Dumbledore. I loved Dumbledore, "nitwit, tweak, blubber," and all. I loved him because he was kind, and smart. I thought he was the sort of person who would make the hard choices, but also understand those who couldn't. When we started to find out that he wasn't as spotless and noble as we'd assumed he was, I loved that, too. It made perfect sense to me that he would have made a lot of mistakes in his life--and that was what had given him wisdom. And you know what made me really wild about him? That he was willing to risk so much for Draco in HBP. After OotP, we knew there was a reason for him to care about Harry. We sort of knew it in PS/SS, because there was this mysterious connection between Harry and Voldemort and obviously that was going to be important. But then, in OotP, with the prophecy, we knew that Dumbledore was taking all this time with Harry in order to destroy Voldemort. That all made sense. But, when Dumbledore was willing to risk everything to save Draco--unpleasant, unimportant, son-of-the- guy-who-tried-to-get-him-fired Draco--then I thought Dumbledore was truly magnificent. So, what bugs me? Partly, it's that I always imagined Dumbledore welcoming Snape back to the "right" side with an extended hand--like the hand of God in the Michaelangelo painting. Now I know that it was with wrath and a demand for payment. But mostly, it's that line, "Sometimes I think we sort too early..." Which says to me that Dumbledore valued Snape to the extent that Snape emulated the qualities of Gryffindor, rather than for his value as a Slytherin. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 05:45:48 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:45:48 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Snape from a non Snape Fan (uh-oh) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175951 > Montavilla47: > > But, when Dumbledore was willing to risk everything > to save Draco--unpleasant, unimportant, son-of-the- > guy-who-tried-to-get-him-fired Draco--then I > thought Dumbledore was truly magnificent. > > Prep0strus: Thanks for not drawing and quartering me. :) I'm with you on the Draco thing, which is why Draco's treatment in DH bugs me more than many other things. I wanted some addressing of the fact that Dumbledore and Snape 'saved his soul'. I guess it's implied... but I wanted Draco to earn what he had been given. Perhaps even to undergo the transformation we see in Dudley, who, it could be argued, 'deserved' it less. Not based on legitimate anything - just on time devoted to a character. HBP was really the book of Snape and of Draco. You might think it was Dumbledore and Harry, but DD's story was really in DH... and I just really thought Draco's arc would come to a really interesting conclusion. > Montavilla47: > So, what bugs me? Partly, it's that I always imagined > Dumbledore welcoming Snape back to the "right" side > with an extended hand--like the hand of God in the > Michaelangelo painting. Now I know that it was with > wrath and a demand for payment. Prep0strus: What you said about DD & Snape... I don't disagree that it was harsh treatment. But we have seen that DD is not perfect, and also was working hard at a cause that Snape was in opposition to. The disgust line is after Snape admits he would offer up Harry for Lily - if he didn't do it outright; he did it in his heart. He offers no defense. But the next part...I would like to think, that in his way, DD was offering Snape his soul akin to what he tried to do for Draco. Demanding payment? No. Do any of us think he would ignore members of the order, ignore the possible object of the prophecy w/o Snape's agreement? Doubtful. But by asking for payment, I think DD gets two things - one selfish, one altruistic. Choose the balance of his reason for yourself. But he gets a spy. A spy 'beholden' to him - at least in Snape's mind. Snape is crazy with fear and grief - and love. To make this deal, I think Dumbledore can trust him more if there is a kind of tit-for-tat. Maybe he thinks it is more how Slytherins operate - not expecting something for nothing. But I think it is a stronger tie to him. The second reason - he is saving Snape himself, saving his soul. DD and Snape both know that he can't ask snape to simply relinquish being a DE - it is a death sentence. And DD may even feel that that is not enough to save Snape's soul - Draco is stopped from committing murder, but what sins are on Snape's soul that he needs to atone for after being a death eater? Not the least of which putting the potter family in danger to begin with (and the longbottoms). By requesting 'payment', DD gives Snape the chance to do good, under his supervision and somewhat under his protection. I think that offer was the pivotal moment of Snape's life. If love of Lily is his underlying motivation, Dumbledore's harsh offer of a trade is the door Snape needed in order to turn his life around. > Montavilla47: > But mostly, it's that line, "Sometimes I think we sort > too early..." Which says to me that Dumbledore > valued Snape to the extent that Snape emulated the > qualities of Gryffindor, rather than for his value as > a Slytherin. > Prep0strus: And here we have another of the underlying issues that divides people, that causes grumpiness, that itches like the Snape issue itself. I completely agree with your statement in that he's valuing Griffindor not Slytherin. And it bugs the heck out of me that I have to accept this world that JKR has created, but... I am in the camp that does not see anything to value in Slytherin. There are characters that manage to ever so slightly rise above the sludge that is Slytherin - but never by focusing on their Slytherin characteristics. It's hard enough even to find Slytherin characteristics that are able to be interpreted as worthwhile. Pure of blood? Pointless, and often not true. Clever? Ok, but why not Ravenclaw? Ambition - surely portrayed negatively when not accompanied by wokring towards a noble goal, the forte of Griffindors. Self-serving? Absolutely wonderful. I am angry JKR didn't give me a good Slytherin. I am angry she didn't give me worthwhile Slytherin qualities. I am angry her world didn't grow to encompass the idea that all houses ARE equal, and perhaps the house WAS tainted by Riddle, and could rise to true equality. But Salazar himself tainted the house, and the school. Every Slytherin is unlikeable in some way, and need to embrace their other qualities to not be completely worthless - especially Griffindor, which continues to still be 'better' than Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw. I'm not happy with this world, but I believe that's how it's written. And so, I won't criticize Dumbledore for saying what he said. He's giving Snape the highest compliment a JKR character can give another character - you perhaps should have been chosen good instead of chosen evil. And perhaps even giving him an excuse why he turned out so bad - you, too early, were put into an environment you couldn't succeed in, when you deserved more. It's unpleasant, but this is one of the unpleasant things I put on JKR, not the character. I said earlier I didn't blame Harry for still thinking Slytherins were beneath him. They simply are. And by this point in the series, i think we know that. I don't think anyone can have value 'as a Slytherin', because I don't think JKR has given Slytherins any value. Again, I'm sure some disagree. I am fairly negative towards Slytherin and Slytherins, but it's because of what I read in the books, not because it's what I wanted the outcome to be. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 03:02:43 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:02:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Kings Cross..... The end??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <222754.31813.qm@web55002.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175952 super_tattoo_queen: > I thought that AK curse was supposed to kill outright?? >I get why Harry survived the 1st time, but the second?? I thought that the > destruction of the horcrux would have ultimately destroyed him also?? grindieloe: > I think that Harry survived when the horcrux was destroyed >because of the Elder Wand. Harry was the true master of the Elder Wand, >and thus it would not work properly against him - just as he states >in the final battle scenes in the Great Hall with Riddle. Niru: >I don't think the Elder Wand played a part in the Forest scene. >Harry did not attempt to defend himself as he DID do in the final >battle in the great hall. I think the wand relationships are >complicated in this instance. [big snip re: the Elder Wand during Harry's last confrontation with Voldemort] I also don't see that the Elder Wand had anything to do with Harry surviving Voldemort's AK curse in the forest. He survived, once again, because of his mother's blood protection. See Chapter 35, King's Cross, as quoted below: "But if Voldemort used the Killing Curse," Harry started again, "and nobody died for me this time -- how can I be alive?" "I think you know," said Dumbledore. "Think back. Remember what he did, in his ignorance, in his greed and his cruelty." ... "He took my blood," said Harry. "Precisely!" said Dumbledore. "He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it! Your blood in his veins, Harry, Lily's protection inside of both of you! He tethered you to life while he lives!" (p. 708 - 709 US) Simply put, Voldemort's Killing Curse didn't kill Harry because his mother's blood, now also in Voldemort, anchored him to life. (Remember, Dumbledore insisted to Snape that Voldemort must be the one to kill Harry -- something Snape knew when he fled Hogwarts in HBP, when he told the Death Eaters to leave Harry for the Dark Lord. Apparently, the same protection wouldn't have worked if someone else had killed Harry. It makes me think that perhaps Snape insisted to Voldemort that he kill Harry himself; thus Voldemort's speech in Chapter 1 of DH.) Of course, in the King's Cross chapter of DH, Dumbledore is referring to events in Chapter 32 of Goblet of Fire, when Voldemort used his father's bone, his servant's (Wormtail's) flesh, and his enemy (Harry's) blood to regain his body. (See p. 642) >From chapter 33 of GOF (Voldemort speaking): "...His mother died in the attempt to save him -- and unwittingly provided him with a protection I admit I had not foreseen...His mother left upon him the traces of her sacrifice..." (p. 652) "I knew that to achieve this -- it is an old piece of Dark Magic, the potion that revived me tonight -- I would need three powerful ingredients...I knew the one I must use, if I was rise again, more powerful than I had been when I had fallen. I wanted Harry Potter's blood. I wanted the blood of the one who had stripped me of power thirteen years ago . . . for the lingering protection his mother once gave him would then reside in my veins too . . . " (p. 657) Then, in Chapter 36, Harry recounts the events for Dumbledore: When Harry told of Wormtail piercing his arm with the dagger however, Sirius let out a vehement exclamation and Dumbledore stood up so quickly that Harry started. Dumbledore walked around the desk and told Harry to stretch out his arm. Harry showed them both the place where his roes were torn and the cut beneath him. "He said my blood would make him stronger than if he'd used someone else's," Harry told Dumbledore. "He said the protection my -- my mother left in me -- he'd have it too. And he was right -- he could touch me without hurting himself, he touched my face." For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes... (p. 695 - 696) Christy --------------------------------- Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 10:00:46 2007 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra Pan) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:00:46 -0000 Subject: Marietta the Marionette? was: Marietta's scarring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175953 Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald: > Quite correct, she deserved a bullet to the brain as would most > certainly have happened in a real world situation where a member > of the underground resistance betrays her comrades to sadistic > murderous thugs. I find it incredible that even after reading > book 7 and there can be no longer any doubt of what a serious > game is being played here people are still weeping for Marietta. > This is not kid's stuff this is life or death, and Marietta > deserves a dirt nap. Petra: I'd agree that this is life or death but I'd disagree that Marietta deserves a dirt nap. I am just not feeling very blood thirsty tonight. Besides that, I really do see her victimhood in HP5 as a vivid demonstration of the malevolent forces unleashed by Voldemort, foreshadowing progressively worse victimizations to come in HP6 and HP7. Probably because I see this series as being all about Harry and his personal struggle against Voldemort, I tend to see every plot and character as reflective of that. So admittedly I'm not that concerned with what Marietta "deserves," just with what she signifies. Regardless of what JKR said in interviews about Marietta being a traitor, the worse kind of human being (I'm paraphrasing here), the bits of business outlined below delineating the one-upmanship between Dumbledore and Fudge & Umbridge are definitely there, serving little else for me but to point to the great forces jerking Marietta the Marionette around. Can't help but see Marietta's betrayal as being a product of that and her own inability to fight off Umbridge's influences rather than a reason to wish a bullet to her brain. The choice that Marietta may have faced is one that Harry did not have to face. Therefore, it is not one that gets center stage treatment. We really don't get any idea as to what went through Marietta's head. Harry, as the prophecy explained, *has* no choice but to fight Voldemort for the privilege of being alive. To me, Marietta represents those in the WW who chooses the 'safer' choice of going along with the Powers That Be (whoever that happens to be), thinking that the PTB is really not that bad. At that moment in WW history, many if not most in the WW were being bamboozled into believing Fudge's assertions about Harry being a liar after all. This contrasts with the Weasleys who choose to join the Order for the second war, I think at least in part because as early as HP2 one of their own had a personal brush with Voldemort and in part because they have reasons (Molly's brothers) to wish they had joined the Order for the first round. But we really don't know *what* Marietta was thinking, do we? Or what she might have chosen to do if there was a third war with the Dark Lord. As Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald once noted: > I once said you couldn't have a good Snape and a good book 7, > it turns out I was wrong. I also said if JKR can figure out a > way to do it then she's an even better writer than I thought > she was, it turns out I was right, she really is a better > writer than I thought she was. Petra: Well, just because JKR did not write a "Marietta's Tale" and publish it within a series called Harry Potter and... that doesn't mean it could not exist, does it? Ceridwen, in part: > to remain loyal to [the DA, Marietta] would have to choose > between them and her mother. She was a traitor either way, > and once she went to that first meeting, where the DA was > misrepresented to her, she had no choice but to be a traitor. Coriandra: > I both agree and disagree with statement. Marietta > could have gone to Dumbledore, or Flitwick (her Head of House) > or [McGonagall] (Harry's Head of House) with her concerns. The > fact that she went to Umbridge, however, when she knew or > should have known what kind of person Umbridge was, I think > says something about her character. Petra: Hmm...though it's a fair assumption for readers to believe Umbridge, I'm much more suspicious of Dolores and am not inclined to take at face value what she said: "Miss Edgecombe here came to my office..." (chapter 27 of OotP, US HB pg. 613) Umbridge and Fudge seemed to me to be very keen on paying Dumbledore back for outmaneuvering them with his witness on Harry's behalf, Mrs. Figg, at the wizengamot trial (OotP, ch. 8). When Umbridge offered to bring forth her informant, Fudge said to Dumbledore with malice (OotP, US HB pg. 612) "There's nothing like a good witness, is there, Dumbledore?" With the above comment to Dumbledore, Fudge seemed to have gotten in a dig of some kind, no? Umbridge used the term 'informant' but Fudge used 'witness' and I rather suspected then that if Marietta was either, she may very well have been an adulterated one, meaning she was witnessing/informing on Umbridge's behalf under duress. In trying to coax Marietta to testify, Umbridge talked of Madame Edgecombe rather than anything else. In essence, I get the sense that Fudge and Umbridge, believing that Dumbledore found a witness to be the mouthpiece for his "latest cock-and-bull story designed to pull Potter out of trouble" (pg. 614), went looking for a mouthpiece of their own: Marietta, whose mother was under Fudge's employ. (As it turned out, Hermione's hex rendered said mouthpiece rather tongueless.) I think Umbridge was being more truthful than she may have intended when she said (pg. 613): "But it doesn't matter if she won't speak. I can take up the story from here." Not that I have any can(n)on to really back this up, but neither is there fact/canon that Marietta actually went to Umbridge on her own, because of her own concerns, concerns that could have been taken to other authority figures. One thing that seems irrefutable is Madame Edgecombe (mother to Marietta) was cooperating with Umbridge by policing the Hogwarts connections to the Floo Network. On the one hand, Madame Edgecombe could be a crony of Umbridge's and out to ingratiate herself with the senior undersecretary, hoping to get a bit of power in return. OTOH, Madame Edgecombe could be motivated by her family's safe-keeping and was trying to stay out of Umbridge's cross- hairs. We know that crime and punishment depended greatly on Umbridge, witness the way that Willy Widdershins got out of being prosecuted and I wouldn't be surprised if Umbridge was capable of trumping up charges even then. She certainly demonstrates a capacity for that with the Muggle-Born Registration Commission. Either way, Marietta's actions may have just as much to do with Umbridge's ability to affect the livelihood of her co-workers (and as we've witnessed in DH, even to the point of threatening their lives) as with Marietta's personal character. One thing I do think can be said of Marietta's character: she's not exactly the toughest cookie and seemed to crumble under pressure. Though such pressure can bring out the best in the most sterling of characters, it can also wither those not ready for trials by fire. Hmm...Coriandra, is this the something being said about Marietta's character you're referring to? Petra a n :) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Aug 21 10:42:01 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:42:01 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175954 va32h; > I have no idea if Snape captured Burbage - although since we do have > canon that he was inside Hogwarts sometime after Dumbledore's murder > but before he was announced Headmaster (his conversation with DD's > portrait prior to the events in the Seven Potters chapter) it would > not be unreasonable to conclude that Snape had access to the school > and its occupants. Ceridwen: I thought the staff all left for the summer holidays. Anyway, that's what I've always heard. I thought Snape got into Hogwarts after the school closed down for the year, after Dumbledore's funeral. We know this visit took place sometime before the last full week of July. He wouldn't have much trouble coming through the Shrieking Shack's tunnel, which would be my most likely scenario, and we see the Shrieking Shack being used later. Since he and DD were in collusion with this plan, the office would open to him. Ceridwen. From greatraven at hotmail.com Tue Aug 21 11:46:52 2007 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:46:52 -0000 Subject: Kings Cross..... The end??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175955 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "super_tattoo_queen" wrote: > > (IMO) surely after allowing him to survive, JKR can't > just leave HP out to pasture ... she has left too much scope there for > more adventures....? Sue here: Now, this is an interesting problem. See - we don't know what Harry is doing for a living, but I bet he never became an auror, because if he did, he'd be putting himself in danger of being defeated by some dark wizard and losing the allegiance of the Elder Wand, and he really, really didn't want that to happen, if you recall. he wanted the thing's power to die with him. So he'd have to have as boring a life as possible, wouldn't he? :-) But the scope might be there for the Next Generation ... (Loud Jerry Goldsmith Star Trek theme plays ...) > > Great book though, I was really shocked at the Snape, Lily, James > triangle though ... I didn't think Snape had it in him. lolol Sue again: I must admit that took me by surprise too. I'm re-reading the series, just started GOF and I STILL can't see any evidence for it. Must keep going, will see how it goes. A friend of mine who hadn;t yet read the last book predicted this correctly. Maybe from that scene in OOP... > From greatraven at hotmail.com Tue Aug 21 12:05:11 2007 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:05:11 -0000 Subject: Teddy Lupin In-Reply-To: <860587.37949.qm@web33013.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175956 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, eric jobe wrote: > > With Tonks and Lupin dying and leaving Teddy without parents (who > were killed by voldy and the de's), plus Teddy being part werewolf > (?) and having unusual hair like his mom (just as Harry had spiked- > up hair like his dad), does anyone else wonder if this is a set-up > or at least a possible opening for JK to write a new series with > Teddy as the new "boy who lived?" It just seemed too parallel and > was not addressed in the book. Too big of a loose end to not do > something with it. > > Eric Sue here: Whether or not JKR does it - and for all the "I'm ending it so no one can write a sequel" there is, absolutely, a set-up that would allow a next-generation series - I'm betting there's already some fan fiction on this subject and others by now! [g] Cheers! Sue From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 12:14:01 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:14:01 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175957 > >>lizzyben: > > > > The good guys are just good, and so can do bad things to the bad > > guys. There's no sympathy or understanding for people w/different > > perspectives. You are either for Harry, or you are against him. > > Projection & scapegoating are practically encouraged. > >>Nora: > This reminded me of one of my favorite of Pippin's posts... > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/100012 > >>Pippin: > > I'm not sure it's a question of JKR not understanding fans, or > > seeing only black-and-white versus seeing something good about > > Slytherin. Fan fiction and fanon often treat Slytherin House as > > not only redeemable but already redeemed or simply misunderstood. > > Racism gets downgraded (upgraded?) to pardonable ethnic pride, > > and Dark Arts fanatics are merely people who look good in black. > > (By the way, Pippin, cheers on pegging so many of the issues so > early) > > I would have liked to have seen more in canon of the reckoning that > needed to finally come on with Slytherin ideology, but JKR chose to > focus more on the personal story than the larger social one, alas. Betsy Hp: I think it's more JKR chose to sidestep the more complex story and went with the boy kills guy who murdered parents thing. Harry's relationship with Slytherin was actually quite personal. He wasn't Hermione, gazing at house-elfs from afar. He was dreaming and obsessing about Slytherins from the first book onward. It's hard to get more personal than that. JKR had to work to de-personalize that relationship. But two things stood out to me here: First of all, Slytherin exists because they're allowed to exist. Their house founder left the school and the house was kept around. Why? As was pointed out in another thread, Germany no longer has a Nazi party. So why did Hogwarts keep their racist house? Why do they encourage small children to embrace an ideology the school does not support? Also, there are no such thing as Dark Arts. JKR established that by making the use of them a non-issue. So any attempt to judge someone by the magic they use has become an exercise in hypocrisy. So basically it comes down to what Lizzyben was saying, our "good guys" need a bunch of teeth-picking racists around so they can look good in comparison. Also, they need someone to beat up when they've had a bad day. Which means (to get back to the title ) our hereos are not compassionate. Betsy Hp From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 13:21:41 2007 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:21:41 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175958 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > > But two things stood out to me here: First of all, Slytherin exists > because they're allowed to exist. Their house founder left the > school and the house was kept around. Why? As was pointed out in > another thread, Germany no longer has a Nazi party. So why did > Hogwarts keep their racist house? Why do they encourage small > children to embrace an ideology the school does not support? Because it's a cancer deeply rooted in wizarding society? Because there's always been a portion of people who agree with those principles, and help keep the house's ideology oriented towards that principle laid down instead of reorienting it towards different values? Doing things by fiat in an institution as deeply important to a society as Hogwarts is doesn't seem very likely to me, thinking about loose RL comparisons (like the howls of how co-education was going to destroy any number of previously all-male institutions--it hasn't, but you wouldn't have thought so from the outcry from alumni, and an action like that was only possible after societal attitudes in general had shifted.) Canon showed us that with Voldemort in the Ministry, some people were scared/somewhat offended but they went along with things like Muggleborn registration. We have the canonical attitude of most members of the House of Black, and the Malfoys. And so long as those remain societally acceptable because enough people with enough power hold them, there remains a place where those who have been inculcated in those ideas can go and be with the like-minded. Rather like attitudes towards race in the American South, it takes a critical mass to make something unacceptable instead of just disapproved of. > Also, there are no such thing as Dark Arts. JKR established that by > making the use of them a non-issue. So any attempt to judge someone > by the magic they use has become an exercise in hypocrisy. She did? I guess I did miss the memo where the three Unforgiveables were explicitly labeled as the Dark Arts. I suppose having used any of them even once is morally equivalent to going around learning about and making things like Horcruxes. I do love a good slippery slope argument! (I think there's a difference between a few uses and habitual, and it strengthens an argument (as opposed to a flashy rhetorical position) to work with that distinction.) -Nora mumbles something about cloudy day weather From cottell at dublin.ie Tue Aug 21 13:58:44 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:58:44 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175959 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > She did? I guess I did miss the memo where the three Unforgiveables > were explicitly labeled as the Dark Arts. Mus digs out GoF and finds Moody saying: "Now, according to the Ministry of Magic, I'm supposed to teach you counter-curses and leave it at that. I'm not supposed to show you what illegal Dark curses look like until you're in the sixth year." [GoF, UK PB, 187] He goes on to say that Dumbledore approves of his curriculum revision, and then demonstrates the three UCs. To this reader, it sounds as if they are being described as Dark. Admittedly, we hear later that the Ministry had authorised Aurors to use them in the first war, but that doesn't contradict BetsyHP's point about the hypocrisy, merely that it goes further back, since "Dark" can't mean what it appeared to. "Offensive" might a better term, but it doesn't have the same sort of occult resonance. (And neither do the UCs, now.) I have another, technical issue with Harry's use of the UCs. It's been explicit throughout that magic isn't a matter of waving your wand in a vague manner and thinking about what you want to happen - if it were, we wouldn't have been privy to mispronounced incantations and incorrect wand movement, and Scabbers would have turned yellow. Where has Harry *learned* to cast Imperio and Crucio? Mus From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Aug 21 14:05:03 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:05:03 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175960 > > Betsy Hp: > > > > But two things stood out to me here: First of all, Slytherin exists > > because they're allowed to exist. Their house founder left the > > school and the house was kept around. Why? As was pointed out in > > another thread, Germany no longer has a Nazi party. So why did > > Hogwarts keep their racist house? Why do they encourage small > > children to embrace an ideology the school does not support? Nora: > Because it's a cancer deeply rooted in wizarding society? Because > there's always been a portion of people who agree with those > principles, and help keep the house's ideology oriented towards that > principle laid down instead of reorienting it towards different values? Magpie: If it's a cancer, it seems like a comfortably contained cancer. It seems like the Muggle-born issue is there so that we readers can recognize it as being racism and see the bad guys as bad because we are racists. It's not dealing with racism as something inherent in Wizarding Society except as something that the good guys naturally oppose, it seems to me. Harry and his friends are identified as people who are not racists, which marks them as good, but you're right, racism itself is just there as a given with no reasoning that our heroes would understand. It's something those other people do, and the heroes therefore fight against them. This is why, I admit, I thought we were going to have to see racists who actually changed in a signficant (if not too extreme) way. I thought it would be Draco since he was put through the wringer in HBP, Dumbledore told him not to say Mudblood, he was in Harry's generation and he was the kid who lived that ideology since he first appeared. The closest we got was Slughorn's weak "Some Muggle-borns really surprise you--I really loved Lily" and Snape's "Don't use the word Mudblood--I really loved Lily too (in fact using that word lost her for me)" without getting into what they'd believed before and how they came to see differently. We know they loved Lily and presumably have to fill the rest in ourselves. (Which is tricky, because filling it in ourselves often, imo, leads to trying to make racism more logical than it is, and is why people are still confused about how Snape could be racist against Muggle-borns when he's a Half-blood with a mother parent.) JKR didn't choose to focus on a character seeing the error of his/her ways in that regard. To me this winds up being just sort of ironic, because if nobody looks at racism as a natural part of *people* rather than an incurable disease that just appears and can't be treated except by cutting it off when it gets too malignant, it feels like exactly what Betsy said--something there to make the good guys look good. I mean, to me it seems like Wizarding society is absolutely bigoted all over the place--good guys included--but it doesn't seem like bigotry on the part of good guys is presented as a bad thing or something we should really worry about. They seem to usually just be seeing things the way they are, or having the best of intentions. (I agree with Adam, for instance, that Harry doesn't unfairly judge Slytherins; his views on them are appropriate.) So even though racism is central to the fight against evil, I don't really learn anything about racism from the story that I didn't already know. Less, in fact, because in Harry's world just identifying the Nazi is pretty much enough. Nora: > Canon showed us that with Voldemort in the Ministry, some people were > scared/somewhat offended but they went along with things like > Muggleborn registration. We have the canonical attitude of most > members of the House of Black, and the Malfoys. And so long as those > remain societally acceptable because enough people with enough power > hold them, there remains a place where those who have been inculcated > in those ideas can go and be with the like-minded. Magpie: That's interesting because that's not really what I got reading the book. I mean, I see it now that you say it, but to me it seems like racism (in the extreme form of the DEs) is presented as socially unacceptable quite often. It's only acceptable in the subculture of Slytherin. The good guys have social power in the books, and they find it vulgar. They are not racists themselves (many readers find them bigoted, but it seems like the text says they aren't). Society does go along with the Ministry in going after Muggle-borns, but that's not explained in a way that says much about it. It seemed to me like a plot-point--everyone has to go along with it (even thought they've supposedly all been on the lookout for Voldemort and his DEs for a year) so that Harry can be living in a dystopia that only he and his band of friends can free anyone from. How society as a whole is falling to the DEs is just presented as a given, so I can't really draw conclusions for how this sort of thing happens. None of the characters we know as good guys go along with it. Hogwarts puts up a far greater resistance than the WW as a whole, it seems. And Hogwarts is what we see. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Aug 21 14:10:10 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:10:10 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175961 Thank you, Ceridwen, for a great discussion! I'm so glad the chapter discussions have started. I copied to word, then replied, and just realized that the >> marks don't appear. (Slow on the tech uptake, aren't I?) I'm skipping questions that would have a short answer that others have already made. I've also left the last few questions off and will reply to them later. Questions: 3. The peacock at Malfoy Manor is mentioned at least twice in the book. What is its significance? Potioncat: I have two very fond memories of peacocks. A pair roamed the campus at Navy Post Graduate School in Monterey, CA. A peacock was featured throughout Jan Brett's "Bearty and the Beast." So to me, having the beautiful peacocks at the Malfoy Estate was a strong contrast, between the beauty of the place, and the ugliness of the people there. So, perhaps the contrast was JKR's intention? At the same time, I wondered at their being white. It seemed to mirror the coloring of the family. 4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think might be the person hanging unconscious above the table? Potioncat: It was frightening, not knowing, and wondering if it would be someone we knew. 5. Only one person already in the room looks up at the unconscious revolving body above the table: Draco Malfoy. Once the body is resuscitated, he no longer looks at her. Why? Potioncat: He denies knowing who she is, and at the time, I thought he was telling the truth. But later he'll deny knowing Harry and friends. I'm not sure why he denies knowing who she is, unless he thinks he less he seems to know, the less will expected of him. But I'm sure he knows who she is. Even though he wouldn't have taken the class, he would have seen her at the Staff Table. On the other hand, maybe he's afraid that if he admits knowing her, he might have to share her treatment. I think he doesn't look at her once she's alert because he doesn't want to face her. 6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat of honor at his right hand. Is this because Snape is his "right-hand man"? Or is Voldemort "keeping his friends close, and his enemies closer"? Potioncat: Snape is his right hand man---at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't something of a ceremony around who will sit there each time. 7. Yaxley's information is different from Snape's. Is anyone in the Ministry who is not a member of the Order of the Phoenix aware that the Order will move Harry earlier than expected? Potioncat: No. The Ministry has one plan, and the Order has another. Luckily the Order has an idea what the Ministry's plan is. 9. Who is Snape's informant? Who does Voldemort think it is? Is it the same person? Potioncat: Oh, good. I see no one else knows either! During the first read, there was still the question of whether Snape was friend or foe. I thought it was telling that LV asks if it's the usual source and Snape says yes. I thought that Snape was actually telling a half-lie here. As if it was the usual source, but that source wasn't who LV thought it was. It's likely that LV thought the informant was Mundungus. At the same time, I think LV placed Snape back at Hogwarts to have access to Portrait!DD, thinking that Portrait!DD would be bound to serve Snape. But I wouldn't expect LV to think that Snape had contact with Portrait!DD at that time. I had thought that if Snape was "friend" he would still have a contact with the Order, even if many of the members thought he had gone over. (It turns out he didn't.) But at the end of this chapter, it was very, very likely that Snape was "foe" and this made me suspect Order members in later chapters. I wonder if the reader's expectation affected how the scene played out? What does anyone else think? Did having a preference or expectation for friend or foe affect how you interpreted this chapter? 10. Lucius and his family are clearly not happy with Voldemort's presence. Is this because Lucius is still disgraced from his botched mission at the Ministry and his use of the diary Horcrux? Does their apparent discomfort at the situation foreshadow their lack of involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts? Potioncat: Lucius and Draco have both failed to deliver. The agony that LV had put them through last year is still going on. Foreshadow . hmmm. Maybe. It certainly sets it up. Except, it makes some of Draco's actions more confusing. 11. Wormtail is described as sitting so low that his chair looks unoccupied. Is this further sign of his physical deterioration as seen in HBP? Is this because he would rather not be there? Is it just that he is a small man? Or is it symbolic in some way? Potioncat: I think it's important to how low he is. JKR loathes a traitor. 12. The Malfoys do not make much eye contact with Voldemort. When Voldemort looks at Snape, other Death Eaters look away. Are all of the Death Eaters at the manor happy with Voldemort's return? Potioncat: No one seems happy. I'd say, feeling anything less than pure terror would be considered a good day. 13. Snape looks comfortably into Voldemort's eyes when the other Death Eaters turn away. We see an example of Voldemort's Legillimency later in the book. How strong is Snape's Occlumency? Potioncat: He's a superb Occlumens. Only, how did Lupin know that? And whatever came of the theory that Lupin was a Legilimens? 14. Why does Voldemort praise Bellatrix, then humiliate her? Potioncat: He's a cat, playing with a mouse (No! Wait! I like cats.) If LV has always behaved like this, then young Snape had good reason to doubt whether LV would spare Lily. 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she pleads and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this the first time he could not save someone? Was Charity Burbage someone Snape could not save? Potioncat: This was an incredibly blood chilling scene for me to read , but I don't see how he could have helped her.. In HBP Snape takes credit for other deaths, but I think he couldn't prevent those either. But the "lately" in Snape's comment, makes it sound as if he may have been more involved in deaths the first time around. 17. Voldemort refers to "Mudbloods" as "thieves" of the Wizarding World's "knowledge and magic." This charge is repeated later in the book. Is it possible for a witch or wizard to have her or his magic stolen? Is it possible to steal knowledge without leaving that knowledge for others as well? Potioncat: This is the sort of argument one group makes against another. It doesn't sound reasonable to someone else, but can be believed by those who already distrust a different group. I grew up hearing that evil people in Hollywood were conspiring to corrupt children. Evil people were making shows like "Bewitched" to make us think witchcraft was all right. Look what it's come to. Now we've progressed to Harry Potter---which actually teaches us spells. OK, I'm using a silly example. But you don't have to go far to hear similar RL examples. (The Bewitched one is true. I remember a conversation about it when I was a kid.) It wouldn't take much to convince Purebloods that some how Muggles are stealing magic. Look at the evidence! There are fewer and fewer Purebloods and more and more Muggleborns. 18. When Charity Burbage's body falls to the table, several Death Eaters jump back in their chairs. Draco falls off his chair to the floor. Is this symbolic of some Death Eaters not being fully behind Voldemort's agenda? Or was it simply surprise? Potioncat: I don't care how bad you are, having a body fall on the table in front of you would have to be unpleasant. 19. Why are the Purebloods dwindling? Potioncat: I think those who don't care about being Pureblood, are marrying outside of blood by choice. So right then you have one less Pureblood marriage. JKR has stated that the inbreeding is becoming an issue. So that's part of it. It's a good thing, though. If the families weren't getting smaller, think of how many more characters there would have been! From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Aug 21 14:21:47 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:21:47 -0400 Subject: DD disgusted/DD disgusted/DD lied Message-ID: <003a01c7e3fe$9ce12e70$34c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 175962 zgirnius said: >>I love the Hagrid idea! LOL What I want to know was how Snape got into the office to discuss ghe matter with DD in the first place. This was before the fall of the Ministry and the Prophet's smear campaign against Harry.<< He's a Dark Wizard....he knows all the tricks to get past the Gargoyle. Besides, it would have been McGonagall's office at that point as Headmistress or Deputy Head. I'm sure Snape would have an idea of what her passwords would be...Ginger Newt anyone? CathyD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 14:17:37 2007 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:17:37 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175963 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > Magpie: > That's interesting because that's not really what I got reading the > book. I mean, I see it now that you say it, but to me it seems like > racism (in the extreme form of the DEs) is presented as socially > unacceptable quite often. It's only acceptable in the subculture of > Slytherin. The good guys have social power in the books, and they > find it vulgar. They are not racists themselves (many readers find > them bigoted, but it seems like the text says they aren't). There's Fudge, as well (comments Dumbledore makes about his valuation of blood, and comments Molly makes about those who have an interest in Muggle things being passed over), although, to be slightly snide, I can already see how those references can and will easily be tossed onto the "token reference/JKR is trying but doesn't convince me that it's really a problem/etc." barge. The good guys have a certain amount of social power, but it's certainly not unquestioned, given the ongoing conflict with the Ministry, and Lucius Malfoy on the Board of Governors; it takes his own spectacular incompetent idiocy (threatening other members) to get himself removed. > Hogwarts puts up a far greater resistance than the WW as a whole, it > seems. And Hogwarts is what we see. Agree that the focus on Hogwarts does lessen the impact that a view of society-at-large might have given us. I think that's why it's important to take every reference that we're given to the larger outside world as important, since it's most of what we've got. -Nora sighs as it starts to rain and goes to play in the mud(d) From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 14:24:36 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:24:36 -0000 Subject: Voldemort - 2 bodies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175964 > zanooda > > BTW, the last book seems to imply that LV left behind his dead body > in GH, because DD says in King's Cross chapter: "He (LV) left more > than his body behind" (p.709 US). In this case it seems strange > that so many wizards thought he might return. If the body was > found, wasn't it logical for everybody to assume that LV was dead > (I don't mean DD here, but the rest of the WW)? Mike: Hi Mila! I think that most of the WW *did* think that Voldemort was dead and gone. It seems that only a few of Dumbledore's closer confidants were given to understand that LV could and would come back. The rest of the WW was in deep denial all through OotP that LV was back. I've got to believe that that denial was grounded in the commonly understood reasoning that LV was gone for good after GH. The same could be said for the DEs. Snape tells Bella in Spinner's End that he "thought him finished". Now that we know that Bella was hiding the Hufflepuff cup for LV, it seems likely that she knew that it was a Horcrux. She was frantic when she thought the Trio had gotten Gryffindor's sword out of her vault. I don't think that was over a mere family heirloom that LV told her to hide for him. So Bella had inside information that LV could return. But Bella was definitely the exception. In LV's speech in the graveyard he laments that he is disappointed that his followers thought him finished and that none searched for him. (My thought; well, you idiot, if you wanted to be found, why'd you go hide in some forest in Albania? Why not hide in Malfoy Manor, you're vapor, what can anybody do to you that's worse than what you already did to yourself?) So LV doesn't like it, but he understands that even most of his followers thought him finished. Mike From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 14:23:11 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:23:11 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175965 > 4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think might > be the person hanging unconscious above the table? > zgirnius: I had no idea. But it was a *very* creepy image. The detail of the poor woman's tears rolling to the roots of her hair after she was copnscious again was also dreadful. *shiver* > 8. Several things that happen later in the book are alluded to in > this chapter. When discussing the Imperiusing of Pius Thicknesse, > Yaxley suggests that Thicknesse can subjugate the other heads of > departments at the Ministry to bring down Minister Rufus Scrimgeour. > Was Scrimgeour killed by the Imperiused heads of the various > departments under Thicknesse's direction? zgirnius: I tend to think not. There is the hint that he was tortured for news of Harry's whereabouts. While it is possible to Imperio someone to do that, I would think for an important assignment of that nature, actual Death Eaters would be involved. > va32h: > I was disappointed > that the takeover was accomplished soley via Imperius. An appeal to > the hearts and minds of the wizarding world would have been more > sinister. zgirnius: I don't know, for me she managed to make it sinister. The takeover results in some serious flips of the former positions in the government and the papers, and some very repressive laws. Yet noone seems to mind all that much, unless they happen to have Muggleborn relations or friends. I was reminded of that famous poem: First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. > 9. Who is Snape's informant? Who does Voldemort think it is? Is it > the same person? > > va32h: > No clue again, and my very cynical side says JKR never thought of one > either. It doesn't matter, it's just a way to show Snape seeming to > be on Voldie's side, so we can all be shocked at the memories. zgirnius: I think the clues point quite clearly to Mundungus Fletcher. Not only is he a shady character, and the one Snape deals with to plant the seven Potters idea, but he was supposed to be in Azkaban, where he was put late in HBP for imnpersonating an Inferius. Yet after the mass DE breakout, there he is, out and about. I doubt Voldemort did that out of charity. Snape had either already identified him as an informant before his arrest (so, in OotP/HBP time) or suggested he would be a useful guy to let out, post HBP. > 14. Why does Voldemort praise Bellatrix, then humiliate her? > zgirnius: I liked the answer someone else gave - this is aimed at keeping his underlings in competition for his favor. > 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape > tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not > save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she pleads > and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this the first time > he could not save someone? Was Charity Burbage someone Snape could > not save? zgirnius: Yes. There was nothing he could have done in a roomful of Death Eaters and Voldemort except to die with her. And we don't know that he had any inkling she was marked for death - it seems that mioght have been caused by that article she wrote, about wehich Volmdeort was so angry. > va32h: > Well, he apparently sold out Emmeline Vance after all too. zgirnius: Yeah, that's a death I was expecting to hear more about. Snape got cleared of assorted thinks ESE! believers laid at his door, but not that one. I think I'm sticking to my pre-DH theory that she was the Order guard at the DoM the night Malfoy and Co, paid a visit. Snape did take credit for her death in the same breath as he claimed the death of Sirius. > Alla: > But do you know what this scene reminded me of? Tower. Wierd I know. > Here we hear "Severus, please" again and three times ( DH too) and green light. I so thought of Tower. zgirnius: Me too. I don't think the similarity was accidental. Poor Charity...but also, poor Severus. Thanks Ceridwen, for kicking off our discussions with some interesting questions! From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Aug 21 14:21:26 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:21:26 -0400 Subject: Teddy Lupin Message-ID: <003601c7e3fe$8f6cd0a0$34c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 175966 Eric said: >>With Tonks and Lupin dying and leaving Teddy without parents (who were killed by voldy and the de's), plus Teddy being part werewolf (?) and having unusual hair like his mom (just as Harry had spiked- up hair like his dad), does anyone else wonder if this is a set-up or at least a possible opening for JK to write a new series with Teddy as the new "boy who lived?" It just seemed too parallel and was not addressed in the book. Too big of a loose end to not do something with it.<< What she intended with Teddy, I think, is to show an orphan who is raised by loving and caring family and friends, in contrast to Harry who definitely was not. I think JKR said that Teddy is definitely metamorphmagus..not werewolf. That said, I certainly hope if she decides to do another "boy who lived" series she does a better job on it that she did on this one. I'm still trying to fill all the plot-holes. I don't think it can be done... CathyD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From va32h at comcast.net Tue Aug 21 14:52:44 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:52:44 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175967 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: Quoted me ( va32h:) > I was disappointed > that the takeover was accomplished soley via Imperius. An appeal to > the hearts and minds of the wizarding world would have been more > sinister. Then zgirnius said: I don't know, for me she managed to make it sinister. The takeover results in some serious flips of the former positions in the government and the papers, and some very repressive laws. Yet noone seems to mind all that much, unless they happen to have Muggleborn relations or friends. I was reminded of that famous poem: va32h: Yes, but they all seem to be the result of a few Death Eaters Imperiusing everyone ele into doing their will. Umbridge is the only character we see who is apparently neither DE or Imperiused, just taking advantage of the situation to let looser her inner sadist. Perhaps I'm being shortsighted in seeing Umbridge as one character and not representative of a whole type of magical folks. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 15:06:58 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:06:58 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Snape from a non Snape Fan (uh-oh) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175968 > Prep0strus: > Thanks for not drawing and quartering me. :) I'm with you on the > Draco thing, which is why Draco's treatment in DH bugs me more than > many other things. I wanted some addressing of the fact that > Dumbledore and Snape 'saved his soul'. I guess it's implied... but I > wanted Draco to earn what he had been given. Perhaps even to undergo > the transformation we see in Dudley, who, it could be argued, > 'deserved' it less. Not based on legitimate anything - just on time > devoted to a character. HBP was really the book of Snape and of > Draco. You might think it was Dumbledore and Harry, but DD's story > was really in DH... and I just really thought Draco's arc would come > to a really interesting conclusion. Montavilla47: You're welcome. I agree with you about Draco. I'm actually a lot more okay with what happened between Snape and Dumbledore than I am with the way that Draco went. And you know, it's not that Draco himself disappointed me. It's that I have to squint and tilt the book sideways to figure out whether or not Draco was "good." As someone said, he was about as helpful to the "good" side as a chocolate hammer. Yes, he refuses to identify the Trio at Malfoy Manor. That's a big step for Draco, but it helps not one little bit. > > Montavilla47: > > So, what bugs me? Partly, it's that I always imagined > > Dumbledore welcoming Snape back to the "right" side > > with an extended hand--like the hand of God in the > > Michaelangelo painting. Now I know that it was with > > wrath and a demand for payment. > > Prep0strus: > Choose the balance of his reason for yourself. But he gets a spy. A > spy 'beholden' to him - at least in Snape's mind. Snape is crazy with > fear and grief - and love. To make this deal, I think Dumbledore can > trust him more if there is a kind of tit-for-tat. Maybe he thinks it > is more how Slytherins operate - not expecting something for nothing. > But I think it is a stronger tie to him. The second reason - he is > saving Snape himself, saving his soul. DD and Snape both know that he > can't ask snape to simply relinquish being a DE - it is a death > sentence. And DD may even feel that that is not enough to save > Snape's soul - Draco is stopped from committing murder, but what sins > are on Snape's soul that he needs to atone for after being a death > eater? Not the least of which putting the potter family in danger to > begin with (and the longbottoms). By requesting 'payment', DD gives > Snape the chance to do good, under his supervision and somewhat under > his protection. I think that offer was the pivotal moment of Snape's > life. If love of Lily is his underlying motivation, Dumbledore's > harsh offer of a trade is the door Snape needed in order to turn his > life around. Montavilla47: I actually agree with you. It probably was the best way for Dumbledore to handle Snape. And it's not like we didn't hear about Dumbledore treating his associates sternly before. We were told that Dumbledore's wrath was terrible to behold when Mundungus let him down. I see the reason for it. But it did bug me when I read it. As I ponder the story, it does make sense and I'm less bothered by it. > > Montavilla47: > > But mostly, it's that line, "Sometimes I think we sort > > too early..." Which says to me that Dumbledore > > valued Snape to the extent that Snape emulated the > > qualities of Gryffindor, rather than for his value as > > a Slytherin. > > Prep0strus: > > And here we have another of the underlying issues that divides people, > that causes grumpiness, that itches like the Snape issue itself. I > completely agree with your statement in that he's valuing Griffindor > not Slytherin. And it bugs the heck out of me that I have to accept > this world that JKR has created, but... I am in the camp that does not > see anything to value in Slytherin. There are characters that manage > to ever so slightly rise above the sludge that is Slytherin - but > never by focusing on their Slytherin characteristics. It's hard > enough even to find Slytherin characteristics that are able to be > interpreted as worthwhile. Pure of blood? Pointless, and often not > true. Clever? Ok, but why not Ravenclaw? Ambition - surely portrayed > negatively when not accompanied by wokring towards a noble goal, the > forte of Griffindors. Self-serving? Absolutely wonderful. > > > I am angry JKR didn't give me a good Slytherin. I am angry she didn't > give me worthwhile Slytherin qualities. I am angry her world didn't > grow to encompass the idea that all houses ARE equal, and perhaps the > house WAS tainted by Riddle, and could rise to true equality. But > Salazar himself tainted the house, and the school. Every Slytherin is > unlikeable in some way, and need to embrace their other qualities to > not be completely worthless - especially Griffindor, which continues > to still be 'better' than Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw. Montavilla47: If that angers you as well as me, then I don't mind at all that you dislike Snape. Because this is the part of the book that really bugs me. I don't mind that Slytherin isn't fully integrated at the end of the the book. I get that it will take time and, even if everyone works really hard at it, it would be several generations before everyone feels comfortable. But there *are* good qualities in Slytherin. Ambition is not inherently bad. Nor is talent. Nor is cunning, even if its more animalistic a word than "intelligence" or "pragmatism." But the message isn't that Slytherin qualities have value, but that any particular Slytherin has value only to the extent that he or she is un-Slytherin-like. And the best they hope for in terms of acceptance is a wary nod from a distance. From brandy_muth at alltel.net Tue Aug 21 13:37:10 2007 From: brandy_muth at alltel.net (Brandy) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:37:10 -0000 Subject: Voldemort - 2 bodies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175969 Zanooda said: > BTW, the last book seems to imply that LV left behind his dead body in > GH, because DD says in King's Cross chapter: "He (LV) left more than > his body behind" (p.709 US). In this case it seems strange that so > many wizards thought he might return. If the body was found, wasn't it > logical for everybody to assume that LV was dead (I don't mean DD > here, but the rest of the WW)? Good Point! I mean, the only one who suspected Horcruxes was DD as far as we know. There were Death Eaters (I'm assuming Bellatrix among them) that knew he had gone "farther along the path to immortality" but not exactly how far or exactly how. If they had a dead body, to me that is pretty much saying someone is dead. Very good point! Brandy From brandy_muth at alltel.net Tue Aug 21 13:44:47 2007 From: brandy_muth at alltel.net (Brandy) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:44:47 -0000 Subject: Kings Cross..... The end??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175970 Sue wrote: > but I bet he never became an auror, because if he did, he'd be > putting himself in danger of being defeated by some dark wizard and > losing the allegiance of the Elder Wand, and he really, really > didn't want that to happen, if you recall. he wanted the thing's > power to die with him. So he'd have to have as boring a life as > possible, wouldn't he? :-) Actually, he did become an Auror. JKR mentioned this in her online chat on Bloomsbury and Scholastic, and on her Dateline NBC interview. Both Ron and Harry are aurors, Harry is head of the department. They ahve "Completely revolutionized" the department. Hermione is "pretty high up" in the Dept. of Magical Law Enforcement. She said its a "whole new Ministry of Magic" Really interesting point though Sue about the Elder wand...I didn't think about that at all. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20001720/page/4/ (link to dateline interview) Brandy From taylorlynzie at gmail.com Tue Aug 21 16:27:32 2007 From: taylorlynzie at gmail.com (taylorlynzie) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:27:32 -0000 Subject: Modified Memories Vs. Memory Charms Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175971 Right now I'm in the process of rereading DH and something struck me as a bit odd, or inconsistent (whichever view you would like to take) and I wanted to post it on here and see what others thought. Maybe I'm just forgetting some simple fact. So in Chapter Six, The Ghoul in Pajamas while Ron, Hermione, and Harry are up in Ron's room Hermione says, "I've also modified my parents' memories so that they're convinced they're really called Wendell and Monica Wilkins, and that their life's ambition is to move to Australia, which they have now done." pg. 96 (US) This leads me to believe that Hermione performed a Memory Charm on her parents and then told them about their "life". However, with some further reading I came to Chapter Nine, A Place to Hide when they have stunned the Deatheaters and are planning their escape, "We just need to wipe their memories," said Harry. ..... "You're the boss," said Ron, sounding profoundly relieved. "But I've never done a Memory Charm." "Nor have I," said Hermione, "but I know the theory." pg. 167 (US) Now am I mixing up my charms and spells and such or didn't Hermione use a memory charm on her parents? Convincing them that they had never had a daughter and that their ambition was to move to Australia seems a bit more complex then just a Confunding charm or something of the sort? What does everybody else think? -Taylor From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Aug 21 16:46:12 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:46:12 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Kings Cross..... The end??? Message-ID: <14911108.1187714774009.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 175972 From: sbursztynski >Now, this is an interesting problem. See - we don't know what Harry is doing for a living, >but I bet he never became an auror, because if he did, he'd be putting himself in danger of >being defeated by some dark wizard and losing the allegiance of the Elder Wand, and he >really, really didn't want that to happen, if you recall. he wanted the thing's power to die >with him. Bart: Given that JKR has said that he is now the head of the Aurors, I have postulated that he started out in a consulting position, later moving to administrative, but was never active in the field. Bart From eel_pout at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 12:58:37 2007 From: eel_pout at yahoo.com (shawn legare) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <822850.61514.qm@web53703.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175973 ****1. Snape and Yaxley "raised their left arms in a kind of salute." Is this a reference to World War II and the likening of the Death Eaters to the Nazis, in Deathly Hallows? Shawn: Pretty sure it is, the whole book seems to swirl with Nazi references. *****4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think might be the person hanging unconscious above the table? Shawn: I was betting it was going to be someone from the order, one of the Weaslys maybe. *****6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat of honor at his right hand. Is this because Snape is his "right-hand man"? Or is Voldemort "keeping his friends close, and his enemies closer"? Shawn: Nah, I don't think it was any of that. The way I got it was that it was just Snape's time to give his "report" of the important upcoming movements of the Order and Harry. If the purpose of the meeting was to hear what Snape has to tell, then he should be up front and center. *****7. Yaxley's information is different from Snape's. Is anyone in the Ministry who is not a member of the Order of the Phoenix aware that the Order will move Harry earlier than expected? Shawn: Certainly doesn't seem that way. *****9. Who is Snape's informant? Who does Voldemort think it is? Is it the same person? Shawn: I think Snape is his own informant. Vold must think this as well or he would not make such vital plans around information that might have came from an unreliable source. Shawn From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Tue Aug 21 16:36:15 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:36:15 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Snape from a non Snape Fan (uh-oh) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175974 > Montavilla47: > But mostly, it's that line, "Sometimes I think we sort > too early..." Which says to me that Dumbledore > valued Snape to the extent that Snape emulated the > qualities of Gryffindor, rather than for his value as > a Slytherin. Rowena: I've been thinking about that line and I wonder - was it only Snape he was talking about? Here is Snape the Slytherin showing Gryffindor's signature virtue of courage to a degree unmatched by most if not all Gryffindors, yes. But here also is Dumbledore the Gryffindor painfully conscious of his own failings of ambition and lust for power that are usually assigned to Slytherin. I wonder...did DD think maybe they'd *BOTH* been misassigned? Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 21 17:01:38 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:01:38 -0000 Subject: Kings Cross..... The end??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175975 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brandy" wrote: > > Sue wrote: > > > but I bet he never became an auror, because if he did, he'd be > > putting himself in danger of being defeated by some dark wizard and > > losing the allegiance of the Elder Wand, and he really, really > > didn't want that to happen, if you recall. he wanted the thing's > > power to die with him. So he'd have to have as boring a life as > > possible, wouldn't he? :-) > > > > Actually, he did become an Auror. JKR mentioned this in her online > chat on Bloomsbury and Scholastic, and on her Dateline NBC interview. > Both Ron and Harry are aurors, Harry is head of the department. They > ahve "Completely revolutionized" the department. Hermione is "pretty > high up" in the Dept. of Magical Law Enforcement. She said its > a "whole new Ministry of Magic" > > Really interesting point though Sue about the Elder wand...I didn't > think about that at all. > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20001720/page/4/ (link to dateline > interview) > > Brandy > Ken: It has been discussed before and Sue is right, Ms. Rowling is wrong. Harry cannot go on to become a mad eye Moody if he means to end the power of the elder wand. It is way too big a risk. However, someone else pointed out that Harry could work for the auror office and even head it up without ever being a field agent. I predicted that Harry would not defeat Voldemort by becoming the "fastest gun in the west" and in a way I was wrong about that. What I meant was that we would not see him master magic to the level that we saw Voldemort and Dumbledore use against each other in the Ministry. And that is true, his wand did do that for him very early on and then it got taken out of action. Harry didn't even understand what the wand did. What we did see was Harry becoming a fast gun in a much different and I thought, believable, way. In DH Harry became a master of combining information to see through it to the motives and plans of his opponent. He became a master detective. It is a talent he has shown all along and it really blossomed in the final book. That is a talent that the auror office can use and it can be done almost completely from a desk, safe inside the Ministry. It's not like Harry has anything left to prove about his personal courage. Of course our dear author is anything but a master at putting together information like this so I have no doubt that when she writes her encyclopedia of the Potterverse she will have Harry out there slinging lead at the bad guys like Eliot Ness on steriods. And that is just wrong.... Personally I think it is wrong on a different level too. I don't think that Harry wants to be an auror anymore, he's done that to death. At the end Harry says he's had enough trouble for a lifetime. I believe him, I hope the author does too. Harry needs to do something else with his life and he has earned the right to a peaceful but rewarding existence. He's really been set up to become a champion for civil rights for the other magical creatures and Muggles, if you ask me. Ken From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 17:04:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:04:52 -0000 Subject: A Snape Timetable (Was: Dumbledore Disgusted) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175976 JudySerenity wrote: > In OoP, Dumbledore says the Prophecy was overheard, but the eavesdropper was detected partway into the Prophecy and thrown from the building. The way I pictured it, Aberforth threw Snape out halfway through the Prophecy, and Snape went straightaway to Voldemort. Aberforth then told Albus about the eavesdropping after the Prophecy had been completed, either naming Snape as the eavesdropper, or describing him so that Albus knew who it was. (Which would have been easy, since Albus was expecting Snape to be there for a job interview.) Reviewing his memories in the Pensieve could have told Albus exactly how much had been overheard, since he might have been able to hear Aberforth confronting Snape. Carol responds: I agree with most of your interpretation (which I've snipped), and I agree that we're dealing with a lot of inconsistencies. However, DD could not have been expecting young snape to show up for a job interview (for the DADA post) at the time of the interview. that's Trelawney's after-the-fact interpretation. She seems to have forgotten that she was hired later in the year than usual (as of OoP, she's been teaching "almost sixteen years" as opposed to Snape's "fourteen years," evidently because the previous Divination professor suddenly died or became incapacitated). I like to think that Trelawney's interview took place on Halloween, as so many other events do in the series, especially since that would have been Harry's approximate conception date. However, it could have taken place any time between his conception and late spring, as the cold rainy night indicates. Either way, it did not take place during the normal hiring period (July through August). Young Snape would not be applying for a DADA position some time into the school year. That position would already have been filled. He was probably there to spy on DD, either knowing that he'd be holding a job interview for a suddenly vacant position and presciently guessing that he'd do so at the Hog's Head or just knowing that it was a place frequented by DD and hoping to see him there or overhear news or gossip. IOW, he's almost certainly spying for LV at this time, not applying for a job. (Note the went-up-the-wrong-stairs excuse; obviously, he doesn't have an appointment of his own.) Nor does he apply the following year, apparently. He comes to DD for help some time between Harry's birth on July 30, 1980 (probably that winter, given the weather) and September 1, 1981, when he begins teaching Potions. He begins spying for DD "at great personal risk" as the result of his promise to do "anything" to get DD to save Lily. I realize that DH muddies the waters still further with the Pensieve memories, with no clear indication of how close they are together (and it has never made sense that LV waited fifteen months to try to kill Harry, but let's say that he doesn't read the birth announcements in the Daily Prophet and it took him awhile to figure out who the two boys are and that he debated a while after that over which posed the greater threat instead of choosing to kill both of them and that he even considered waiting, like a logical person, to see which posed the greater threat. But never mind all that. Back to Severus.) Here's my approximate time frame for the events from the Prophecy to Godric's Hollow, part of a more fully developed Snape timetable: Ca. Oct. 31, 1979 (could be as late as April 1980): The eavesdropping incident. Snape, age 19 (or 20, if it's January 9 or later), reports immediately to LV. July 31, 1980: Harry Potter is born (Neville is born the previous day). Winter 1980-81: Snape, age 20-21, finds out how LV is interpreting the Prophecy (choosing the Potters over the Longbottoms and deciding to kill an infant). Snape asks LV to spare Lily's life, but not fully trusting him and terrified for Lily, he also goes to DD. He promises to do "anything" to protect Lily and begins spying for DD "at great personal risk." July 31, 1981: Harry's first birthday. Lily writes her letter. The Potters are hiding in Godric's Hollow, but unless PoA is wrong, they are not yet under the Fidelius Charm. Perhaps DD suggested it when he borrowed the IC. (Note that there seems to be another time discrepancy here. DD cannot have "borrowed" the IC a mere week before Godric's Hollow unless Lily is writing a very belated thank-you note.) "Wormy" is contemplating treachery. Ca. August 1981: LV sends Snape to apply for the DADA post (nearly *two years* after Trelawney's job interview). DD, perhaps not yet fully trusting his young spy, gives him Potions instead. Snape begins teaching on Sept. 1. Ca. Oct. 24, 1981: The Potters make PP their Secret Keeper at SB's brilliant suggestion. (If PoA is wrong, the Fidelius Charm may have been cast earlier.) It's unclear why they wait so long. Perhaps Snape has provided DD with new information and DD had informed them of their increased danger. Oct. 31, 1981: PP breaks the Fidelius Charm by revealing the Secret to LV. LV goes to GH alone, murders James, gives Lily several chances to stand aside, then murders her.) The Prophecy Boy's death is more important to him than a promise made to a young Death Eater.) He attempts to kill Harry and is blown out of his body instead. On a side note related to this thread, I don't think that LV (who tells several lies in the last few chapters of DH) ever said anything to Snape about Lily *after* her death. I think that young Snape, sensing her danger, asked to be rewarded for revealing the Porphecy by having LV spare Lily, making it appear that he merely desired the attractive "Mudblood," and LV said something like, "Very well, Severus. You have served me well, and I will reward you if I can. However, should she resist me and her death become necessary, surely you can find a more suitable pure-blood woman who is equally attractive." That would explain both LV's view that Snape desired rather than loved Lily and young Snape's doubts and fears for Lily. (As Mim has pointed out, *of course* he would not have asked LV to spare the baby even if he cared one way or the other about him. Killing Harry was the whole point of the murder expedition. And young DE Severus could hardly be expected to care about James even if he owed him a life debt. He could present the request to spare Lily as the desire for a reward, and her life was all that mattered to him at the time.) Dumbledore's "you disgust me" seems out of character considering how polite he is to the DEs on the tower, who are there to make sure that he's murdered. No doubt they, and especially the wannabe DE Greyback, disgust him a great deal more than a DE who has gone behind Voldie's back to beg him to spare a woman's life. I'm not sure, but I think he suspects that young Snape's emotional vulnerability will make him see himself as he is and realize that indifference to the lives of a child and its father is less than admirable. And that Snape responds with "Hide them all, then. Keep her--them--safe. Please" shows that DD's tough-love approach has had some effect, as does Snape's promise to do "anything." DD is not about to pass up the opportunity to have a spy among the Death Eaters. This unhappy young man, not the usual heartless Death Eater, can be of great use to him. (At this point, DD probably remembers Snape's exam scores and has some notion of his intelligence and talents but he has no idea of his capacity for loyalty and courage.) So he manipulates Snape, who, in turn, is motivated by the hope of saving Lily's life. And when LV actually sends Snape to apply for the DADA position, DD probably knows that not to hire him is to have LV kill him; besides, Snape can be equally useful at Hogwarts. When both of them fail to protect Lily thanks to Pettigrew's betrayal, DD is again harsh, emphasizing that LV has betrayed Snape and getting him past his indifference to Harry's survival by persuading him that protecting Harry will prove his love for Lily and insure that her death is not in vain (similar to the tactic that Harry uses on Kreacher with regard to Regulus's death). It's harsh; it's psychological manipulation; it's using Severus for "the greater good." But it's also effective, and more appropriate than sympathizing with him over Lily's death (James, after all, is dead, too). And Harry's continued danger is the main point that Snape needs to understand. I don't like DD in these scenes. My sympathy is almost entirely with the emotionally battered young Snape. Nevertheless, DD knows what he's doing. He does defend Snape (twice) in the Wizengamot. He does give him a job as Potions master. And we do see his trust and understanding change markedly with his calm response to Snape's criticism of Harry's mediocrity and his quiet direction, "Keep an eye on Quirrell for me, will you?" DD's sole moment of doubt, when he asks whether Snape is tempted to follow Karkaroff, is answered by "I am not such a coward" followed by DD's acknowledgement of Snape's courage. "Dumbledore trusts me," says Snape in GoF, and his sending Snape to Voldemort ("If you are ready, if you are prepared") is proof of that. And DD's concern for Snape, not just as his very valuable spy and employee but as his ally and much younger friend, is shown by his reaction to that moment. And then, of course, Snape attempts to save him from the ring curse even before the doe Patronus gives him the "ironclad reason" for trusting Snape. He defends Snape to McGonagall et al. and to Harry before the Patronus incident. (I see DD's relationship to Snape, which seems to be closer in some respects than his relationships to other teachers, as that of a (great-great) grandfather to a prodigal (great great) grandson who has returned to the fold: strict but loving and ultimately trusting him to do what no one else can do. He is not placing Snape's soul at risk; Snape himself decides that killing a dying man to protect Draco from murder and the man himself from a painful and degrading death will not split his soul. And I believe that he's right. Snape is the clearest example in the books of a truly redeemed character whose teaching methods are, IMO, a mere red herring.) Carol, trying to fit the Pensieve memory and the canon from other books together and feeling that a few pieces are missing while others are the wrong shape and have to be forced into place From lizcrosssmith at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 17:21:13 2007 From: lizcrosssmith at yahoo.com (lizcrosssmith) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:21:13 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175977 My thoughts on some of the questions: 6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat of honor at his right hand. Is this because Snape is his "right-hand man"? Or is Voldemort "keeping his friends close, and his enemies closer"? Liz: Traditionally, seating arrangements are not done by chance. The people immediately on the host's right and left are the honored guests. And I think that when LV directs his followers to their seats it is all very calculated and tells the story of who is in favor and who isn't. LV is arrogant -- we see that over and over. He simply does not believe that anyone could stand up to his occlumency -- he has been successfully using it since he was a child. Snape looks him in the eye and allows himself to be read. For LV to doubt Snape's allegiance he would first have to doubt his own abilities. Not likely. 18. When Charity Burbage's body falls to the table, several Death Eaters jump back in their chairs. Draco falls off his chair to the floor. Is this symbolic of some Death Eaters not being fully behind Voldemort's agenda? Or was it simply surprise? Liz: LV maintains control over his DEs thru a mixture of fear and promise. He makes it clear that he has and continues to cross boundaries that others will not. He wants to horrify his followers. And by how much shock they display when the body drops (question 23) JKR shows us how far LV is from their own personal boundaries. Draco is the most shocked by the action, so he is therefore the least along the dark path (the closest to redemption). 20. Voldemort has no issues with "pruning" the family tree of undesirables, even though they may be pure-blood or half-bloods. Yet, he is displeased with Burbage's article and her assertion that the dwindling of Pureblood families is a good thing. Voldemort says, of Charity Burbage, "She would have us all mate with Muggles... or, no doubt, werewolves..." He includes himself with the Purebloods here. Does he think his Muggle father's family doesn't count? Or is he actively enforcing the idea that he, too, is a Pureblood? Liz: Think animal husbandry here. Just because the dog is a pureblood Golden Retriever, if it is short and doesn't like to hunt, you aren't going to breed it. We're talking master race here, folks and this is a guy who thinks of people as cattle. Liz C-S From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 17:44:55 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:44:55 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175978 > >>Magpie: > > > > The good guys have social power in the books, and they find it > > vulgar. They are not racists themselves (many readers find them > > bigoted, but it seems like the text says they aren't). > >>Nora: > There's Fudge, as well (comments Dumbledore makes about his > valuation of blood, and comments Molly makes about those who have > an interest in Muggle things being passed over), although, to be > slightly snide, I can already see how those references can and will > easily be tossed onto the "token reference/JKR is trying but > doesn't convince me that it's really a problem/etc." barge. Betsy Hp: Rather than tossing scenes onto the "please ignore" barge, I'd instead question then, the scenes where the "good guys" use magic to frighten or "prank" muggles. This is actually a big reason I sort of squinted at DH when Voldemort started down the "down with Muggles" path. Our heroes were walking that path themselves, so it was odd that this was supposed to be something that differentiated Voldemort from Harry and co. Now of course when we get to Muggle-*borns* that's a bit different. It's been well established that this is a form of bigotry that's *wrong*. But it still doesn't excuse or remove the "good" bigotry that our heroes indulge in. The one that I agree with Magpie is in the text without the author apparently noticing. > >>Nora: > The good guys have a certain amount of social power, but it's > certainly not unquestioned, given the ongoing conflict with the > Ministry, and Lucius Malfoy on the Board of Governors; it takes his > own spectacular incompetent idiocy (threatening other members) to > get himself removed. Betsy Hp: Yes. *Waaay* back in CoS. Since then the Board (who is on the Board, I wonder?) seems to pretty much follow Dumbledore's lead. And in fact we get a moment where Draco brags about family connections that the Malfoy's don't actually have, but Neville Longbottom's family does have (OotP). We're also told, several times in fact, that the only reason Dumbledore is not the Minister of Magic is because he's *chosen* not to be. A fact I think we're supposed to admire him for, oddly enough, though I don't. Since he's chosen to do nothing about it, it's rather rich of Dumbledore to sling stones at his society's short- comings. If he really wanted the attitude towards Muggleborns to change maybe he should have taken a look at the actions of various Muggles throughout history and followed their example. Betsy Hp From muellem at bc.edu Tue Aug 21 18:01:26 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:01:26 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175979 > > Questions: > > 1. Snape and Yaxley "raised their left arms in a kind of salute." > Is this a reference to World War II and the likening of the Death > Eaters to the Nazis, in Deathly Hallows? > colebiancardi: oh yes - very much so. Pureblood mania and the destruction of *lessers* harken back to the Nazi era > 2. Saluting the gate with their left arms makes them able to pass > through the wrought iron gate. Is this a tacit confirmation that > there was indeed a blocking spell on the tower in HBP which only > allowed Death Eaters to enter? colebiancardi: hmmmm...didn't think about that. I don't think it was only DE's that allowed people thru to the tower in HBP, but anyone *who* knew how to break the spell. Snape isn't a DE - hasn't been for years. But he knew how to pass through to the tower. > 3. The peacock at Malfoy Manor is mentioned at least twice in the > book. What is its significance? colebiancardi: the Malfoys are a bunch of pretentious old-money braggarts!! > 4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think might > be the person hanging unconscious above the table? colebiancardi: first thought - Draco. Afterall, he failed in killing DD. I thought that was his punishment > 5. Only one person already in the room looks up at the unconscious > revolving body above the table: Draco Malfoy. Once the body is > resuscitated, he no longer looks at her. Why? colebiancardi: because Draco isn't a killer. He is a tin-pot little bully, but when real evil is forced into his face, he cannot stomach it (don't get me wrong, I liked Draco in HBP - DH!Draco is a wimp). He looks at Charity as one would when passing by a really bad traffic accident. In the states, it is commonly called "Looky-Loos". He is a dear caught in the headlights. But he cannot meet her eyes, which is why he turns away > 6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat of honor at his right hand. Is > this because Snape is his "right-hand man"? Or is Voldemort "keeping > his friends close, and his enemies closer"? colebiancardi: I honestly think that Voldy thinks that Snape is his right-hand man and afterall, Snape just killed DD - I am sure that placed Snape higher up the food chain in Voldy's eyes. I don't think Voldy truly trusts anyone, but Snape comes pretty close. > 7. Yaxley's information is different from Snape's. Is anyone in the > Ministry who is not a member of the Order of the Phoenix aware that > the Order will move Harry earlier than expected? colebiancardi: I think that those in the Order who worked at the MoM *dropped* hints at the MoM around those they thought were DE's or working for Voldy. Probably around the water cooler or in the bathroom!! They purposely gave conflicting information. > 9. Who is Snape's informant? Who does Voldemort think it is? Is it > the same person? colebiancardi: I don't think Snape has an informant. Snape and Portrait!DD are controlling the shots. > 10. Lucius and his family are clearly not happy with Voldemort's > presence. Is this because Lucius is still disgraced from his botched > mission at the Ministry and his use of the diary Horcrux? Does their > apparent discomfort at the situation foreshadow their lack of > involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts? colebiancardi: yes to the first question. And yes, it shows a very reluctant and frightened Malfoy family - Narcissa seems to be the backbone in the family. Lucius looks to her first when he has to give up his wand and she touches his hand, as if to give him strength. > > 11. Wormtail is described as sitting so low that his chair looks > unoccupied. Is this further sign of his physical deterioration as > seen in HBP? Is this because he would rather not be there? Is it > just that he is a small man? Or is it symbolic in some way? colebiancardi: small man who probably doesn't want to be there. He always was a reluctant DE, imho. > 12. The Malfoys do not make much eye contact with Voldemort. When > Voldemort looks at Snape, other Death Eaters look away. Are all of > the Death Eaters at the manor happy with Voldemort's return? colebiancardi: Happy? Probably not. They have no choice, in their view, to try to get away from him (they would get killed). They are probably scared witless (except for Bella, of course - but she is insane) > 13. Snape looks comfortably into Voldemort's eyes when the other > Death Eaters turn away. We see an example of Voldemort's Legillimency > later in the book. How strong is Snape's Occlumency? > colebiancardi: oh my - on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the strongest, a 15. Snape also has brass balls - can I say that here???? LOL. > 14. Why does Voldemort praise Bellatrix, then humiliate her? colebiancardi: I guess they have a textbook sado-masochistic relationship. that is how I read it. > 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape > tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not > save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she pleads > and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this the first time > he could not save someone? Was Charity Burbage someone Snape could > not save? colebiancardi: no, Snape was not lying to DD. I don't believe this is the first time he could not save someone. And Snape couldn't save Charity, not in that setting. It would be a dead Snape and still a dead Charity, if he tried. > 18. When Charity Burbage's body falls to the table, several Death > Eaters jump back in their chairs. Draco falls off his chair to the > floor. Is this symbolic of some Death Eaters not being fully behind > Voldemort's agenda? Or was it simply surprise? colebiancardi: I think a dead body falling on a dinner table would make anybody jump back. > 19. Why are the Purebloods dwindling? colebiancardi: too much inbreeding. Shutters. Thinks of the X-File episode "Home". blech... > > 21. Why does Voldemort think that Lucius does not need his wand > anymore? colebiancardi: as others have stated, symbolic castration. > > 22. Do you think Voldemort is planning on dispensing with the > Malfoys eventually? colebiancardi: if they don't straighten up - yes. All but Bella. > 23. Voldemort invites Nagini to dine on the corpse of Charity > Burbage. What do you imagine the reactions of the others around the > table might be? This idea has been presented in the books before. > When do you think Nagini has disposed of the evidence before? Is > this part of her value to Voldemort, or is Voldemort giving his pet a > treat? > colebiancardi: Voldy has a soft spot for Nagini - he loves to give her treats. I am sure Nagini has eaten quite a few people - perhaps those that were mentioned in HBP's Spinner's End. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 18:04:03 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:04:03 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175980 "Ceridwen" wrote an excellent synopsis of DH Chap. 1 and posed several interesting questions: 1. Snape and Yaxley "raised their left arms in a kind of salute." Is this a reference to World War II and the likening of the Death Eaters to the Nazis, in Deathly Hallows? I thought it was a reference to the Nazi salute of WW II one of the first of many in DH. 2. Saluting the gate with their left arms makes them able to pass through the wrought iron gate. Is this a tacit confirmation that there was indeed a blocking spell on the tower in HBP which only allowed Death Eaters to enter? I believe so. 3. The peacock at Malfoy Manor is mentioned at least twice in the book. What is its significance? Quite significant as it turns out. In all likelihood the peacocks were white peacocks rather than albinos. They are rare and expensive, making it a typical Malfoy show of wealth. Peacocks also make great guards and will sound the alarm at intruders.(They can be louder than the most massive of guard dogs.) And just one more dig-- the white peacocks, the Malfoys may have thought so-pure are actually genetic mutations. I find it ironic that these pure- blood/DE fanatics have genetic mutations running around on their front lawn as pets.. Then there is the symbolism--the many eyes in the tail are often thought to ward off evil. During medieval times, the peacock was a symbol of everlasting life. 4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think might be the person hanging unconscious above the table? I worried it may have been McConogal, and was disgusted at my relief that it wasn't her because it did't make her toruture, death and final disposition any less significant or less difficult to read. 5. Only one person already in the room looks up at the unconscious revolving body above the table: Draco Malfoy. Once the body is resuscitated, he no longer looks at her. Why? Drao doesn't have the stomach for it. It is one thing to talk the talk, yet another to walk the walk. It's the difference between watching the war on television and being a soldier or even a civillian in a war torn country. I don't think Draco ever envisioned the rise of the purebloods to be such a bloody mess where people he knew--at least knew in passing were going to be killed in front of him on the dining table he once enjoyed holiday meals with his parents. If Harry & Co. had a sense of forboding when various DE's gathered outside of Grimauld place, I believe Draco to be nothing short of terrified to have not only the DE's but Voldemort as well operating out of his home. IMHO 6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat of honor at his right hand. Is this because Snape is his "right-hand man"? Or is Voldemort "keeping his friends close, and his enemies closer"? I'll give Snape credit on this one and say right hand man. 7. Yaxley's information is different from Snape's. Is anyone in the Ministry who is not a member of the Order of the Phoenix aware that the Order will move Harry earlier than expected? I think Yaxley may have been misinformed...poor Dawlish--I wonder who got to him this time--I like to think Kingley, but maybe it was Arthur Weasley(we do know that Aruthur was being followed, but not who was doing the tailing of him) 8. Several things that happen later in the book are alluded to in this chapter. When discussing the Imperiusing of Pius Thicknesse, Yaxley suggests that Thicknesse can subjugate the other heads of departments at the Ministry to bring down Minister Rufus Scrimgeour. Was Scrimgeour killed by the Imperiused heads of the various departments under Thicknesse's direction? Judging from how fast the ministry fell I think this is a reasonable assumption. Rufus should have taken a leaf out of Mad-eye's book and remembered CONSTANT VIGILANCE! I think Rufus may have been too distracted by Harry Potter and DD's plans. 9. Who is Snape's informant? Who does Voldemort think it is? Is it the same person? I thought it was Mundungus and I think Voldemort thought the same. The key being that not only was Dung being used to get info from, but he was also being used by Snape to pass DD's info to the order. (double spy--imperios and creates another double spy) 10. Lucius and his family are clearly not happy with Voldemort's presence. Is this because Lucius is still disgraced from his botched mission at the Ministry and his use of the diary Horcrux? Does their apparent discomfort at the situation foreshadow their lack of involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts? As I stated above, I don't think that Draco or any of the Malfoy's ever thought their own home would be used as DE headquarters. Folks being killed on their dining table, the moans of poor Olivander in the cellar..I'd say that Lucious is more disgraced by his use of the diary more than the botched MOM fiasco. Worse yet, now Draco's involved and it seems Draco's life is their #1 priority. The battle at Hogwarts--by that time all the Malfoys are wandless so I wasn't too surpsied not to see them tossing curses around as they couldn't. 11. Wormtail is described as sitting so low that his chair looks unoccupied. Is this further sign of his physical deterioration as seen in HBP? Is this because he would rather not be there? Is it just that he is a small man? Or is it symbolic in some way? I'm sure it's a sign of both his physical deterioration and his small stature. Also remember he wants the protection of the biggest bully on the playground best too hide behind or even beneath them rather than sit beside them. I think it may be even more meaningful that he sent Wormtail, rather than Bella to go to the cellar and "quiet" the prisoner..(Voldemort still wants Olivander alive perhaps? and doesn't trust the malice of his other followers?) I still havn't figured out why Wormtail and Snape were shacked up together at the begginning of HBP..was Wormtail sent to spy on Snape? 12. The Malfoys do not make much eye contact with Voldemort. When Voldemort looks at Snape, other Death Eaters look away. Are all of the Death Eaters at the manor happy with Voldemort's return? Of course they are not happy, remember only a select few even went to look for Voldemort after that dreadful night in GH. Voldemort doesn't strike me as the forgiving type..10 years is a long time to wait for one of your "devoted followers" to come find you. 13. Snape looks comfortably into Voldemort's eyes when the other Death Eaters turn away. We see an example of Voldemort's Legillimency later in the book. How strong is Snape's Occlumency? Well I know Snape's Occlumency is strong I still have trouble believing he's DD's man--even after the pensieve memories. *grin* So yes, Snape is a supreme Occlumens Voldemort never doubts him for an instant. 14. Why does Voldemort praise Bellatrix, then humiliate her? This is how he operates, he keeps having his followers prove themselves in new ways. All that talk of pruning the family tree..he pruned his down to a stump, perhaps he see's Bella hasn't done this yet so has not risen as high as she possible could in his mind's eye- -makes one wonder what happened to Snape's family and what story Snape told Voldemort about his family tree. 15. Where were the Lestrange brothers? I dunno, didn't miss them though--perhaps busy tailing OOP members? 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she pleads and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this the first time he could not save someone? Was Charity Burbage someone Snape could not save? I think he looks dispassionately and Charity due to the occlumency thing..can you imagine her pleading and the type of memories Snape would have been confronted with. Although I often wonder if Snape may have been feeling an inkling of guilt over the death of Sirius as well as Em. Vance. Charity was someone Snape could not have saved without betraying his portrayal of loyalty towards Voldemort. This was not the first time he could not save someone. Definitely not Lily and James, perhaps not even Regulus and most importantly he could not save DD. 17. Voldemort refers to "Mudbloods" as "thieves" of the Wizarding World's "knowledge and magic." This charge is repeated later in the book. Is it possible for a witch or wizard to have her or his magic stolen? Is it possible to steal knowledge without leaving that knowledge for others as well? Of course magic or at least knowledge of it can be stolen--we have cannon support for this one--Professor Lockhart and his lovely memory charms! The Waga-waga werewolf!LOL We see it over and over again when wizards talk about how the elderwand finds new masters (often times it is stolen). Then we have Voldemort himself stealing powerful magical artifacts the cup, locket, ring, diadem and (at least to his belief) the sword of Griffindor. Voldemort can proclaim this so vehemently true because he himself has stolen magical knowledge.(I have a ridiculous image of a younger Riddle doning the diadem during his Albanian tour of delving further than any into the dark arts). And I will not even delve into what he may or may not have taken from Bertha Jorkins.. So yes, it's possible but mud-bloods and muggle borns aren't theiving magic before age 11, when they are wandless, and may not even know that there is such a thing as a witch or wizard. It's absurd. Voldemort knows this. He just wants the ww under is complete domination. 18. When Charity Burbage's body falls to the table, several Death Eaters jump back in their chairs. Draco falls off his chair to the floor. Is this symbolic of some Death Eaters not being fully behind Voldemort's agenda? Or was it simply surprise? I think surprise mingled with relief that it wasn't one of them. 19. Why are the Purebloods dwindling? Because the ol' gene pool needs a little chlorine..generation after generation of cousins marrying cousins is not such a great thing. (Think Hapsburgs). Also it seems that Voldemort himself may be killing off many of his pureblood followers, not only are the DE's dying in the war supporting Voldemorts cause, but those not willing to join the cause have died as well.. And of course many who may have had children may have spent their more fertile years locked up in Azkaban. 20. Voldemort has no issues with "pruning" the family tree of undesirables, even though they may be pure-blood or half-bloods. Yet, he is displeased with Burbage's article and her assertion that the dwindling of Pureblood families is a good thing. Voldemort says, of Charity Burbage, "She would have us all mate with Muggles... or, no doubt, werewolves..." He includes himself with the Purebloods here. Does he think his Muggle father's family doesn't count? Or is he actively enforcing the idea that he, too, is a Pureblood? Voldemort is in denial about his blood status, so of course his followers must be in denial about his blood status as well. 21. Why does Voldemort think that Lucius does not need his wand anymore? Voldemort thinks Lucius has caused enough damage already and I think it's safe to assume Voldemort will not be sending Lucius out on anymore "important" missions.(just impotent ones *groan*--sorry couldn't reisist that one especially since his last mission was to fetch Snape). So, it is also a form of symbolic catration as well. 22. Do you think Voldemort is planning on dispensing with the Malfoys eventually? Absolutely... 23. Voldemort invites Nagini to dine on the corpse of Charity Burbage. What do you imagine the reactions of the others around the table might be? This idea has been presented in the books before. When do you think Nagini has disposed of the evidence before? Is this part of her value to Voldemort, or is Voldemort giving his pet a treat? The reactions of others, disgust that they are forced to watch, relief that they are not the snacky treat. I think Nagini may have eaten Bertha Jorkins, and since he was never found, Florean Fortescue. It's part of her value to Voldemort and it is a treat. Voldemort probably thinks it's a treat for his Death Eater followers to watch this too. Thanks Crewiden! Doddie From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Aug 21 18:20:30 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:20:30 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175981 Nora: > There's Fudge, as well (comments Dumbledore makes about his valuation > of blood, and comments Molly makes about those who have an interest in > Muggle things being passed over), although, to be slightly snide, I > can already see how those references can and will easily be tossed > onto the "token reference/JKR is trying but doesn't convince me that > it's really a problem/etc." barge. Magpie: True, and there's also Ernie Macmillan saying his family is Pureblood back 9 generations. But it seems like there's a distinction between that and calling people Mudbloods. (The first time Harry hears the word he can tell Malfoy's said something "really bad.") I mean, I completely do see the connection of showing that the prejudice is there and the Malfoys are just the extreme end of it--I'm not sure the book sees the same connection I do, especially judging by conversations I've had about it in fandom. Ernie, for instance, seems to be best friends with Justin. Presumably he's fighting there with the good guys in the RoR. Since Fudge and Ernie's instinctively being impressed with being Purebloods (as opposed to the attitudes of other Purebloods like James, Sirius and the Weasleys) isn't addressed as the root of the problem I don't know what I'm supposed to get from that. Is it really something that's just there and can't have anything done about it? Nora: > The good guys have a certain amount of social power, but it's > certainly not unquestioned, given the ongoing conflict with the > Ministry, and Lucius Malfoy on the Board of Governors; it takes his > own spectacular incompetent idiocy (threatening other members) to get > himself removed. Magpie: Of course, idiocy is what DEs do best.:-) Although Lucius himself seems to keep his views under wraps--we all know he's a big flaming racist but he seems like he tries to make it more subtle in public and not talk quite like a DE in polite company. He's on the Board of Governors in CoS (having distanced himself from LV by claiming to be under Imperius) but he's also already on the defensive in CoS with Arthur raiding his house and passing Muggle-protection acts. (Lucius is threatening people by force.) Fudge leans more towards him, I think, when he wants to lean away from Dumbledore, who is very powerful and whom Fudge was said to lean on before. Dumbledore has more titles, it seems, than Lucius and there are powerful Wizards that respect him. It's true that there seems to be plenty of people who could be swayed by people like Lucius (as opposed to people like Neville's Gran, for instance), but it still doesn't seem like JKR is really presenting a logical, detailed, thought-out picture of a society falling the way it does in DH. There are certainly people in the government who are vulnerable to DEs, but the whole situation in DH still just seems like a plot point I accept for the sake of the story. I know to look out for people who are DE-like (or DE-lite) in canon, but not to get overly sensitive any time a regular person says something that might be bigoted-ish. Nora: > > Hogwarts puts up a far greater resistance than the WW as a whole, it > > seems. And Hogwarts is what we see. > > Agree that the focus on Hogwarts does lessen the impact that a view of > society-at-large might have given us. I think that's why it's > important to take every reference that we're given to the larger > outside world as important, since it's most of what we've got. Magpie: Oh, I think they're important, I just don't think they're explained in a way that says something about racism. It seems more, like I said, like it's just a given. The microcosm we know at Hogwarts seems to follow the logic of previous books more closely imo. She makes a few stabs at that idea with the books--I think she suggests that somebody keeps making it rain in one of the DE's offices (Arthur?) but of course that just looks weak given the situation. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but it doesn't logically follow for me and it's not explained. I understand it more through plot devices of books past--everybody always believes the opposite of what Harry believes, so now they think he killed Dumbledore. The adults of Harry's world are relatively useless. Society at large crumples like a paper canoe when Voldemort takes over except for the Order, and they, too, have to wait for Harry to do his thing. Voldemort is killed and things go away, and racism lives on just as it always did, we can't do anything about it. A metaphorical blow has been struck against racism as an entity as personified by Voldemort, but nobody thinks to do anything about it as actual racism on the level of individual people. Most of how I understand what's going on in DH on that level is to bring in real world stuff that it's supposed to be like (like the registration committee is scary because it's like Nazis registering people). That's where I felt a lot of the weight came from for me. I think I'd have a harder time suspending my disbelief if I couldn't just say--oh, it's like racism in our world. So in the end the canon really doesn't seem to be using fantasy to explore racism, but using racism to fill out a fantasy world. -m From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 18:32:36 2007 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:32:36 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175982 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > We're also told, several times in fact, that the only reason > Dumbledore is not the Minister of Magic is because he's *chosen* not > to be. A fact I think we're supposed to admire him for, oddly > enough, though I don't. Since he's chosen to do nothing about it, > it's rather rich of Dumbledore to sling stones at his society's > short-comings. If he really wanted the attitude towards Muggleborns > to change maybe he should have taken a look at the actions of > various Muggles throughout history and followed their example. Institutional change, as noted upthread, is a tricky and delicate action; while it's true that individual crusaders within institutions (be they governments or private organizations) often spark profound changes, they usually only stick when there's enough social support to keep the changes in force. When there's not, things revert, like forced conversions during European wars of religion. Kingman Brewster pushed through unpopular ideas like making Yale College co-educational, but he could only do so because there was enough of a sea change in opinion at large to do so. This could be only my reading, but I think it's taken the trauma of Voldemort to really open up wizarding society to the "Hey, maybe this really isn't right" realizations and have them sink in and stick, much like how in the real world, significant traumas have helped eradicate or at least diminish the acceptability of many worldviews. Is it more admirable to stay in a smaller position where you can try to do some good, or go on a crusade and lose your chairmanship? The more effective politician does the former, although opening himself up to charges of inconsistency. (The classic phrase "Cheap whore!" "Not cheap..." comes to mind; apologies if I've offended any sensibilities.) I was actually somewhat cheered to see the lack of the usual epilogue to epic fantasy, where you find out that elves are no longer so snobbish, women are now free, and mages no longer persecuted. But then I also seem not to have read the book anywhere near as didactically as the readings of some others come across to me; YMMV. -Nora refuses to go back out in this weather From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Tue Aug 21 18:23:07 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:23:07 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero & karmic justice (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175983 > Nita: > > > Well, I don't know what you think about interviews, but JKR did say > > "Griphook was wrong - Gryffindor did not 'steal' the sword, not unless > > you are a goblin fanatic and believe that all goblin-made objects > > really belong to the maker." ( > > http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0730-bloomsbury-chat.html ) > > lizzyben: > > I can't believe she said that! God forbid we might think good > Gryffindor could ever do something wrong. So, someone from culture A > buys an object from culture B, w/the understanding that under Culture > B's laws, that object reverts back to the maker upon the buyer's > death. Mr. A then decides to bequeath that object to someone else > instead, keeping the object away from Culture B forever. Rowena: Sooo...basically we are privileging the pov of Culture B over Culture A why? Because the former is non-human perhaps?? You are overlooking the fact that, according to Bill, Griphook's is an extreme minority opinion even among goblins - hence the 'Fanatic' comment. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 18:54:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:54:57 -0000 Subject: Laughing All the Way to the Bank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175984 Potioncat wrote: > > > Whatever might be said of her, JKR does have a sense of humour. There are some very funny lines in the books. Sometimes there are scenes or lines that could be (maybe) JKR teasing her fans; an "I know what you're saying," sort of joke. For example, at some point in DH, LV makes a comment about DD controlling Harry's strings (does anyone recall that scene, or have I made it up?) > Geoff responded: > No, you haven't. The relevant canon is: > "One of us?" jeered Voldemort and his whole body was taut and his red eyes stared, a snake that was about to strike. "You think it will be you, do you, the boy who has survived by accident and because Dumbledore was pulling the strings?"' > > (DH "The Flaw in the Plan" p.591 UK edition) Carol responds: The narrator also refers to Harry as "Dumbledore's puppet" in a scene from Voldemort's perspective right before he talks to Lucius Malfoy: "He was confident that the boy would not find the diadem . . . although Dumbledore's puppet had come much further than he had ever expected . . . too far" (DH Am. ed. 641, ellipses in original). The reference is, of course, to DD's using Harry to find and destroy the Horcruxes. Harry himself has expressed a similar view earlier in the book (though he doesn't use the word "puppet" or any puppet imagery): "Risk your life, Harry! And again! and again! And don't expect me to explain everything, just trust me blindly, trust that I know what I'm doing, trust me even though I don't trust you! Never the whole truth! Never!" (362). Exactly the view of many readers still have after reading and rereading DH (and very similar to Snape's "You refuse to tell me everything, yet you expect that small service of me!" with regard to killing DD in "the Prince's Tale." That and similar remarks about DD suing him to lie, spy, and risk his life must have struck home with Harry, DD's other instrument for the triumph of "the greater good"). BTW, I know this isn't exactly what Potioncat had in mind, but DH is the most self-referential of the books, with Rita Skeeter's highly anticipated biography of DD standing in for DH. It also contains little references to the films (also seen in Slughorn's reference to Ron as "Rupert" in HBP), such as Ron's complaint about Krum's "stupid little beard." I'd rather she didn't do that as I'd rather live in the WW as a self-contained universe (and when I'm already filtering out *grazing* Thestrals and other inconsistencies). I did appreciate other instances of her sense of humor, especially given all the death and violence and terror and horror (*Na*gi*ni*!) in the book. Even Harry had a funny line or two though I don't recall them. Favorite comic relief moments that I can recall off the top of my head: Ron's response to Hermione's statement that she could run him through with a sword and his soul would survive unharmed ("Which would be a real comfort to me, I'm sure," 104) and Kreacher's saucepan standing in for Mrs. Figg's catfood cans with regard to Mundungus. I don't like violence in general, but the comic violence that Mundungus suffers, first from a Squib and then from a house-elf, always seems well-deserved and funny. Maybe I'm a hypocrite; I don't know. I didn't feel the same way about Umbridge and the Centaurs (and I hate Umbridge!) or about Marietta's pustules (which I still don't approve of because of the sneaky way the hex was placed and its being a punishment rather than a deterrent) or about the Twins tempting the dieting Dudley with a ton-tongue toffee (which I think was reprehensible given the Muggles' helplessness), much about less Sirius daring Severus to enter the Whomping Willow knowing that he wouldn't refuse the challenge (which could have resulted in dire consequences not only for Severus but for Remus, whose needs and feelings Sirius didn't take into account). Somehow, for me, imagining Mundungus receiving his nonmagical punishments is funny in a way that these other examples of revenge or self-imposed "justice" aren't. Instead of reading like "a revenge narrative" (which, BTW, I *don't* think JKR is writing), the Mundungus scenes read like slapstick comedy--except when Harry chokes Mundungus in HBP, which isn't funny at all. It must be because he's the hero and ought to behave heroically, not to mention that he's more than Mundungus's equal as a wizard and in terms of physical strength, whereas Mrs. Figg and Kreacher are minor characters regarded as inferior by wizards in general, both rather small and scrawny and probably nowhere near as strong as an angry sixteen-year-old boy (Harry in HBP), with or without a wand. At any rate, I'm quite sure that the theater audience will roar with laughter in the DH film when Kreacher brings his saucepan down on Mundungus's head and then says "Perhaps just one more, Master Harry, for luck?" (221). Carol, muddying the waters by bringing in her own reactions but still grateful for humor of any kind as a relief from tension and terror in this darkest of JKR's books From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 19:11:44 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:11:44 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero & karmic justice (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175985 > Rowena: > > Sooo...basically we are privileging the pov of Culture B over Culture > A why? Because the former is non-human perhaps?? > > You are overlooking the fact that, according to Bill, Griphook's is > an extreme minority opinion even among goblins - hence the 'Fanatic' > comment. > lizzyben: Oh, so now non-humans don't matter? So goblins aren't cute & cuddly like house elves, they have feelings too! And so they're a little bit bitter & paranoid - but after all that wizard double-crossing, wouldn't you be too? Goblins are just misunderstood souls, oppressed by wizards who call their reasonable social customs "fanatical". Pfft. And paranoid Griphook pretty much had the right idea about the Trio's plan after all, didn't he? I say, he was promised that sword, & he had a right to it. Run, Griphook, run! :) lizzyben, Founder of the Society for Protection of Goblin Welfare From random832 at fastmail.us Tue Aug 21 19:37:00 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:37:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Compassionate hero & karmic justice (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1187725020.5842.1206556689@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 175986 On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:23:07 -0000, "rowena_grunnionffitch" said: > > Nita: > > > > > Well, I don't know what you think about interviews, but JKR did say > > > "Griphook was wrong - Gryffindor did not 'steal' the sword, not > unless > > > you are a goblin fanatic and believe that all goblin-made objects > > > really belong to the maker." ( > > > http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0730-bloomsbury-chat.html ) > > > > lizzyben: > > > > I can't believe she said that! God forbid we might think good > > Gryffindor could ever do something wrong. So, someone from culture A > > buys an object from culture B, w/the understanding that under Culture > > B's laws, that object reverts back to the maker upon the buyer's > > death. Mr. A then decides to bequeath that object to someone else > > instead, keeping the object away from Culture B forever. > > Rowena: > > Sooo...basically we are privileging the pov of Culture B over Culture > A why? Because the former is non-human perhaps?? > > You are overlooking the fact that, according to Bill, Griphook's is > an extreme minority opinion even among goblins - hence the 'Fanatic' > comment. Actually, I see "Goblin fanatic" in the same vein as "muggle-lover" - we're humans, we're not SUPPOSED to agree with goblins, and the person who asked the question is a blood-traitor for even thinking it. It's all in line with the "bigotry is perfectly OK as long as you're not a slytherin" message of the books. The 'fanatic' comment (which JKR, not Bill, made) is that agreeing with the goblin concept of property rights (as Bill seems to) is an extreme minority opinion among _wizards_. Anyway, sarcasm aside, Goblins come off here as being pretty incompetent in legal/financial terms: life tenancy isn't unheard of in property rights among humans, though usually applies to real estate rather than physical items - so there's no reason to think that humans wouldn't understand the concept if they were told. That leaves the conclusion that Goblins are either too bloody stupid to specify what exactly they're charging money for, or they're committing what amounts to fraud, because the prices wizards are willing to pay, and thus what they _are_ paying, are set on the _assumption_ that they're buying the item free and clear, and therefore they are paying many times more gold than they would for a non-transferable lifetime lease. So even if we DO accept that the goblins are right about what's ACTUALLY being sold, they are overcharging by deception. It's like if some rich person negotiated a trillion-dollar deal with Disney to buy the rights to Mickey Mouse, and then once they have the money they're like "oh, THAT? no, we just meant we'd sell you a mickey mouse DVD for a trillion dollars, not the actual copyright and trademark etc. SUCKER!" -- Random832 From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Tue Aug 21 19:32:47 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:32:47 -0000 Subject: Snape spy timeline in VW1 In-Reply-To: <79576.22683.qm@web55011.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175987 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Christine Maupin wrote: > > > If in the fall/winter of 1995 Snape has been teaching 14 years, he began teaching in 1981. James and Lily were killed October 31, 1981. He might have started teaching September 1 or the term after they died. I suspect he started September 1, which would help explain why he was in Dumbledore's office as he mourned Lily. > > Its late, I'm tried, so I won't be offended when someone checks > my math (which generally is not as good as JKR's). Yes that all makes sense, thanks for that. I still feel very grieved for Snape, he is such a tragic figure and gets so badly treated by virtually everyone in the books. I am an avowed Snape fan and was convinced all along that he would 'come good' in the end. There were heated discussions in this household post HBP as my 15 year old son was convinced that he was totally evil. I have never found myself so emotionally engaged by a character before Snape. He is so unpleasant throughout the books and yet at the end is finally shown to have been a 'moral' character all along and the word 'brave' doesn't seem to come close to doing him justice. Yet he receives virtually no recognition at the end and seemed in a way discarded as an inconvenient character to have survive. Many have said that JKR didn't like him, there may be truth in that, he is an unlovely personality. Perhaps the message I will take from it is that even the 'unlovely' we meet in the real world have their story to tell and that we should not judge to harshly for none of us truly knows the others tale. I just so wish he could have had a little more public vindication than the brief mention in the final confrontation and the naming of Harry's second son after him. I'm sure all the surviving OoTP members had to re-examine their thoughts about Snape in the aftermath but 'I' needed to see something of it. Even a sentence or two about him from Dumbledore in 'Kings Cross' would have helped. So four weeks after reading the book and with two re-reads I still feel bereft. allthecoolnamesgone From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 19:56:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:56:20 -0000 Subject: Snape's "source" (again) (Was: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175988 Eggplant wrote: > I still can't quite figure out how Dumbledore knew the exact time Harry would evacuate Privet Drive so he could tell Snape so he could tell the Death Eaters. Carol responds: This information can only come from Snape, who, in turn, has received it from an Order member. Portrait!DD could not know it on his own. And surely "the source" that Snape refers to in "The Dark Lord Ascending" is Mundungus, the only Order member who still has any contact with him after the "murder" of dumbledore. Whether Dung still believed (rightly) that Snape was loyal to the Order, or, rather, to DD (Dung was not present when Harry told his version of events on the tower to Lupin, McGonagall, et al.) or was tempted by gold or was Imperio'd by Snape is unclear, but he had clearly agreed to meet Snape in "an unfamiliar tavern" (688) at the time that Snape Confunds him. If they met once (as they obviously did), it seems likely that they met more than once. Moreover, the unprincipled Mundungus would certainly be a believable source of information regarding the Order's plans, one that Snape could let Voldemort see using Legilimency (as we see happening when Snape calmly allows the Dark Lord to look into his eyes, using his skills as a "superb Occlumens" to block the crucial information that he has also Confunded Mundungus and planted the Polyjuice suggestion, 3-4). The only odd thing is that LV asks Snape's source *after* he looks into Snape's eyes (a Flint?). It would make more sense for LV to actually see him receiving the information. At any rate, Portrait!DD's source of information is clearly Snape. Snape himself has a "source," whom he has already identified to Voldemort (4). And since that "source" has to be an Order member, and it's not Lupin, Hagrid, Mad-Eye, a Weasley, Tonks, Fleur, or Kingsley, it pretty much has to be Mundungus. Moreover, we actually see Snape and Mundungus together when Snape Confunds him (688). I'm guessing that Snape has met at least three times with Mundungus since the death of DD: once to establish him as "the source we discussed" (DH Am. ed. 4), once to discover the information about the escape plans (which Snape then reveals to Portrait!DD), and a third time to Confund him and plant the Polyjuice suggestion. It's possible that there were only two meetings and that Snape's reference to "the source we discussed" simply refers to a suggestion on Snape's part ("I believe that I can obtain information from Mundungus Fletcher, my lord") rather than to previous conversations. In any case, if Snape can arrange to meet Dung once in "an unfamiliar tavern," he can do it more than once. And it seems to me that he must have done it at least twice. Carol, trusting to Snape's brilliance and Dung's stupidity (and conspicuous lack of ethics) to make such meetings possible and glad for Harry's sake that Snape was on his side From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 20:03:48 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:03:48 -0000 Subject: A Snape Timetable (Was: Dumbledore Disgusted) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175989 > Carol: > On a side note related to this thread, I don't think that LV (who > tells several lies in the last few chapters of DH) ever said anything > to Snape about Lily *after* her death. I think that young Snape, > sensing her danger, asked to be rewarded for revealing the Porphecy by > having LV spare Lily, making it appear that he merely desired the > attractive "Mudblood," and LV said something like, "Very well, > Severus. You have served me well, and I will reward you if I can. > However, should she resist me and her death become necessary, surely > you can find a more suitable pure-blood woman who is equally attractive." zgirnius: I can see Voldemort saying something like that as the reason Snape was still desperate when he went to Dumbledore, but I dont see Voldemort's motive in lying when he says to Harry, "when she had gone, he agreed there were other women". That Voldmeort considered Lily's death a possible sticking point for Snape also explains why Voldemort would assume Snape had left him forever (GoF). I think the matter must at least have been touched on. > Carol: > Dumbledore's "you disgust me" seems out of character considering how > polite he is to the DEs on the tower, who are there to make sure that > he's murdered. No doubt they, and especially the wannabe DE Greyback, > disgust him a great deal more than a DE who has gone behind Voldie's > back to beg him to spare a woman's life. I'm not sure, but I think he > suspects that young Snape's emotional vulnerability will make him see > himself as he is and realize that indifference to the lives of a child > and its father is less than admirable. zgirnius: Doubtless, though I also believe posters who think Dumbledore sees himself in Snape are onto something as well. Snape's situation has some parallels to Dumbledore's. Both associated themselves to charismatic, bloodist, Dark Wizards fresh out of Hogwarts, and for what seem to be similar reasons. Dumbledore wanted an intellectual equal, which Grindelwald satisfied; Snape had an interest, at least in part intellectual, in the Dark Arts and a desire to fit in somewhere, which Voldemort satisfied. > Carol: > And that Snape responds with > "Hide them all, then. Keep her--them--safe. Please" shows that DD's > tough-love approach has had some effect, as does Snape's promise to do > "anything." zgirnius: I agree about the first part. Dumbledore's harsh judgment did get Snape to see that his indifference was a shameful thing. That he would do anything to keep Lily safe, I think Snape had already demonstrated by showing up in the first place. What did he expect to be the result of his coming to Dumbledore? The first words out of his mouth were 'don't kill me', which I think is indicative of the outcome he expected for himself - a lousy outcome, but he did not care if Lily was protected. He hesitated after he was asked what he would do in exchange for Lily's safety. I don't think he spent the time considering a protest, or trying to come up with the smallest bargaining chip that Dumbledore might find acceptable. My understanding of his reaction was that he was simply shocked to be asked, rather than having it dictated to him. > Dumbledore. > So he manipulates Snape, who, in turn, is motivated by the > hope of saving Lily's life. zgirnius: It seems to me Dumbledore would have been in a position to blackmail Snape after this meeting, or turn him over to the Ministry (with Crouch, Sr. in charge of Law Enforcement). He doesn't use this threat, that we see. Despite the harshness of his manner, that he gives Snape a free choice is to me very much a gesture of granting a second chance. > Carol: >It's harsh; it's > psychological manipulation; it's using Severus for "the greater good." > But it's also effective, and more appropriate than sympathizing with > him over Lily's death (James, after all, is dead, too). And Harry's > continued danger is the main point that Snape needs to understand. zgirnius: It also gives Snape a purpose to go on living for. Something that in that moment, I thing was good and necessary *for Snape*. I love how the deciding argument, the one that gets Snape to agree, is the knowledge that there is actually a danger from which Harry is to be protected. Something to *do*. > Carol: > I don't like DD in these scenes. My sympathy is almost entirely with > the emotionally battered young Snape. zgirnius: Different strokes. I loved them both in these scenes. I liked him less in the GoF scene and the "pig" scene (though upon reread, that second is OK too...he truly did think his plan was Harry's best chance to survive). > Carol: > Snape attempts to save him from the ring curse even > before the doe Patronus gives him the "ironclad reason" for trusting > Snape. He defends Snape to McGonagall et al. and to Harry before the > Patronus incident. zgirnius: If the doe is Dumbledore's 'ironclad reason' then he must have known about her long before the 'pig to slaughter' scene (which occurs in late March of HBP's year, the same night as the Argument in the Forest). McGonagall says to Harry: > HBP, "The Phoenix Lament": "He always hinted that he had an ironclad reason for trusting Snape" zgirnius: "Always" is a bit different from "since March of this year". I conclude that either Dumbledore knew about the doe for a long time (perhaps he and Snape communicated by Patronus, even while Snape hid his from other Order members not familiar with his motives), or Dumbledore considered Snape's love for Lily combined with his brave and loyal service in the final months of the first war, 'ironclad' reasons. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 21 20:18:02 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:18:02 -0000 Subject: I would have kept the Elder Wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175990 I wish JKR had made one change in the book, Harry should have kept the Elder Wand; if I were Harry thought of giving it up would have never even entered my mind. The Resurrection Stone would be less useful, what's the point of bringing people back if they're all pissed off at you for doing so? I was also disappointed to learn in interviews that JKR had taken away Harry's ability to speak Parseltongue. It seems to me that after all the stuff she put that poor boy through the least she could do is let him keep his foreign language ability. And it could be useful in hid job as an Auror. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 20:46:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:46:24 -0000 Subject: The creature under the bench (again) (was: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175991 Carol earlier: > > What I mean by looking at the canon is looking closely at what is said *in DH itself* about souls, soul bits, and the creature under the chair (not asides in interviews about Slytherin as the water House). Please take a look at my arguments and the canon I've presented in those earlier posts. I'd like to see them actually answered. > lizzyben replied: > > I have responded to your posts, and explained why I interpret this the way I do. If you don't agree, that's totally fine, but I don't understand the hostility here. Likewise, I don't interpret the LV-creature as something totally separate from Harry, so that's not the POV I'm going to be presenting. And, it is just my own interpretation, which might be totally wrong, but I'm sticking with it. Carol responds: I'm sorry that you perceived my intentions as hostile because I feel nothing of the sort. It's not hostility; it's frustration. I'm trying to get you to look specifically at the canon within "King's Cross" itself, in addition to a few other quotations in DH that I've cited in other posts rather than appearing to believe that a point can be proven through repetition. I'm not trying to make trouble; I'm trying to steer away from generalizations and preconceptions to examine specifics. Again, I'm not being hostile. I'm trying to understand how you can persist in interpreting the creature under the chair as a soul bit or a part of Harry with the evidence from these two quotations, in particular, in front of you: "'So the part of his soul that was in me . . . has it gone?' "'Oh, yes,' said Dumbledore. 'Yes, he destroyed it" (708). Ergo, the soul bit that was in Harry has been destroyed exactly as the soul bits in the deliberately destroyed Horcruxes have been. The thing under the chair is something else. And "'Try for some remorse, Riddle. . . . It's your one last chance. I've seen what you'll become without it" (741). That quotation shows what the thing under the chair represents: LV's future, the state of his mangled soul if he doesn't show remorse. That's all I'm asking you to answer, okay? Just look at those quotations and show me how they can be interpreted in any other way than I've done here. I agree that the experience is taking place in Harry's mind, a kind of out-of-body experience, but I don't see how that leads to the thing under the chair being part of Harry. We've been told by DD that the soul bit is destroyed and that Harry's soul is now whole and his own. The soul bit that was in him was no more a part of himself that the soul bit in the locket was part of Ron. Please, instead of reiterating your arguments, can you show me *canon* to refute my interpretation of these particular quotations? That's all I'm asking. Give me a convincing, logical counterargument refuting my position that the creature represents the future state of Voldemort's flayed soul if he doesn't repent. I'm challenging you to prove me wrong using internal evidence from DH itself, as I have done. Carol, snipping the rest of the post because everything else depends on what the creature under the bench is or represents From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 20:53:02 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:53:02 -0000 Subject: I would have kept the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175992 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > I wish JKR had made one change in the book, Harry should have kept the > Elder Wand; if I were Harry thought of giving it up would have never > even entered my mind. The Resurrection Stone would be less useful, > what's the point of bringing people back if they're all pissed off at you for doing so? > > I was also disappointed to learn in interviews that JKR had taken away Harry's ability to speak Parseltongue. It seems to me that after all the stuff she put that poor boy through the least she could do is let him keep his foreign language ability. And it could be useful in hid job as an Auror. > > Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald > ***Katie: Well, Harry lost the Parseltongue because that wasn't really his ability in the first place. It was on loan from the part of LV's soul that resided in him. Without LV's soul, no Parseltongue. So, while I understood why, I agree that it was a bummer. I always liked when he spoke it - it sort of creeped me out, and I liked it. As for the Elder Wand, it really reminded me of Gandalf turning down the Ring of Power in LotR. The Elder Wand was too powerful - it would always cause tragedy. Harry was too powerful of a wizard to wield it. He would have become power-hungry and it would have destroyed him, as it almost did Dumbledore and as it certainly did Grindelwald. It wasn't evil, but the Deathly Hallows were not good, either. No, I wouldn't have like it if Harry had kept it. It would have defeated the whole point of "power for the sake of power is bad". Harry wouldn't have been very noble, IMO, had he kept it. Katie From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Aug 21 21:00:55 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:00:55 -0000 Subject: A Snape Timetable (Was: Dumbledore Disgusted) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175993 >From post 175976 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175976 > Carol responds: > snip I like to think that Trelawney's > interview took place on Halloween, as so many other events do in the > series, especially since that would have been Harry's approximate > conception date. However, it could have taken place any time between > his conception and late spring, as the cold rainy night indicates. > Either way, it did not take place during the normal hiring period ?? (July through August). Potioncat: I think it took place Sep/Oct 1979---which is a "sort of me too." I'm leaning more to more to your way of thinking that Harry was already "on the way" given the wording of the prophecy. Looking only at the weather, I think cold rainy nights are probably the norm in summer for the area of Scotland where Hogwarts is hidden. I'm also basing my time-frame on comments by Trelawney, but this is putting a emphasis on specificity that the author is generally incapable of. > Carol: IOW, he's almost certainly spying for LV at this time, not > applying for a job. (Note the went-up-the-wrong-stairs excuse; > obviously, he doesn't have an appointment of his own.) Nor does he > apply the following year, apparently. He comes to DD for help some > time between Harry's birth on July 30, 1980 (probably that winter, > given the weather) and September 1, 1981, when he begins teaching > Potions. He begins spying for DD "at great personal risk" as the ?? result of his promise to do "anything" to get DD to save Lily. Potioncat: I always thought Trelawney was correct, because she is so often wrong. But I've also decided that Snape was not looking for a job at that time. Whether he was there by design, or just got lucky, I cannot say. > Carol: > I realize that DH muddies the waters still further with the Pensieve > memories, with no clear indication of how close they are together (and > it has never made sense that LV waited fifteen months to try to kill > Harry, but let's say that he doesn't read the birth announcements in > the Daily Prophet and it took him awhile to figure out who the two > boys are and that he debated a while after that over which posed the > greater threat instead of choosing to kill both of them and that he > even considered waiting, like a logical person, to see which posed the ?? greater threat. But never mind all that. Back to Severus.) Potioncat: I still maintain that the portion of the prophecy Snape overheard could just as easily refer to an adult with a July birthday. Or if you think like a HpfGU member, it could mean someone born in September. So LV may not have been looking for a child to be born in July. But, it seems, at some point after July 80, LV decides it means the Potter child. (Or it could mean either of those 2 boys.) > Carol: > Here's my approximate time frame for the events from the Prophecy to > Godric's Hollow, part of a more fully developed Snape timetable: snip > > July 31, 1981: Harry's first birthday. Lily writes her letter. The > Potters are hiding in Godric's Hollow, but unless PoA is wrong, they > are not yet under the Fidelius Charm. Perhaps DD suggested it when he > borrowed the IC. (Note that there seems to be another time discrepancy > here. DD cannot have "borrowed" the IC a mere week before Godric's > Hollow unless Lily is writing a very belated thank-you note.) "Wormy" ?? is contemplating treachery. Potioncat: When Harry reads the letter in DH, he thinks that it will be the last time Pettigrew sees Lily and James. Yet, there are several more months before LV shows up. I think this is another discrepancy. I think JKR loses touch with the details as she goes for drama. (To be fair, it would not have been unheard of for "me" to send my child's first July birthday photo out in October. In fact, I'm not sure I've sent them yet and he's 13.) > Carol: > Ca. August 1981: LV sends Snape to apply for the DADA post (nearly > *two years* after Trelawney's job interview). DD, perhaps not yet > fully trusting his young spy, gives him Potions instead. Snape begins ?? teaching on Sept. 1. Potioncat: I agree, except I think DD used that as an excuse not to give him DADA. I think he didn't give him DADA because of the curse. > > Carol: > On a side note related to this thread, I don't think that LV (who > tells several lies in the last few chapters of DH) ever said anything > to Snape about Lily *after* her death. I think that young Snape, > sensing her danger, asked to be rewarded for revealing the Porphecy by > having LV spare Lily, making it appear that he merely desired the > attractive "Mudblood," and LV said something like, "Very well, > Severus. You have served me well, and I will reward you if I can. > However, should she resist me and her death become necessary, surely ?? you can find a more suitable pure-blood woman who is equally attractive." Potioncat: A very good point. It would also allow LV to approve of the "remorse over Lily" excuse that Snape says he used to convince DD, except, I'm not sure why LV would agree to tipping that detail to DD. That could have been a half-truth Snape used to Bella. > Carol: > Dumbledore's "you disgust me" seems out of character considering how > polite he is to the DEs on the tower, who are there to make sure that ?? he's murdered. Potioncat: That scene has the feeling of something begun in the middle. We are missing how and why Snape arranged to meet DD on the hill, or why exactly DD treated it as if he thought LV had arranged it. >Carol: . (At this point, DD probably > remembers Snape's exam scores and has some notion of his intelligence > and talents but he has no idea of his capacity for loyalty and ?? courage.) Potioncat: Although the Prank seems to have changed in intensity since DH (and I don't really understand how it fits at all now) We do have Snape having kept his word about Lupin for several years, even though he is a DE. DD cannot be unmindful of that bit of loyalty or word-keeping. > Carol, trying to fit the Pensieve memory and the canon from other > books together and feeling that a few pieces are missing while others ?? are the wrong shape and have to be forced into place Potioncat, who agrees with Carol's description and thinks it describes a lot of things in the series. > From urghiggi at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 21:21:07 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:21:07 -0000 Subject: Modified Memories Vs. Memory Charms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175994 Taylor: > Now am I mixing up my charms and spells and such or didn't Hermione > use a memory charm on her parents? Convincing them that they had never > had a daughter and that their ambition was to move to Australia seems > a bit more complex then just a Confunding charm or something of the > sort? What does everybody else think? > Julie H: Ahhhhh, Taylor, Taylor, Taylor. Shame on you, looking for consistency where it does not exist :-) IIRC (and confirmed in the 'Lexicon'), "obliviate" is the memory charm spell, and we're given no other means in canon for memory modification. Ergo Hermione's explanation that she modified her parents' memories, followed not too many pages later by the info that she'd never done a memory charm, is indeed quite puzzling. I'd agree that the erasing of all memories of Hermione and the implanting of completely false identies a la the witness protection program is indeed beyond anything we've seen done via Confundus. (Esp given the books' reverence for mother love, you'd think such a wipeout woud be pretty danged difficult.) Here, to me, is yet another case where an editor should have said "unnnh, Jo, about those memory charms, how did Hermione modify her parents' memories if she can't perform a memory charm?" Upon which Jo would've made some slight alteration in the text that would've clarified that point. (After she finished the clarifications about the Elder Wand succession that aren't there either. :-) Sorry folks, I do love these books -- but as an editor myself -- something went wrong in the author/editor partnership in this series, especially from book 5 onward. These little things just grate at my enjoyment of the whole, making me pause to scratch my head and say, "hunnh?" -- and the vast, vast majority of them would've been so easy to rectify.... Julie H, chicago From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 21:39:02 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:39:02 -0000 Subject: The creature under the bench (again) (was: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175995 Carol: I'm trying to understand how you can > persist in interpreting the creature under the chair as a soul bit or > a part of Harry with the evidence from these two quotations, in > particular, in front of you: > > "'So the part of his soul that was in me . . . has it gone?' > > "'Oh, yes,' said Dumbledore. 'Yes, he destroyed it" (708). > > Ergo, the soul bit that was in Harry has been destroyed exactly as the > soul bits in the deliberately destroyed Horcruxes have been. The thing > under the chair is something else. > > And > > "'Try for some remorse, Riddle. . . . It's your one last chance. I've > seen what you'll become without it" (741). > > That quotation shows what the thing under the chair represents: LV's > future, the state of his mangled soul if he doesn't show remorse. > > That's all I'm asking you to answer, okay? Just look at those > quotations and show me how they can be interpreted in any other way > than I've done here. Alla: For the record, I completely agree with your interpretation, Carol. I think that the creature represents the future state of Voldemort's soul. But I absolutely see how first quote especially can be interpreted differently. The part of his soul that was in me has it gone. Well, we do not know where it is gone, do we? So, it can totally be gone in my opinion in that limbo where Harry and Dumbledore are and be under that chair whatever it represents to await where it will move. While Harry IF decides to not return can take a train and go **on**, this creature can spend an eternity under the chair, no? And DD's answer can be IMO interpreted in the same vain - after all Voldemort destroyed it by killing curse, did he not? Eh, he fired Avada at Lily and James as well and here they are in the afterlife coming back to see Harry. I see no evidence that destroyed means gone without a trace, you know? So, that is how I see it can be interpreted and that is why by no means I think your interpretation ( and mine) is the only possible one. Second quote is much harder to interpret differently for me though. "I've seen what you become without it" seems like pretty definite indication that this creature symbolises the future state of Voldie to me. JMO, Alla From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 22:05:00 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:05:00 -0000 Subject: Voldemort - 2 bodies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175997 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > I think that most of the WW *did* think that Voldemort > was dead and gone. It seems that only a few of Dumbledore's closer > confidants were given to understand that LV could and would come > back. Hi Mike! I only partly agree with you. I agree that most wizards on the sreet believed LV was dead, but I think more people than just DD's confidants (and name at least one, BTW :-)) knew that LV could return one day. Remember the Lestranges/Crouch trial? Crouch Sr. says they believed Longbottoms knew "the present whereabouts" of their "exiled master" and were planning to restore him to power. No one in the courtroom said: "What do you mean, exiled? He is dead and buried!" In GoF LV informs his DEs that he was in hiding because he "knew that the Aurors were still abroad and searching for me". If they looked for him, it means they suspected he was not finished. It seems that quite a few people outside DD's inner circle knew that LV was not gone forever. > The same could be said for the DEs. Snape tells Bella in Spinner's > End that he "thought him finished". Now that we know that Bella was > hiding the Hufflepuff cup for LV, it seems likely that she knew > that it was a Horcrux. So Bella had inside information that LV > could return. But Bella was definitely the exception. Here I agree. LV probably talked about his immortality, but never gave his DEs any details. And even if Bella knew that the cup was a H- x, I believe she thought it was the only one, just like Regulus thought the locket was the only H-x. zanooda From coriandra2002 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 21:45:52 2007 From: coriandra2002 at yahoo.com (coriandra2002) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:45:52 -0000 Subject: Marietta the Marionette? was: Marietta's scarring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175998 Petra: > One thing I do think can be said of Marietta's character: > she's not exactly the toughest cookie and seemed to crumble > under pressure. Though such pressure can bring out the best > in the most sterling of characters, it can also wither those > not ready for trials by fire. > > Hmm...Coriandra, is this the something being said about > Marietta's character you're referring to? Marietta should never have been put in that situation. Harry, Ron and Hermione should have disqualified her from DA membership when they saw how she was being manipulated. I don't blame her for wanting to let an adult handle it, but why didn't she go to a trustworthy, caring adult? I think going to Umbridge, who clearly enjoyed scaring and hurting people was sinking pretty low on Marietta's part. Coriandra From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 22:16:23 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:16:23 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 175999 --- "Ceridwen" wrote: > > ... > > Questions: > > 1. Snape and Yaxley "raised their left arms in a kind > of salute." Is this a reference to ... the Nazis, > in Deathly Hallows? > bboyminn: I don't think it is a direct reference. JKR is more subtle than that. But, there is the underlying symbolism. Nazi made a big deal of the trappings of superiority, of creating the grand illustion, and providing hollow symbols people could rally around. In a broad and indirect sense, I see Voldemort and that DE's doing the same thing. However, in this case what we see is not so much a symbolic 'salute' as a practical necessity to get past the gate. > 2. Saluting the gate with their left arms ..to pass > through... Is this a tacit confirmation that > there was indeed a blocking spell on the tower in > HBP ..? > bboyminn: Absolutely. > 3. The peacock at Malfoy Manor is mentioned at least > twice in the book. What is its significance? > bboyminn: Malfoys seem to be 'old money'. Consequently I think rather that /flashy/ displays of wealth, they would prefer to older, more traditional, and dignified displays of wealth. Peacock being one of them. I'm not sure there is a huge underlying significants or symbolism here, other that we're rich and we know it. > 4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did > you think might be the person hanging unconscious > above the table? > bboyminn: I didn't bother to think. This reflects the way I read the books. I'm just along for the ride; I take it as it comes. It seemed reasonable that it would soon be revealed, so I just kept reading. > 5. Only one person already in the room looks up at > the unconscious revolving body above the table: Draco > Malfoy. Once the body is resuscitated, he no longer > looks at her. Why? > bboyminn: I think Draco is displaying equal parts shame, guilt, and fear. He can only look at the Professor when she is unconscious because he is too ashamed to face her when she is awake. I don't think DE's specifically knew Voldemort was going to kill her, but they certainly knew her fate would not be a pleasant one. > 6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat of honor at his > right hand. Is this because Snape is his "right- > hand man"? Or is Voldemort "keeping his friends > close, and his enemies closer"? > bboyminn: I think it is a combination of things. Certainly Snape has earned that honor by killing Dumbledore, and it certainly instills envy in the other DE's, making them resent Snape and covet his position. So, in that sense, it is a great motivator. But, Snape has now done what Voldemort could not do; kill Dumbledore. Everyone acknowledges that Voldemort feared Dumbledore. That makes Snape situation precarious. I have no doubt that someone as paranoid as Voldemort, now sees Snape as a potential threat. Snape has done what Voldemort could not do. Though DE's are generally dumb, and Voldemort is generally smart, so he takes every opportunity to remind everyone that Snape was acting on Voldemort's orders, following Voldemort's plan, so really it's that same as if Voldemort had 'pulled the trigger' himself. And that is an illusion, he wants to perpetuate both to Snape and to the rest of the DE's. No need for any independent thinking in this group. > 7. Yaxley's information is different from Snape's. > Is anyone in the Ministry who is not a member of the > Order of the Phoenix aware that the Order will move > Harry earlier than expected? > bboyminn: Tough questions. Other have speculated that Scrimgeour probably knew, and supported that by pointing out that Scrimgeour came to visit Harry at The Burrow. He seemed to know Harry was there, and that implies that he was in on the plan. Also, not that several member of the Ministry must have had to help with the protections on the different locations. It is said several times that the protections were place by the Order and the Ministry. Now, you don't need to know the plan to place the protections. So, I think likely only Scrimgeour knew the larger plan. > 8...Yaxley suggests that Thicknesse can subjugate the > other heads of departments at the Ministry to bring > down Minister Rufus Scrimgeour. Was Scrimgeour killed > by the Imperiused heads of the various departments > under Thicknesse's direction? > bboyminn: I think when the DE's had sufficient control of the Ministry, they attacked Scrimgeour in mass. Though they didn't kill him right away. If I remember correctly, they tortured him first to try and find information on Harry. Harry was proud that Scrimgeour had gone to his death still protecting Harry, and felt a bit of sympathy toward him. At that stage, I think there were enough true DE's as well as those under the Imperius Curse, that it is difficult to say who struck the final blow. > 9. Who is Snape's informant? Who does Voldemort > think it is? Is it the same person? > bboyminn: I'm still puzzled by this. I brought it up before and the consensus seemed to be that it was Mundungus, but Voldemort seems to display a subtle confidence in the informant, and Dung just doesn't seem the type to instill confidence in anyone. Still, I can't imagine who else it could be. > 10. Lucius and his family are clearly not happy > with Voldemort's presence. Is this because Lucius is > still disgraced from his botched mission at the > Ministry and his use of the diary Horcrux? Does > their apparent discomfort at the situation foreshadow > their lack of involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts? > bboyminn: I think the Malfoys are like a weather vane, they point which ever direction the wind blows. But always, in doing so, their objective is more power and more wealth. For a precious few at the very top of Voldemort regime, certainly there was going to be plenty of power and wealth to go around. But anyone of any brains had to see that Voldemort's regime was going to be an economic disaster. Voldemort's plan was to subjugate the muggles. Once the muggle's became involved, did he really think the rest of the magical and muggle world was simply going to roll over and acknowledge Voldemort's superiority. NOT VERY LIKELY. That would mean, in the long run, an economy draining on-going world wide war with the accompanying trade sanctions and embargoes. Which in turn means that all of Malfoy's business interests would fall apart. While Malfoy probably pictured himself at the top of the money and power chain. The overall system would have broken down, meaning less power and money for everyone. And massive unrest in Britain and the rest of Europe. I can see how the other idiot DE's could fall for this, but I have to believe that Lucius did not see Voldemort's return as 'good business'. Due to his failures, Lucius has fallen from grace. He is no longer Crown Prince of the Empire, but now an errand boy; worse a wandless errand boy. When the wind was blowing in Malfoy's favor, I think he was more than willing to ignore the long term economic realities, and bask in the power and glory. But now that he has fallen from grace, and the wind blows against him, I think he is starting to see the long term down side of this whole fiasco. Look at the history of the world, and I ask, has any country that has been conquered by a man like this, in this fashion, ever been anything other than a total and complete disaster? > 11. Wormtail is described as sitting so low that > his chair looks unoccupied. Is this further sign of > his physical deterioration as seen in HBP? Is this > because he would rather not be there? Is it just > that he is a small man? Or is it symbolic in some > way? > bboyminn: I think Wormtail's physical stature has alway been symbolic of his moral stature. He is not exactly brave in the traditional sense. I think he is quite content to stay in the shadows until Voldemort wins, as it appears he will do, then to step in and grab what ever power he can. So, his near invisibility in this scene is exactly the way he likes it. He doesn't even like Voldemort giving him minor little task like quieting the prisoners. He wants as much benefit as possible with as little effort as possible, because 'little effort' means little risk. > 12. The Malfoys do not make much eye contact with > Voldemort. When Voldemort looks at Snape, other > Death Eaters look away. Are all of the Death Eaters > at the manor happy with Voldemort's return? > bboyminn: With the exception of Lucius and Snape, I don't see a smart DE in the lot. They are generally a bunch of thugs siding with the biggest bully on the block because that brings them reflected power, and hopefully in the long run, reflected wealth. They have convinced themselves of the superiority of pure-blood, but only because the theme suits their greed and ambition. > 13. Snape looks comfortably into Voldemort's eyes > when the other Death Eaters turn away. We see an > example of Voldemort's Legillimency later in the book. > How strong is Snape's Occlumency? > bboyminn: Snape is the King of Occlumens. To have carried on the deception so long in Voldemort's presents, I can't believe their is a better Occlumens in the world. As far as Voldemort's Legillimency, I think the other DE are afraid that Voldemort will see their greed and ambition. And, you know what, I think he does, and doesn't care. As long as he can use the DE's to achieve his ends, he doesn't care what their motivation is. In fact, I would say for Voldemort's purpose, greed and ambition are actually better motivators. These are things he can use to pit them against each other and keep them struggling to curry his favor. As long as they are all sucking up to him, they can't be plotting against him. > 14. Why does Voldemort praise Bellatrix, then > humiliate her? > bboyminn: This is related to the points I have made up post about Voldemort. He prefers to pit his players against each other and keep them desperate to get on his good side. He teases Bella with favor getting her hopes up, then dashes them, but also implies a way to regain favor. As long as he can keep the DE's dancing like puppets on a string, he is safe. As soon as they wise up and start thinking independently and constructively, he is ...pardon the expression... screwed. > 15. Where were the Lestrange brothers? > bboyminn: Don't know, don't care, but I do recall them being mentioned in passing a couple of times. JKR already has too many actors on the stage, no need to clutter it up more. > 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in > the book, Snape tells Dumbledore he has only watched > people die whom he could not save. Yet he looks > dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she pleads and > cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? .. > bboyminn: Snape is faced with a value judgement. Which is more valuable, one life, or hundred and hundred of lives? Soldiers and leaders have to make this value judgement all the time. Yes, Snape can save, maybe, Burbage, but at what cost? Sometimes the life of one is worth the lives of many, but sometimes the lives of many outweigh the life of one. It's called war. > 17. Voldemort refers to "Mudbloods" as "thieves" of > the Wizarding World's "knowledge and magic." This > charge is repeated later in the book. Is it possible > for a witch or wizard to have her or his magic stolen? > Is it possible to steal knowledge without leaving that > knowledge for others as well? > bboyminn: Absurd, even the books present the idea as absurd. If magic could be stolen, then someone would have figure it out long ago and muggles would all have magic. If knowledge of magic could be stolen, that would be quite a different thing. But I severely doubt that you can take knowledge away other than by memory charm. I think it is ridiculous to think either can be stolen. > 18. When Charity Burbage's body falls to the table, > several Death Eaters jump back in their chairs. > Draco falls off his chair to the floor. Is this > symbolic of some Death Eaters not being fully behind > Voldemort's agenda? Or was it simply surprise? > bboyminn: I think it is symbolic of Voldemort's volitility. Note later in the book, DE's scramble to get out of the room because Voldemort has just been brought bad news. Those who weren't fast enough we just cut down. How does Voldemort expect to win, when he is killing off his best soldier and generals? I think they are stunned by Voldemort's sudden casual killing, and further shocked because 120 pounds just fell from the ceiling. > 19. Why are the Purebloods dwindling? > bboyminn: Stupidity and fate. We have seen the House of Black, the House of Crouch, and the House of Gaunt end in the series. Three ancient pureblood families gone. If purebloods were determine to continue then they would do better to enhance foreign relations, so the pureblood houses from different countries could intermix. Since they seem determined to only intermix with the British UK families, and the likelihood for a good match to occur naturally is slim, the Houses have been diminishing. I think one reason the Malfoys are so interested in Draco is, that figuratively, he is their crown prince. If he dies, the House of Malfoy dies with him. They have an heir but no spare. Look at the British Royal family. It is extremely difficult for them to maintain 'royal' marriages. They are having to stretch further and further to find potential mates, and it seems as if William and Harry have abandon that idea altogether. > 20. Voldemort has no issues with "pruning" the > family tree of undesirables, even though they may be > pure-blood or half-bloods. Yet, he is displeased > with Burbage's article and her assertion that the > dwindling of Pureblood families is a good thing. > ... He includes himself with the Purebloods here. > Does he think his Muggle father's family doesn't > count? > bboyminn: I don't think you have to be a pure-blood to be a pure-blood. I think as long as you can prove some pure blood, and you actively despise the muggle corruption of your ancient and noble blood, that is close enough. Note that I believe Hitler had a trace of Jewish ancestry in him, that didn't seem to stop him though. > 21. Why does Voldemort think that Lucius does not > need his wand anymore? > > 22. Do you think Voldemort is planning on dispensing > with the Malfoys eventually? > bboyminn: Lucius has gone from top-of-the-heap to bottom. He is of little use to Voldemort now. Keep in mind that Voldemort only borrowed Lucius's wand, it was Harry that snapped it. So, likely had things gone differently Lucius would have gotten is wand back. Even given how things did go, at some point, assuming he lived, Lucius would have simply had a new wand made. I suspect, that in a sense, Lucius went from right- hand-man to just another puppet. So, Lucius does still have some long term use. As long as Voldemort can keep dangling power and wealth in front of Lucius, Lucius would have been as good as any other DE and smarter than most. Also, once Lucius had power and wealth, I'm sure he would have toed the line. Yet, I'm sure Voldemort detects Lucius's hesitance and uncertainty. I don't think he would have even need Legillemency for that. So, until Voldemort is completely in power, Lucius can never be trusted again. > 23. Voldemort invites Nagini to dine on the corpse > of Charity Burbage. What do you imagine the reactions > of the others around the table might be? This idea > has been presented in the books before. When do you > think Nagini has disposed of the evidence before? Is > this part of her value to Voldemort, or is Voldemort > giving his pet a treat? > bboyminn: This somewhat goes against known Snake Lore. Snake never try to eat anything they can't swallow in one gulp. They usually swallow a mouse or a frog whole, and slink of under a bush for a nap while the food digests. I simply don't see Nagini, no matter how big she is, swallowing a whole person. By extension, that implies that she is biting off chunks and eating them the way a wolf or lion would. I think that is unusual. So, assuming she is eating in the wolfish manner I describe, it has to be a gruesome sight. Continuing that theme, I don't see her eating a whole person even in bites, but that doesn't mean she can't have a snack before the dispose of the body properly. I'm sure the sight of Nagini dining is very intimidating, and server to re-enforce Voldemort's ruthlessness, and as a cautionary tale, helps keep the DE's in line. Well, that is this man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 21 22:24:48 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:24:48 -0000 Subject: I would have kept the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176000 "Katie" wrote: > The Elder Wand was too powerful > it would always cause tragedy. > Harry was too powerful of a wizard > to wield it. He would have become > power-hungry and it would have > destroyed him Dumbledore used that wand for half a century, and I am convinced that wand did one hell of a lot of good in that time. I am also convinced that what Dumbledore said was absolutely true, Harry really is a better man than Dumbledore; so I can see no reason to think that wand would produce inferior results in the next 50 years if Harry used it than it had in the previous half century when Dumbledore used it. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 22:52:05 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:52:05 -0000 Subject: The creature under the bench (again) (was: Of Sorting and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176001 > Carol responds: > I'm sorry that you perceived my intentions as hostile because I feel > nothing of the sort. It's not hostility; it's frustration. I'm trying > to get you to look specifically at the canon within "King's Cross" > itself, in addition to a few other quotations in DH that I've cited in > other posts rather than appearing to believe that a point can be > proven through repetition. I'm not trying to make trouble; I'm trying > to steer away from generalizations and preconceptions to examine > specifics. lizzyben: It's all good. Carol: > Again, I'm not being hostile. I'm trying to understand how you can > persist in interpreting the creature under the chair as a soul bit or > a part of Harry with the evidence from these two quotations, in > particular, in front of you. lizzyben: Because I see Voldemort as a part of Harry. Carol: > I agree that the experience is taking place in Harry's mind, a kind of > out-of-body experience, but I don't see how that leads to the thing > under the chair being part of Harry. We've been told by DD that the > soul bit is destroyed and that Harry's soul is now whole and his own. > The soul bit that was in him was no more a part of himself that the > soul bit in the locket was part of Ron. lizzyben: Well, I think we're clashing here in that you're going w/the literal reading of the text, and I'm going w/a metaphorical reading of the text. Text as text, sure, the "soul bit" is just a totally separate entity that lived inside Harry's head for 16 years. And it's an entity that allowed LV to see inside Harry's head, and vice versa. But that soul bit was a whole lot more a part of Harry than the locket bit was of Ron - it literally lived inside him for most of his life. It affected his emotions, his thoughts, his dreams, his magic - almost everything. Harry was a bit like Quirrel in that way, w/LV hidden up in his head. Carol: > Please, instead of reiterating your arguments, can you show me *canon* > to refute my interpretation of these particular quotations? That's all > I'm asking. lizzyben: Who's refuting your interpretation? Certainly not me. The great thing about fiction is that there are many, many ways of interpreting the same work - the same scene can be interpreted from a Christian perspective, a feminist perspective, a post-modern perspective, a Freudian perspective, etc. None of these are *wrong*, they're just different ways of looking at the text. Literature isn't math, & there isn't just one right answer. From a Christian/Calvinist perspective, "the baby" definitely seems to represent a damned soul. From a Jungian perspective, it's a pretty good representation of the Shadow (my view). Freudians might see it as the id, and etc. There's as many potential interpretations as there are people. Carol: Give me a convincing, logical counterargument refuting my > position that the creature represents the future state of Voldemort's > flayed soul if he doesn't repent. I'm challenging you to prove me > wrong using internal evidence from DH itself, as I have done. lizzyben: See, I don't disagree with you, so why would I present counterarguments? Yeah, the creature is totally supposed to represent Voldemort's soul. On a symbolic level, it represents a whole lot more. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 22:58:48 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:58:48 -0000 Subject: Deathly Hallows and the wands. In-Reply-To: <835968.99796.qm@web33010.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176002 ---eric jobe wrote: > > Thanks Cat--See that's why it is so confusing > because there is no occurrence where Harry actually > gets or "wins" the Elder wand until the very end. > Harry got Draco's Hawthorne wand, thereby "conquering" > Draco. > > But I don't see why that would also get him ownership > of the Elder wand as well. I thought you had to > actually get the Elder wand itself, not just conquer > it's owner at an unrelated time or event. She made > that very hard to follow. > > Eric > bboyminn: Well it gets down to the question of who and what have to conquer who and what. Some believe the Elder Wand identifies the other wand. That is the last wand to conquer it. So, it is about Wands not people. In the final battle, the Elder Wands sees Draco's hawthorn wand, and recognizes it as the wand that last conquered it. Further, perhaps, also recognising that Harry is now the Master of the Hawthorn Wand. Therefore by holding the Hawthorn wand, Harry is protected. Personally, I think it is much more complicated than Harry simply holding Draco's wand, but that's for another post. Others believe the Elder Wand recognizes the PERSON who previously conquered its Master. So, Draco conquered Dumbledore, Harry conquered Draco, and the Wand tracks those conquests. Either way works. Personally, I prefer the Person-to -person approach. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Tue Aug 21 23:40:40 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:40:40 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero & karmic justice (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176003 > lizzyben: > > Oh, so now non-humans don't matter? Rowena: Oh they matter. I just don't quite see why they automatically matter more than humans. Lizzyben: So goblins aren't cute & cuddly > like house elves, they have feelings too! And so they're a little > bit bitter & paranoid - but after all that wizard double-crossing, > wouldn't you be too? Rowena: As far as I can tell re: Wizard/Goblin relations it's been six of one and half dozen of the other - and Goblins are a heck of a lot less helpless then House Elves. Lizzyben: > Goblins are just misunderstood souls, oppressed > by wizards who call their reasonable social customs "fanatical". > Pfft. Rowena: Do I sense irony? :) Seriously it would seem from what Bill says that Griphook's beliefs are regarded as somewhat extreme even by fellow Goblins. Lizzyben: >And paranoid Griphook pretty much had the right idea about the > Trio's plan after all, didn't he? I say, he was promised that sword, > & he had a right to it. Run, Griphook, run! :) Rowena: Harry definitely entered a darkish gray area there. But it is kind of hard to see what else he could have done - he had to get into Gringotts and he needed the sword to destroy the horcrux. Maybe he should have explained that to Griphook - at least that only the sword could destroy a source of Voldy's power? Maybe he'd have accepted that. From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Tue Aug 21 23:50:25 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:50:25 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero & karmic justice (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: <1187725020.5842.1206556689@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176005 > Random832: > Anyway, sarcasm aside, Goblins come off here as being pretty > incompetent in legal/financial terms: life tenancy isn't unheard > of in property rights among humans, though usually applies to > real estate rather than physical items - so there's no reason > to think that humans wouldn't understand the concept if they > were told. That leaves the conclusion that Goblins are either > too bloody stupid to specify what exactly they're charging money > for, or they're committing what amounts to fraud, because the > prices wizards are willing to pay, and thus what they _are_ > paying, are set on the _assumption_ that they're buying the > item free and clear, and therefore they are paying many times > more gold than they would for a non-transferable lifetime lease. > So even if we DO accept that the goblins are right about what's > ACTUALLY being sold, they are overcharging by deception. Now that is a very good point - and an excellent example of the 'six of one half dozen of another' that seems the keynote of Wizard / Goblin relations. Bill states that only *some* Goblins - including many at Gringotts - take the very extreme position that *all* Goblin made items belong by right to the Goblins. This suggests that others feel differently, perhaps accepting Human Wizard ideas of free and clear purchase in individual contracts if not as a general principle. BTW even under the maker-is-owner principle Griphook would have no more right to G's sword than a human - unless he made it that is! The notion that his species gives him some kind of ownership doesn't seem to fit Goblin law any better than human law. Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Aug 22 01:00:32 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 01:00:32 -0000 Subject: Marietta the Marionette? was: Marietta's scarring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176006 Coriandra: > Marietta should never have been put in that situation. Harry, Ron and > Hermione should have disqualified her from DA membership when they saw > how she was being manipulated. I don't blame her for wanting to let > an adult handle it, but why didn't she go to a trustworthy, caring > adult? I think going to Umbridge, who clearly enjoyed scaring and > hurting people was sinking pretty low on Marietta's part. Ceridwen: Umbridge was Marietta's mother's workmate. She may have met Umbridge before, in other circumstances. She may have originally written her misgivings to her mother, who encouraged her to go to Umbridge. She may also not have known about Umbridge's cruelty to other students. Like Harry, Lee Jordan hides the scars of his punishment, and others may as well. It's odd about abuse sometimes - the victim is ashamed to admit it. Or, perhaps, Umbridge heard about Marietta's misgivings from Mrs Edgecomb, if Marietta did write to her mother, and call Marietta in for a talk. Umbridge has been known to be manipulative, and has used Veritaserum on Harry (or thought she did, anyway she intended to). If she did entertain Marietta, she wouldn't need to use Veritaserum, just play on Marietta's mother's connection to the Ministry, and possibly imply that what Marietta said or did could impact her mother's career. Or, she may have mentioned how proud Mrs Edgecomb would be of Marietta if she bravely spoke out against the "subversive element" in the school. Ceridwen. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 01:09:08 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 01:09:08 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero/non-Snape fan/Snape's source Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176007 Nora and Magpie wrote in: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175960 > Nora: > > Canon showed us that with Voldemort in the Ministry, some people > > were scared/somewhat offended but they went along with things like > > Muggleborn registration. We have the canonical attitude of most > > members of the House of Black, and the Malfoys. And so long as > > those remain societally acceptable because enough people with > > enough power hold them, there remains a place where those who > > have been inculcated in those ideas can go and be with the > >like-minded. > Magpie: > That's interesting because that's not really what I got reading the > book. I mean, I see it now that you say it, but to me it seems like > racism (in the extreme form of the DEs) is presented as socially > unacceptable quite often. It's only acceptable in the subculture of > Slytherin. The good guys have social power in the books, and they > find it vulgar. They are not racists themselves (many readers find > them bigoted, but it seems like the text says they aren't). zgirnius: For me, the character of Slughorn in HBP made it clear that in Dumbledore's Hogwarts, we were seeing a skewed view of the race issue, and that bloodism had more support in society as a whole that we might have thought based on what we were seeing from the Gryffindors and Dumbledore. (I can't actually recall any instance of a Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw condemning the bloodist position, btw.) I did not think that Slughorn was a bloodist out of ideology, but out of pragmatism. He seemed genuinely fond of Lily, and interested in Hermione's potential. So if he collects students of pure bloodlines, like the Blacks, it must be because those are the students that, if they have anything going for them at all in the talent department, are going to be shoo-ins for success. Which is only true if that's the way the society *is*. Since he is not ideological, he will also take an interest in the odd Muggleborn whose talent and personality are so remarkable that they have a shot at breaking through as well. So I, at any rate, did not see these attitudes as confined to Slytherin, just centered there. Prepostrus and montavilla47 wrote in Re: Thoughts on Snape from a non Snape Fan (uh-oh) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175968 > > Prep0strus: > > I'm with you on the Draco thing, which is why Draco's treatment > > in DH bugs me more than many other things. I wanted some > > addressing of the fact that Dumbledore and Snape 'saved his > > soul'. I guess it's implied... but I wanted Draco to earn what > > he had been given. > Montavilla47: > And you know, it's not that Draco himself disappointed me. It's > that I have to squint and tilt the book sideways to figure out > whether or not Draco was "good." > > As someone said, he was about as helpful to the "good" side > as a chocolate hammer. Yes, he refuses to identify the > Trio at Malfoy Manor. That's a big step for Draco, but it > helps not one little bit. zgirnius: To me, Draco's big moment was trying to save Goyle from the fire in the RoR, at the risk of his own life. This was an unambiguously good action, in my opinion, even though it did not benefit, even had nothing to do with, 'the good side'. (Heck, if Goyle is Crabbe-like, it had the potential to be damaging to the good side, had the conflict lasted longer). The person who did that deserved Harry's help to finish the job and get rescued himself, and that person earned Dumbledore's intervention. To me, anyway. The Malfoy family's arc was not what I expected, (I did expect Draco to help somehow, though I guess Cissy did!) but nonetheless worked for me. There was discussion in this post (snipped) of disappointment that Slytherins in the books were only accepted for their Gryffindor qualities. To me, insisting that Draco's 'good' actions only count if they serve 'the good side' in the story seems to be following a similar philosophy. For me Draco proved to be a person capable of selfless acts of good, yet not on the 'good side', and I was happy with that. Random 832 wrote in: Compassionate hero & karmic justice (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175986 > Random832: > Anyway, sarcasm aside, Goblins come off here as being pretty incompetent > in legal/financial terms: life tenancy isn't unheard of in property > rights among humans, though usually applies to real estate rather than > physical items - so there's no reason to think that humans wouldn't > understand the concept if they were told. That leaves the conclusion > that Goblins are either too bloody stupid to specify what exactly > they're charging money for, or they're committing what amounts to fraud, > because the prices wizards are willing to pay, and thus what they _are_ > paying, are set on the _assumption_ that they're buying the item free > and clear, and therefore they are paying many times more gold than they > would for a non-transferable lifetime lease. So even if we DO accept > that the goblins are right about what's ACTUALLY being sold, they are > overcharging by deception. zgirnius: The way I take 'goblin fanatic', what I figure is that the goblin who sold Godric the sword did understand that the human buyer was buying it forever, for himself, his descendants, and any other entities to which those individuals might choose to give the sword, for ever and ever. And he set the price accordingly. But 'goblin fanatics' like Griphook don't think that goblin had the right to do so. It goes against his culture and permanently deprives other goblins of the item. Which is what makes them fanatical - it means they refuse to ever deal with humans on human terms. (A human who refused ever to consider buying a goblin artifact for his/her life only, or did and then claimed to have bought it for ever, would be guilty of same). Carol wrote in Re: Snape's "source" (again) (Was: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES ago) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175988 > Carol responds: > It's possible > that there were only two meetings and that Snape's reference to "the > source we discussed" simply refers to a suggestion on Snape's part ("I > believe that I can obtain information from Mundungus Fletcher, my > lord") rather than to previous conversations. zgirnius: That is what I believe. And Snape suggested that it would therefore be useful to get Dung out of Azkaban, where he was placed in the second half of HBP for impersonating an Inferius while committing a larceny. Why else would the DEs have bothered when they went in after their own, such as the DoM bunch and Stan? From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Aug 22 01:50:45 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 01:50:45 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176008 Nora: > I was actually somewhat cheered to see the lack of the usual epilogue > to epic fantasy, where you find out that elves are no longer so > snobbish, women are now free, and mages no longer persecuted. Alla: Yeah, I think JKR is being much more realistic to end the story on the uncertain note IMO, while giving happy ending on the personal level. Yes, not everything is healed, YES Slytherin is around and yeah, new Dark lord may appear, who says not? But we have people who defeated him last time, we have their kids, so there is a hope that there are people who will stand against new dark lord. We have IMO glimpses of changes in WW, what Pippin remarked. Teddy does not have to hide his love for Victoire, Draco Malfoy curtly acknowledging the Trio, etc, etc. Magpie: Well, yeah, an uncertain note is fine. I just don't think we get to have it both ways, with any significant steps towards healing a major rift being unrealistic yet also saying we've got signs of steps because Teddy Lupin doesn't have to hide his love for Victoire (btw, I have no idea why this is a step--why would Teddy not have done that?) and Draco Malfoy nods to the Trio (but still couldn't have any more positive relationship with them). I might have preferred more progress, but I'm not protesting the lack of it here, just noting what I see and don't see. I do disagree that it's *unrealistic* to have any different ending. I mean, it's not like the only other alternative is hearts and flowers. I don't believe it would be by definition unrealistic for JKR to have actually wanted to tackle the rift with Slytherin. She didn't have to, but it's not like it's completely crazy. And it's not unreasonable to think it might happen since she defines her bad guys as the ones who are bigoted. This is especially strange to me when it comes to Slytherin--it's really that hard for a single school to not have a big rift with 1/4 of the students? That seems a bit silly. There's no healing of the rift because Slytherin is the house of bullies and they're bad, which is consistant with JKR's world--an aspect of the world that's more stylized than realistic. In canon there's also far less world beyond Hogwarts than what I would call realistic, so realism isn't the word I think of when I think of the adult part of the world. I'm also suspicious of the "usual" epilogue idea since I don't know exactly what epilogues refered to. It makes it seem like every other fantasy or children's writer was writing pablum until JKR introduced the idea of an ambiguous ending, when a) plenty of other writers have had endings that allowed that evil could still return and b) I don't know that JKR necessarily considers this ending ambiguous. Maybe she just fixed all the problems she thought needed to be fixed. It reads to me like a happy ending, not an ambiguous one. Alla: So, maybe, just maybe those are the signs that as you said Nora, trauma of two WW wars was enough for people to wake up and start making those changes. Magpie: I don't know if I'd call them world wars. The very words seem to again beg us to take real world things and apply them. Our guys were already fine the way they were--any changes any other characters might make I make up myself. It's just me saying, "Hey, maybe the second rising of Voldemort was enough to make people wake up and start making those changes in ways that apparently the first rising of Voldemort wasn't--it's just not written in the story." Since I already accepted the whole society fell to the DEs as easily as it did in DH, I don't even really begin to imagine it. > Magpie: > > > So in the end the canon > really doesn't seem to be using fantasy to explore racism, but using > racism to fill out a fantasy world. > > > Alla: > Oh, oh and since Pippin's post was mentioned can I confess my love > for Pippin's posts too? Can I? Magpie: I'm not sure which post of Pippin's you mean--there are lots of great posts that give great ways of looking at the characters in canon. It's just I think usually that's the direction it goes in when it comes to the big issues. Like, I recognize that Voldemort is a Fascist and that the DEs are really really like Nazis. That's what I meant by real world issues illuminating the world rather than illuminating real life issues through the world. The Fascism post illuminates Voldemort, Voldemort does not illuminate Fascism. He follows the blueprint, but he seems to be just doing that, following the blueprint. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 02:06:53 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 02:06:53 -0000 Subject: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176009 Magpie: Well, yeah, an uncertain note is fine. I just don't think we get to > have it both ways, with any significant steps towards healing a major > rift being unrealistic yet also saying we've got signs of steps > because Teddy Lupin doesn't have to hide his love for Victoire (btw, > I have no idea why this is a step--why would Teddy not have done > that?) and Draco Malfoy nods to the Trio (but still couldn't have any > more positive relationship with them). I might have preferred more > progress, but I'm not protesting the lack of it here, just noting > what I see and don't see. Alla: I do not think I am having it both ways. I am saying that I see **small** signs of change, while saying that not showing **bigger** signs of change sounds realistic enough to me, not even saying that they are not possible. I do disagree with the lack of progress, yes, but am saying that progress is going in baby steps. As to why Teddy might have wanted to hide it ? it is not like IMO general public necessarily would like to watch the son of werewolf with somebody, anybody. Yes, I think WW was that bigoted to werewolves and their families. And I totally think that Draco's curt nod IS a progress. When exactly did he acknowledge Harry and his friends before without screaming obscenities ( metaphorically) or throwing curses at them? So, yeah, I believe it is a sign of change, but gradual one. IMO of course. I would find Draco becoming **friends** with Trio for example, as Lissyben suggested before to be extremely unrealistic and saccharine. IMO of course. Seven years of animosity do not just go away in my opinion and curt nod is the most I thought possible, you know? Magpie: > I do disagree that it's *unrealistic* to have any different ending. Alla: No, it is not necessarily unrealistic to have different ending, I just find this one to be rather realistic. Magpie: > I mean, it's not like the only other alternative is hearts and flowers. > I don't believe it would be by definition unrealistic for JKR to have > actually wanted to tackle the rift with Slytherin. She didn't have > to, but it's not like it's completely crazy. And it's not > unreasonable to think it might happen since she defines her bad guys > as the ones who are bigoted. > Alla: Well, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you talking about **complete** healing of the rift as ending that you would find more appealing, more satisfying? If you are, then yes, it is pretty much reads to me as hearts and flowers, meaning that everybody becomes friends, no? Magpie: > This is especially strange to me when it comes to Slytherin--it's > really that hard for a single school to not have a big rift with 1/4 > of the students? That seems a bit silly. Alla: I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine, who never goes to Internet to read HP discussions, but is just obsessed as I am. Oh, and I remember somebody mentioning "casual reader" recently ( not you), so he is far from casual reader, he is let's put it this way, very sophisticated reader. I think I mentioned his opinions here once. I was discussing DH with him and mentioned Slytherin issue and told him that while it does not majorly bother me, it is strange that one quarter of the school is allowed to go to Slytherin. He looked at me as if I am crazy ( he does have a child by the way to foresee questions, she is twelve now). He was like, are you seriously telling me that you think that by the age of eleven you do not find the character of the child to be completely formed? He was like ? well, I do and no, I do not find it strange that Sorting hat seems to know who is who at the age of eleven. After all, it is not like school does that, Hat is magical, it knows. He was also saying that sure, change is possible later on, but he is perfectly okay with looking in the heart of the child and knowing where such child belongs at eleven years old. Magpie: > I'm also suspicious of the "usual" epilogue idea since I don't know > exactly what epilogues refered to. It makes it seem like every other > fantasy or children's writer was writing pablum until JKR introduced > the idea of an ambiguous ending, when a) plenty of other writers have > had endings that allowed that evil could still return and b) I don't > know that JKR necessarily considers this ending ambiguous. Maybe she > just fixed all the problems she thought needed to be fixed. It reads > to me like a happy ending, not an ambiguous one. Alla: It reads to me as happy ending for the characters, but with plenty of room for change left in the society level. As to the endings, I was definitely talking about fantasy endings only, there are of course plenty realistic endings in the non- fantasy fiction books. But yes, I stand by the assertion that majority of fantasy endings leave pretty much everything resolved and they lived happily ever after, all problems in society done. First example comes to mind ? Mercedes Lackey of course. I read plenty of hers, I used to love it, I hate it with passion now, I wish she would stop writing, took a breath and just wrote something less commercial. But I do not remember **one** of her books ending in any way ambigiously. I just finished another book, where bitter, bitter war between two groups ended and everything was so peachy at the end ( It is called Honored enemy, do not remember the author). Of course there is Tolkien, sort of ( I love the books, just do not find his ending ambiguous much) and ..? I am talking about fantasy only again. So, yeah, I give cheers to JKR for her ending. I think it is another sign of her mixing genres and painting some real touches in as well with fantasy. Of course there were fantasy books I loved happy endings in, but they were actually done quite similar to what JKR did ? problems in society sort of remained, while heroes got happy ending ( Miles Vorkosigan saga for example. JMO, Alla From elfundeb at gmail.com Wed Aug 22 02:24:51 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:24:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708211924p6176925bvb9bc0a37368f5445@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176010 First, thanks to Ceridwen for an excellent opening to the chapter discussions. There's a lot of fascinating stuff embedded in the book that is hard to discover and focus on without this kind of detail. I have not yet read the other responses and hope these aren't too repetitive. Before I dive into Ceridwen's questions, I'll make a general comment about the chapter. I thought it did a terrific job of setting a mood for the entire book, and it's chock full of foreshadowing and misdirection. >1. Snape and Yaxley "raised their left arms in a kind of salute." Is this a reference to World War II and the likening of the Death Eaters to the Nazis, in Deathly Hallows? Yes. It's one of the features of the chapter that helps set the mood in very few words. >2. Saluting the gate with their left arms makes them able to pass through the wrought iron gate. Is this a tacit confirmation that there was indeed a blocking spell on the tower in HBP which only allowed Death Eaters to enter? I'm not sure about this. Unless it works like a transponder (which allows the holder to zip through toll booths without stopping to hand over money) and reads their Dark Marks, anyone who could figure out the counterspell code could get in. >3. The peacock at Malfoy Manor is mentioned at least twice in the book. What is its significance? The peacock is symbolic in many cultures, and there are a wealth of associations. I think the one that is intended here is the Christian one, where white symbolizes purity and the peacock itself as a symbol of paradise, and therefore resurrection. Thus, it foreshadow's Narcissa's betrayal of Voldemort; indeed, she declares Harry dead and sets the stage for his resurrection. >4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think might be the person hanging unconscious above the table? No idea, but I knew the person wouldn't live long. >5. Only one person already in the room looks up at the unconscious revolving body above the table: Draco Malfoy. Once the body is resuscitated, he no longer looks at her. Why? I think he's terrified he will be asked to AK her, which is why he keeps staring at her. And after she awakens, he cannot look at her because he knows her. He is embarrassed and is trying to distance himself from the situation as best he can. He has no desire to kill Burbage or anyone else and wants no part of it, but he understands that he is trapped, as are his parents. >6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat of honor at his right hand. Is this because Snape is his "right-hand man"? Or is Voldemort "keeping his friends close, and his enemies closer"? Both. Voldemort has no friends and trusts no one fully. He must hold his right-hand man closer than anyone, because he relies on him. >7. Yaxley's information is different from Snape's. Is anyone in the Ministry who is not a member of the Order of the Phoenix aware that the Order will move Harry earlier than expected? I think not. They're a bunch of idiots at the MoM. >9. Who is Snape's informant? Who does Voldemort think it is? Is it the same person? I agree that it's Dung. >10. Lucius and his family are clearly not happy with Voldemort's presence. Is this because Lucius is still disgraced from his botched mission at the Ministry and his use of the diary Horcrux? Does their apparent discomfort at the situation foreshadow their lack of involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts? Yes, and Voldemort's evident contempt for him helps nail his own coffin, whereas better treatment might have made Lucius a better lieutenant. Most interesting, however, is that Narcissa now seems to be calling the shots. >11. Wormtail is described as sitting so low that his chair looks unoccupied. Is this further sign of his physical deterioration as seen in HBP? Is this because he would rather not be there? Is it just that he is a small man? Or is it symbolic in some way? I took it to mean that he did not want to be noticed, because he did not want to be asked to do anything -- but for very different reasons from Draco. Note that he is sent on the same errand as in the Malfoy Manor chapter, probably the least important job of anyone in the room. >12. The Malfoys do not make much eye contact with Voldemort. When Voldemort looks at Snape, other Death Eaters look away. Are all of the Death Eaters at the manor happy with Voldemort's return? I think a lot of Death Eaters are unhappy with Voldemort's degree of control, and his methods whereby even his closest supporters are humiliated into doing Voldemort's bidding. It's not what they thought they signed up for, which depending on the person probably varied from ethnic cleansing and unsupervised mayhem to a feeling of importance. Except for the fanatical few, the end of VWI meant (except for those who went to Azkaban) that they could regain control of their own lives. This could be totally wrong, especially since I thought it would prove to be a significant factor in Snape's return to Dumbledore. >13. Snape looks comfortably into Voldemort's eyes when the other Death Eaters turn away. We see an example of Voldemort's Legillimency later in the book. How strong is Snape's Occlumency? Ironclad. >14. Why does Voldemort praise Bellatrix, then humiliate her? See answer to #12. Control. >15. Where were the Lestrange brothers? Unworthy of mention. Maybe Bellatrix arranged for them to be left in Azkaban so she could pursue Voldy. ;-) >16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she pleads and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this the first time he could not save someone? Was Charity Burbage someone Snape could not save? I wonder if she wasn't the first victim brought before Voldemort to be tortured, then killed. Whatever happened to Mr Fortescue, for example? Generally, Snape does a pretty good job of saving people, but there's nothing he can do with Voldemort breathing over his shoulder. >17. Voldemort refers to "Mudbloods" as "thieves" of the Wizarding World's "knowledge and magic." This charge is repeated later in the book. Is it possible for a witch or wizard to have her or his magic stolen? Is it possible to steal knowledge without leaving that knowledge for others as well? No. For the answer, ask Filch. >19. Why are the Purebloods dwindling? Pool of possible mates is down. Likelihood of marrying someone who is sexually distasteful is high. And, of course, they're killing themselves in all these wars. >20. Voldemort has no issues with "pruning" the family tree of undesirables, even though they may be pure-blood or half-bloods. Yet, he is displeased with Burbage's article and her assertion that the dwindling of Pureblood families is a good thing. Voldemort says, of Charity Burbage, "She would have us all mate with Muggles... or, no doubt, werewolves..." He includes himself with the Purebloods here. Does he think his Muggle father's family doesn't count? Or is he actively enforcing the idea that he, too, is a Pureblood? I noted later on that the purge of Muggleborns does not seem to include the offspring of Muggleborns or the offspring of wizard/witch and muggle. Snape sits at his right hand. Seamus is at Hogwarts. He probably knows that they're right, so using muggles for stud duty must be permitted. >21. Why does Voldemort think that Lucius does not need his wand anymore? How better to control him, my pretty? >22. Do you think Voldemort is planning on dispensing with the Malfoys eventually? Well, if he wants to win, he should, but Bella might cause a fuss if that happened. >23. Voldemort invites Nagini to dine on the corpse of Charity Burbage. What do you imagine the reactions of the others around the table might be? This idea has been presented in the books before. When do you think Nagini has disposed of the evidence before? Is this part of her value to Voldemort, or is Voldemort giving his pet a treat? Voldemort is fond of Nagini as an extension of himself. I think he'd like to devour his enemies, and this is a symbolic way of accomplishing that. Debbie sporting a fever and probably raving [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 02:53:42 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:53:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I would have kept the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <222802.21082.qm@web55003.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176011 Katie: > The Elder Wand was too powerful > it would always cause tragedy. > Harry was too powerful of a wizard > to wield it. He would have become > power-hungry and it would have > destroyed him Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald: >Dumbledore used that wand for half a century, and I am convinced that >wand did one hell of a lot of good in that time. I am also convinced >that what Dumbledore said was absolutely true, Harry really is a >better man than Dumbledore; so I can see no reason to think that wand >would produce inferior results in the next 50 years if Harry used it >than it had in the previous half century when Dumbledore used it. My impression is that Harry gave up the wand to keep out of circulation -- to end its bloody history. "The bloody trail of the Elder Wand is splattered across the pages of Wizarding history" (p. 412) "Its history is bloody, but that may be simply due to the fact it is such a desirable object, and arouses such passions in wizards. Immensely powerful, dangerous in the wrong hands..." (p. 497) Harry says to Dumbledore's portrait, "If I die a natural death like Ignotus, its power will be broken, won't it? The previous master will never have been defeated. That'll be the end of it." (p. 749) Christy --------------------------------- Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at fastmail.us Wed Aug 22 03:00:27 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:00:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46CBA6CB.2090602@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 176012 > Then zgirnius said: > I don't know, for me she managed to make it sinister. The takeover > results in some serious flips of the former positions in the > government and the papers, and some very repressive laws. Yet noone > seems to mind all that much, unless they happen to have Muggleborn > relations or friends. I was reminded of that famous poem: > > va32h: > > Yes, but they all seem to be the result of a few Death Eaters > Imperiusing everyone ele into doing their will. Umbridge is the only > character we see who is apparently neither DE or Imperiused, just > taking advantage of the situation to let looser her inner sadist. Random832: Right, but that the general population (a few alliteratively-codenamed broadcasters aside) utterly FAILS to think that maybe there's something wrong - that was creepy. They just go on living their lives, not giving a crap. That's not presented as a mass Imperius, just apathy. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Aug 22 03:14:46 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:14:46 -0000 Subject: Laughing All the Way to the Bank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176013 > Roberta wrote: > > I nominate the following, from OotP. Umbridge has banned Harry's > Quibbler interview, which makes Hermione gleeful: snip > > I've always thought this line was one in the eye for the anti- > witchcraft crowd who have tried to ban the Harry Potter books. Potioncat: Oh, good one! Ron making fun of Hermione for getting and reading a "kids book" reminded me of the constant discussion both by fans and non-fans on whether the HP books are children's lit...or should be...or is only... From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 03:17:59 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:17:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Laughing All the Way to the Bank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <107746.23748.qm@web55015.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176014 Potioncat: >Whatever might be said of her, JKR does have a sense of humour. >There are some very funny lines in the books. Sometimes there are >scenes or lines that could be (maybe) JKR teasing her fans; an "I know >what you're saying," sort of joke... Carol: >Favorite comic relief moments that I can recall off the top of my >head: Ron's response to Hermione's statement that she could run him >through with a sword and his soul would survive unharmed ("Which would >be a real comfort to me, I'm sure," 104) and Kreacher's saucepan >standing in for Mrs. Figg's catfood cans with regard to Mundungus. I >don't like violence in general, but the comic violence that Mundungus >suffers, first from a Squib and then from a house-elf, always seems >well-deserved and funny. I too love the Kreacher's "Perhaps just one more, Master Harry, for luck?" and the picture of his "thin arms trembl[ing] with the weight of the pan, still held aloft" (p. 221). Carol, another of my favorites is thanks to Snape: Snape raised his eyebrows and his tone was sardonic as he asked, "Are you intending to let him kill you?" "Certainly not. You must kill me." There was a long silence, broken only by an odd clicking noise. Fawkes the phoenix was gnawing a bit of cuttlebone. "Would you like me to do it now?" asked Snape, his voice heavy with irony. "Or would you like a few moments to compose an epitaph?" I can't think of any other Snape one-liner and to see this in the midst of his often tragic backstory and in the midst of this very heavy conversation, complete with comedic timing -- I loved it! (And, it helps show how far the relationship between Snape and Dumbledore has come -- they obviously are comfortable with each other to be able to banter given the gravity of what they are discussing.) Christy --------------------------------- Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 22 03:13:32 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:13:32 -0000 Subject: Laughing All the Way to the Bank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176015 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Maybe I'm a hypocrite; I don't know. I didn't feel the same way about > Umbridge and the Centaurs (and I hate Umbridge!) Ken: Is this a reaction to classical Centaurs reputation as rapists? If so I've never really bought that about these Centaurs. For one thing would even a Centaur want ... you know ... *Umbridge*??? Another thing is that the Potterverse does not imitate folklore exactly. There is no evidence that Vampires are killed by wooden stakes or Werewolves by silver in the Potterverse. The best use of folkloric elements in fantasy and science fiction, in my opinion, is to have the folklore turn out to be based on fact but not exhaustively so. It is enough that there are Werewolves and Centaurs, they do not have to conform to folklore in every detail. Finally, these Centaurs seem to have a very low do/say ratio. They actually do very little of what they say and threaten. As an aside, I read something about Centaurs today that surprised me. Now that DH has come and gone I have been indulging a long held, never satisfied interest in ancient Mesopotamian history. This lead to a study of Sumerian star names and that lead to a web discussion of a constellation (I forget which) that the Greeks borrowed from the Sumerians and had turned into a Centaur. Or at least that is how it is always portrayed even though one expert claimed it couldn't have originally been a Centaur because it is always shown as holding a bow "and Centaurs don't use bows". I don't know if that assertion can be corroborated but Rowling's Centaurs certainly use bows. One of my favorite laughs came in two parts when Ron used the line "always the tone of surprise" on Hermione and then she returned it to him later. Harry's Dirty Harry like taunt to Voldemort had me splitting a gut when I first read it. I fear that my biggest laugh may not have been intended as such since it is a rather critical plot element and the story line teeters a bit because of it. It came when Voldemort hides the the die-dem in a room filled to the rafters with centuries worth of junk that other students and teachers have hidden there and actually believes that he is the only one to have penetrated the Room of Requirement's secret. At times this evil genius makes Crabbe and Goyle look like Einstien and Hawking! As I reread it I see that Ron mentions the absurdity of Voldemort not realizing that anyone could, many ones had, get into the RoR. Presumably the author knows then too and that her plot to an extent hangs on that absurdity. Ken From Meliss9900 at aol.com Wed Aug 22 03:51:15 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:51:15 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176016 In a message dated 8/21/2007 9:26:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time, elfundeb at gmail.com writes: >2. Saluting the gate with their left arms makes them able to pass through the wrought iron gate. Is this a tacit confirmation that there was indeed a blocking spell on the tower in HBP which only allowed Death Eaters to enter? I'm not sure about this. Unless it works like a transponder (which allows the holder to zip through toll booths without stopping to hand over money) and reads their Dark Marks, anyone who could figure out the counterspell code could get in. I think that the gate and the staircase (in HBP) are both triggered by the dark mark. That is why order members can't access the stairway and Greyback cannot enter Malfoy Manor. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Aug 22 03:57:18 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:57:18 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Reasons for reactions to Snape (was: Reactions to Snape's... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176017 Judy: what do you see as the primary reason for your disliking/despisingfor your disliking/ Sandy: My primary reason for despising Snape was his treatment of Harry, the other two members of the Trio and Neville. My feelings towards him were firmly in place from his very first class and very first encounter with Harry in SS. I never doubted that he hated Harry, whether it be because of James or Lily, and his treatment of Harry was a total abuse of power. It took a very long time for us to discover the exact dynamics of the relationship between Harry and Snape but, to me, none of that matters, nor does it change anything. From the get-go his treatment of Harry was mean, hateful, spiteful and cruel and he abused the the tutorial authority he had every chance he got. There is no reason for any adult to treat an 11 year old child that way just because of issues they have with the child's parents - ever. His treatment of Hermione and Ron were by default simply because they had the audacity to be Harry's friends. It took until the last book to figure out his animosity towards Neville, which I believe is because if Voldy had gone after all of the Longbottoms instead his precious Lily would not have died. There is nothing Snape ever subsequently did that ever changed my feelings towards him or the reasons why. Now, having said all of that, I will admit that The Prince's Tale broke my heart when I first read it. What a tragedy - what a waste. What a miserable life. It was impossible to not feel sorry for him and feel his pain. But upon a second reading, and pondering the facts, I still cannot give him a free pass. As an adolescent and adult he, and he alone, is responsible for the choices he made that made his life the tragedy that it was. He brought all of his misery upon himself and then made Harry his scapegoat and whipping boy. I hate the man. His death was horrific and I did not like it at all, but it still does not change my feelings for him. I concede that he was brilliant and that he was brave but it changes nothing. I do not forgive him. Sandy ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Meliss9900 at aol.com Wed Aug 22 04:50:07 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:50:07 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176018 In a message dated 8/21/2007 5:55:42 P.M. Central Daylight Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: This somewhat goes against known Snake Lore. Snake never try to eat anything they can't swallow in one gulp. They usually swallow a mouse or a frog whole, and slink of under a bush for a nap while the food digests. I simply don't see Nagini, no matter how big she is, swallowing a whole person. By extension, that implies that she is biting off chunks and eating them the way a wolf or lion would. I think that is unusual. ***************** Well depends on the size of the snake and the size of the person. Both Anacondas and Reticulated Pythons have been documented taking down and swallowing adult deer. Snakes don't have the physical ability to "bite off chunks" (wrong type of teeth) however their jaws unhinge and can swing open a full 180 degrees so its not an impossibility that she could have swallowed Charity if she were a petite person. And to put this slightly back on topic. I'd bet on Nagini being a python. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Wed Aug 22 06:00:47 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 06:00:47 -0000 Subject: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176019 > > Alla: > > I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine, who never goes > to Internet to read HP discussions, but is just obsessed as I am. > Oh, and I remember somebody mentioning "casual reader" recently ( > not you), so he is far from casual reader, he is let's put it this > way, very sophisticated reader. I think I mentioned his opinions > here once. > > I was discussing DH with him and mentioned Slytherin issue and told > him that while it does not majorly bother me, it is strange that one > quarter of the school is allowed to go to Slytherin. > > He looked at me as if I am crazy ( he does have a child by the way > to foresee questions, she is twelve now). He was like, are you > seriously telling me that you think that by the age of eleven you do > not find the character of the child to be completely formed? He was > like ? well, I do and no, I do not find it strange that Sorting hat > seems to know who is who at the age of eleven. After all, it is not > like school does that, Hat is magical, it knows. > > He was also saying that sure, change is possible later on, but he is > perfectly okay with looking in the heart of the child and knowing > where such child belongs at eleven years old. > Julie: I do see where your friend is coming from. It's just to me it a very depressing place. I would agree at age eleven a child's personality is fairly well formed (much of it, as in temperament, is genetic and present from birth). I'd also agree that childhood is when a person's belief system and moral system is most strongly influenced by his/her environment--family, neighborhood, school, culture, society. So by the time a child comes to Hogwarts he/she has already internalized certain belief systems/moral systems, a sense of self-worth and self-esteem (or lack thereof), and so on. So what do you do when the child who has internalized very negative and prejudicial beliefs, and a lax moral system, is ready to enter a boarding school? A boarding school, which by its definition will be home throughout his later childhood and teenage years, where he will continue to learn from the teachers, students, and boarding school "society" around him, whether that learning means further cementing those negative beliefs and lax morals, or whether that learning means a lot of exposure to more postive beliefs and tolerance in hopes that the child will see another option and perhaps begin to change his/her views sooner rather than later--or never. (And if change is possible *later on*, why on earth isn't it possible--in fact very much preferable--starting NOW?) Well, if you live in the WW, apparently you sort the child in with the other bad kids, toss them all together in the dungeon (which at least you should LOCK so the riff raff can't infect anyone else), and let them all fester and incite each other into further prejudicial and moral bankruptcy, and then after a few years release them all into society. (And this is why I have so little sympathy for the WW at large, because they are reaping *exactly* what they sow, and richly deserving it--and that includes all the "good" ones like the Weasleys who just accept the system the way it is.) If you applied this philosophy of writing off children by age eleven and assuming there's no point in trying to influence them or change them, then the real world would be a very scary place. (Oh, wait...we do, and it is!-- though on occasion there are those who don't write them off, as with the true story of The Freedom Diaries...) Julie, who didn't want JKR to blatantly moralize against writing off certain undesirable segments of society, but did hope if she is against it, this would be illustrated more clearly in her writing. From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 05:49:52 2007 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 05:49:52 -0000 Subject: I would have kept the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: <222802.21082.qm@web55003.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176020 Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald wrote: > > Dumbledore used that wand for half a century, and I am convinced > > that wand did one hell of a lot of good in that time. I am also > > convinced that what Dumbledore said was absolutely true, Harry > > really is a better man than Dumbledore; so I can see no reason > > to think that wand would produce inferior results in the next > > 50 years if Harry used it than it had in the previous half > > century when Dumbledore used it. Christine Maupin wrote: > My impression is that Harry gave up the wand to keep out of > circulation -- to end its bloody history. "The bloody trail > of the Elder Wand is splattered across the pages of Wizarding > history" (p. 412) > "Its history is bloody, but that may be simply due to the fact > it is such a desirable object, and arouses such passions in > wizards. Immensely powerful, dangerous in the wrong hands..." > (p. 497) > Harry says to Dumbledore's portrait, "If I die a natural death > like Ignotus, its power will be broken, won't it? The previous > master will never have been defeated. That'll be the end of it." > (p. 749) Niru now: I agree. Harry is doing what Dumbledore should have done all those years ago. Dumbledore took the wand with the best of intentions - to protect others from it. He even planned meticuluosly to try and break the power of the wand. But the plan failed. Harry, OTOH, is not even using the Elder Wand. He is using his own holly and phoenix feather wand. Harry's plan to break the power of the Elder Wand has a much higher probability of success, his career as an auror notwithstanding. He cannot be defeated whilst using the Elder Wand because he does not use and never intends to. Furthermore he doesn't use Draco's hawthorn wand either. Harry's own holly and phoenix feather wand was never involved in duels with the Elder Wand. Even if he is defeated whilst weilding it, I don't think it will affect the Elder Wand's allegiance. The power of the Elder Wand is as good as broken. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 06:40:26 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 06:40:26 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176021 --- Meliss9900 at ... wrote: > > > bboyminn at ... writes: > > This somewhat goes against known Snake Lore. Snake > never try to eat anything they can't swallow in one > gulp. They usually swallow a mouse or a frog whole, > and slink of under a bush for a nap while the food > digests. I simply don't see Nagini, no matter how > big she is, swallowing a whole person. By extension, > that implies that she is biting off chunks and > eating them the way a wolf or lion would. I think > that is unusual. > > > ***************** > > Well depends on the size of the snake and the size >of the person. Both Anacondas and Reticulated Pythons > have been documented taking down and swallowing > adult deer. Snakes don't have the physical ability > to "bite off chunks" (wrong type of teeth) however > their jaws unhinge and can swing open a full 180 > degrees so its not an impossibility that she could > have swallowed Charity if she were a petite person. > > And to put this slightly back on topic. I'd bet on > Nagini being a python. > > Melissa bboyminn: Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I agree with everything in your first paragraph and that is the very point I was making. While not impossible for a monstrous sized python or anaconda to swallow a person, I think it would be extremely rare. An anaconda is more likely to tackle something that puts up less of a fight, because, being cold blooded, snakes don't really have energy to spare. So, what I was hinting at, is that Nagini is not any type of normal snake. Which bring us to your last paragraph which I disagree with. Nagini can't be a python because she is venomous; she's a poisonous snake. We've discussed this before and come to the conclusion that the only real world snake that comes close is a South American snake, whose name I can't remember. This snake is poisonous, physically powerful, and has the right type of venom. What was that snake's name though????? Likely, Nagini is a purely fictional snake, a blend of broad and general snake knowledge smooshed together into a composite snake, or perhaps we could assume some type of magical snake unknown to muggles. Keep in mind, that while there are hints of Nagini's size, she can't weigh 100 to 200 pounds or more because Voldemort carries her around. Of course, magic could somehow come into play there, but in general, her size is contained by some reasonable limits. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 06:43:55 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 06:43:55 -0000 Subject: Laughing All the Way to the Bank In-Reply-To: <107746.23748.qm@web55015.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176022 > Christy: > I can't think of any other Snape one-liner and to see this in the midst of his often tragic backstory and in the midst of this very heavy conversation, complete with comedic timing -- I loved it! zgirnius: As a longtime admirer of Snape, I resemble that remark! He has some of the great funny lines in the series. Among my favorites... CoS: "Maybe he's ill!" said Ron hopefully. "Maybe he's left," said Harry, "because he missed out on the Defense Against Dark Arts job again!" "Or he might have been sacked!" said Ron enthusiastically. "I mean, everyone hates him -" "Or maybe," said a very cold voice right behind them, "he's waiting to hear why you two didn't arrive on the school train." -AND- "Just the man," he said. "The very man. A girl has been snatched by the monster, Lockhart. Taken into the Chamber of Secrets itself. Your moment has come at last." Lockhart blanched. PoA: "What would your head have been doing in Hogsmeade, Potter?" said Snape softly. "Your head is not allowed in Hogsmeade. No part of your body has permission to be in Hogsmeade." OotP: 'You applied first for the Defence Against the Dark Arts post, I believe?' Professor Umbridge asked Snape. 'Yes,' said Snape quietly. 'But you were unsuccessful?' Snape's lip curled. 'Obviously' -AND- 'You can make some more, can't you?' she said, her voice becoming more sweetly girlish as it always did when she was furious. 'Certainly,' said Snape, his lip curling. 'It takes a full moon-cycle to mature, so I should have it ready for you in around a month.' -AND- "Unless you wish to poison Potter -and I assure you I would have the greattest sympathy with you if you did - I cannot help you." -AND- 'And Crabbe, loosen your hold a little. If Longbottom suffocates it will mean a lot of tedious paperwork and I am afraid I shall have to mention it on your reference if ever you apply for a job.' HBP: "He'd have me!" said Bellatrix passionately. "I, who sent many years in Azkaban for him!" "Yes indeed, most admirable," said Snape in a bored voice. "Of course, you weren't a lot of use to him in prison, but the gesture was undoubtedly fine-" -AND- "He calls me his most loyal, his most faithful-" "Does he? Does he *still*" -AND- "You speak of dangers - you were facing six teenagers, were you not?" -AND- "Funny, I never had the impression I managed to teach Potter anything at all." zgirnius, who was in need of a reason to smile about Snape, which writing this post supplied. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Aug 22 08:01:24 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:01:24 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Kings Cross..... The end??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176023 Ken: It has been discussed before and Sue is right, Ms. Rowling is wrong. Harry cannot go on to become a mad eye Moody if he means to end the power of the elder wand. It is way too big a risk. However, someone else pointed out that Harry could work for the auror office and even head it up without ever being a field agent. I predicted that Harry would not defeat Voldemort by becoming the "fastest gun in the west" and in a way I was wrong about that. What I meant was that we would not see him master magic to the level that we saw Voldemort and Dumbledore use against each other in the Ministry. And that is true, his wand did do that for him very early on and then it got taken out of action. Harry didn't even understand what the wand did. What we did see was Harry becoming a fast gun in a much different and I thought, believable, way. In DH Harry became a master of combining information to see through it to the motives and plans of his opponent. He became a master detective. It is a talent he has shown all along and it really blossomed in the final book. That is a talent that the auror office can use and it can be done almost completely from a desk, safe inside the Ministry. It's not like Harry has anything left to prove about his personal courage. Of course our dear author is anything but a master at putting together information like this so I have no doubt that when she writes her encyclopedia of the Potterverse she will have Harry out there slinging lead at the bad guys like Eliot Ness on steriods. And that is just wrong.... Personally I think it is wrong on a different level too. I don't think that Harry wants to be an auror anymore, he's done that to death. At the end Harry says he's had enough trouble for a lifetime. I believe him, I hope the author does too. Harry needs to do something else with his life and he has earned the right to a peaceful but rewarding existence. He's really been set up to become a champion for civil rights for the other magical creatures and Muggles, if you ask me. Sandy: Thank you, Ken, for this most excellent post. It is almost exactly what I have been wanting to post about this subject once I got caught up. Harry just cannot be an Auror and stick to the philosophy of the Elder Wand. It is his intent to die a natural death and end the power of the wand once and for all. What are the chances of that happening if he is an Auror. And even if he is not killed, simply being disarmed passes the ownership of the wand. And I, too, believe he had no further desire to be an Auror. I certainly believed him when he said he'd had enough trouble for a lifetime. I feel he would be a good DADA teacher. It *really* irritates me that JKR did not think all of this through carefully before she started making statements within a few days of the book being released. She was answering questions on the fly and making things up as she went along only to contradict herself and give a different answer to the same question a day later. I sincerely hope she sits down and thinks this all through carefully before she writes the encyclopedia. Sandy ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 08:25:45 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:25:45 -0000 Subject: Said creature under the bench.. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176024 So much discussion about it...none of which has made up my mind other than one sniggling thought... Said soul bit has helped Harry over the years...in book one..the suspcion of snape...the placing of hands upon quirrelmort, the opening of the cos(see..told you that the basilisk was confused..apparently Harry did have some control(go back reread..Harry wanted help and the basilisks tail whipped the sorting hat over I believe)..I'm not delving into this only because all of my copies of cos are with my kids at this mo..in poa Harry insisted Sirius and Lupin not kill PP (but was that his ONLY influence?) And then there is possed Ginny(possessed by a horcrux) and Harry (also a heir of slytherin but also possed by a soul bit) opening the chamber..(yep ron does so too--but after wearing that locket-- whew...like ginny and the diary all over again)..did Voldie cast charms over his horcruxes that purebreeds would only be especially suseptible?(harry would never count seeing as he had a part of voldie's soul imbeded in his forehead).. Then in GOF, the entire battle scene was more than a battle between brother wands...it was a battle between Voldie, Harry, and the soul bit w/in Harry...(because harry pulled away early we never knew who actually won..just who escaped and got away)...(who actually won Voldie? Harry? now we know(or at least I believe) it was Harry and "soul bit".. Then we come to oop...and here was the crux of my theory which was proved wrong...but at least I was on the right track.. When Harry was possed by Voldie who could not bear it and soon left..I thought soul bit may want to return to it's master... It didn't...(did it choose a new master? but if it did..JKR already said Harry could no longer speak parseltongue) And if there was such a creature beneath said chair..there could only be one reason why DD/Harry believed it was beyond help...then the only thing keeping Voldie tied to life was Harry's blood, which voldie wouldn't have recognized ever! So now I'm confused, only because it hasn't been bought up yet.. JKR says that Harry is no longer a parseltongue... What's right? Harry no longer being a parsel tongue because of said Being under the bench...or Voldie's last piece of soul hence his last bit is in nagini? But Ron can speak parsel tongue on a basic level. LOL--at least to do an "open says me"). Hence I thought the creature under said bench was the soul piece w/in Harry. And I completely understand those reasons why those who don't agree with me believe otherwise. I just thought the Harry going to death in the forest scene with Voldie ak'ing Harry Voldie was knocked out because he destroyed an unkown Horcrux and for once, he felt it..(I always like this because if he was knocked out by destroying the scarcrux in the forrest, then I can only imagine what sort of pain he may have felt when Neville destroyed Nagini.(whoohoo Go NEVILLE!) And its so ironic...with Harry going to die to save the WW...turns out Voldie murdering a part of himself to save them..What a dichotomy! No wonder why his spells weren't so binding...so little soul left. So I'm still confused. My only thing is if that soul bit w/in Harry did not return home after Voldie's posession, then why? and would it truly look like that which was under the bench--remember said bit at least in my theory has helped harry in the past? (Did Harry finally employing occlumency force it out? then why not before? If not, then *I* have to go back and re-think the ending all over again...(thank heavens it's not a Snape issue--at least until someone else swings it around there LOL) Just looking for some more input here.. From mz_annethrope at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 08:28:09 2007 From: mz_annethrope at yahoo.com (mz_annethrope) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:28:09 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176025 mz_annethrope: > 1. Snape and Yaxley "raised their left arms in a kind of salute." > Is this a reference to World War II and the likening of the Death > Eaters to the Nazis, in Deathly Hallows? I think that salute was also used in Imperial Rome. I'd guess it's a reference to world dominion and not just to Nazism. > 2. Saluting the gate with their left arms makes them able to pass > through the wrought iron gate. Is this a tacit confirmation that > there was indeed a blocking spell on the tower in HBP which only > allowed Death Eaters to enter? Perhaps. > 3. The peacock at Malfoy Manor is mentioned at least twice in the > book. What is its significance? I think the significance is that it's a white peacock. I believe they were originally bred in India. Peacock meanings abound but I keep on thinking of the mansion in the movie Gone With the Wind. There were white peacocks on the grounds. > 4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think might > be the person hanging unconscious above the table? I thought it would be an Order member. > 5. Only one person already in the room looks up at the unconscious > revolving body above the table: Draco Malfoy. Once the body is > resuscitated, he no longer looks at her. Why? Draco is showing his youth and immaturity. He's drawn by curiosity to the unconscious figure. Looking at it is better than looking at the far scarier Voldemort. Everybody else has been around long enough to pretend uninterest in such novelties. > 6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat of honor at his right hand. Is > this because Snape is his "right-hand man"? Or is Voldemort "keeping > his friends close, and his enemies closer"? Well Snape's his right hand man for the moment. The scene reminds me of school classes where the teacher puts the best student in the front seat near the desk and the worst at the back. The dunce--that was me--was in the corner. But the front seat is a dangerous place: it's occupant can be replaced at any time by the new best student and the teacher always knows where the occupant is. > 7. Yaxley's information is different from Snape's. Is anyone in the > Ministry who is not a member of the Order of the Phoenix aware that > the Order will move Harry earlier than expected? I don't think so. > 8. Several things that happen later in the book are alluded to in > this chapter. When discussing the Imperiusing of Pius Thicknesse, > Yaxley suggests that Thicknesse can subjugate the other heads of > departments at the Ministry to bring down Minister Rufus Scrimgeour. > Was Scrimgeour killed by the Imperiused heads of the various > departments under Thicknesse's direction? I guess that a real DE would want to get information out of him before killing him--that allow more subtlety in the interrogation. But an Imperiused person whom Scrimgeour considered trustworthy would have been the person who first approached Scrimgeour. Otherwise he would have been on his guard. > 9. Who is Snape's informant? Who does Voldemort think it is? Is it > the same person? I can't think of anybody else than Dung. Portrait!DD told Snape to try confunding Mundungus, which suggests that Snape had already been in conversation with Dung. I'm not so sure that Dung is the person whom Snape told Voldemort about. > 10. Lucius and his family are clearly not happy with Voldemort's > presence. Is this because Lucius is still disgraced from his botched > mission at the Ministry and his use of the diary Horcrux? Does their > apparent discomfort at the situation foreshadow their lack of > involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts? Ummm, well Voldemort is taking advantage of the Malfoy's largesse, sleeping in the best room, torturing prisoners in the dungeon. Plus he's a constant threat to the Malfoy's lives, safety and peace of mind. Too bad for them that they are the richest of the DEs. > 11. Wormtail is described as sitting so low that his chair looks > unoccupied. Is this further sign of his physical deterioration as > seen in HBP? Is this because he would rather not be there? Is it > just that he is a small man? Or is it symbolic in some way? Out of sight, out of mind. > 12. The Malfoys do not make much eye contact with Voldemort. When > Voldemort looks at Snape, other Death Eaters look away. Are all of > the Death Eaters at the manor happy with Voldemort's return? They certainly don't want him to look intensely into their eyes. > 13. Snape looks comfortably into Voldemort's eyes when the other > Death Eaters turn away. We see an example of Voldemort's Legillimency > later in the book. How strong is Snape's Occlumency? He's fabulous at it. But every time he lets Voldemort look into his eyes he's taking a big risk. No one's perfect. This seems to be why DD refused to let him in on the Horcruxes. And even Harry once managed to break into Snape's mind. But then Voldemort is so sure of himself that he probably wouldn't think to try another way to get into Snape's mind. > 14. Why does Voldemort praise Bellatrix, then humiliate her? Because he's a nasty piece of work. That's a favorite method of abusive spouses. You praise the partner to encourage gratitude and happiness and you humiliate the partner to show who has the control. > 15. Where were the Lestrange brothers? Dunno. > 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape > tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not > save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she pleads > and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this the first time > he could not save someone? Was Charity Burbage someone Snape could > not save? Snape wasn't lying and he doesn't like watching people die. He could not save her. He shuts off his feelings by giving his occlumens look. > 17. Voldemort refers to "Mudbloods" as "thieves" of the Wizarding > World's "knowledge and magic." This charge is repeated later in the > book. Is it possible for a witch or wizard to have her or his magic > stolen? Is it possible to steal knowledge without leaving that > knowledge for others as well? On the surface this looks ridiculous. One is born magical; magic is part of one's nature if one is a witch or wizard. It's ontological, as they say in my trade. But it is possible to steal magical objects and it is possible to take away a person's magic. One can take away another's magic by applying soul sucking Dementors and by performing certain spells that makes a person forget him or herself. This is what Bellatrix does to the Longbottoms with the Cruciatus curse and what Gilderoy does regularly to his victims. But then the magic goes into nothing which is to say everything, to misquote McGonagall. Voldemort is using a devious rhetorical trick. He extends magic to categories that do not apply to magic (you cannot take another person's magic for yourself if you are non-magical)then discourses about those categories as if they existed. > 18. When Charity Burbage's body falls to the table, several Death > Eaters jump back in their chairs. Draco falls off his chair to the > floor. Is this symbolic of some Death Eaters not being fully behind > Voldemort's agenda? Or was it simply surprise? I'm not so sure that the DEs who didn't react were fully beind Voldemort's agenda either. They were just better at hiding themselves. > 19. Why are the Purebloods dwindling? Intermarriage, warfare, lack of breeding. > 20. Voldemort has no issues with "pruning" the family tree of > undesirables, even though they may be pure-blood or half-bloods. > Yet, he is displeased with Burbage's article and her assertion that > the dwindling of Pureblood families is a good thing. Voldemort > says, of Charity Burbage, "She would have us all mate with Muggles... > or, no doubt, werewolves..." He includes himself with the Purebloods > here. Does he think his Muggle father's family doesn't count? Or is > he actively enforcing the idea that he, too, is a Pureblood? Voldemort is refering to a specific tree--the Black family--and is saying that a branch needs pruning because otherwise it will destroy that specific tree. What he says to Bellatrix is not in conflict with what he has to say about the Burbage article. > 21. Why does Voldemort think that Lucius does not need his wand > anymore? Symbolic castration of course. But it's interesting that Voldemort humiliates Lucius in front of his own wife and child. For the past year Narcissa has been the head of the family and continues in that position. I loved the comparison of wand size! > 22. Do you think Voldemort is planning on dispensing with the > Malfoys eventually? Yes. And they know it. > 23. Voldemort invites Nagini to dine on the corpse of Charity > Burbage. What do you imagine the reactions of the others around the > table might be? This idea has been presented in the books before. > When do you think Nagini has disposed of the evidence before? Is > this part of her value to Voldemort, or is Voldemort giving his pet a > treat? Do you need to jiggle a corpse in front of Nagini to make it look alive? mz_annethrope From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 09:14:09 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:14:09 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176026 **huge snip** Steve wrote > Keep in mind, that while there are hints of Nagini's > size, she can't weigh 100 to 200 pounds or more > because Voldemort carries her around. Of course, > magic could somehow come into play there, but in > general, her size is contained by some reasonable > limits. > > For what it's worth. > > Steve/bboyminn > Doddie here: Who care's what Nagini weighs...Voldemort has little human left in him and I suppose he can enchant Nagini to weigh less even if only to him.. And come on now Steve(not saying this to be disrespectful just a colloquialism my dad would say in quite a mellow manner when I made an error in sports or when by brother bought his straight failure report cards! LOL)--However, this is Potterverse...if Hermione can enchant that little beaded purse(not one comment about the weight...we do know that Hermione can stuff it in her sock however replete with Phinneas Nigelus' portrait, and a tent with the contents of a small apartment/flat among the heaviest of all I'm sure was ALL of hermione's books!)..why can't Voldy enchant Nagini in the same way...(sad and sick, yet true--may be even the reason why the increased growth of Nagini(she is not a purse..and I get it, but a living being who can digest and we do have Ron's commentary that he thought Hagrid got upon the wrong side of an engorgement charm as a child..in GOF, and I believe many of us were surprised with Ron's reaction to Hagrid being a giant.) So we cannot rule out Nagini being engorged.. And there have been reportings of Anaconda's and Pythons in real life eating humans whole (and not just the smaller natives each time either..but those they were guiding who never believed *snicker*).. Nor are there Acromantulas in RL either..but there they are, "Hagrid's pets"..(if there are acromantulas..then why not some sort of magical snake? irregardless of enchantments Voldemort may do to said being?) Doddie, (who will not even delve into her pet sitting experience involving a monkey, coyote, 1/2 wolf, six trantula's, two pythons (120 lbs, 168 lbs respectively, and one 207 lb boa, eight scorpions, two grey parrots, one cocktail...other than to say, "that damn monkey" by the end of the weekend I have to say the Parrots did try to warn me!" Felt like I was in a pilot of the new Monkey Shines series. After said weekend I was no longer a vegan, always keep keys in my pocket, and never pet sat again.) From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Aug 22 11:21:48 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:21:48 -0000 Subject: Snape at Stand-up (was Re: Laughing All the Way to the Bank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176027 > zgirnius, who was in need of a reason to smile about Snape, which > writing this post supplied. Potioncat: I've always thought JKR gave Snape the best lines. In Spinner's End (HBP): "I had no idea, Wormtail, that you were craving more dangerous assignments," said Snape silkily. "That can easily be arranged. I shall speak to the Dark Lord--" "I can speak to him myself if I want to." "Of course you can," said Snape sneering. "But the meantime, bring us drinks." Silkily---another spider reference! From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Aug 22 11:47:56 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:47:56 -0000 Subject: Laughing All the Way to the Bank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176028 Carol wrote: > > BTW, I know this isn't exactly what Potioncat had in mind, but DH is > the most self-referential of the books, with Rita Skeeter's highly > anticipated biography of DD standing in for DH. It also contains > little references to the films (also seen in Slughorn's reference to > Ron as "Rupert" in HBP), such as Ron's complaint about Krum's "stupid > little beard." Potioncat: There are other places where JKR seems to be teasing the actors a bit. Both the scene in Seven Potters, where Harry wishes the Polyjuice! Harrys would be more modest, and the King's Cross scene where Harry is naked and wishes he had clothes seem to play on Dan's role in Equus. Not sure which came first, her writing the scenes or the play. Does Ron's comment about getting his Muggle driving license refer to Rupurt's movie of the same name? (Driving Lessons, maybe?) In an earlier book (which may have even been before the movies and not count) Ron says Snape looks like someone cancelled Christmas (a famous Rickman line.) And in a sort of reverse way, Slughorn gets a gramaphone after Lupin was given one in the movie. > > Carol, muddying the waters by bringing in her own reactions but still > grateful for humor of any kind as a relief from tension and terror in > this darkest of JKR's books Potioncat: JKR must have done it on purpose, or perhaps she was going through her own personal sort of gallows humor, but it seems to me that DH has more funny parts than the others. At least, I seemed to be laughing more in the beginning than I did in others. From keywestdaze at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 12:03:52 2007 From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christine Maupin) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 05:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Laughing All the Way to the Bank -- Naked Harry/Dan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <699255.54608.qm@web55012.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176029 Potioncat: >There are other places where JKR seems to be teasing the actors a bit. >Both the scene in Seven Potters, where Harry wishes the Polyjuice! >Harrys would be more modest, and the King's Cross scene where Harry >is naked and wishes he had clothes seem to play on Dan's role in >Equus. Not sure which came first, her writing the scenes or the play. While doing the interview circuit promoting the OOTP movie (but before the book came out), Dan told a story of JKR seeing Equus; afterwards she came backstage and said something like, "That's settled. You're going to be naked all through the last book." So, I laughed out loud when the bogus Harrys changed clothes, when Harry stripped down to his underwear to go after the sword, and when he woke up naked. Christy --------------------------------- Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 12:11:16 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:11:16 -0000 Subject: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176030 > >>Julie: > > If you applied this philosophy of writing off children > by age eleven and assuming there's no point in trying to > influence them or change them, then the real world would > be a very scary place. (Oh, wait...we do, and it is!-- > though on occasion there are those who don't write them > off, as with the true story of The Freedom Diaries...) > Betsy Hp: Wait, what? Where do you get that? Has no one on this list been to college? That's not a judgement call on people's intelligence, it's just... it's so classic that kids go off to college and get introduced to new ideas and take themselves in completely different directions than they'd ever imagined going. I've read several articles in the New Yorker lately on certain philosophers, scientists, artists who had one world view as children (the world view their parents taught them) and then left home and either at college or while traveling in a foreign culture or going to a big city, met up with a completely different world view, had their preconceptions shaken up, and went on to become geniuses in their field. It's so common as to almost be a cliche. And now suddenly we're supposed to think anything that suggests such a thing is possible is "unrealistic"? I also question this bizarre notion that societal changes can only happen slowly. Has no one heard of WWII? Did the Nazis just fade away? Or for goodness sake, the state of race relations in the USA. I mean, look at Condeleezza Rice. She was a child in Alabama, subject to all the segregation laws of the time. One of the little girls killed in the church bomb of '63 was a friend of hers. And now she's one of the most powerful people in the world. So why is that sort of story being written off as "unrealistic"? > >>Magpie: > > It reads to me like a happy ending, not an ambiguous one. > >>Alla: > It reads to me as happy ending for the characters, but with plenty > of room for change left in the society level. > Betsy Hp: Honestly, there's not anything I can see in the epilogue that points to "room for change". Mainly because Harry and co. don't see anything wrong with their world. Nora spoke of what needs to happen for societies to change, and one of the key things is for someone to look at the world they live in and a feel a massive swelling of discontent. (Heh. Sometimes that discontent will actually manifest *after* age eleven. Which is just crazy talk I know, but it happens, I swear! ) Harry and co. are the definition of content (OBHWF, after all). So if any changes *do* occur within the WW, they're not going to be a part of it. Well, they'll play a part I'm sure. They'll be the guys standing on the school steps trying to keep the "unworthy" children from entering. Betsy Hp (who rather prefers her books more uplifting, thanks) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 13:48:46 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:48:46 -0000 Subject: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176031 > > >>Julie: > > > > If you applied this philosophy of writing off children > > by age eleven and assuming there's no point in trying to > > influence them or change them, then the real world would > > be a very scary place. (Oh, wait...we do, and it is!-- > > though on occasion there are those who don't write them > > off, as with the true story of The Freedom Diaries...) > > > > Betsy Hp: > Wait, what? Where do you get that? Has no one on this list been to > college? That's not a judgement call on people's intelligence, it's > just... it's so classic that kids go off to college and get > introduced to new ideas and take themselves in completely different > directions than they'd ever imagined going. Alla: I had been to college and I had been to law school ( in the new country, new culture and all that). Of course I acquired all sort of new information growing up becoming adult, adjusting to new culture. But had my personality had **major shake up**, since maybe not age eleven, but since my teens? I really do not think so. I am not saying about small changes, obviously, you cannot stay exactly the same while teen and adult, you adjust your behaviour and all that, but I still believe in the same things I believed as a teenager, if that makes sense. Therefore I do not dispute the possibility that person **can** change as we witnessed on the examples of Snape, Regulus, Dumbledore, but I do dispute that person will **routinely** experience a major shake up of their personalities. Betsy Hp: >> I also question this bizarre notion that societal changes can only > happen slowly. Has no one heard of WWII? Did the Nazis just fade > away? Or for goodness sake, the state of race relations in the USA. Alla: In **your opinion** this notion is bizarre, in mine not at all. By the way, I do not remember saying that societal changes can only happen slowly, sometimes they do rather fast, BUT yes, I do consider slow motion to be more realistic. I will just say briefly about Natzis, since I do not have in depth picture, but will touch more on what I am familiar with. I see on the news that Natzis groups are still in **existance** in Germany these days. Sure, they are not on top, not in charge, but aren't they even part of the government now? ( I can be wrong, I apologise if I am, but I think couple years ago I saw on the news that natzi like group acquired some votes enough to get into the government - maybe I am confused). What I am trying to say is that I believe no matter how quickly government proclaims to change things, unless people change in their hearts, there would be always a possibility that changes on top will go away IMO. And I know that many many people In Germany feel a deep shame for the events of WW2 and that is certainly signifies to me the change from the bottom, BUT I absolutely disagree that Natzis faded away. IMO they are lurking in the background. Same thing in my former home country Ukraine. They proclaimed probably like ten years ago that there is no more state antisemitism. I will invite you to go on the street and ask people, if they still blame jews for their low income, for their miseries, for everything, everything, everything. Come and tell me what answer you will get. Somehow I can predict the answer now. That tells me that the moment goverment changes, it can all revert back, because usual people who did not change in their heart can get into the government and start implementing old policies. IMO of course. Of course some people did change, I hope, but I think it will take several several generations to make people understand that NO, jews are not to blame for their miseries, low income, etc. That is if there would be any jews left by then in Ukraine. So, in WW we know that Kingsley is the Minister of Magic and Harry in charge of the Aurors. No matter how many good intentions and good innovations they have to implement, till WW realises in its majority that purebloods are no better than muggleborns, that gobblins, elves, werewolves, etc need to be treated same way as human races, their success IMO will be short lived. Betsy Hp: > I mean, look at Condeleezza Rice. She was a child in Alabama, subject > to all the segregation laws of the time. One of the little girls > killed in the church bomb of '63 was a friend of hers. And now she's > one of the most powerful people in the world. So why is that sort of > story being written off as "unrealistic"? Alla: Nope again. This kind of story is not being written as unrealistic at all. This is exactly the kind of story that I find extremely realistic. Because with proclaimed changes some people do get a chance to change their life and I think again that the example of Teddy Lupin who JKR wanted to show is OKay now shows just that. I do not think he is being defined as the son of werewolf these days in Potterverse IMO of course. Betsy Hp: > Harry and co. are the definition of content (OBHWF, after all). So > if any changes *do* occur within the WW, they're not going to be a > part of it. Well, they'll play a part I'm sure. They'll be the guys > standing on the school steps trying to keep the "unworthy" children > from entering. Alla: We know that they did play a part and I am not sure where you find that they are content with what is happening in society. They are happy on the personal level, yes. > Betsy Hp (who rather prefers her books more uplifting, thanks) > Alla: Yes, I know. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Aug 22 14:34:06 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:34:06 -0000 Subject: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176032 > Alla: > > I do not think I am having it both ways. I am saying that I see > **small** signs of change, while saying that not showing **bigger** > signs of change sounds realistic enough to me, not even saying that > they are not possible. > > I do disagree with the lack of progress, yes, but am saying that > progress is going in baby steps. > > As to why Teddy might have wanted to hide it ? it is not like IMO > general public necessarily would like to watch the son of werewolf > with somebody, anybody.> Yes, I think WW was that bigoted to werewolves and their families. Magpie: To me this one just doesn't show anything, since we've never seen any sons of werewolves to begin with. Teddy seems like just a normal metamorphagus who didn't know his parents and didn't inherit his father's sensitivity about this stuff. Now, I agree things have probably gotten better for werewolves compared to canon because things had gotten worse during canon. Are werewolves accepted now? I find that hard to believe. Presumably the Umbridge-years are over and her crueler laws have been repealed, but I don't know enough about their families at the start of the series to know how they were viewed. Teddy didn't grow up with a werewolf in the family. Nothing about him makes me think there's been a big step forward in how people react to werewolves. My own reading is that Teddy's story is part of Harry's happy ending. Teddy is part of Harry's family, so he is shown happily being happy in the happiness of the train station. Harry's family is happy. Alla: > > And I totally think that Draco's curt nod IS a progress. When > exactly did he acknowledge Harry and his friends before without > screaming obscenities ( metaphorically) or throwing curses at them? Magpie: I see a definitely improvement in *Draco* himself, sure. Harry saved his life. (Heh--I of course could come up with two examples of Draco acknowleging Harry and his friends without screaming obscenities or throwing curses--the first two times they met!) He seems to have settled into a more acceptable Slytherin mode. I don't deny this conflict changing. Alla: > I would find Draco becoming **friends** with Trio for example, as > Lissyben suggested before to be extremely unrealistic and > saccharine. IMO of course. Seven years of animosity do not just go > away in my opinion and curt nod is the most I thought possible, you > know? Magpie: I wouldn't find it saccharine or unrealistic at all, actually, depending how it was done. Seven years of animosity certainly can change if the people have had 19 years and a big altering experience. They don't have to be friends, but sure I think you could hate somebody for 7 years starting when you were 11 and have a more normal relationship with them as an adult. I think Snape could have had a better relationship with the Marauders as well. I always took their inabilities to get over that relationship to be a bit strange on their part, especially Snape's. The idea that you spend your life stuck in the same relationships with people you knew in high school seems like one of the things I accept as a quirk of the series more than something that reflects real life. I noticed huge differences in the way high school people treated each other as a result of college in my own life. > Alla: > > Well, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you talking about > **complete** healing of the rift as ending that you would find more > appealing, more satisfying? > > If you are, then yes, it is pretty much reads to me as hearts and > flowers, meaning that everybody becomes friends, no? Magpie: No, I don't think everybody has to be friends, but a definite ending (pre-epilogue) where a real step has been made would have been fine-- and I think naturally led to more of a change 19 years later. (Some people are claiming this change anyway, saying that 19 years later the rivalry with Slytherin is just for fun anyway, like two rival ivy league schools. I don't see that.) It certainly wouldn't be outside the realism as presented in canon. Harry and Ron can't stand Hermione early in PS, then they fight a troll together and we're literally told that "some experiences" just make you friends--from that moment on they're all three joined at the hip. That's not particularly realistic from my experience, but it works for me in this canon. > Alla: > > I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine, who never goes > to Internet to read HP discussions, but is just obsessed as I am. > Oh, and I remember somebody mentioning "casual reader" recently ( > not you), so he is far from casual reader, he is let's put it this > way, very sophisticated reader. I think I mentioned his opinions > here once. > > I was discussing DH with him and mentioned Slytherin issue and told > him that while it does not majorly bother me, it is strange that one > quarter of the school is allowed to go to Slytherin. > > He looked at me as if I am crazy ( he does have a child by the way > to foresee questions, she is twelve now). He was like, are you > seriously telling me that you think that by the age of eleven you do > not find the character of the child to be completely formed? He was > like ? well, I do and no, I do not find it strange that Sorting hat > seems to know who is who at the age of eleven. After all, it is not > like school does that, Hat is magical, it knows. Magpie: Having a formed personality by age 11 does not mean you are who you will be at 11. The hat knows where someone belongs because in this unvierse that works--how come James Potter can be a bully at 15 and we're just told hey, people are jerks when they're 15? In this canon obviously it's that James was "always" a good guy underneath and his bullying doesn't show his soul the way it does with somebody like Draco (Likewise I think James "I think I'd leave if I was in Slytherin" means something different from Draco's "I think I'd leave if I was in Hufflepuff"). So in this universe yeah, I see how it works. But in real life? No, not at all. I've talked to people in fandom who identified with the Slytherins *because* they were like that as kids and were not anymore. Lots of people do change as they grow up-- maybe fundamentally their personality is the same, but it doesn't always have to manifest the same way. Draco seems to start the series making a point of enjoying others' suffering (JKR says in an interview he "shuts down" the better parts of himself, so that wasn't his whole personality). He doesn't seem that way when he gets older. In different circumstances different parts of the personality might come out. Certainly a person can learn different values. I don't seem to have all the same values as my parents do in ways I did when I was a kid. > Magpie: > > > I'm also suspicious of the "usual" epilogue idea since I don't > know > > exactly what epilogues refered to. It makes it seem like every > other > > fantasy or children's writer was writing pablum until JKR > introduced > > the idea of an ambiguous ending, when a) plenty of other writers > have > > had endings that allowed that evil could still return and b) I > don't > > know that JKR necessarily considers this ending ambiguous. Maybe > she > > just fixed all the problems she thought needed to be fixed. It > reads > > to me like a happy ending, not an ambiguous one. > > Alla: > > It reads to me as happy ending for the characters, but with plenty > of room for change left in the society level. Magpie: Sure, there's a lot of room for change--there was at the beginning as well. But the book is over, and that wasn't part of the story. A future change doesn't seem like something set up, specifically. After all, that epilogue is 19 years later, so obviously the events of the story didn't lead to the change much happening. Our heroes seem perfectly happy with the life they do have, which solves the problems they were trying to solve--they can raise their families and go to Hogwarts without anybody trying to kill Harry or his friends. It would, I agree, be unrealistic to suggest all prejudice was eradicated, if only because as humans I don't think we even know what this world would look like. Prejudice isn't something you just get rid of like a bad wizard. But just as I don't think it's that's simple, I don't think it's so simple as every society always being one bad leader away from Fascism, and I do think there are things that can be done in a society to address the problem and keep it in check. The fact that it's part of human nature doesn't mean there aren't real things to be done about it. If I were going to come up with what this universe says can be done about it, it seems like the answer is that the good people just need to be in charge to keep the bad people down. Alla: > > As to the endings, I was definitely talking about fantasy endings > only, there are of course plenty realistic endings in the non- > fantasy fiction books. > > But yes, I stand by the assertion that majority of fantasy endings > leave pretty much everything resolved and they lived happily ever > after, all problems in society done. Magpie: You're talking about two different things now. An ending being ambiguous is not, imo, the same thing as an ending where the characters are happy but the society still has some of its problems. The problems of the story in question are usually resolved--that's what stories do. The problem of HP is resolved by unambiguously killing Voldemort. Since Harry's happiness has always been the central problem, his being happy seems to solve the central story problem. A story that set out to solve the problem of a certain rift would solve that rift for a happy ending. Inequalities in the WW have always been an aside for Harry, something he notices when it interferes with his friends. Certainly in this story it would be unrealistic to solve all sorts of things I see as a problem without actually doing anything about them--if we'd seen House-Elves were freed, Slytherins were angels, all prejudice ended etc., that would be unrealistic, of course, because it wasn't earned. It also would be beside the point of what Harry was ever trying to do to begin with. The author would just be waving a wand. (Ironically, didn't JKR pretty much do that in interviews when she said the Trio just went in and reformed the entire Ministry after Hogwarts with their awesomeness?) But showing a change that was earned in the story wouldn't be a problem for me, because I'd see how it happened. Some of these changes that didn't happen *did* seem to be raised as actual story problems for me, which is why I expected they'd be addressed. It turned out they were more just world-bulding. (This is why if you naturally saw Slytherin as Harry's Shadow the ending seems like a failure even though it's obviously not presented as such.) I haven't read Mercedes Lackey so I don't know how she ends her books. I would not say that Tolkien's ending was ambiguous, but neither is JKR's. Voldemort is defeated as surely as Sauron and I didn't read Harry's "all was well" as ironic--Tolkien's ending is actually the far more bittersweet and less absolute: "I'm back." We're not talking about ambiguity but solving all the problems of the world, which Tolkien doesn't. The Ring is destroyed, which was the problem. That itself causes other things to be destroyed. The elves leave Middle Earth. And what about Frodo's ending--is that happy? He's never healed and can't reintegrate into his society ever again. Actually in general I'd say people tend to get much more mixed feelings about Tolkien in this way. His characters carry the scars and cares of fighting a war in ways JKR's characters don't, imo. I suspect Tolkien's own experiences in that regard come through. BetsyHP: I've read several articles in the New Yorker lately on certain philosophers, scientists, artists who had one world view as children (the world view their parents taught them) and then left home and either at college or while traveling in a foreign culture or going to a big city, met up with a completely different world view, had their preconceptions shaken up, and went on to become geniuses in their field. Magpie: I think we've been reading the same articles.:-) But yeah, I can even think of people I went to high school with and knew since they were 11 who had a complete turnaround in their thinking that way. One's personality not changing says very little about whether a person will seem the same to others. BetsyHP: Harry and co. are the definition of content (OBHWF, after all). Magpie: That's how it read to me--and interviews (not that they're canon) seem to indicate they're content with the world they've fixed to their liking as well as themselves. As I said above, the last sentence does not read as ironic to me--Harry's scar still isn't hurting him, so all is well. (It's a really well-chosen last sentence!) -m From jmoshier at prodigy.net Wed Aug 22 14:27:02 2007 From: jmoshier at prodigy.net (Juanita Moshier) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:27:02 -0000 Subject: I would have kept the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176033 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nirupama76" > Harry's plan to break the power of the Elder Wand has a > much higher probability of success, his career as an auror > notwithstanding. He cannot be defeated whilst using the Elder > Wand because he does not use and never intends to. Furthermore > he doesn't use Draco's hawthorn wand either. Harry's own holly > and phoenix feather wand was never involved in duels with the > Elder Wand. Even if he is defeated whilst weilding it, I don't > think it will affect the Elder Wand's allegiance. The power of > the Elder Wand is as good as broken. jmoshier: The impression that I had of the Elder Wand was that owning it was like being a famous gun fighter in a Western movie. Someone will challenge the owner constantly to prove that the challenger is better. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Aug 22 15:23:02 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:23:02 -0000 Subject: Laughing All the Way to the Bank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176034 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > So, has anyone else noticed places in any of the books where JKR > seems to be winking at her fans or laughing at herself? Jen: Here's one that cracked me up as a possible wink at fans (although Ron speculating about Moody was a really great one, lol): "But that's - I'm sorry, but that's completely ridiculous! How can I *possibly* prove it doesn't exist?...I mean, you could claim that *anything's* real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's *proved* it doesn't exist!" (chap. 21, p. 411, Am. ed.) Jen: At least, it reminded me of a few of my own speculative theories which came down to: 'well, it's not proven *wrong* yet.' ;) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 22 16:24:16 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:24:16 -0000 Subject: I would have kept the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176035 "Juanita Moshier" wrote: > The impression that I had of the Elder > Wand was that owning it was like being > a famous gun fighter in a Western movie. > Someone will challenge the owner constantly > to prove that the challenger is better. Yea but that's going to happen anyway. Even if he doesn't use it Harry is still Master of the Elder Wand and now thanks to his famous duel with Voldemort hundreds of people now know it. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From random832 at fastmail.us Wed Aug 22 16:24:40 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:24:40 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Laughing All the Way to the Bank In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1187799880.16083.1206729965@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176036 On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:23:02 -0000, "Jen Reese" > "But that's - I'm sorry, but that's completely ridiculous! How can I > *possibly* prove it doesn't exist?...I mean, you could claim that > *anything's* real if the only basis for believing in it is that > nobody's *proved* it doesn't exist!" (chap. 21, p. 411, Am. ed.) Eh... Hermione's incredulity about the various things Luna [and now Xenophilius] talks about has always struck me as a bit odd. I mean, we're talking about someone who on her eleventh birthday discovered magic is real. I'd expect at least a certain level of - to quote a 'Men in Black' tagline, a "What will you know tomorrow?" kind of effect. But despite her concept of the world presumably having been shattered once already, she doesn't seem to be able to accept even the possibility that there are more things in heaven and earth, so to speak, than are dreamt of in her philosophy. -- Random832 From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Aug 22 16:26:00 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:26:00 -0000 Subject: I would have kept the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176037 Niru now: > He is using his own holly and phoenix feather wand. > Harry's plan to break the power of the Elder Wand has a > much higher probability of success, his career as an auror > notwithstanding. He cannot be defeated whilst using the Elder > Wand because he does not use and never intends to. Furthermore > he doesn't use Draco's hawthorn wand either. Harry's own holly > and phoenix feather wand was never involved in duels with the > Elder Wand. Even if he is defeated whilst weilding it, I don't > think it will affect the Elder Wand's allegiance. The power of > the Elder Wand is as good as broken. Dana: I don't think this is a correct observation. Draco was not using the Elder Wand either when Harry defeated him. Still Harry became its rightful owner so I think Harry using his own wand does not eradicates the risk of being defeated and the Elder wand changing ownership. The only thing is that the one defeating Harry will not directly get access to the Elder Wand or know about it but he would nevertheless be its rightful owner and its power would then not be lost with Harry's death (neither natural or otherwise). Well I think we can probably conclude that you discovered another major plothole or at least the author getting confused by her own imagination LOL. JMHO Dana From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 16:34:57 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:34:57 -0000 Subject: Voldemort - 2 bodies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176038 > zanooda > but I think more people than just DD's confidants > (and name at least one, BTW :-)) Mike: LOL! You got me there. > zanooda > Remember the Lestranges/Crouch trial? Crouch Sr. says they believed > Longbottoms knew "the present whereabouts" of their "exiled master" > and were planning to restore him to power. No one in the courtroom > said: "What do you mean, exiled? He is dead and buried!" Mike: I believe the key phrase was **they believed**. Crouch later said that they had a "plan". When I read that scene, I note the vile disgust coming from Crouch and the rest of the Wizengamut (sp?). I sensed it wasn't just the despicable acts of torture, but that Bella and Co.'s whole effort was a futile gesture. That there was no reason to do it, that Voldemort wasn't "coming back" and that they tortured the Longbottoms for nothing. I thought there wasn't any questions like "What do you mean, exiled?", because it was assumed that that was Bella and Co.'s delusional belief, not something that a sane wizard would think a reasonable conviction. > zanooda > In GoF LV informs his DEs that he was in hiding because he "knew > that the Aurors were still abroad and searching for me". > Mike: I actually took this as more VoldeBluster. The grand delusionalist himself, believing that he was *so important* that no way would people not be "out there" looking for him. Well hogwash, besides the nutcase Bellatrix, none of his DEs seemed to give damn about finding him. As for the Aurors - I think Magical Law Enforcement was perfectly content for Voldedolt to stay wherever it was he was staying, as long as it wasn't in Britain and as long as he was impotent. I saw no indication in the story that MLE was out to get him. I don't have my books, but didn't Fudge tell us that Sirius was suppose to be the No. 2 guy and that they were concerned that he would take over now that Voldebutt was caput? In short, I think the GoF speech was filled with much self-aggrandizement, and this claim about being hunted was one of them. But I do agree with you, zanooda, there were more than DD's "inner circle" that figured Voldesnot wasn't finished. I think my earlier estimate was too small. Mike, with a wink and a nod at zanooda's knowledge of canon, I know that you know it back and forth :D From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 17:15:15 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:15:15 -0000 Subject: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176039 > >>Betsy Hp: > > ...it's so classic that kids go off to college and get > > introduced to new ideas and take themselves in completely > > different directions than they'd ever imagined going. > > > >>Alla: > I had been to college and I had been to law school ( in the new > country, new culture and all that). Of course I acquired all sort > of new information growing up becoming adult, adjusting to new > culture. > But had my personality had **major shake up**, since maybe not age > eleven, but since my teens? I really do not think so. > Betsy Hp: Ah, but this is the rub. I think that in this discussion there's a bit of cross-purpose talking going on. I'd say it comes down to "personality" versus "ideology". With "personality", to my mind, we're talking about how a person interacts with their world. Are they introverted, extroverted, bookish, dreamy, questioning, accepting, etc.? I suspect this is what your friend was talking about, with children being fixed, for the most part by age eleven. And for the most part, I'd agree. (I do think you can learn traits that aren't naturally yours. I'm fairly introverted, but I've trained myself to be pretty good at party small-talk and speaking in front of groups. But yes, I'm most comfortable curled up with a good book or with a small group of close friends, and that's not changed much over the years.) What you're saying, Alla (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that your "personality" didn't change despite all the culture-shock experienced. And I believe that's what your friend was talking about too. And that makes sense to me. But "ideology" is something quite different. That's more the belief system you work under. And, especially at age eleven, kids tend to do as their parents do. They belong to the same church, they parrot the same political beliefs. Heck, they probably have very similar cultural tastes (music, art, food, etc.). Certainly children will fall into their communities ideologies. The problem, IMO, is that with Slytherin house JKR has conflated personality with ideology. And by condemning one, she's condemned the other. And that's bigotry. It's the kind of thinking behind Pol Pot's persecution of "intellectuals", because in his mind people with that sort of personality are examples of a dangerous ideology. Obviously Slytherin house is gripped by a bad ideology. What I expected to see happen was a realization that this did not, in turn, condemn their personality, and that in fact by labeling their personalities as wrong the bad ideology was allowed to fester and grow. Instead I got a book that said (IMO, anyway), "Yeah, certain personalities are just bad". Which is not just crazy, it's dangerous, IMO. [Woeful aside: In a sense, I looked at the old Gryffindor/Slytherin fight as a really bad divorce where the Slytherin kids got told again and again "You're just like your mother with your art and your emotions, no good trash, mumble, mumble, now get me my beer!" So I was kind of expecting the good Gryffindor kid to say to his brother, "You're not as bad as Dad makes you sound. And sometimes it's not so good that I'm so much like him." You know, a family healing itself and becoming strong.] > >>Betsy Hp: > > I also question this bizarre notion that societal changes can > > only happen slowly. > > > >>Alla: > In **your opinion** this notion is bizarre, in mine not at all. By > the way, I do not remember saying that societal changes can only > happen slowly, sometimes they do rather fast, BUT yes, I do > consider slow motion to be more realistic. Betsy Hp: I wasn't addressing you specifically, more anyone making the "unrealistic" argument against overt change occurring quickly. And honestly, I think history backs me up that change doesn't always occur slowly. So I feel like I'm backed by fact here. (Though I'll admit there's a philosophical side that can be tussled with. ) > >>Alla: > I will just say briefly about Natzis, since I do not have in depth > picture, but will touch more on what I am familiar with. I see on > the news that Natzis groups are still in **existance** in Germany > these days. Sure, they are not on top, not in charge, but aren't > they even part of the government now? > Betsy Hp: No. They couldn't be because the Nazi party is illegal in Germany. Just as segragation and slavery is illegal in the USA. Are there still racists around? Sure. But they're not codified by the government. And that's a big change. One that occurred quickly, with a stroke of a pen. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > Harry and co. are the definition of content (OBHWF, after all). > > > >>Alla: > We know that they did play a part and I am not sure where you find > that they are content with what is happening in society. They are > happy on the personal level, yes. Betsy Hp: For Harry and co., it's all personal, IMO. Which is why they didn't worry about changing things. They're in a good spot as the blessed elect, so why rock their societies boat? Betsy Hp (running out the door) From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 17:17:53 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:17:53 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176040 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > This reminded me of one of my favorite of Pippin's posts, so I'll link > to it here, and bring up the bit that Yahoo's (mercifully new and > improved--I remember when I couldn't have done this, and relied on > memory and hazy lists of post numbers) search function found me: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/100012 > > > Re: JKR's dismay at favourite fansite Slytherins --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "textualsphinx2003" wrote: >>JKR's website has a 'fansite of the month' slot where she praises various HP fansites she likes. The funny thing is, both the ones she'd admired so far are moderated and/or created by people how identify as Slytherins. She confesses herself disturbed - indeed 'shocked' by this. She likes these site-moderators - even calls them 'my kind of people' for their thoroughness - but claims not to understand why they are interested in Slytherin House. lizzyben: That quote is sort of unintentionally funny to me. JKR thought they were "her kind of people" & "her kind of people" can't be Slytherins! It's like 11-year-old James Potter telling Sirius, "Slytherin? Blimey, I thought you were alright!" Yeah, had I read that quote back in 2004, I'd have had a better idea where things were heading for this series. Pippin: > > I'm not sure it's a question of JKR not understanding fans, or > > seeing only black-and-white versus seeing something good about > > Slytherin. Fan fiction and fanon often treat Slytherin House as not > > only redeemable but already redeemed or simply misunderstood. Racism > > gets downgraded (upgraded?) to pardonable ethnic pride, and Dark > > Arts fanatics are merely people who look good in black. lizzyben: Well, where I think JKR went wrong is in underestimating how much readers tend to root for the underdog, & resist being told what to think. The books keep beating us over the head w/they're so awful, horrible!, troll-like!, don't be like them!, don't even talk to them!, they're no good!, etc. Around about four books of this, people are going to start resisting that simplicity & thinking hey, maybe there's more complexity than that (nope). Plus, readers start noticing the blatant double standards - why is it bad for Harry to get hurt, but cool & funny when Draco is? Why is it bad when Snape shows favoritism, but cool when Dumbledore does it? etc. And the dynamics are all wrong - Slytherins are supposed to be the bulling powerful bad guy, but you can't help noticing that they lose every encounter w/Gryffindors. Slytherins are the underdogs of Hogwarts society; they're at the bottom of the barrel of the social hierarchy. They're hated & despised by three-fourths of the other students, and the Headmaster himself. Draco is characterized as a bully, but Harry really has all the power in all their interactions, pwns Draco easily, & leaves Draco looking humiliated & embarrassed every time. IMO, readers are going to naturally feel some sympathy for these kids that get beat up all the time, hated by everyone, looked down on & kicked around by more powerful groups. The text wants us to think that the Slytherins are the ones in power, but the real power dynamics are actually the opposite. Personally, I *love* that readers adopted Snape & Draco, identified themselves as Slytherins, searched for any stray clue that maybe there's something positive to be found in this group of people. Even before DH, I think people felt uncomfortable on some level w/some of the underlying themes of the series. IMO, it shows a profound resistance to the black & white, Manichean worldview that JKR is selling. Nora: > (By the way, Pippin, cheers on pegging so many of the issues so early) lizzyben: But Pippin has also posted about some of the positive qualities of Slytherin as the "water" house - how Snape & Fleur are healers, and Slytherins can be gracious & compassionate, 12 Grimmauld Place is warm & hospitable once restored, how even Pansy might have had her classmates' interests at heart - are we not supposed to do that? Nora: > At least from my reading of the books, the problem is that Slytherin > House, particularly as epitomized by Draco and his crew--although > Draco does turn at least partially away from it, to his credit--is not > simply a difference of opinion, it's an ideology out to get rid of > everything that doesn't live up to its own standards, and thus > excludes itself from being considerable as one choice equal among > many. But then we get into classic problems of liberalism, etc. etc. etc. lizzyben: Yeah, but it's actually not an ideology to get rid of, but an ideology to maintain & sort new children into its' indoctrination each year. If we're going w/Slytherin=evil racism, there's NO reason that ideology should still be supported by the school. If we're going w/Slytherin as "water" house, an essential part of the whole, there's NO way that they should be segregated & stigmatized the way that they are. JKR wants to have it both ways. Nora: > I would have liked to have seen more in canon of the reckoning that > needed to finally come on with Slytherin ideology, but JKR chose to > focus more on the personal story than the larger social one, alas. > > -Nora sighs with nostalgia for those far-off listie days > lizzyben: Perhaps leading to the conclusion that "all is well" in the wizarding world? That's a pretty final note for a supposedly ambiguous ending. lizzyben From lawandmommyhood at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 17:13:52 2007 From: lawandmommyhood at yahoo.com (lawandmommyhood) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:13:52 -0000 Subject: Voldemort - 2 bodies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176041 Ok, back to the dead Voldy body left in Godric's Hollow. If only "vapor" escaped, how in the name of Dumbledore did Voldy get back his wand -- the one with the twin cores? He has it by the time he gets his "body" in GOF. Did the rat (Wormtail) bring it? Did I miss that somewhere? lawandmommyhood From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 17:45:14 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:45:14 -0000 Subject: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176042 Betsy Hp: > What you're saying, Alla (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that > your "personality" didn't change despite all the culture-shock > experienced. And I believe that's what your friend was talking about > too. And that makes sense to me. > > But "ideology" is something quite different. That's more the belief > system you work under. Alla: Not hundred percent sure what my friend was talking about, since he was talking in general about child's character, will have to ask him, but I was definitely talking about both, including my belief system. To put it shortly : I adopted a fairly liberal system of beliefs, when I was a child and teen. Nothing happened to make me drastically change it. I sort of grew more cynical with age as to the changing the world in general, doing politics with clean hands and admiring politicians, but all together, I still believe in what I did. For example - I was always, always against death penalty since early teens, I still am. My reasons for that changed a bit, but the underlying belief is there. I was always for the freedom of speech, since I was greedilys wallowing the forbidden books during soviet era as a young teen, I still am. So, NO by and large I did not change my ideological beliefs. >>Alla: > I will just say briefly about Natzis, since I do not have in depth > picture, but will touch more on what I am familiar with. I see on > the news that Natzis groups are still in **existance** in Germany > these days. Sure, they are not on top, not in charge, but aren't > they even part of the government now? > Betsy Hp: No. They couldn't be because the Nazi party is illegal in Germany. Just as segragation and slavery is illegal in the USA. Are there still racists around? Sure. But they're not codified by the government. And that's a big change. One that occurred quickly, with a stroke of a pen. Alla: First, the party I saw on the news was not calling themselves Nazi, but from listening to their program, I thought it was same crap, just under different name. But as I said, I will have to do more research to speak more confidently. Secondly, my point was that if **government** only makes changes, unsupported by population, it can be short lived, the change I mean. That is why I love Dumbledore refusing power position ( well now we know that he was also afraid that he would be tempted by it), but I also thought that he chose to work for longer term changes ? changing the hearts of his students. IMO of course. Betsy Hp: > The problem, IMO, is that with Slytherin house JKR has conflated > personality with ideology. And by condemning one, she's condemned the > other. And that's bigotry. It's the kind of thinking behind Pol > Pot's persecution of "intellectuals", because in his mind people with > that sort of personality are examples of a dangerous ideology. Alla: I refuse to enter into debate whether it is bigotry or not, because this is something I am sure we will not change each other minds on, but I do want to ask - where in the books do you see JKR condemning Slytherin's personalities? Condemning their ideology, their belief system - **totally**, but where do you see condemning personalities? Thanks, Alla From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 22 18:25:48 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:25:48 -0000 Subject: Said creature under the bench.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176043 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "doddiemoemoe" wrote: > > > So now I'm confused, only because it hasn't been bought up yet.. > > JKR says that Harry is no longer a parseltongue... > > What's right? Harry no longer being a parsel tongue because of said > Being under the bench...or Voldie's last piece of soul hence his > last bit is in nagini? > Ken: It is a confusing matter and I suspect the author is a bit confused herself. But now that canon is complete I tend to go with canon as much as possible. Canon may not explain everything and we still have the problems of unreliable narrators and characters who are simply mistaken so some things might remain ambiguous forever. Harry had a bit of Voldemort's soul inside him. That made him a Horcrux and it gave him some of Voledmort's abilities and it gave him a remarkable window into Voldemort's mind that he apparently could neither block nor even detect. There are parts of that prophecy that I still cannot rectify with events but Voldemort certainly did mark Harry as his equal. That soul bit was extremely helpful to Harry in DH for the window it gave him into Voldemort's activities and thoughts. Voldemort literally gave him the power to defeat him and it was a power that he knew not of. In the train station Dumbledore says that Harry's little bit of soul was destroyed. It is gone and with it went Harry's portion of Voldemort's power. Since it is gone Harry cannot speak Parseltongue for example. When it went Harry also loses his window into Voldemort's mind. That is why in the final confrontation Harry is not reading Voldemort's thoughts to determine what he will do next and when. Instead Harry relies on a very old trick that normal humans practice: he messes with his opponent's mind to goad him into acting in the way Harry wants him to and to control the moment when he takes that action. Harry's verbal taunts cause Voldemort to lose control and telegraph his intentions. Harry is like the cat who knows where the mouse will appear, where it will go, and when it will appear. The mouse never really had a chance. The way I read it there was no creature under the bench, no Dumbledore, no naked Harry, and no King's Cross station. Dumbledore tells Harry that it is both real and all in his head. If it is in his head then it is not physically real. It is real in the sense that it is a true experience. Harry was communicating with the real Dumbldore who has passed on to the next life. He isn't talking with an echo or an uncanny analog, he is talking with Dumbldore as we have always known Dumbldore. The things that Dumbldore tells him are the truth, or his well educated guess when he admits he is guessing. The things that Harry "sees" are true representations of the next life. Physical defects are healed. Spiritual defects are not. There is no creature and no bench. What Harry sees is akin to what Ebenezer Scrooge saw when the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come showed him where he was heading, and also like what he saw of Jacob Marley's state in the afterlife. The primary purpose of this life is to take care for your eternal soul. Voldemort has taken no care for his soul, he considers spiritual matters beneath him. If Voldemort dies as he was at that moment then he will become that pitiful creature that Harry saw when he passes to the next life. That creature is not the soul bit that was destroyed, that creature is all that will be left of Voldemort to carry on in the next life unless he repents of his deeds before he dies. Harry is shown this so that he will offer Voldemort a way out in his final moments on Earth. Voldemort refused, of course, and chose his own doom. He who considered himself the greatest living humans will become the least of all creatures in the afterlife. The first shall be last and the last shall be first. Neither Harry nor Dumbledore are being cruel when they fail to try to help the creature. Dumbledore does not rule the Universe, he does not set the rules. What you see is an echo, at least, of Christian theology. You have a continuous opportunity to alter the future state of your soul from birth until the moment you die. Once you die, you are what you are for all eternity. There is no help for the creature under the bench either in Harry's vision or in the afterlife that Voldemort faces. He is beyond help. Help could only have come to him while he walked the Earth. He had many opportunities to rectify his soul and he spurned them all. Lily and James (at least) showed him in their moments of death the love and compassion that he needed. He would not listen and now he is lost forever. Harry was given a choice to pass on or to return to this life. He chose to return and one of the things that he did upon his return is to hold out a hand of salvation, one last time, to his mortal and detestable enemy. Voldemort was given a chance very few will get and still he refused it. That simple gesture by Harry was one of the most noble acts you will ever see. It's a different thread really but for me the Harry that came to the understanding and compassion it took to try to rescue Voldemort from his own horrific future has moved way beyond being an auror. In terms of magical skill Voldemort reached a plane that no other achieved and as Harry says the few others who might have, knew better than. Harry reached an equal height, but in the dimension of spirituality. I don't know what that makes him in the WW but in the Muggle world he bids fair to be a Saint. Ken From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Aug 22 19:26:57 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:26:57 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Laughing All the Way to the Bank Message-ID: <6954501.1187810817319.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176044 Potioncat: >JKR must have done it on purpose, or perhaps she was going through >her own personal sort of gallows humor, but it seems to me that DH >has more funny parts than the others. At least, I seemed to be >laughing more in the beginning than I did in others. I suspect that the first case of this happening was in one of the Tarzan novels (I am too lazy to look up exactly which one it was at the moment). The story involved a Tarzan lookalike who is starring in a Tarzan movie being filmed in Africa, who gets amnesia and thinks he's the real thing. The story ends with Tarzan going to Hollywood, and trying out for a part in a Tarzan movie, and being rejected because he's the wrong type. Bart From urghiggi at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 19:28:56 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:28:56 -0000 Subject: Said creature under the bench.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176045 Ken: > Voldemort was given a chance very few will get and > still he refused it. That simple gesture by Harry was one of the most > noble acts you will ever see. It's a different thread really but for > me the Harry that came to the understanding and compassion it took to > try to rescue Voldemort from his own horrific future has moved way > beyond being an auror. In terms of magical skill Voldemort reached a > plane that no other achieved and as Harry says the few others who > might have, knew better than. Harry reached an equal height, but in > the dimension of spirituality. I don't know what that makes him in the > WW but in the Muggle world he bids fair to be a Saint. > Julie H: I only quoted a bit of your excellent post, which to me appears to be a fair analysis of JKR's theological mindset with this scene and what follows. According to canon the "baby" is indeed what LV will be if LV does not repent. It's not the LV soul bit that was in Harry. The seed of this scene is planted way back where Hermione reports what she's learned about Horcrux construction/destruction/remedies, where she introduces the idea that remorse could be a fix for Horcrux damage. Harry, JKR's point of view character, seems pretty insistent that remorse could help LV's soul. LV is of course staggered by this idea and ultimately rejects it. Better to risk eternal torment than be forced to show earthly humility. Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven. ( I know JKR's read Dante, I'm expecting her grasp of Milton is equally good...) Now, a good bit of the debate here hinges on whether this was a fair thing for Harry (and by extension JKR) to expect LV to be to accomplish. It's been pointed out that the character is a sociopath and can't possibly be expected to respond to the good/bad, moral/immoral paradigm presented here. The deck's so stacked against him; he's not a complex character by any means, and completely unimaginative from a metaphysical standpoint. (And of course as a storyteller JKR would face significant ramifications if she actually depicted repentance on LV's part. It'd be the repentant Darth Vader all over again, minus the paternal aspects. I don't think she was ever going to 'go' there, which also argues for the idea that remorse was never a real possibility.) However, I think canon tries to insist that, at the very least, within the world of the story, it WAS a possibility. LV's refusal makes his death seem even more inevitable (and of course, as Ken pointed out, has the corollary effect of making Harry look merciful). Theologically, it's a coherent scenario, though some are not going to like the theological message being presented by any means. In this theology there really is evil that needs to be fought and that ultimately puts itself beyond redemption. It's not that nuanced a view -- certainly not a view that the wicked and the good aspects of a person (or a society!) all need to get themselves integrated, for instance. But it's coherent, as far as it goes. Whether we find this good, or repellent, depends a lot on what we bring to the books as readers, IMO.... Julie H, chicago From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 22 19:32:44 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:32:44 -0000 Subject: Said creature under the bench.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176046 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > Neither Harry nor Dumbledore are being cruel when they fail to try to > help the creature. Dumbledore does not rule the Universe, he does not > set the rules. What you see is an echo, at least, of Christian > theology. You have a continuous opportunity to alter the future state > of your soul from birth until the moment you die. Once you die, you > are what you are for all eternity. > Ken Geoff: I was reminded of the parable which Jesus uses in Luke's gospel chapter 16 drawing on Jewish traditions. It talks of a rich man and a beggar who lay at his gate, hungry and covered with sores. They both die and the rich man himself in hell and looks up to see Lazarus, the beggar far away at the side of Abraham and asks that Lazarus might bring water to him. Abraham replies that he has had good things in his life while Lazarus is being comforted now. The interesting crunch line - which chimes with the scene at Kings Cross - is that he then goes on to say: 'And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed so that those who want to go from here to you cannot nor can anyone cross over from there to us." I personally believe that the creature at the railway station is the future Voldemort and that no one can help him because he alone brought this on himself and no one can "cross over". From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 19:34:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:34:31 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176047 Carol: Thanks, Ceridwen, for a great summary and interesting questions! 1. Snape and Yaxley "raised their left arms in a kind of salute." Is this a reference to World War II and the likening of the Death Eaters to the Nazis, in Deathly Hallows? Carol: I thought of the ancient Romans and "Ave, Caesar. Morituri te salutant," actually, also the fact that it was the "sinister" left hand (apologies to any lefties on the list) that was being raised. (I associate the Nazis more with Grindelwald than with Voldemort, and "ethnic cleansing" is by no means restricted a thing of the past. The Muslims of Iraq are doing it among themselves as I type.) I also thought of Snape's toast to the Dark Lord in HBP and the trappings of loyalty that he has to put on (assuming DDM!Snape, and I confess that my doubts were raised in spite of my inclinations by the chapter), the lies he has to tell to pass as Voldemort's man among the DEs. > > 2. Saluting the gate with their left arms makes them able to pass through the wrought iron gate. Is this a tacit confirmation that there was indeed a blocking spell on the tower in HBP which only allowed Death Eaters to enter? Carol: I didn't think of it that way since I never doubted that a similar (not identical) spell had been placed in HBP. That spell, placed by a DE who was already on the stairs, put up an invisible barrier that allowed no one without a Dark Mark to pass through it. Draco was already on the tower, and though I believe he does have a Dark Mark, the spell doesn't provide evidence one way or another. Fenrir Greyback, whom we learn later can't pass through the Malfoys' gate without permission as Snape and Yaxley can because he doesn't have a Dark Mark that can turn the gate to smoke, was already on the stairs. At any rate, I'm not sure that JKR was trying to confirm that a blocking spell had been placed on the tower. That was pretty much a given to me. This seems to be a slightly different spell, a hint, possibly, that the Malfoy Manor is now DE headquarters. I doubt it was there before LV started harassing and intimidating the Malfoys. > 3. The peacock at Malfoy Manor is mentioned at least twice in the book. What is its significance? Carol: That's a good question. Clearly, it has symbolic significance. Yaxley gives us part of the answer--peacocks symbolizing wealth. Yaxley's jealousy is obvious, and I liked Snape's silence, refusing to join in the gibes against his former protector (Prefect!Lucius). Peacocks could serve as, erm, watchbirds, with their loud, raucous cry, and the peacock is notably silent here. The eyes in the tail (the Argus myth) also symbolize watchfulness. But white? Purity and innocence and/or a Christian symbol? Very out of place at the Malfoys'. I like the idea someone suggested of the peacock as somehow suggesting the "pure" blood of the Malfoys, all of whom are pale and blond (in contrast to the black hair of most members of the Black family). It's obviously symbolic, but symbols, unlike allegory, are subject to interpretation. As for what JKR *intended*, I have no clue. > 4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think might be the person hanging unconscious above the table? Carol: I don't think I thought about it consciously. I was just dreading what was going to happen. If I'd thought about it, I'd probably have assumed that it was one of the people we knew to be missing, Ollivander or Florean Fortescue. I don't mind that it was someone whose existence we were aware of but whose name we didn't know. It's probably less of a shock to have the first on-page death be that of a minor character. It lets us know what we're in for. This is no longer a children's book and Voldie is no longer a cartoon villain. > > 5. Only one person already in the room looks up at the unconscious revolving body above the table: Draco Malfoy. Once the body is resuscitated, he no longer looks at her. Why? Carol: I think he reacts exactly as a very young, novice DE who isn't evil and had expected something very different when he joined the DEs would react. He's simultaneously mesmerized and terrified by the revolving body. It's not clear whether he recognizes her while she's unconscious. The older DEs know not to look at her, to shut down their curiosity and compassion and fear. He hasn't reached that point. He's not a hardened criminal (or a brilliant Occlumens like Snape). Once she becomes conscious and he recognizes her, or fears that she'll recognize him, he's too ashamed of being there, having her hanging helplessly above his family's table, and too afraid of what will happen to look at her. He doesn't want to be there but he can't do anything about it, so he figuratively closes his eyes to her plight. > 6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat of honor at his right hand. Is this because Snape is his "right-hand man"? Or is Voldemort "keeping his friends close, and his enemies closer"? Carol: Voldie has no friends, and he believes that Snape is loyal, as we see later in the book. Snape is also far and away the most intelligent and gifted of the DEs. Clearly, he's being honored by being offered the symbolic position of "right-hand man." And, clearly, Yaxley is jealous, coveting that honor for himself. I wonder, BTW, whether Snape had received that honor previously since Draco thinks he's taking his father's place ("Prince's Tale") and the DEs on the tower are afraid of him. At any rate, Voldemort may not fully trust anyone, but he comes close to trusting Snape. (The Elder Wand has not yet come into the story, nor does he even make the mistaken connection between it and Snape until much later.) So, yes. Snape is his right-hand man, and he's making a point of saying so with this symbolic gesture. And note that Snape is not subjected to ridicule or criticism like the Malfoys and Bellatrix or snubbed like Yaxley. > 7. Yaxley's information is different from Snape's. Is anyone in the Ministry who is not a member of the Order of the Phoenix aware that the Order will move Harry earlier than expected? Carol: Yaxley's information is incorrect, the result of a rumor planted by whoever Confunded Dawlish. Mad-eye tells Harry, "We've leaked a fake trail to the Ministry. They think you're not leaving until the thirtieth" (DH Am. ed. 48). Snape, unlike Yaxley, is aware of the fake trail: "My source told me that there are plans to lay a false trail. This must be it. No doubt a Confundus Charm has been placed upon Dawlish" (4). Unless we count Snape as being outside the Order, no one who is not a member of the Order knows about the plan to move Harry early. Snape's source has to be an Order member. See question 9, below. > > 8. Several things that happen later in the book are alluded to in this chapter. When discussing the Imperiusing of Pius Thicknesse, Yaxley suggests that Thicknesse can subjugate the other heads of departments at the Ministry to bring down Minister Rufus Scrimgeour. Was Scrimgeour killed by the Imperiused heads of the various departments under Thicknesse's direction? Carol: Considering that when we next see Yaxley (the "brutal-faced" DE who witnessed DD's death on the tower), he's wearing the embroidered robes of a high Ministry official (243). On the next page, we learn that he's now Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement (244)--Pius Thicknesse's job (5) before he becomes the puppet Minister of Magic. I suspect that Yaxley, craving Voldemort's approval, tortured and killed Scrimgeour and asked for Thicknesse's old job as his reward. > > 9. Who is Snape's informant? Who does Voldemort think it is? Is it the same person? Carol: It has to be Mundungus Fletcher, the only Order member still on speaking terms with Snape. (See my post 175988 for details of my theory.) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175988 As Zgirnius pointed out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175965 Mundungus is among the prisoners released from Azkaban, along with the DEs and Stan Shunpike. It seems likely that Snape suggested that he might be useful as an informant. As to why he would still speak to Snape, perhaps no one bothered to tell him that Snape "murdered" Dumbledore. He certainly didn't hear it from Harry. Snape has to have a source, and as far as I can see, it has to be Mundungus. And on this point, it would be easy for Snape to tell the truth to LV. Not only is Mundungus a plausible source, but Snape could actually allow LV to see those meetings via Legilimency (concealing the key point through Occlumency, of course). > 10. Lucius and his family are clearly not happy with Voldemort's presence. Is this because Lucius is still disgraced from his botched mission at the Ministry and his use of the diary Horcrux? Does their apparent discomfort at the situation foreshadow their lack of involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts? Carol: Yes and no. They've been further disgraced by Draco's failure to murder Dumbledore (likely, he's still alive only because of Snape's pointing out that Draco's actions made the "murder" possible). LV is also quite genuinely furious about the "happy event" in the Black family, the "canker" infesting their family tree through Tonks' marriage to Lupin. The Malfoys' discomfort reflects various fears and feelings and perhaps foreshadows but does not guarantee their nonparticipation in the Battle of Hogwarts. Lucius is certainly afraid for his and his family's lives, humbled and disgraced, but his views on pure-blood supremacy and power have not changed one iota, as we see when he's ready to turn Harry and his friends over to LV to get back into LV's good graces. LV has, in my view, made a serious mistake by robbing him of his wand and alienating the Malfoys, further compounded later when he confines them to their house and then kills everyone in sight, with the Malfoys barely escaping with their lives. Narcissa, too, still holds the old views, and coldly considers turning Harry over to LV, but her concern for her husband and her love of Draco take precedence over the pure-blood agenda or loyalty to LV (who, as usual, discounts the power of a mother's love). Draco is another matter. The "glory" he anticipated as LV's loyal servant has not materialized. Instead, he sees the DEs for what they are: a gang of terrorists controlled by a megalomaniac. Like Prefect!Lupin on a larger scale, he disapproves of what he sees but is afraid to act. He is in over his head, sickened by the cruelty but afraid for himself and his family. Whether he now questions the pure-blood supremacy ethic is unclear, but, IMO, he's not on his way to becoming a second Lucius. > 11. Wormtail is described as sitting so low that his chair looks unoccupied. Is this further sign of his physical deterioration as seen in HBP? Is this because he would rather not be there? Is it just that he is a small man? Or is it symbolic in some way? Carol: Wormtail has been treated with contempt since he ceased to be LV's sole means of support, sent to be a servant to the "loyal" Snape at Spinner's End (HBP Am. ed. 23) and now an errand boy to LV and, in his absence, the Malfoys. He performs the lowliest tasks, those that a house-elf would be assigned if the Malfoys still had one. Whether he's more hunchbacked than he was in HBP (probably a cringing posture but possibly also the result of LV's cruelty before sending him to Snape) is not clear, but certainly, "Voldemort's most cowardly servant" is sitting as low as possible in his chair, trying to be invisible. The smallness and the crouching are symbolic of his insignificance. LV doesn't kill him because he can still be useful in small ways. The cursed silver hand will take care of him if his loyalty ever wavers. > > 12. The Malfoys do not make much eye contact with Voldemort. When Voldemort looks at Snape, other Death Eaters look away. Are all of the Death Eaters at the manor happy with Voldemort's return? Carol: IMO, they avoid eye contact because they've felt what it's like to be examined by LV's Legilimency. Probably they also want to appear respectful rather than meeting his eyes as they would an equal's. As being happy to be there, the Malfoys are in their own house but are unhappy with the treatment they're receiving. Bellatrix is delighted and honored to be in her adored hero's presence. Yaxley is striving for the Dark Lord's favor and a high place in the new regime. The Carrows, whom we hear cackling and making little wisecracks in the background are happy to see the Dark Lord ascending (they end up with "teaching" positions at Hogwarts. Dolohov, who clasps Yaxley on the back when he hears that Yaxley has Imperiused thicknesse, is no doubt thrilled to be out of Azkaban and to have the opportunity to murder and torture with impunity. No other DEs are named (or identifiable through speech and behavior patterns), but it seems likely that the freed Azkaban prisoners other than the scapegoated Lucius (e.g., Mulciber and Travers) are quite happy to be there and on their way to power. Like Yaxley, they're probably looking forward to high positions in the infiltrated Ministry. What we're seeing in this chapter is the seeds of Voldemort's regime, his priorities before Harry's wand attacking him of its own accord changes everything. We also see what he would have been like if Harry had been killed. (I don't think he'd have murdered his own minions if his Horcruxes hadn't been destroyed.) LV's priorities are, IMO, 1) his own immortality, 2) power for himself, dispensed at will to his deserving servants and as easily taken away, 3) the pure-blood agenda. Harry Potter interferes with all of them, particularly the first, and once his wand attacks LV, nothing matters except his death. And when he learns about the Elder Wand, he thinks he has the means not only to destroy Harry but to become invincible. The pure-blood agenda can wait till he has the wand. And we see that it's become important again when he makes his speech about the new regime, with everyone Sorted into Slytherin and so forth. (At that point, of course, he still has minions.) > > 13. Snape looks comfortably into Voldemort's eyes when the other Death Eaters turn away. We see an example of Voldemort's Legillimency later in the book. How strong is Snape's Occlumency? Carol: Considering that LV can, in Snape's words, "delve into the minds of [his] victims" as if the victim's mind were a Pensieve (as we see LV do to Gregorovitch later in DH), Snape's ability to "shut down those feelings and memories that contradict the lie, and so utter falsehoods in his presence without detection" (OoP Am. ed. 531) is nothing short of phenomenal. His ability to remain calm, to shut down the fear of detection, is as much a part of his more-than-superb Occlumency as giving LV "what appears to be valuable information while withholding the essentials," as DD puts it (DH 684). Snape modifies the memory to conceal the part that contradicts the lie *and* shuts down his emotions, a feat that enables him to "hoodwink . . . the greatest Legilimens the world has ever seen" (HBP Am. ed. 36). The only possible conclusion is that Severus Snape is the greatest Occlumens the world has ever seen. > > 14. Why does Voldemort praise Bellatrix, then humiliate her? He's manipulating her, knowing that she craves his approval. At this point, before the failed attempt to kill Harry Potter, LV is taking his pure-blood agenda seriously, as his treatment of Charity Burbage and his reasons for torturing and killing her demonstrate. He wants the werewolf and his wife dead, and he knows that Bellatrix, his most fanatical supporter, will take his order to trim her family tree as a sacred obligation. She has already tried to kill Tonks at the DoM. She has an even stronger motive now. And we see when Tonks and Ron return from the Polyjuiced Potter excursion that she's taking her mission seriously. > > 15. Where were the Lestrange brothers? Carol: I assume that they were at the table, silently following Bellatrix's lead as usual. Rodolphus, we know, took part in the chase of the Poly-juiced Potters and was injured, how badly is unclear but there's no further mention of him so it must have been very badly. Rabastan, the forgotten DE, is not mentioned at all but is probably one of the masked DEs seen elsewhere in the book. He doesn't seem to be a talker or a thinker. It's interesting that Bellatrix pays no attention to her newly freed husband and doesn't even seem to be living with him. (They were estranged for some thirteen years in Azkaban and then Rodolphus was arrested again a few months later; not much of a marriage, especially given Bellatrix's adoration of LV.) Although the Lestranges (Rodolphus and Bellatrix, at least--I'm not sure about Rabby) share a vault at Gringotts, Bellatrix seems to consider the Malfoy Manor her family home. "It is an honor to have you here in our family's house" (9). Lucius has to remind her that it's his house in "Malfoy Manor" (460). Strange. I can only assume that she's been staying with the Malfoys since her husband's arrest, hiding there from the authorities after the DoM disaster, and has forgotten that the Malfoys (Lucius and Narcissa), not the Black sisters (*Bella* and Narcissa, Andromeda the "Blood Traitor" not being included) or the Lestranges (Bella and Rodolphus, Rabastan not being included), own the house. > > 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she pleads and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this the first time he could not save someone? Was Charity Burbage someone Snape could not save? Carol: Snape was not lying. We see him attempt to save DD in "the Prince's Tale" and we know that he saves both Katie Bell and Draco in HBP. since his words to DD--"Lately, only those whom I could not save"--occur before the Katie and Draco incidents, I can only assume that Healer!Snape has saved other lives off-page. But in this instance, there's nothing he can do. Any emotion he shows will blow his cover; an attempt to save Charity will only get him killed and make it impossible to do what DD has asked him to do, protect the students at Hogwarts and get the message to Harry when the snake is magically protected. He would save her if he could but he can't. He can only use Occlumency to shut down his emotions and keep his cover. In any case, he could not have saved her from an Avada Kedavra. His specialty is healing (or slowing) Dark Curses like the ones on the ring and locket and the one he invented himself, Sectumsempra. Clearly, she's not the first person he could not save. He must have watched many people die, but as of HBP and before, perhaps SS/PS and before, he will not watch a person die if he can save them. And so he thwarts Quirrell, conjures stretchers in PoA, saves Katie off-page and Draco on-page in HBP, tries to save DD from the ring curse, objects to DD's "pig-to-the-slaughter" treatment of Harry, and saves Lupin at the risk of exposure after having been told by DD to play his part convincingly. Re va32's suggestion that Snape may have played some part in her capture, not only is there no canon to support that speculation, her begging Severus to help her indicates that he did not. "Severus, please" must have pained him terribly in the part of his mind that he was suppressing. Maybe the gesture of saving Lupin somehow made up for his inability to save Charity in his own mind. > > 17. Voldemort refers to "Mudbloods" as "thieves" of the Wizarding World's "knowledge and magic." This charge is repeated later in the book. Is it possible for a witch or wizard to have her or his magic stolen? Is it possible to steal knowledge without leaving that knowledge for others as well? Carol: On the one hand, it's an obvious lie concocted to give a pseudo-legitimacy to the persecution of Muggle-borns. On the other, it's possible for one wizard to reduce another to helplessness simply by depriving the witch or wizard of his wand. The Muggle-borns in the Ministry are as helpless as Muggles; they can't even Apparate without a wand. Harry's reaction to his broken wand illustrates the same thing. Without a wand, particularly a wand that empathizes with him (as the blackthorn wand doesn't, later in the story), he has only luck and perhaps a bit of accidental magic. He might as well be a Muggle--except tha, of course, a Muggle could not use a wand even if he or she read every book on magical theory in the Hogwarts library. (The stealing knowledge lie seems to be echoed by the Goblins' idea that Wizards who pay for goblin-made objects are "stealing" them if they pass them on to the next generation. In this respect, IMO, the goblins are in the wrong, whatever other wrongs Wizards may have committed against them.) > > 18. When Charity Burbage's body falls to the table, several Death Eaters jump back in their chairs. Draco falls off his chair to the floor. Is this symbolic of some Death Eaters not being fully behind Voldemort's agenda? Or was it simply surprise? Carol: I think it's shock and horror on Draco's part; surprise on the part of the others (perhaps the less hardened and dedicated, perhape not). However, the DEs who speak, other than the Malfoys, seem to be perfectly supportive of Voldemort's agenda. Yaxley and the Carrows benefit from it. Later, we see Travers and Selwyn (Umbridge's relative) in "The Tale of the Three Brothers" and Travers again in "Gringotts" perfectly contented to be DEs with some influence at the Ministry. So, aside from DDM!Snape and the humiliated Malfoys, I don't see anyone whose support for LV has wavered. Even Wormtail (aadmitteldyl not present when the body falls) is still alive, indicating that he's not feeling any mercy or compassion for LV's victims, only pity for his pathetic little self. > > 19. Why are the Purebloods dwindling? In addition to the points already made repeatedly on this list, the pure-bloods (other than the Weasleys) seem to have a deplorable habit of producing only one or two children per marriage. And, judging from the Slytherins JKR describes, perhaps there aren't many attractive Slytherin marriage partners left. (Draco and Pansy seem to be the only boyfriend and girlfriend in the House, and the affection appears to be all on Pansy's side.) Some of them (Regulus) don't live long enough to marry; others (Sirius) seem to have no interest in marriage. (I know. Azkaban interrupted his life.) A few (Andromeda Black; Eileen Prince) marry Muggle-borns or Muggles. The DE lifestyle doesn't seem to promote a desire for marriage. Yaxley isn't married, as he informs the reader in "Magic Is Might," IIRC); we don't see anything of Crabbe Sr.'s and Goyle Sr.'s wives (or of them, for that matter). Nott's wife died while Theo was a child. The Carrows, a brother and sister, clearly aren't interested in marriage. I'd say that unless they go abroad to, say, Bulgaria, looking for pure-blood wives, they're well on their way to dying out. (Maybe that's why Half-bloods like Snape are tolerated and the presence of presumably dead Muggles in their bloodline ignored. If no pure-blood is available and you have to reproduce to keep from dying out, the next best thing to their way of thinking is a Half-Blood, who at least can prove that he didn't "steal" his magic from a witch or wizard.) > > 20. Voldemort has no issues with "pruning" the family tree of undesirables, even though they may be pure-blood or half-bloods. Yet, he is displeased with Burbage's article and her assertion that the dwindling of Pureblood families is a good thing. Voldemort says, of Charity Burbage, "She would have us all mate with Muggles... or, no doubt, werewolves..." He includes himself with the Purebloods here. Does he think his Muggle father's family doesn't count? Or is he actively enforcing the idea that he, too, is a Pureblood? Carol: I'm not sure whether the DEs know that he's a Half-Blood. Bellatrix, at least, is in denial. Most of the DEs appear to support the Pure-blood agenda in any case. LV himself has set the example by "pruning" his family tree. It's clear that he's not just using this agenda; he really believes in it and he wants Lupin and Tonks dead. Charity Burbage's "crime" is worthy of capital punishment. Snape should find himself a pure-blood wife "worthy" of him (his status as Half-blood, matching LV's own, is apparently acceptable as long as the Muggle parent is dead). LV's hatred of Muggles is very real, and it seems to extend to Muggle-borns, whom he views as Muggles (cf. his reference to Lily as "your Muggle mother"). We can't expect logic from LV. He's long since lost his humanity and I don't know if he ever had a capacity for rational thought. Planning crimes, yes. Putting two and two together or anticipating the consequences of his actions? Apparently not. > > 21. Why does Voldemort think that Lucius does not need his wand anymore? Carol: Of course, Lucius *needs* his wand. He can't be a wizard without it. I suppose LV means that he won't be sending Lucius on any more important missions, not even the expedition to capture Harry Potter and murder his protectors. Also, of course, it's a symbolic castration, as others have pointed out (there's a lot of phallic imagery in these books, considering that they're ostensibly intended for children, notably the Trolls comparing the size of their clubs in OoP). On a non-Freudian level, he's reduced to the status of a Muggle, and, as Bella says in "Malfoy Manor," he loses his authority when he loses his wand (460). Byt the time we get to "the Elder Wand," the rich and proud Lucius Malfoy is reduced to the errand-boy status of Wormtail. (If LV hadn't abused and punished him, Lucius would probably have remained loyal, or, rather, as loyal as a slippery, OFH wizard who likes to run things his own way through power and influence could be expected to be. He certainly wants to get back in LV's good graces later. As it is, LV slit his own throat, particularly with regard to Narcissa.) > > 22. Do you think Voldemort is planning on dispensing with the Malfoys eventually? Carol: Probably. He seems to dispose of people who are no longer useful to him, even if they remain loyal. Judging by his willingness to murder the seemingly loyal and undoubtedly brilliant Snape over a wand, and from his murdering everyone in sight over a stolen Horcrux, I'd say that the Malfoys are very lucky to be alive and together at the end of the book (minus Bella, fortunately for everyone). > > 23. Voldemort invites Nagini to dine on the corpse of Charity Burbage. What do you imagine the reactions of the others around the table might be? This idea has been presented in the books before. When do you think Nagini has disposed of the evidence before? Is this part of her value to Voldemort, or is Voldemort giving his pet a treat? Carol: Even a DE can be shocked and horrified by seeing a gigantic snake swallowing a corpse, but I have a feeling that some of them were slightly less shocked when Nagini disposed of Mad-Eye a few days later. (My unprovable theory: Umbridge's DE relative Selwyn, who appears at least twice in the book, provided her with the undigestible magical eye.) LV's "dear Nagini" was promised Wormtail in Gof, and when Wormtail was reprieved, was promised Harry Potter. We see her circling the graveyard in anticipation. Almost certainly, she disposed of the inconvenient evidence of Bertha Jorkins's and Frank Bryce's bodies (both disappeared without a trace, as Charity Burbage does). Probably, she accounts for Florean Fortescue's disappearance, as well. LV is simultaneously performing a service and being rewarded as LV's pet and familiar and Horcrux, who shares a bit of his mangled soul. And, of course, feeding a corpse to a huge snake who obeys Voldemort almost as an extension of himself is an effective way of keeping his DEs in line. Wormtail, for example, has already been threatened with being Nagini's dinner. Better to abjectedly obey the Dark Lord's every wish than to share the fate of Bertha and Frank and Charity--at least in Wormtail's view. Carol, sad that Nagini killed Snape but glad for his sake and Harry's that she didn't get to eat him From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Aug 22 19:50:36 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:50:36 -0000 Subject: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176048 > Betsy Hp: > No. They couldn't be because the Nazi party is illegal in Germany. > Just as segragation and slavery is illegal in the USA. Are there > still racists around? Sure. But they're not codified by the > government. And that's a big change. One that occurred quickly, > with a stroke of a pen. Hickengruendler: As a German, I want to add something to this, because it's not quite as simple as that. The NSDAP (National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), which was the party Hitler was a member of, is indeed illegal. However, there are still a few parties, which have basically the same ideology (broadly speaking, and considering, that we have now 60 years later), but have another name, and they are allowed. The German government has tried to make a few of these parties illegal as well, but they have some pretty good lawyers on their side, and as long as you can't prove them doing anything illegal, it's hardly possible to forbid them. But, they are indeed not part of the German government. You need to have at least 5% of the votes to get into the "Bundestag", and they have far less. They are members of one or two "Landtagen" ("Landtage" being the represantives of the German Bundesl?nder, which are a bit similar to the different States in the USA), but only in the opposition, not in the government. None of the major German parties would even dare to co-operate with them. And to bring this back on-topic: I tend to agree with Alla, that social changes normally do happen slowly. One can break with the old rules and make more laws (for example regarding the house-elves), but it is impossible making people change their values over night. I find the ending of arry Potter regarding that point a bit two-sided. On the one hand, I would have liked to see some of the changes made and what happened to the House-Elves. On the other hand, I do see what point JKR is trying to make, in telling us that Kingsley had been announced temporary Minister for Magic. Because what is needed for changes to happen, is in most cases the right person in a position of power. And there is enough in the books to suggest that Kingsley might very well be that person, and JKR's answers in the web chat seem to suggest that as well. I still would have loved a few more definitive answers, especially considering, that the last chapter did take place two decades later, even though I also can see, that it would be artistically difficult to fit in. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Aug 22 18:58:08 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:58:08 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero References: Message-ID: <017301c7e4ee$611e8d10$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 176049 Alla: > And I totally think that Draco's curt nod IS a progress. When > exactly did he acknowledge Harry and his friends before without > screaming obscenities ( metaphorically) or throwing curses at them? Magpie: I see a definitely improvement in *Draco* himself, sure. Harry saved his life. (Heh--I of course could come up with two examples of Draco acknowleging Harry and his friends without screaming obscenities or throwing curses--the first two times they met!) He seems to have settled into a more acceptable Slytherin mode. I don't deny this conflict changing. Shelley: As I think about Draco, I don't know if his curt nod is progress or not. Yes, he's grown up and learned not to get in people's faces to taunt them, but couldn't that simply be the product of "growing up?" So, it's progress in that sense, but I am not sure at all that it's true progress of the soul or a change of heart. I took that nod to mean that Draco grew up to be just like his father- a man who was prominent and for the most part, knew how to behave in public so that he came off as a respectable man. Lucius knew how to carry himself, and to present a good "public image", to guard whatever inner feelings of hatred and dislike he had for someone. Lucius, to me, is a true politician, carefully crafting his words and actions when in the public eye to always come off for the better. Once he was caught brawling with Arthur, but didn't he have a purpose for it- to slip the diary into Weasley child's things undetected? Other than that, we see him play the role of "prim and proper." Draco's nod to me indicated that he had grown up to be just like Daddy, and knew how to play the role when in the public eye as a man of importance. We can assume that he might have an ounce of gratitude towards Harry who saved his life, but we aren't told that at all. We just have a polite, but curt, nod in a public setting, an acklowdgement of eye contact. Even at times we have seen Lucius Malfoy publicly acknowledge Arthur Weasley in a fairly civil manner when they were both surrounded by other people, and we know how those two felt about one another. This scene takes place in a public train station, and so I see Draco acting merely as a mature adult would, instead of the brat that kids can often be in their younger years. Alla: > I would find Draco becoming **friends** with Trio for example, as > Lissyben suggested before to be extremely unrealistic and > saccharine. IMO of course. Seven years of animosity do not just go > away in my opinion and curt nod is the most I thought possible, you > know? Shelley: I have to agree with this. Clearly, there would have to be something in-between, a change of heart in Draco caused by the saving of his life, or even something else (like suddenly seeing that wanting to be a Death Eater was a really BAD choice!) for them all to just end up as friends. And changes of heart of major characters are things that doesn't seem to be in Rowling's writing style. Regret, yes, but major changes in character, no, unless you count the glimpse of Dudley's last response to Harry. He is the closest we get to a real change of heart. Some may argue it for Snape (death eater to DDM-Snape), but I have strong doubts about him too, as I see too many selfish motives for that change to be considered genuine. I think the same reason that Snape and Harry would never be friends is the same distance that Draco and Harry will always feel towards one another, except maybe softened by time if Draco matures some more. But buddy-buddy friends, I highly doubt if they would get there in a lifetime. A curt nod is about the best Harry can hope for. From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 20:01:01 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:01:01 -0000 Subject: Said creature under the bench.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176050 > Ken: > In the train station Dumbledore says that Harry's little bit of soul > was destroyed. That is why in the final confrontation Harry is not reading > Voldemort's thoughts to determine what he will do next and when. > Instead Harry relies on a very old trick that normal humans practice: > he messes with his opponent's mind to goad him into acting in the way > Harry wants him to and to control the moment when he takes that > action. Harry's verbal taunts cause Voldemort to lose control and > telegraph his intentions. Harry is like the cat who knows where the > mouse will appear, where it will go, and when it will appear. The > mouse never really had a chance. > > Harry was given a choice to pass on or to return to this life. He > chose to return and one of the things that he did upon his return is > to hold out a hand of salvation, one last time, to his mortal and > detestable enemy. Voldemort was given a chance very few will get and > still he refused it. That simple gesture by Harry was one of the most > noble acts you will ever see. It's a different thread really but for > me the Harry that came to the understanding and compassion it took to > try to rescue Voldemort from his own horrific future has moved way > beyond being an auror. In terms of magical skill Voldemort reached a > plane that no other achieved and as Harry says the few others who > might have, knew better than. Harry reached an equal height, but in > the dimension of spirituality. I don't know what that makes him in the > WW but in the Muggle world he bids fair to be a Saint. Annemehr: It seems to me you are trying to have it both ways. What *was* Harry trying to do in the Great Hall, goad Voldemort or rescue him? When I read Harry's words in that scene from Voldemort's point of view, there is no way I can see that LV could possibly understand what Harry is talking about, let alone consider it as the better option. Try for some remorse! I've seen what you'll become! What in heaven's name is Voldemort supposed to make of that? Does that sound like the voice of reconciliation? Harry sounds more like Bre'er Rabbit: "Whatever you do, don't throw me in the brambles!" "Whatever you do, repent!" I don't know whether Harry, in following years, believes he did his best to help that "creature under the bench," but if it was a real attempt, it was worse than useless. Not that I seriously think Harry had any real ability in that regard; probably the only one we know of who had any chance of helping Volemort was Luna. Ken: > > He would not listen and now he is lost forever. Annemehr: Yes, some Xian theology has it that you only need hear the Word, and act on it i.e. repent and accept your salvation. Then again, many see something more like Calvinism and predestination here, so that there was nothing anyone, *even LV,* could possibly have done. Still, I keep going back to the HBP pensieve memory in the orphanage and seeing how Tom Riddle always was devoid of the empathy needed for remorse. Psychopathy, and how. JKR made him so evil that he had no good qualities whatever -- and thus no frame of reference for choosing between good and evil, even supposing he had any choice. At this level, he ceases to be evil and becomes merely another victim of evil circumstance (and judging by the eternity presaged for him, the most pitiable of the victims). Even JKR seems to have had an inkling of this when she made her interview comment that Snape was in some ways *more culpable* than LV because Snape had been loved by someone. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 3.htm The Tom Riddle I saw was no more capable of feeling empathy and remorse than of conceiving of the fifth dimension, and it seems awfully hard to say he'd *earned* eternal misery for himself for failing to. Annemehr From rvink7 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 22 20:10:26 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:10:26 -0000 Subject: Voldemort/Re: Ending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176051 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > >> Betsy Hp: > No. They couldn't be because the Nazi party is illegal in Germany. > Just as segragation and slavery is illegal in the USA. Are there > still racists around? Sure. But they're not codified by the > government. And that's a big change. One that occurred quickly, > with a stroke of a pen. > > Alla: > > First, the party I saw on the news was not calling themselves Nazi, > but from listening to their program, I thought it was same crap, just > under different name. But as I said, I will have to do more research > to speak more confidently. > Renee: There is a neo-nazi party in Germany, the NPD, which is exactly as bad as you think it is. But AFAIK it's not represented in the German parliament, let alone in the government, and at the moment people are trying to get it banned. The German government consist of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats. * * * And now, I hope someone can answer a rather burning question for me. JKR has said somewhere that she was trying to depict Voldemort as a psychopath. Now I always thought psychopathy was a condition that is both incurable and untreatable. Psychopaths lack empathy and are incapable of feeling remorse, among other things. Why, then, does JKR have Harry suggest that Voldemort try for some remorse? Is this as nonsensical as I think it is? Has she failed to take a serious look at what psychopathy actually is. Or do I have the wrong ideas about it? Renee From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 22 20:08:55 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:08:55 -0000 Subject: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176052 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Magpie: > > Well, yeah, an uncertain note is fine. I just don't think we get to > > have it both ways, with any significant steps towards healing a > > major rift being unrealistic yet also saying we've got signs of steps > > because Teddy Lupin doesn't have to hide his love for Victoire (btw, > > I have no idea why this is a step--why would Teddy not have done > > that?) and Draco Malfoy nods to the Trio (but still couldn't have > > any more positive relationship with them). I might have preferred > > more progress, but I'm not protesting the lack of it here, just noting > > what I see and don't see. > Alla: > I do not think I am having it both ways. I am saying that I see > **small** signs of change, while saying that not showing **bigger** > signs of change sounds realistic enough to me, not even saying that > they are not possible. > > I do disagree with the lack of progress, yes, but am saying that > progress is going in baby steps. > > As to why Teddy might have wanted to hide it ? it is not like IMO > general public necessarily would like to watch the son of werewolf > with somebody, anybody. > > Yes, I think WW was that bigoted to werewolves and their families. > And I totally think that Draco's curt nod IS a progress. When > exactly did he acknowledge Harry and his friends before without > screaming obscenities ( metaphorically) or throwing curses at them? > > So, yeah, I believe it is a sign of change, but gradual one. IMO of > course. > > I would find Draco becoming **friends** with Trio for example, as > Lissyben suggested before to be extremely unrealistic and > saccharine. IMO of course. Seven years of animosity do not just go > away in my opinion and curt nod is the most I thought possible, you > know? > It reads to me as happy ending for the characters, but with plenty > of room for change left in the society level. Geoff: I was thinking about this on the society level and was struck by a real world parallel. The epilogue is set 19 years after the final showdown. It is just 18 years since the amazing events of 1989 when we saw the Communist bloc start to topple down like a house of cards. There was rejoicing and euphoria. We expected that the world would enter a new era. Well, we did but if, 18 years on, you look around, expecially at many of the former Communist countries, there are still serious problems which are slowly, oh so slowly, being tackled. Countries like Romania are still in dire straits with their economies and in many countries, supporters of the old regime lurk just under the surface, like unregenerate Death Eaters, hoping to try to snatch back some of the power and prestige of the "good old days". If that is the case in the real world, why should it be so different in the Wizarding World? As Alla, among others has pointed out, things have moved, judging by the scene at the railway station in the epilogue. That curt nod from Draco, for instance, is several miles away from the days of "Half-Blood Prince" and, although I had hoped for a stronger rapprochement, it is some little way in the right direction. I have to admit that that my thinking has swung a little way towards suspecting that Harry's view was manipulated - whether unconsciously or deliberately - in the events leading to the notorious handshake scene in PS. But maybe that is water under the bridge. From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Wed Aug 22 20:21:11 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:21:11 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176053 On 2007, Aug 22, , at 11:34, justcarol67 wrote: >> 5. Only one person already in the room looks up at the unconscious > revolving body above the table: Draco Malfoy. Once the body is > resuscitated, he no longer looks at her. Why? > > Carol: > I think he reacts exactly as a very young, novice DE who isn't evil > and had expected something very different when he joined the DEs would > react. He's simultaneously mesmerized and terrified by the revolving > body. It's not clear whether he recognizes her while she's > unconscious. The older DEs know not to look at her, to shut down their > curiosity and compassion and fear. He hasn't reached that point. He's > not a hardened criminal (or a brilliant Occlumens like Snape). Once > she becomes conscious and he recognizes her, or fears that she'll > recognize him, he's too ashamed of being there, having her hanging > helplessly above his family's table, and too afraid of what will > happen to look at her. He doesn't want to be there but he can't do > anything about it, so he figuratively closes his eyes to her plight. I think it is interesting how it in some ways parallels what might have happened to Regulus Black. He joined the Death Eaters when he was very young and was required to do something that he couldn't stand. His house elf was abused (although Draco never seemed concerned about his house elf that we know of). Both Regulus and Draco seem to have had a change of attitude. The difference seems to be that Draco and his parents are caught up to deeply and too closely to Voldemort to extricate themselves. Draco never had much courage - look at his trip into the forbidden forest. Regulus, on the other hand, had a brother in Gryffindor, so possibly might also have had more courage than Draco. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From margdean at erols.com Wed Aug 22 20:24:40 2007 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:24:40 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort/Re: Ending References: Message-ID: <46CC9B88.56C720AF@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176054 Renee wrote: > And now, I hope someone can answer a rather burning question for me. > JKR has said somewhere that she was trying to depict Voldemort as a > psychopath. Now I always thought psychopathy was a condition that is > both incurable and untreatable. Psychopaths lack empathy and are > incapable of feeling remorse, among other things. Why, then, does JKR > have Harry suggest that Voldemort try for some remorse? Is this as > nonsensical as I think it is? Has she failed to take a serious look at > what psychopathy actually is. Or do I have the wrong ideas about it? Just because you and I and JKR know this about psychopathy (and that it applies to Voldemort) doesn't necessarily mean that Harry, or even Dumbledore, knows it. If the wizarding world treats something like suturing a wound as strange and exotic, I don't expect them to have much awareness of clinical psychology. So yes, in a way it's nonsensical, but not from Harry's POV. --Margaret Dean From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 20:27:25 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:27:25 -0000 Subject: Voldemort - 2 bodies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176055 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > I don't have my books, but didn't Fudge tell us that Sirius was > suppose to be the No. 2 guy and that they were concerned that he > would take over now that Voldebutt was caput? zanooda: It goes like this, Mike: Rosmerta asks if Black broke out of Azkaban "to rejoin You-Know-Who", and Fudge answers that it is "his eventual plan". He also adds: "You-Know-Who alone and friendless is one thing ... but give him back his most devoted servant, and I shudder to think how quickly he'll rise again ..." (PoA p.209). Also, in HBP, when the Prime Minister asks if LV is still alive, Fudge answers that "Dumbledore says he is", but "we've never found him". This means they did look for him, although I don't know what for - they couldn't do anything to him, IMO. BTW, I agree with what you wrote in your earlier post - I could never understand why LV was hiding abroad, and why he needed to hide at all. He was invisible, I suppose (he looked like some dark cloud in the movie, but I think it was just for the movie) :-). > lawandmommyhood wrote: > Ok, back to the dead Voldy body left in Godric's Hollow. If > only "vapor" escaped, how in the name of Dumbledore did Voldy get > back his wand -- the one with the twin cores? > He has it by the time he gets his "body" in GOF. Did the rat > (Wormtail) bring it? Did I miss that somewhere? zanooda: No, you didn't miss this in the books, because it was not explained there, but JKR said in the live chat that it was indeed Wormtail who "salvaged" the wand, so you guessed correctly :-) From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 20:44:31 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:44:31 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176056 Bruce: > Someone--I'm not sure--suggested that Hugo was after the French > writer VICTOR Hugo (an allusion to Krum) and Rose was to Mme. > ROSEmerta. Juli: Do you think Ron would accept to name his child after Hermione's ex-boyfriend? Or that Hermione would allow Ron to name her daughter as Ron's teenager crush? I don't see it happening, not in a million years. Juli From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Aug 22 20:41:42 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:41:42 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I would have kept the Elder Wand Message-ID: <24545711.1187815302442.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176057 Dana: >I don't think this is a correct observation. Draco was not using the >Elder Wand either when Harry defeated him. Still Harry became its >rightful owner so I think Harry using his own wand does not eradicates >the risk of being defeated and the Elder wand changing ownership. >The only thing is that the one defeating Harry will not directly get >access to the Elder Wand or know about it but he would nevertheless be >its rightful owner and its power would then not be lost with Harry's >death (neither natural or otherwise). Well I think we can probably >conclude that you discovered another major plothole or at least the >author getting confused by her own imagination LOL. Bart: If I were Harry, I would try to: A) Destroy the Elder Wand. If that is impossible, then I would B) Find something heavy. Enchant it so it can't be Accio'd. Attach it to the Elder Wand. Go to the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Drop it. If that were impossible, I'd C) Find some Muggle deep space probe, get the wand into it, and not worry about it until wizards get to Pluto. Bart From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 20:51:47 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:51:47 -0000 Subject: Teddy Lupin In-Reply-To: <860587.37949.qm@web33013.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176058 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, eric jobe wrote: > > With Tonks and Lupin dying and leaving Teddy without parents (who > were killed by voldy and the de's), plus Teddy being part werewolf > (?) and having unusual hair like his mom (just as Harry had spiked- > up hair like his dad), does anyone else wonder if this is a set-up > or at least a possible opening for JK to write a new series with > Teddy as the new "boy who lived?" It just seemed too parallel and > was not addressed in the book. Too big of a loose end to not do > something with it. Juli: There IS a parallel, Jo said so. She wanted a *new* Harry, sort of. He wanted a new orphan, a way to show how vicious LV was. But Teddy, unlike Harry, grew up with his loving grandmother, he's got a cool godfather who he visits often. He may be an orphan, but he doesn't in no way a childhood like Harry did. He is loved and cherished. It is also said somewhere in DH that he isn't werewolf-ish at all, he's a pure wizard, a methamophing wizard. As for writting a new Potteresque novel about Teddy, perhaps, you never know, but personally I don't think so. Teddy isn't The Boy Who Lived, his life was never in 'danger', neither the DEs or Voldemort were out to get him. He's probably just another cool kid in the Wizarding world with extremely cool powers. Juli From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 20:41:05 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:41:05 -0000 Subject: deathly hallows and the wands. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176059 Juli earlier At this point Harry is the master of three wands: his own Phoenix and, Draco's Hawthron wand, adn the Elder Wand. Zanoda: I wonder what happened to the Hawthorn wand. Did Harry return it to Draco? Would it work for Draco after it was taken from him by force and used by Harry? Juli now: I think the wand 'legally' belongs to Harry now. Its alliegance is to Harry. Draco could use it, but it would always be a borrowed wand. I guess Draco bought a new wand. Eric: I still don't get when Harry got the Elder wand. He got the Hawthorn from Draco at Malfoy Manner and at the end Harry says that he got the Elder wand from Draco, but how and when did it actually happen? Juli now: By taking the Hawthron wand from Draco, he took all of Draco's wand, which included the Elder Wand, even if he had never touched it. Harry also had never touched the wand and still it was his. Juli From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Aug 22 20:45:36 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:45:36 -0000 Subject: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: <017301c7e4ee$611e8d10$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176060 > Magpie: > I see a definitely improvement in *Draco* himself, sure. Harry saved > his life. (Heh--I of course could come up with two examples of Draco > acknowleging Harry and his friends without screaming obscenities or > throwing curses--the first two times they met!) He seems to have > settled into a more acceptable Slytherin mode. I don't deny this > conflict changing. > > > Shelley: > As I think about Draco, I don't know if his curt nod is progress or not. > Yes, he's grown up and learned not to get in people's faces to taunt them, > but couldn't that simply be the product of "growing up?" So, it's progress > in that sense, but I am not sure at all that it's true progress of the soul > or a change of heart. I took that nod to mean that Draco grew up to be just > like his father- a man who was prominent and for the most part, knew how to > behave in public so that he came off as a respectable man. Lucius knew how > to carry himself, and to present a good "public image", to guard whatever > inner feelings of hatred and dislike he had for someone. Lucius, to me, is a > true politician, carefully crafting his words and actions when in the public > eye to always come off for the better. Once he was caught brawling with > Arthur, but didn't he have a purpose for it- to slip the diary into Weasley > child's things undetected? Other than that, we see him play the role of > "prim and proper." Draco's nod to me indicated that he had grown up to be > just like Daddy, and knew how to play the role when in the public eye as a > man of importance. We can assume that he might have an ounce of gratitude > towards Harry who saved his life, but we aren't told that at all. We just > have a polite, but curt, nod in a public setting, an acklowdgement of eye > contact. Even at times we have seen Lucius Malfoy publicly acknowledge > Arthur Weasley in a fairly civil manner when they were both surrounded by > other people, and we know how those two felt about one another. Magpie: I do think there's canonical reason to think that Draco just doesn't hate Harry particularly by the end of DH. He doesn't seem to hate him within that book--I mean, he doesn't seem to have any desire to be yelling at him or insulting him anymore. (Certainly I think he figured out being a DE was a bad idea, if not for noble reasons.) The other thing I would say is that Draco was already clearly not like his father, so could not have grown up into a carbon copy of him--which is not to say he's a huge improvement in every way on his father or anything, but Draco was never the politician Lucius was. It was always pretty obvious how Draco felt about somebody. Lucius' polite moments were usually played, iirc, with sarcastic barbs underneath, sounding very oily, while Draco was a bit of a hysteric. He didn't really have to acknowledge Harry at all here, and if he felt forced to I think it would show. Harry's not nodding to him at all, so it's not like he's being called upon to nod or be seen by anyone as being rude. So basically I'm just saying that I see no reason to see the curt nod, small as it is, as fake since Draco does seem to have gotten over his overwhelming hatred of the Trio within canon itself. He still isn't much of a person, but he does go through the kinds of growing up changes that I think Harry avoids. He just starts out in such a worse shape that he never approaches where Harry even starts out. > Shelley: A curt nod is about the > best Harry can hope for. Magpie: And Draco couldn't hope for more than he got either, I agree. But this, as you say, is about Rowling's style. She doesn't see a kind of change like this being possible but in general I see nothing unrealistic about the idea that the characters could develop differently. Geoff: If that is the case in the real world, why should it be so different in the Wizarding World? As Alla, among others has pointed out, things have moved, judging by the scene at the railway station in the epilogue. Magpie: I think the scene at the railway station shows the changes that happen within canon (Draco humbled, Voldemort killed, evil DEs no longer in control of the ministry) and that's it. I think having to reach into the real world to explain why this is realistic or not shows it's not there in writing. It's relying on things outside the story to give the story depth and detail that's not there. Within the world of the fantasy story, certain battles are fought and won, certain things are made to change through the story. Misfortune has "sobered" Draco, as his author put it. He went through hell as a DE. Voldemort is dead, killed by Harry. The OBHWF is bigger with lots of spunky kids who are already talking about more of them producing more kids. Teddy was born in DH, obviously, and so is now a young adult and he has dinner with his godfather a lot. Betsy's point, as I read it, was not that she didn't buy the epilogue because it was "unrealistic" not to have a huge change (in fact she seemed to find this ending believable due to the characters' own views on things). She was just answering the idea that any other ending besides this one was "unrealistic" because there couldn't be any change in 19 years in the real world. In the real world there might be and there might not be. Lots of things could be realistic. In fiction it's more important that they be believable rather than realistic (lots of things in the story aren't realistic). Changes in Harry's world, and the results of the things actually dealt with in the story are imo clear: Harry now has a family, people are happily taking their kids to Hogwarts again, Voldemort is dead and Harry's scar no longer hurts. Harry thinks Snape was brave. Draco is subdued. It's exactly how it reads, because imo it came right out of the story. Those are the points I see being made in the epilogue. I think if more points were there the before and after would be just as clear. -m From gbadams_77 at charter.net Wed Aug 22 21:04:12 2007 From: gbadams_77 at charter.net (bzbbaba) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:04:12 -0000 Subject: Laughing All the Way to the Bank In-Reply-To: <1187799880.16083.1206729965@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176061 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:23:02 -0000, "Jen Reese" said: > > "But that's - I'm sorry, but that's completely ridiculous! How can I > > *possibly* prove it doesn't exist?...I mean, you could claim that > > *anything's* real if the only basis for believing in it is that > > nobody's *proved* it doesn't exist!" (chap. 21, p. 411, Am. ed.) > random832 at ... wrote: > Eh... Hermione's incredulity about the various things Luna [and now > Xenophilius] talks about has always struck me as a bit odd. I mean, > we're talking about someone who on her eleventh birthday discovered > magic is real. I'd expect at least a certain level of - to quote a 'Men > in Black' tagline, a "What will you know tomorrow?" kind of effect. But > despite her concept of the world presumably having been shattered once > already, she doesn't seem to be able to accept even the possibility that > there are more things in heaven and earth, so to speak, than are dreamt > of in her philosophy. > -- > Random832 > bzbbaba now: But since we know that wizarding children do magic inadvertantly as they are growing up, maybe Hermione did magic for years and couldn't figure out why. When she got her letter it may have been very startling that magic indeed exists, but it also may have answered a larger question, "Why can I do interesting things when no one else can?" So I don't see her world as being *shattered* by the incredulous news that magic exists, it seems more that she is *enlightened* as to why she has these abilities. After all, in SS page 105 (Am. ed.) she says "it was ever such a surprise" when she got her letter but she was "ever so pleased." So it was a positive thing, not a negative when she found out about magic. The moment of how Hermione needs proof of things Luna talks about is juxtaposed very nicely for me in OoTP with the chapter "In The Hog's Head." They have just started the DA and there are some, mostly Zacharias Smith, who don't believe Lord Voldemort is back because there is no proof other than Harry's word. Hermione defends Harry hotly and Zacharias has to back down because Fred and George have a "lethal looking instrument." We go through this whole routine and then Luna talks about the army of heliopaths that Fudge has: Pg. 345 (Am. ed.) "Yes, he's got an army of heliopaths," said Luna solemnly. "No, he hasn't," snapped Hermione. "Yes, he has," said Luna. (Neville asks about heliopaths and Luna explains.) "They don't exist, Neville," said Hermione tartly. "Oh yes they do!" said Luna angrily. "I'm sorry, but where's the *proof* of that?" snapped Hermione. "There are plenty of eyewitness accounts, just because you're so narrow-minded you need to have everything shoved under your nose before you---" This exchange always made me wonder if there were really heliopaths because there really was a Lord Voldemort. Beverly From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 21:22:25 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:22:25 -0000 Subject: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176062 Magpie: In fiction it's more important that they be > believable rather than realistic (lots of things in the story aren't > realistic). Alla: For whom it is more important? For me both of these things are important and actually if I see something in fiction that I can characterize as realistic, I will often find them believable too precisely because I can see analogy. And **of course** lots of things in the story are not realistic and IMO lots of them are realistic. I am saying that I find the ending to be rather realistic. Magic and all that, I still recognize teenagers angst for example in the books ? very real one IMO, so I do not see why it cannot be that there are other realistic touches as well. Magpie: Changes in Harry's world, and the results of the things > actually dealt with in the story are imo clear: Harry now has a > family, people are happily taking their kids to Hogwarts again, > Voldemort is dead and Harry's scar no longer hurts. Harry thinks > Snape was brave. Draco is subdued. It's exactly how it reads, > because imo it came right out of the story. Those are the points I > see being made in the epilogue. I think if more points were there > the before and after would be just as clear. Alla: Well, not IMO. I know you do not make much of Harry telling his kid that it does not matter to them if he is in Slytherin, but it is right written on the page, I happen to believe it to be a change from Harry being tremendously scared of being in Slytherin, since I believe that after the talk the kid at least will not be scared. There is Ron teasing his daughter not to marry Scorpius. I definitely think it is a change from Ron's thoughts about Malfoy. There is also Kingsley as temporary Minister of magic. Which IMO rather good change from Fudge and Scrimgeour. Hickengruendler: > > As a German, I want to add something to this, because it's not quite > as simple as that. The NSDAP (National-Sozialistische Deutsche > Arbeiterpartei), which was the party Hitler was a member of, is > indeed illegal. However, there are still a few parties, which have > basically the same ideology (broadly speaking, and considering, that > we have now 60 years later), but have another name, and they are > allowed. Alla: Snipping rather arbitrarily just to say thank you and be happy that I was not totally confused. Do you mind writing me offlist to explain what does it mean that they are in opposition, but representatives of something? Are they present at government body somehow? It would be a nice picture for them just to go away because government says so, eh? At least I applaud people in power for **trying** to ban them. Russian government did not even bother with similar group few years ago. Sigh. > Hickengruendler: > I tend to agree with Alla, that social changes normally do happen > slowly. One can break with the old rules and make more laws (for > example regarding the house-elves), but it is impossible making > people change their values over night. I find the ending of arry > Potter regarding that point a bit two-sided. On the one hand, I would > have liked to see some of the changes made and what happened to the > House-Elves. On the other hand, I do see what point JKR is trying to > make, in telling us that Kingsley had been announced temporary > Minister for Magic. Because what is needed for changes to happen, is > in most cases the right person in a position of power. Alla: Thank you :) I still think though that the key would be not just the good person in power, but whether Kingsley would be able to change the mindsets of the population, you know? I think that does happen slowly. I actually wanted something more definite for house elves as well. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 21:17:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:17:24 -0000 Subject: Hermione's skepticism (Was: Laughing All the Way to the Bank) In-Reply-To: <1187799880.16083.1206729965@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176063 Random832 wrote: > Hermione's incredulity about the various things Luna [and now Xenophilius] talks about has always struck me as a bit odd. I mean, we're talking about someone who on her eleventh birthday discovered magic is real. I'd expect at least a certain level of - to quote a 'Men in Black' tagline, a "What will you know tomorrow?" kind of effect. But despite her concept of the world presumably having been shattered once already, she doesn't seem to be able to accept even the possibility that there are more things in heaven and earth, so to speak, than are dreamt of in her philosophy. Carol responds: I always viewed Luna as Hermione's antithesis and expected her to prove Hermione wrong on some point--for example, she and her father would find a real Crumple-Horned Snorkack (rather than being tricked into buying an exploding and very dangerous Erumpent horn--I wonder who the young wizard who tricked them, Quirrel-style, was?). However, we did get Xenophilius referring to Hermione to her face as "painfully limited. Narrow. Close-minded" (DH Am. ed. 410), and it turns out that he's right about the Deathly Hallows actually exist. The skeptic is wrong; the deluded old eccentric is (mostly) right. And I loved having Luna use an imaginary Blibbering Humdinger as a diversionary tactic to allow Harry to escape from the Great Hall and find some peace and quiet (745). Maybe she's gained a little insight into her own delusions, even if Hermione hasn't learned a parallel lesson regarding her own limitations. BTW, I loved the way Harry and Hermione understood and forgave Xenophilius for his treachery. Even though he's a father protecting a daughter, he fits the pattern of mothers protecting their sons (or children in general), even to the outspread arms, which remind Harry of his mother protecting his crib in Voldemort's memory (an image we see again with the mother futilely attempting to protect her children when Voldemort is searching for Gregorovitch--who must be *how* old if he's older than Grindelwald?) To return to Hermione, both she and Ron looked longingly or admiringly at the Elder Wand, not a good sign. The thing has not lost its Dark power over anyone except Harry, its master. Aside from that incident, I think that Ron has grown, assuming leadership when Harry is obsessed with the Deathly Hallows and overcoming his self-doubts when he destroys the locket Horcrux, a wonderful symbolic moment, IMO. Ron retains all his good traits--loyalty, courage, and a sense of humor--and loses the self-defeating doubts and jealousies. He also has a kind of common sense (I was glad to see that the fear of Voldemort's name had a basis in VW1 reality and that Ron was the one to explain the Taboo) even if he'll never be as gifted or intelligent as Hermione. Ron is still Ron even in the epilogue, but he's grown up, able to joke about Harry's fame instead of resenting being second best. But does Hermione undergo a similar process? I thought that in "Kreacher's Tale," she showed a new understanding of house-elf psychology, enabling Harry to respect Kreacher's way of thinking and show compassion for him, and then she turns around and tells Griphook that "they" (meaning Hermione herself) want to free the house-elves (who, so far as I can see, don't want any such "gift"). And, of course, there's that tendency to take things like her parents' identities into her own hands. She forgives Ron (eventually) and accepts his love for her. I *think* she loves him in return, but perhaps it's less clear (it takes his remark about the house-elves to get her to kiss him). She's proud of him for coming up with the Basilisk fang idea and getting into the CoS. And she has her priorities straight in terms of her own education vs. the fight against Voldemort. But has she really grown up? Has she changed in any fundamental way (more forgiving and less vengeful, for example, or less controlling)? Carol, who thinks that Harry, like Ron, has grown up but wanted to focus on Hermione (in contrast to Ron) in this post From juli17 at aol.com Wed Aug 22 21:36:44 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:36:44 EDT Subject: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176064 > >>Julie: > > If you applied this philosophy of writing off children > by age eleven and assuming there's no point in trying to > influence them or change them, then the real world would > be a very scary place. (Oh, wait...we do, and it is!-- > though on occasion there are those who don't write them > off, as with the true story of The Freedom Diaries...) > Betsy Hp: Wait, what? Where do you get that? Has no one on this list been to college? That's not a judgement call on people's intelligence, it's just... it's so classic that kids go off to college and get introduced to new ideas and take themselves in completely different directions than they'd ever imagined going. Julie: In fact I did go to college, and experienced exactly what you are referring to above. It's classic because it's true. I don't really get your protest, because I was referring to the fact that segments of society in the real world do get written off while still children, as destined a life of ignorance, violence and poverty because of where they live/who their parents are. My reference to The Freedom Diaries was meant as an analogy, as in that movie the young teenagers had already been tossed aside by the representatives of society (the school's teachers and principal) as unteachable, as unswervingly set into their futures where they will live out their probably short lives in the gang-infested and welfare-dependent neighborhoods (a GENERALIZATION) where they grew up. In the minds of most of the school staff, these kids certainly wouldn't be going to college, where they might be introduced to those new ideas that might well inspire them into completely different directions, so why bother with them beyond shoving them all into one classroom together and having a "teacher" babysit them until they can be released at the end of the day? Instead of accepting this mindset, their newest teacher bucks the system, and in fact introduces these kids to those very ideas they would be denied--as none of them have been given the smallest hope of ever having that eye-opening college experience--and lo and behold, they do learn, do begin to broaden their horizons and see other points of view and other possibilities for their futures. (And some of them actually go to college to broaden their horizons even further.) The analogy is of course, if instead of gathering all these bad children who will become a hindrance to a good society into Slytherin house, tossing them all together to wallow in their single-minded views without interference, the teachers and headmaster of Hogwarts actually introduced *all* the students to various ideas, concepts, points-of-view outside each House's narrow focus, giving them a chance to broaden their views, and understand each other better (they're all going to live together in the same society for the rest of their lives, after all), would not this be a far, far superior education than the mere application of their magical abilities they are receiving now? Betsy: I've read several articles in the New Yorker lately on certain philosophers, scientists, artists who had one world view as children (the world view their parents taught them) and then left home and either at college or while traveling in a foreign culture or going to a big city, met up with a completely different world view, had their preconceptions shaken up, and went on to become geniuses in their field. It's so common as to almost be a cliche. And now suddenly we're supposed to think anything that suggests such a thing is possible is "unrealistic"? Julie: Huh? I don't think I implied that it was unrealistic, only that certain segments of society are often discouraged from or denied these life-altering experiences of college, travel (which I've also enjoyed extensively) and that I think it's wrong and harmful to society as a whole. I certainly find the whole sticking those loser kids in Slytherin House and ignoring them very wrong, and demonstrably harmful to WW society. (And I do think it wouldn't have matter what House Voldemort was in, as he was already psychopathic when he entered Hogwarts as a child, but I do believe other kids like Draco could have had their views challenged, their horizons broadened, and many might well have truly changed and moved in different directions. Alla also wrote: But had my personality had **major shake up**, since maybe not age eleven, but since my teens? I really do not think so. I am not saying about small changes, obviously, you cannot stay exactly the same while teen and adult, you adjust your behaviour and all that, but I still believe in the same things I believed as a teenager, if that makes sense. Therefore I do not dispute the possibility that person **can** change as we witnessed on the examples of Snape, Regulus, Dumbledore, but I do dispute that person will **routinely** experience a major shake up of their personalities. Julie: I don't think it's really about personalities (temperaments) as much as about how one *uses* such inborn traits relating to ambition, courage, loyalty, intelligence, etc, etc. And that is where broadening horizons, learning a variety of points of view, etc, can influence and change a person. While basic personality might not change much, how we see others, how we relate to the world, and what we view as right and wrong CAN change, very drastically, IMO. Julie (who apologizes for repeating anyone, as I still haven't read all the posts relating to this subject) ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 21:50:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:50:01 -0000 Subject: Putting the Elder Wand at risk? (Was: I would have kept the Elder Wand) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176065 Niru wrote: > > > He is using his own holly and phoenix feather wand. Harry's plan to break the power of the Elder Wand has a much higher probability of success, his career as an auror notwithstanding. He cannot be defeated whilst using the Elder Wand because he does not use and never intends to. Furthermore he doesn't use Draco's hawthorn wand either. Harry's own holly and phoenix feather wand was never involved in duels with the Elder Wand. Even if he is defeated whilst weilding it, I don't think it will affect the Elder Wand's allegiance. The power of the Elder Wand is as good as broken. > > Dana: > I don't think this is a correct observation. Draco was not using the Elder Wand either when Harry defeated him. Still Harry became its rightful owner so I think Harry using his own wand does not eradicates the risk of being defeated and the Elder wand changing ownership. The only thing is that the one defeating Harry will not directly get access to the Elder Wand or know about it but he would nevertheless be its rightful owner and its power would then not be lost with Harry's death (neither natural or otherwise). Well I think we can probably conclude that you discovered another major plothole or at least the author getting confused by her own imagination LOL. Carol: Ah, but Harry has the advantage of knowing more wandlore than most wizards, Dark or otherwise, thanks to DD and Ollivander and his own experience with the Elder Wand. In the unlikely event that Harry encounters a wizard as skilled as Severus Snape who can defeat him in a duel (and let's hope that he masters nonverbal spells if he's going to be an Auror!), as long as the Elder Wand doesn't *know* that its master has been defeated, perhaps it won't change its allegiance. (Harry tells Voldemort what happened to Draco; otherwise, the wand wouldn't have known.) If he's not facing a master duellist, all he needs to do is cast Expelliarmus, his signature spell, and he'll be master of his opponent's wand, as well as master of his own holly-and-phoenix-feather wand and the (unused) Elder Wand. (Where's Snape to teach Legilimency and Occlumency and nonverbal spells when Harry will actually pay attention to him? ) OTOH, having lived to the ripe old age of 37, maybe Harry has had enough action and will accept a supervisory position so he can die a natural death for the wand's sake. He certainly doesn't appear to be as scarred as Mad-Eye or even Scrimgeour (aside from the residual lightning-bolt scar), so either his reputation as the hero who destroyed the Dark Lord intimidates his opponents, or he's developed greater skill in duelling than he demonstrates in canon, or the Expelliarmus tactic is working, or there's a dearth of Dark wizards of any caliber post-DH. Carol, admitting that JKR probably didn't see the plot hole and wondering whether the Elder Wand will lose all its powers when Harry dies or just become an ordinary wand like "that poor stick of Lucius's" From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 22:14:33 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:14:33 -0000 Subject: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176066 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > What you're saying, Alla (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that > > your "personality" didn't change despite all the culture-shock > > experienced. > > > > But "ideology" is something quite different. That's more the > > belief system you work under. > > > >>Alla: > Not hundred percent sure what my friend was talking about, since he > was talking in general about child's character, will have to ask > him, but I was definitely talking about both, including my belief > system. > > For example - I was always, always against death penalty since > early teens, I still am. > Betsy Hp: Aha! ::pounces while chortling madly:: But early teens is too late! We're talking about something set at age eleven. Any truth learned, any idea gained, any way of life explored doesn't count a bit if it occurs after age eleven. Of course that's if, and only if, the Sorting is ideological in nature. > >>lizzyben: > > If we're going w/Slytherin=evil racism, there's NO reason > that ideology should still be supported by the school. If we're > going w/Slytherin as "water" house, an essential part of the whole, > there's NO way that they should be segregated & stigmatized the way > that they are. JKR wants to have it both ways. Betsy Hp: I think that's exactly JKR's problem. And as Mr. Miyagi tells us, trying to have things both ways leaves you squished like a bug. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > The problem, IMO, is that with Slytherin house JKR has conflated > > personality with ideology. And by condemning one, she's condemned > > the other. And that's bigotry. > > > >>Alla: > I refuse to enter into debate whether it is bigotry or not, because > this is something I am sure we will not change each other minds on, > but I do want to ask - where in the books do you see JKR condemning > Slytherin's personalities? > > Condemning their ideology, their belief system - **totally**, but > where do you see condemning personalities? Betsy Hp: The scene where the Slytherin house flag was not flying in the RoR, and the scene where the entirety of Slytherin house stood up and walked out of the school when the battle was met. And most deeply, most horribly, the scene where Dumbledore told Snape that maybe they Sorted too early. It must be a condemnation of personality. Unless we're back to children being sorted ideologically at age eleven. Which is stupid beyond the telling of it. "Hmm, we've got a Ku Klux Klan house in our school. Why do so many students hate black people?" I mean, *honestly*! > >>Alla: > > That is why I love Dumbledore refusing power position ( well now we > know that he was also afraid that he would be tempted by it), but I > also thought that he chose to work for longer term changes ? > changing the hearts of his students. IMO of course. Betsy Hp: Heh. And that's why I think Dumbledore is evil. He's the classic "good man" who does nothing, allowing evil to flourish. And of course, I don't see him working to change the hearts of his students. Other than Harry, most of his students didn't know him. And even Harry didn't know him all that well (pretty much the driving plot of DH). Which, considering I don't see any sort of ideological change in the WW may actually be a point in Dumbledore's favor? Mmm, no. I think I'd have had more respect for him if he'd at least tried and failed. > >>Magpie: > > Betsy's point, as I read it, was not that she didn't buy the > epilogue because it was "unrealistic" not to have a huge change (in > fact she seemed to find this ending believable due to the > characters' own views on things). She was just answering the idea > that any other ending besides this one was "unrealistic" because > there couldn't be any change in 19 years in the real world. In the > real world there might be and there might not be. Lots of things > could be realistic. > Betsy Hp: Yes, exactly. I see so *many* examples of huge changes that occur within a nineteen year time period (though really we're talking a 26 year time period from Harry arriving at Hogwarts to sending his little darlings off themselves). I met a woman in Berlin a few years after the wall came down who was about 6 or so when WWI started. In her life-time what changes she had seen! Or, I remember watching an old "Partridge Family" rerun where Danny (I think? the oldest boy?) had a mad-crush on a feminist girl and one of the punch lines was this horrible butch woman trying to push the idea of a women's hockey team. Cue massive audience laughter. This was during the '98 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan, so believe me I picked up the irony. So change can happen quickly. Sometimes so quickly it's easy to forget what our society used to be like. > >>Magpie: > In fiction it's more important that they be believable rather than > realistic (lots of things in the story aren't realistic). Betsy Hp: True. And honestly, the epilogue *is* believable given the passivity of our heroes. And also given their place in the WW. I mean, they're golden. Why would they change things? [Political aside: Thanks to both Hickengruendler and Renee for clarifying my admittedly simplistic statement about German political rules.] Betsy Hp From nitalynx at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 22:09:53 2007 From: nitalynx at yahoo.com (nitalynx) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:09:53 -0000 Subject: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176067 Geoff wrote: > I was thinking about this on the society level and was struck by a real > world parallel. > > The epilogue is set 19 years after the final showdown. It is just 18 years > since the amazing events of 1989 when we saw the Communist bloc start > to topple down like a house of cards. Nita: But don't you think both the historical circumstances and the actual events are vastly different? In Potterverse, it's Takeover - Some Resistance - Final Showdown, all in a single year. The Soviet Union had existed for 70 years or so before it collapsed relatively peacefully (and it had been moving in that direction for years). > There was rejoicing and euphoria. We expected that the world would enter > a new era. Well, we did but if, 18 years on, you look around, expecially at > many of the former Communist countries, there are still serious problems > which are slowly, oh so slowly, being tackled. And there are real, logical reasons for that. I didn't like History at school, but I can't deny that it's a very useful science. IMO, any imaginary world which rests on a bunch of real-world analogies thrown together instead of its own coherent history might not make sense on a closer look, and it seems like Potterverse it one of those. > Countries like Romania are still in dire straits with their economies Erm, Romania is actually doing pretty well, as far as I know. > and in > many countries, supporters of the old regime lurk just under the surface, > like unregenerate Death Eaters, hoping to try to snatch back some of the > power and prestige of the "good old days". Well, a lot of these "supporters" are retired folks who worked hard their entire lives just to find out that they wouldn't be getting their well-earned large pensions after all. That does tend to make one a bit resentful. Some of them actually fought and/or lost loved ones in a war against real-world Nazis. I will even dare say that many of them suffered more than Harry did before they got to the "good old days". For these people, all was well. And then their country ceased to exist. So, on one hand, I disagree with your parallel. But on the other, it's led me to some interesting thoughts... From the inside, the Soviet Union usually looked more like post-Voldie-era-WW than Voldie-era-WW or Oceania of "1984", or some such dystopian land. The official ideology was rather Gryffindor/Hufflepuff, decidedly anti-Slytherin, and ambivalent about Ravenclaws. Apart from the happily-owning-slaves and hard-work-is-for-duffers bits, the Harry Potter series would fit in just right with the other children's stories of the USSR. I'm not trying to say that the Soviet Union was a fine country, OR that HP books carry a communist message. But I do think that pointing fingers at (even genuinely terrible) outside groups, projecting all imaginable evils on them and fighting them is NOT the kind of thing that encourages moral growth inside the group. And the same goes for individuals. The Soviet Union was genuinely anti-Nazi - ideologically, politically, militarily. Children were taught the value of courage, hard work, cooperation, equality. And still, so many people were treated like cattle or simply killed. Because there was a war, because they were traitors, because sometimes bad stuff just happens, and it's all the Bad Guys' fault... You know, the usual reasons. And I don't see how the Wizarding World is better protected from a similar fate at the end of the series. What if the next Dark Lord is a Muggle-lover? :) Nita From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 22:47:06 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:47:06 -0000 Subject: Putting the Elder Wand at risk? - Creative Thought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176068 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol: > > Ah, but Harry has the advantage of knowing more > wandlore than most wizards, Dark or otherwise, thanks > to DD and Ollivander and his own experience with the > Elder Wand. In the unlikely event that Harry > encounters a wizard as skilled as Severus Snape who > can defeat him in a duel ..., as long as the Elder > Wand doesn't *know* that its master has been defeated, > perhaps it won't change its allegiance. > ... > > Carol, admitting that JKR probably didn't see the > plot hole and wondering whether the Elder Wand will > lose all its powers when Harry dies or just become > an ordinary wand like "that poor stick of Lucius's" > bboyminn: Just a few thoughts. First, ever heard of Spin? Who says Harry has to tell the truth about the fate of the Wand. Certainly a lot of people know about the wand because Harry blabbed to Voldemort in a room full of people. But only Ron and Hermione know what was decided in the Headmaster's office. The official /spin/ could be that all the Deathly Objects were destroyed to prevent any wizards from being tempted by them again. Further, what does it matter that Harry is defeated a hundred times, IF the defeater can't get his hands on the Wand? The /Spin/ is that the wand has been destroyed, the truth is, it is back in Dumbledore's grave, and with VERY LIKELY many more powerful enchantments to protect the grave from being broken into again. Once the Wand is apparently gone, it doesn't matter who the true master is, if the person doesn't realize he is the true master. Does that make sense? But, I suspect outside the HP World, to the readers, it is a continuity error, but not one that can't be solved with some creative thought. Steve/bboyminn From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 23:18:35 2007 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:18:35 -0000 Subject: Kings Cross..... The end??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176069 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > Ken: > > It has been discussed before and Sue is right, Ms. Rowling is wrong. > Harry cannot go on to become a mad eye Moody if he means to end the > power of the elder wand. It is way too big a risk. However, someone > else pointed out that Harry could work for the auror office and even > head it up without ever being a field agent. > > In DH Harry became a master of > combining information to see through it to the motives and plans of > his opponent. He became a master detective. It is a talent he has > shown all along and it really blossomed in the final book. > > That is a talent that the auror office can use and it can be done > almost completely from a desk, safe inside the Ministry. It's not like > Harry has anything left to prove about his personal courage. Of course > our dear author is anything but a master at putting together > information like this so I have no doubt that when she writes her > encyclopedia of the Potterverse she will have Harry out there slinging > lead at the bad guys like Eliot Ness on steriods. > > And that is just wrong.... > > Personally I think it is wrong on a different level too. I don't think > that Harry wants to be an auror anymore, he's done that to death. At > the end Harry says he's had enough trouble for a lifetime. I believe > him, I hope the author does too. Harry needs to do something else with > his life and he has earned the right to a peaceful but rewarding > existence. He's really been set up to become a champion for civil > rights for the other magical creatures and Muggles, if you ask me. > > Ken Jack-A-Roe: The only problem I have with the theory that he worked at a desk full time is that the ministry wouldn't let him do it. He's got a reputation that is bigger than anything else. The ministry is going to want to show that he's out in the field keeping the magical world safe. His reputation alone will stop a number of bad guys. It's the "oh shit" he killed Voldemort by himself. The actual facts will be lost. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend" He will also have a bunch of wizards gunning for him. Kind of like an old gunslinger. Everyone wants to make their reputation by killing him. Staying at a desk will not prevent this from happening. Anyone who defeats him will still have to find the Elder wand. Only Ron & Hermione know what he's going to do with it. So I think it's rather safe even if he is out catching the bad guys. Jack-A-Roe From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Wed Aug 22 23:02:05 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:02:05 -0000 Subject: Harry's photos Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176070 Harry's magical photos have moving images. If a non-magical muggle looks at one,e.g one of the Dursleys, do we know if they see a moving picture? Thanks Barry From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 23:54:50 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:54:50 -0000 Subject: Three Unresolved Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176071 Just creating a bit of a distraction from all the serious discussion. Here are some points I personally would like to have resolution to. 1.) What is the Fat Lady's name? Seems a shame to keep referring to her as the Fat Lady. Seems more dignified and fitting that she have a name. 2.) Can Ghost move on to the afterlife? Is it possible for whatever holds ghost to the earth to be resolved in a way that allows them to move on? It breaks my heart to think of poor Moaning Myrtle being trapped for eternity in misery simply because she was ill treated when she was alive. But regarding Ghost in general - once a ghost; alway a ghost, or is it possible for them to move on? 3.) What ever happened to Mr. Fortesque? Hate think of the wizard world without Fortesque's well crafted ice cream. He seemed like a nice guy, and I picture him and Harry having a good relationship for many many years to come. Still - dead, alive, off somewhere, returned to his shop? Inquiring minds want to know. Can anyone think of any other minor points that they would like to have resolved in the Series? Just curious. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 00:12:21 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:12:21 -0000 Subject: deathly hallows and the wands. Follow the Victor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176073 --- "jlnbtr" wrote: > > Juli earlier > At this point Harry is the master of three wands: > his own Phoenix and, Draco's Hawthron wand, adn the > Elder Wand. > > Zanoda: > I wonder what happened to the Hawthorn wand. Did > Harry return it to Draco? Would it work for Draco > after it was taken from him by force and used by > Harry? > > Juli now: I think the wand 'legally' belongs to Harry > now. Its alliegance is to Harry. Draco could use it, > but it would always be a borrowed wand. I guess Draco > bought a new wand. > > Eric: > I still don't get when Harry got the Elder wand. He > got the Hawthorn from Draco at Malfoy Manner and at > the end Harry says that he got the Elder wand from > Draco, but how and when did it actually happen? > > Juli now: By taking the Hawthron wand from Draco, he > took all of Draco's wand, which included the Elder > Wand, even if he had never touched it. Harry also > had never touched the wand and still it was his. > > Juli > bboyminn: Let's us make a clear distinction between literally and physically 'taking' the wand, and taking the wands allegiance. The Allegiance follows the victor even if the victor never physically touches the Wand. Draco defeated Dumbledore, therefore the Allegiance of the Elder Wand went to Draco even though Draco had no physical contact with the Wand. When Harry defeated Draco by taking the Hawthorn wand, the allegiance of the Elder Wand followed the victorious, and transferred to Harry, again despite the fact that Harry has never touched the Wand. Now there is debate whether the allegiance is tracking from wand to wand, or from person to person. Either way it works. The Elder Wands allegiance is transfer even without physical possession of the Wand. So, when you see references to 'Harry got the Elder Wand', it is not the Wand he physically 'got', it is the allegiance of the Wand. He becomes its Master without ever physically having the Wand. I think people are confusing the change of Mastership of the Wand, with the actual physical transfer of the Wand. As a side issue, what happened to the Draco's Hawthorn Wand, is anyone's guess. I can see noble Harry giving it back at some point. It really doesn't matter because Draco can buy a new wand now that Ollivander is back in business. So, why not just give it back? Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 01:04:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:04:01 -0000 Subject: Back to Slytherin House (Was: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176074 Carol: Before responding to this post, I want to ask Betsy a question regarding the Condoleezza Rice analogy upthread. Did you intend Dr. Rice to represent what you expected for the Slytherins? It seems to me that she's more analogous to a Muggleborn. And if Hermione is indeed high up in the Ministry (admittedly, not mentioned in the epilogue but stated in an interview), isn't she your Dr. Rice? (It was the Muggle-borns, along with Muggles and house-elves and goblins, who were oppressed during DH, not the Slytherins.) I'm not arguing here; I'm just confused as to which oppressed group you intended Dr. Rice to represent in your analogy. Betsy wrote: > Of course that's if, and only if, the Sorting is ideological in nature. Carol responds: And I wonder whether we can definitively answer that question, especially for slytherin for Slytherin House. Clearly, Gryffindor sorts for courage and Ravenclaw for "wit and learning" or intelligence (not exactly a personality trait but clearly a personal trait). Hufflepuff is a conglomeration ("just and loyal," hardworking, but also "the lot" or "the rest," i.e., the ones who don't fit the criteria for the other houses). Hagrid calls them "duffers," IIRC, and Draco dismisses them with the exact phrase James uses to reject Slytherin, as if those two not so very different boys perceive entirely different Houses as the House of outcasts as the result of their upbringing. Clearly, however, the *Hat* does not perceive either House as a house of outcasts, though it seems to be unhappy with the whole process of having to "quarter" the students every year. Granted, Zacharias Smith, a Hufflepuff, ends up acting like a coward in DH (I didn't like that; I thought he had every right to ask Harry for proof that Voldemort was back, but, oh, well; that's my disappointment and my difference from JKR.) But Ernie Macmillan, Hannah Abbott, and Cedric Diggory also end up in Hufflepuff, and all of them are likeable or admirable in their different ways, refuting Draco's and Hagrid's views, IMO. Slytherin, as this unkillable thread illustrates, is a different matter because the Sorting criteria keep changing. We start off with cunning (SS/PS), then ambition (GoF, Harry having missed the Sorting in CoS and PoA), then, suddenly (though maybe we should have guessed it from the Basiliks in coS), we get "those whose ancestry is purest" (OoP). Does pure blood equate to cunning and ambition? Apparently, since Slytherin took only "pure-blood wizards/of great cunning, just like him" (OoP again). Why, then, isn't Percy in Slytherin? And how did Dumbledore, who could have been either a Ravenclaw for his brains or a Slytherin given his early views on Muggles, end up in Gryffindor? (His mother was a Muggle-born, but Half-blood status didn't keep out Tome Riddle or Severus Snape.) That's all we get. Harry misses the Sorting again in HBP and doesn't even attend school in DH. (I *wish* we'd been able to hear the Sorting Hat under Snape!) Slytherin is the only house associated with an ideology, and only directly so in OoP. The rest comes from remarks like Hagrid's inaccurate claim that all DEs came from Slytherin and Sirius Black's statement that most of Severus Snape's "gang" became Death Eaters. Betsy Hp earlier: > > > > > The problem, IMO, is that with Slytherin house JKR has conflated personality with ideology. And by condemning one, she's condemned the other. And that's bigotry. Carol: I agree that she seems to have conflated personality with ideology. I'm not about to argue whether that's bigotry or not. (I don't see the pure-blood ideology as racism, either, since white Hermione and black Dean are subjected to exactly the same prejudice for being Muggle-born or unable to prove otherwise. I like the term "bloodism" that someone on the list used. Helps to keep RW concerns out of the discussion.) That aside, it does seem that, by DH, JKR has forgotten that Slytherin and Death Eater are not synonymous. Or has she? Setting aside the much-discussed Snape, who is doing what he can to protect the school from the Carrows, we have a non-DE HoH for Slytherin and only three students (out of four that we know of with DE parents) who either become DEs or are corrupted by them, and one of them, Draco, is extremely disillusioned with the reality of DE life. With the exception of Pansy, who seems to be motivated by terror or a personal antipathy for the boy who performed Sectumsempra on her boyfriend, the Slytherins seem more noncommital (like Slughorn before he returns to fight) than pro-Voldemort. (Snape's influence at work, keeping them out of the fray? We don't hear about any students killing each other in the corridors, and only two, Crabbe and Goyle, Crucioing others in detention.) LV is lying when he says that Draco is the only Slytherin not fighting on the DEs. Not a single Slytherin student joins the battle that we know of. All except Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle are herded out of the Great Hall on McGonagall's orders, along with the underage students from all the houses and the noncommital or cowardly older students from the other three, thanks to Pansy's remark. So the DE/Slytherin analogy does not hold, at least for students of Harry's generation. Severus Snape and his Slytherin friends entered school at exactly the wrong time, when LV was first coming to power. By the time they were in fifth year or so, with older DE friends like Lucius Malfoy, the DEs must have seemed like an attractive option, especially for someone like Severus, whose brilliance was unacknowledged elsewhere. That situation is not comparable to the WW when Harry and Draco are roughly the same age. Draco is enticed by the promise of "glory" and the chance to avenge his father' Crabbe and Goyle are seduced a year later by the chance to perform Dark magic. But none of them has grown up with DE friends or DE wannabes surrounding them and infiltrating their house. Theo Nott, it appears, rejects the temptation altogether (if the absence of evidence can be counted as evidence of absence). And Blaise Zabini, though a pure-blood supremacist, turns up his nose at the DEs back in HBP. So, however true or partially true the Slytherin connection may be for men (and a few women) of Snape's age, or Lucius Malfoy's, it does not seem to hold for Harry's. (And the pre-Riddle Slytherin House produced Slughorn.) What does that tell us? Perhaps that Slughorn's phlegmatic temperament is as representative of the true Slytherin House (minus the corruption of Tom Riddle and the pure-blood ideology) as the cool intellect and cooler courage of Severus Snape. > Betsy Hp: > The scene where the Slytherin house flag was not flying in the RoR, and the scene where the entirety of Slytherin house stood up and walked out of the school when the battle was met. And most deeply, most horribly, the scene where Dumbledore told Snape that maybe they Sorted too early. Carol: I've already talked about why Slytherin House walked out. Had any of them stayed behind after McGonagall's order (not counting Draco et al., who sneaked out of line later), everyone in the hall would have mistaken their intention as support for Voldemort. (McG is not a favorite of mine, especially after this book.) The best they could do was to sit out the battle. Not one of them (except the moronic Crabbe) actively supported Voldemort, and even he never got to the battle. As for the Slytherin flag not flying in the RoR, please go back and look at the chapter. The flag of each student's house appeared (along with a new hammock) when that student came to the RoR for refuge. The only students to do so were former members of the DA. The Slytherins were not invited to join in the first place and would not have been welcomed had they attempted to do so this time around, and only Draco and the former members of the Inquisitorial Squad even knew about the room. I doubt that Crabbe and Goyle (or Pansy) even knew how to get in, and the protection on the room excluded Carrow supporters in any case. Of course, there were no Slytherin banners. The Slytherins, other than Crabbe and Goyle, were quietly obeying Snape's restriction on groups of more than four students. Only the former DA members were violating those restrictions (exactly as Snape must have intended). As for DD's remark about Snape's being Sorted too early, I'm sure that both he and JKR intended it as a compliment, courage being the greatest virtue in her opinion. That Snape looked "stricken" shows that perhaps he disagreed with that assessment, and yet it's he who says "I am not such a coward" and proves that statement over and over again. Betsy HP:> > It must be a condemnation of personality. Unless we're back to children being sorted ideologically at age eleven. Which is stupid beyond the telling of it. "Hmm, we've got a Ku Klux Klan house in our school. Why do so many students hate black people?" I mean, *honestly*! Carol responds: Let's look at post-Voldie Slytherin. There can be no more DE recruits. The HoH is still the non-DE Slughorn, who fought against Voldemort in the end. The house now has at least one hero, the former headmaster, Severus Snape, whose portrait will surely be hung in the headmaster's office. (I choose to believe that he was buried with honors next to DD and given a posthumous Order of Merlin that stands conspicuously in the trophy room.) Perhaps future students of all Houses will also be taught about Regulus Black, who died to avenge a house-elf. We see a progression away from James's and Hagrid's attitudes toward Slytherin at the end of the book. In another twenty years, in the absence of a new Dark Lord (and with no encouragement of Dark magic or pure-blood elitism in Slytherin itself), old fears and prejudices could wither away. Suppose that all students are taught Muggle Studies from a competent teacher with a philosophy like Charity Burbage's. Suppose that "Mudblood" (in violation of free speech, but "tolerance" is now more fashionable) becomes a forbidden word that earns detention of a loss of House points. Suppose that "blood" ceases to be a criterion for admission to Slytherin, and passwords like "pureblood" are magically forbidden. Training Prefects to be more effective in the absence of adult supervision might prevent budding Dark Arts proficients--or bullies--from causing so many problems. And certainly, Hogwarts could use a larger staff! At any rate, I do see progress, and I like the way Harry tells his second son what to expect at Hogwarts rather than letting him stumble blindly and learn by trial and error as Harry, and, less excusably on the part of the Weasleys, Ron did. Draco followed (unwittingly) in James's footsteps, making an enemy of Harry as James did of Severus through House prejudice, but Harry has taken steps to prevent his son from being the victim of any such bullies, regardless of House. The adult Draco nods at Harry rather than sneering as his father used to do at Arthur Weasley. Poco a poco. It's the best we can realistically hope for. To return to the Sorting Hat, if we eliminate both blood and ideology as criteria for sorting into Slytherin, we're left with personality. Cunning is a bit too much like intelligence for the hat to make a clear distinction, so I suppose that ambition could be the defining trait. Or is there a "water" trait that would work better and create a more equal balance with courage, intelligence, and loyalty? What would a Slytherin modeled on Snape at one end of the spectrum and Slughorn on the other hand value? What would define the new, non-DE, no bigoted ideal Slytherin? Carol, trying to show that Slytherin House is not static but dynamic, different in different eras and capable of reform with Voldie dead From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Aug 23 01:33:29 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:33:29 -0000 Subject: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176075 > Magpie: > > In fiction it's more important that they be > > believable rather than realistic (lots of things in the story > aren't > > realistic). > > Alla: > > For whom it is more important? For me both of these things are > important and actually if I see something in fiction that I can > characterize as realistic, I will often find them believable too > precisely because I can see analogy. Magpie: For fiction it's important. Obviously, as you say, these books aren't realistic. If we're looking for realism we'd close the books the first time an owl is able to carry a large broomstick. But if something makes sense only because something like this happened in real life, the author cheated, imo. (That is, assuming the author is supposed to be writing a contained story and not thinly veiled allegory.) It only works because we fill it in for ourselves and so oh, they're really [insert real world people]. And in this case nothing is being said about the real world incident that sheds light on it (as for instance, CS Lewis is basically exploring the ideas of Christianity via Narnia), we're just using it to fill in the fictional one. I mean, the Potterverse actually doesn't hold up completely as any one real world setting/time/place, it's a mishmosh as needed. The question is whether it works on its own terms, and I think it does (as long as we're not looking at the wrong things), but its own terms don't say much about being poised for more change to me, and it's not like I can check in with them in 20 more years and see where those signs went. As you already know, I just don't think the jokey conversation that the Trio has about the Malfoys suggests a bigger change that the one that happened in canon--the Malfoys are no longer threatening (and neither is Slytherin--it's not good, but Voldemort's gone). Alla: > Magic and all that, I still recognize teenagers angst for example in > the books ? very real one IMO, so I do not see why it cannot be that > there are other realistic touches as well. Magpie: Sure there can be realistic touches. I don't believe this is a realistic touch. It's just the way JKR ended her story based on what she wanted for a happy ending and what she did in the story. I think all the things Harry found truly unacceptable about the WW are probably fixed. If Slytherin are supposed to be people I knew at school, I'm not seeing any parallels to my real life. Alla: > I think that does happen slowly. I actually wanted something more > definite for house elves as well. Magpie: The House-Elves seemed definite to me: they're slaves but good masters treat them well. Betsy Hp: The scene where the Slytherin house flag was not flying in the RoR, and the scene where the entirety of Slytherin house stood up and walked out of the school when the battle was met. And most deeply, most horribly, the scene where Dumbledore told Snape that maybe they Sorted too early. Magpie: How was Harry supposed to do well there if it wasn't personality, after all? Though of course, I don't know how Harry was supposed to do well anyway, since his personality doesn't fit in with anybody we see in the house in all of canon. I was reading a fanfic today that I liked for showing the Slytherins after the epilogue as people who live with shame. Songs are still sung about the Great Battle of Hogwarts, of course, and how Slytherin left. I remain completely puzzled how Slytherin is supposed to be in a better position after that display (not to mention the whole year before that and the last minute saving of the Sorting Hat so that everybody didn't become Slytherin). Carol: Before responding to this post, I want to ask Betsy a question regarding the Condoleezza Rice analogy upthread. Did you intend Dr. Rice to represent what you expected for the Slytherins? It seems to me that she's more analogous to a Muggleborn. And if Hermione is indeed high up in the Ministry (admittedly, not mentioned in the epilogue but stated in an interview), isn't she your Dr. Rice? (It was the Muggle-borns, along with Muggles and house-elves and goblins, who were oppressed during DH, not the Slytherins.) I'm not arguing here; I'm just confused as to which oppressed group you intended Dr. Rice to represent in your analogy. Magpie: Not speaking for Betsy, but reading her post I would say she doesn't expect CR to be an analogy for anybody in the Potterverse. She was just saying that certain things a person takes for granted in early life can change in years to come, so that possibilities change. I don't think she works as an analogy for anybody. She's not a Slytherin and she's not Hermione. (The WW changes pretty drastically the day Voldemort takes over the Ministry, it seems.) -m From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 01:33:28 2007 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:33:28 -0000 Subject: I would have kept the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176076 Niru wrote: > > He is using his own holly and phoenix feather wand. > > Harry's plan to break the power of the Elder Wand has a > > much higher probability of success, his career as an auror > > notwithstanding. He cannot be defeated whilst using the Elder > > Wand because he does not use and never intends to. Furthermore > > he doesn't use Draco's hawthorn wand either. Harry's own holly > > and phoenix feather wand was never involved in duels with the > > Elder Wand. Even if he is defeated whilst weilding it, I don't > > think it will affect the Elder Wand's allegiance. The power of > > the Elder Wand is as good as broken. Dana wrote: > I don't think this is a correct observation. Draco was not using the > Elder Wand either when Harry defeated him. Still Harry became its > rightful owner so I think Harry using his own wand does not eradicates > the risk of being defeated and the Elder wand changing ownership. > The only thing is that the one defeating Harry will not directly get > access to the Elder Wand or know about it but he would nevertheless be > its rightful owner and its power would then not be lost with Harry's > death (neither natural or otherwise). Well I think we can probably > conclude that you discovered another major plothole or at least the > author getting confused by her own imagination LOL. > > JMHO Niru again: It is quite possible that it is plothole. And I can really see how one can get tied up in knots by this issue. But please bear with me while I explain my basic understanding of wandlore. This is one of my top 3 favourite issues to mull over post-DH. :-) Draco used the hawthorn wand to disarm Dumbledore and thereby unknowingly won the allegiance of the Elder Wand. Or in other words, Draco's hawthorn wand mastered the Elder Wand and Draco mastered it as a result of being the master of the hawthorn wand. Harry mastered Draco's hawthorn by snatching it from him physically. Nevertheless he took the hawthorn wand by force and against Draco's wishes. On the night of Dumbledore's death, the Elder Wand granted its allegiance to the wizard who was the master of the hawthorn wand. This wizard is now Harry. Harry probably already knew or was fairly certain that the Elder Wand would answer to him when he was questioning Ollivander in 'The Wandmaker' chapter. Anyway... back to the matter on hand which is Harry's plan to break the power of the Elder Wand. Harry isn't using either the Elder wand or the hawthorn wand. The fact that he gave up using BOTH wands and went back to his own is probably the most important thing. Dumbledore is defeated while using the Elder Wand. Draco is defeated while using the wand that defeated the Elder Wand. Assume that Harry is defeated while using the holly-and-phoenix- feather wand. How would the Elder Wand know? It never had any duels/conflicts with the holly wand. It probably won't see any reason to change allegiances. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 01:43:36 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:43:36 -0000 Subject: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176077 > > >>Alla: > > I refuse to enter into debate whether it is bigotry or not, because > > this is something I am sure we will not change each other minds on, > > but I do want to ask - where in the books do you see JKR condemning > > Slytherin's personalities? > > > > Condemning their ideology, their belief system - **totally**, but > > where do you see condemning personalities? > > Betsy Hp: > The scene where the Slytherin house flag was not flying in the RoR, > and the scene where the entirety of Slytherin house stood up and > walked out of the school when the battle was met. And most deeply, > most horribly, the scene where Dumbledore told Snape that maybe they > Sorted too early. Alla: Thanks for answering my question Betsy. Personally I do not see the first two examples as anything else but condemnation of ideology. I mean, it is not like Slytherins left and did not join the fight. at least if we believe Voldemort, they did join the fight, just for the side they believed in, no? So, I do wonder what this has to do with their personalities. And also their flag in RoR - they did not join DA, since they did not believe in it, no? But I do grant you that I see how Dumbledore's remark can be read as condemnation of personality. However, this is one remark, by the man, whom I love, but who made so many mistakes that I am not sure we can mix it with author's voice. IMO of course. Alla From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Aug 23 01:37:53 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:37:53 -0000 Subject: HP and Moral Choices Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176078 Hi all, I am new to this list. I'm interested in the moral choices made in the books and what it means for kids. So I was wondering what other people thought about the following: In the 7th book Harry is being chased by Draco, Crabbe and Goyle in the Room of Requirement and they are trying to capture/injure him so they can deliver him to Voldemort. Crabbe and Goyle are also trying to actually kill Ron and Hermione. Crabbe starts a fiendfire and the baddies get trapped. Harry goes back to save them from being killed in the fire. Why would Harry want to save someone who wants to kill him? He doesn't seem interested in redeeming them in the sense of winning them over to the good side. He seems more intent on his quest to find and destroy Horcruxes, and Draco et al are just in the way. Later, as you know, Harry gives himself up to Voldie to save the others in the castle (and humanity as a whole). So here are my observations: (1) Harry never ever even considers using a killing curse against his enemies, although they throw plenty at him (he does use the Cruciatus and Imperius curses on some death eaters though) (2) Harry saves Draco twice in the last book, even though Draco is trying to kill him (or take him to Voldie to kill him) (3) Harry offers himself up to die in order to save the rest of the people at Hogwarts from harm All of these are supererogatory because they go way beyond whatever moral duties Harry has to the others involved. However, it seems to me to be more than heroism, because heroes usually save the goodies and kill off the baddies. His approach resembles the Christian "loving kindness" virtue which exhorts us to love our enemies, except that Harry clearly doesn't love his enemies -- he just doesn't want anyone to die. So it's either that he feels empathy for them, or he is driven by a principle of the sanctity of life or some such. He doesn't seem virtuous to me (in the Aristotelian sense) because his behaviour is way too extreme -- a virtuous person balances extremes and looks for the mean as their guide. What do you reckon? Have you ever heard of another character in history or literature who puts himself in danger to save someone who's trying to kill him? I can't find any other such incident. Harry doesn't even resemble JC really because although he gives himself up to save the others, he doesn't actually die and so doesn't need to be resurrected, although he does end up being "master of death" like JC (having obtained ownership of all the Deathy hallows) Anyhow, just wondered what others' take on it would be? Sharon From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 02:19:56 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 02:19:56 -0000 Subject: HP and Moral Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176079 > Sharon: > What do you reckon? Have you ever heard of another character in > history or literature who puts himself in danger to save someone who's > trying to kill him? zgirnius: I would point out that Dumbledore's actions vis-a-vis Draco in HBP have a similar flavor, so Harry's action is not even unique to him in HP. Arguably Snape does the same for Harry in "The Flight of the Prince" (he does save him from torture), though that is complicated by the fact that Snape knows they are on the same side and has a personal connection to Harry, so his motive is not a hero-to-villain one. However, it does seem to me not unusual hero behavior. I could swear I have seen several Hollywood movies in which the hero and villain battle it out in some unlikely and visually spectacular dangerous location (a high cliff, top of a skyscraper, etc.) but then the villain loses and is about to fall off, and the hero offers him/her a hand up. Sometimes the villain is so dastardly that s/he tries to kill the hero in this moment, and the hero is forced to let the villain fall to his/her amply merited death, but the gesture is genuinely made. I can't dredge up any names at the moment (must have been really memorable...), other than "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" (the villainess's greed is her undoing, there, and she falls to her death, but the example is not the best because she has some redeeming traits, good looks, and a prior sexual relationship with the hero.) From Meliss9900 at aol.com Thu Aug 23 02:26:41 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:26:41 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176080 In a message dated 8/22/2007 1:42:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: So, what I was hinting at, is that Nagini is not any type of normal snake. Which bring us to your last paragraph which I disagree with. Nagini can't be a python because she is venomous; she's a poisonous snake>>> Shoot .. [slaps self on forehead] I completely forgot that little detail. Nagini is probably some magical combination of various snakes. I can't think of a single poisonous snake that would get large enough to swallow a full grown human. (perhaps she's a distant cousin to a basilisk. . . without the death glare/petrifying thing going on.) Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Aug 23 03:01:31 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:01:31 -0000 Subject: FILK: Give Harry Chase Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176081 Give Harry Chase (DH, Chap. 17) To the tune of Chantilly Lace by the Big Bopper (aka Jiles Perry Richardson) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB0qorMO9-s NOTE: Something I never knew before: The Big Bopper died in the same plane crash that claimed the life of Buddy Holly on Feb. 3 1959 Dedicated to Randy Estes THE SCENE: Lord Voldemort's Patronus (a Rat Snake) arrives with an urgent message for NAGINI NAGINI (spoken): Hello Voldy, yeah, this is the Big Viper speakin'! Ha ha ha ha ha, oh you cruel thing! Do I what? Will I what? Oh Voldy, you know that I'll strike! (music) Give Harry chase at the Bagshot place And a phony tale about a sword Bewilderin' surprise Bathilda's my disguise Serving Voldy Lord As I loiter in the lane It'll be quite plain Once he is at the Hollow He is sure to follow When the candles get lit he' s gonna get it I'll uncurl, oh Voldy that's when I'll strike! (Voldemort's Rat Snake Patronus shows up once more after the Christmas eve attacks for a progress report) (spoken, defensively) What's that Voldy, but, but, but.... Ohhhhhh Voldy, But ..oh Voldy you know that I struck . (music) Gave Harry chase at the Bagshot place With a phony tale about a sword Bewilderin' surprise Bathilda's my disguise, Lord! Serving Voldy Lord As I loitered in the lane It became quite plain But then I got too squirmy He was saved by Hermy When the candles got dim I nearly got him I uncurled, oh Voldy that's when I struck! (NAGINI is of course forgiven ? how can you punish your own soul? Several months later, in the Shrieking Shack, Voldemort himself gives NAGINI another assignment) (spoken) What's that, Voldy? Get Severus Snape, don't let him escape? But Dark Lord, you make my blood run coldly, Voldy! Ha ha ha ha ha Oh alright, Voldy, you know that'll I'll strike! (music) With skin like paste and a greasy taste And a bony tail I'm grinding down A bleakness in his eyes And weakness as he dies, Lord! Makin' his fans frown. There ain't nothing more obscene Than a snake death scene But he is way too sallow So I will not swallow He'll get it in the neck, and he'll catch all heck, I'll uncurl, oh Voldy that's when I'll strike! (NAGINI strikes, fatally wounding Snape) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Aug 23 02:37:30 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:37:30 +1000 (EST) Subject: HP and Moral Choices Message-ID: <20070823123730.CTB18263@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176082 zgirnius said: I would point out that Dumbledore's actions vis-a-vis Draco in HBP have a similar flavor, so Harry's action is not even unique to him in HP. Arguably Snape does the same for Harry in "The Flight of the Prince" (he does save him from torture), though that is complicated by the fact that Snape knows they are on the same side and has a personal connection to Harry, so his motive is not a hero-to-villain one. However, it does seem to me not unusual hero behavior. I could swear I have seen several Hollywood movies in which the hero and villain battle it out in some unlikely and visually spectacular dangerous location Sharon: I agree with you about Dumbledore and Snape, I just haven't come across anything quite like it in literature. It has been pointed out to me - -as you do above -- that it often happens in movies, but I still can't really find an equivalent character. Although someone told me that the Dr Who series (from UK) has some similar incidents, I am yet to find those. Also apparently Batman also saves an enemy. But there always seems to be some redeeming feature of the baddie that makes them deserve to be saved (such as being an ex of Indiana Jones). Draco, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any redeeming features -- except maybe that he is a fellow Hogwartian and young/foolish? I still wonder what Harry's motive is for saving Draco. Dumbledore is so disposed to Draco becuase he sees some good in Draco, but I don't think Harry sees any good in Draco -- he spends the entire 6th book trying to prove what a baddie he is. Dumbledore understands that Voldie has put Draco in a bad position, and pities him for that. Harry doesn't understand or pity for that reason. Sharon [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Meliss9900 at aol.com Thu Aug 23 03:19:30 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:19:30 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Three Unresolved Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176083 In a message dated 8/22/2007 7:05:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: 2.) Can Ghost move on to the afterlife? Is it possible for whatever holds ghost to the earth to be resolved in a way that allows them to move on? It breaks my heart to think of poor Moaning Myrtle being trapped for eternity in misery simply because she was ill treated when she was alive. But regarding Ghost in general - once a ghost; alway a ghost, or is it possible for them to move on? I really don't think they can unfortunately. Nick says in OOTP: "I was afraid of death," said Nick. "I chose to remain behind. I sometimes wonder whether I oughtn't to have . . . Well, that is neither here nor there. . . .In fact, I am neither here nor there. . . ." He gave a small sad chuckle. I know nothing of the secret's of death, Harry, for I chose my feeble imitation of life instead. I believe learned wizards study the matter in the department of mysteries---" To me that seems like a pretty definite statement that 'once a ghost, always a ghost.' My question is how did Nick become the Gryffindor ghost. The Gray Lady and the Bloody Baron are pretty obvious. They were actually at Hogwarts at the time of founding. But Nick wouldn't have shown up for nearly 500 years. Was Gryffindor 'ghostless' for all that time? Was Nick the first Gryffindor to choose to remain behind and fell into for that reason? And why was he nearly beheaded in the first place? Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 03:48:01 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:48:01 -0000 Subject: HP and Moral Choices In-Reply-To: <20070823123730.CTB18263@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176084 > Sharon: > I agree with you about Dumbledore and Snape, I > just haven't come across anything quite like it in > literature. It has been pointed out to me - -as > you do above -- that it often happens in movies, > but I still can't really find an equivalent > character. Although someone told me that the Dr > Who series (from UK) has some similar incidents, I > am yet to find those. Also apparently Batman also > saves an enemy. But there always seems to be some > redeeming feature of the baddie that makes them > deserve to be saved (such as being an ex of > Indiana Jones). Draco, on the other hand, doesn't > seem to have any redeeming features -- except > maybe that he is a fellow Hogwartian and > young/foolish? zgirnius: Draco has a number of redeeming features. First, Harry knows he would not have killed Dumbledore. Harry started to pity him at the end of HBP, when he realized this about Draco. Next, Draco surely lied for Harry in Malfoy Manor, when he claimed not to recognize Ron and Hermione. It did not help, but Draco does, in my view of things, get credit for trying. Finally, at the time when Harry rescues him, Draco himself is trapped by the flames partly because, instead of fleeing for his life, he attempted to drag the unconscious (and enormous) Goyle out of the RoR with him. Goyle is a 'bad guy' so this is not an action useful to the 'good side'. But in moral terms it is a selfless and courageous action. > Sharon: > I still wonder what Harry's motive is for saving > Draco. Dumbledore is so disposed to Draco becuase > he sees some good in Draco, but I don't think > Harry sees any good in Draco -- he spends the > entire 6th book trying to prove what a baddie he > is. zgirnius: What Harry sees and learns at the end of HBP causes him to reevaluate his views. > HBP, "The White Tomb": > Harry had not spared Malfoy much thought. His animosity was all for Snape, but he had not forgotten the fear in Malfoy's voice on that tower top, nor the fact that he had lowered his wand before the other Death Eaters had arrived. Harry did not believe that Malfoy would have killed Dumbledore. He despised Malfoy still for his infatuation with the Dark Arts, but now the tiniest drop of pity mingled with his dislike. Where, Harry wondered, was Malfoy now? And what was Voldmeort making him do under threat of killing him and his parents? zgirnius: And in DH, Harry sees what Draco is made to do through his connection to Vodlmeort. I see no evidence that Harry changes his mind (again) - Draco seems to be described as terrified and miserable when he is forced to torture others by Voldemort, which I think reinforces Harry's feelings of pity for him. From bgrugin at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 03:49:28 2007 From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:49:28 -0000 Subject: HP and Moral Choices In-Reply-To: <20070823123730.CTB18263@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176085 > zgirnius said: > > I would point out that Dumbledore's actions > vis-a-vis Draco in HBP have > a similar flavor, so Harry's action is not even > unique to him in HP. > Arguably Snape does the same for Harry in "The > Flight of the Prince" > (he does save him from torture), though that is > complicated by the fact > that Snape knows they are on the same side and has > a personal > connection to Harry, so his motive is not a > hero-to-villain one. > > However, it does seem to me not unusual hero > behavior. I could swear I > have seen several Hollywood movies in which the > hero and villain battle > it out in some unlikely and visually spectacular > dangerous location MusicalBetsy here: "Beauty and the Beast" is a perfect example of this. As the Beast and Gaston are fighting atop a tower, Gaston starts to fall off, but the Beast catches him and pulls him up. Then as soon as the Beast turns away to face Belle, Gaston tries to kill the Beast...talk about being ungrateful. > > Sharon: > > I still wonder what Harry's motive is for saving > Draco. Dumbledore is so disposed to Draco becuase > he sees some good in Draco, but I don't think > Harry sees any good in Draco -- he spends the > entire 6th book trying to prove what a baddie he > is. Dumbledore understands that Voldie has put > Draco in a bad position, and pities him for that. > Harry doesn't understand or pity for that reason. > Sharon > MusicalBetsy again: But I do think that Harry pities Draco - he saw Draco crying in the bathroom, and yes, Draco tried to crucio him, but I still think Harry ultimately understands that under it all, Draco is sort of like a victim himself. Harry was aware that Voldemort was basically punishing the Malfoys and that Draco's life was pretty terrible. And in the end, of course, it was a good thing he saved Draco's life, because if Harry had told Narcissa that Draco was dead, somehow I don't think she would have lied to Voldy. My one big question, though, is WHY was Draco in the RoR anyway? Was he looking for Crabbe and Goyle or did they just find him? Did he really want to be with his old friends or did Voldy order him to be with them? That to me is a bigger question than why Harry saved him. MusicalBetsy, who hasn't posted since before DH came out, because it seemed a little scary to post lately.... From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Aug 23 03:53:42 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:53:42 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176086 > Juli: Do you think Ron would accept to name his child after Hermione's > ex-boyfriend? Or that Hermione would allow Ron to name her daughter as > Ron's teenager crush? I don't see it happening, not in a million years. Potioncat: I recently compared Rose and Hugo to the Weasley twins Fred and George. But actually they have a lot in common with Snape's twins, Susan and Sylvie. It was a joke, long ago, at least a few hundred posts or so back. Or a few thousand, depending on which joke. Potioncat...going off to put salt in the sugar bowl. From marycosola at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 03:21:25 2007 From: marycosola at yahoo.com (seriousschwartz) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:21:25 -0000 Subject: HP and Moral Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176087 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sharon" wrote: > > Hi all, I am new to this list. I'm interested in the moral choices > made in the books and what it means for kids. So I was wondering what > other people thought about the following: > > In the 7th book Harry is being chased by Draco, Crabbe and Goyle in > the Room of Requirement and they are trying to capture/injure him so > they can deliver him to Voldemort. Crabbe and Goyle are also trying > to actually kill Ron and Hermione. Crabbe starts a fiendfire and the > baddies get trapped. Harry goes back to save them from being killed in > the fire. Why would Harry want to save someone who wants to kill him? > Sharon > seriousschwartz: I like your post. Honestly, I always simply thought that Harry's morality was informed by the death of his parents. Since his earliest memories, he understood death and the wide-reaching ripple effect it can cause. I guess this would mean he has a pretty well developed sense of empathy for a kid his age. Regarding saving Draco twice, I think Harry understands that Draco is not too far gone. From all that Harry witnessed in HBP, he knew, going into DH, that Draco isn't all evil. Harry has matured to the point that he knows most situations are not entirely black/white. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Aug 23 04:01:24 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:01:24 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HP and Moral Choices Message-ID: <20070823140124.CTB29585@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176088 Musicalbetsy said: My one big question, though, is WHY was Draco in the RoR anyway? Was he looking for Crabbe and Goyle or did they just find him? Did he really want to be with his old friends or did Voldy order him to be with them? That to me is a bigger question than why Harry saved him. Sharon: They were waiting outside in the corridor (dissilusioned) when Harry et al ran past and opened the ROR, so they saw them go in and followed. Voldy didn't order them to stay at Hogwarts, they chose to so they could capture Harry and deliver him to Voldy so Draco could get back into Voldy's good books. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Aug 23 04:09:22 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:09:22 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HP and Moral Choices Message-ID: <20070823140922.CTB31053@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176089 > zgirnius: >Draco has a number of redeeming features. First, Harry knows he would not have killed Dumbledore. Harry started to pity him at the end of HBP, when he realized this about Draco. Next, Draco surely lied for Harry in Malfoy Manor, when he claimed not to recognize Ron and Hermione. It did not help, but Draco does, in my view of things, get credit for trying. Finally, at the time when Harry rescues him, Draco himself is trapped by the flames partly because, instead of fleeing for his life, he attempted to drag the unconscious (and enormous) Goyle out of the RoR with him. Goyle is a 'bad guy' so this is not an action useful to the 'good side'. But in moral terms it is a selfless and courageous action. Sharon: You are right -- Draco does hang back from identifying them in DH and Harry must see that. I may have been too hard on Draco it seems. I am not sure if Draco hung back in the ROR to save Goyle though -- I thought they were just stuck there. I'll have to go back and reread HPB again as well. I don't really remember Harry pitying Draco in HBP in the tower scene - -although I do see your point about Draco crying in the bathroom. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 05:24:08 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:24:08 -0000 Subject: HP and Moral Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176090 Sharon wrote: Draco, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any redeeming features -- except maybe that he is a fellow Hogwartian and young/foolish? > > zgirnius: > Draco has a number of redeeming features. First, Harry knows he would not have killed Dumbledore. Harry started to pity him at the end of HBP, when he realized this about Draco. Next, Draco surely lied for Harry in Malfoy Manor, when he claimed not to recognize Ron and Hermione. It did not help, but Draco does, in my view of things, get credit for trying. Finally, at the time when Harry rescues him, Draco himself is trapped by the flames partly because, instead of fleeing for his life, he attempted to drag the unconscious (and enormous) Goyle out of the RoR with him. Goyle is a 'bad guy' so this is not an action useful to the 'good side'. But in moral terms it is a selfless and courageous action. > Sharon: > > I still wonder what Harry's motive is for saving Draco. Dumbledore is so disposed to Draco becuase he sees some good in Draco, but I don't think Harry sees any good in Draco -- he spends the entire 6th book trying to prove what a baddie he is. > > zgirnius: > What Harry sees and learns at the end of HBP causes him to reevaluate his views. > And in DH, Harry sees what Draco is made to do through his connection to Vodlmeort. I see no evidence that Harry changes his mind (again) - Draco seems to be described as terrified and miserable when he is forced to torture others by Voldemort, which I think reinforces Harry's feelings of pity for him. Carol responds: I agree with zgirnius. At the end of HBP, though Harry still hates Snape (as he does for most of DH as well), his perception of Draco has clear. Instead of seeing just a nasty, bullying, pure-blood supremacist who has joined the Death Eaters to kill Dumbledore, he sees a terrified young man who can't bring himself to commit murder even with four DEs trying to make him carry out his orders. In DH, we see the same terrified Draco, not at all the blustering bully of SS/PS through OoP. Perhaps having accidentally almost killed Draco with Sectumsempra makes some difference; certainly, seeing him through the scar connection having to Crucio someone against his will and again in Malfoy Manor pretending that he doesn't recognize Harry keeps Harry's view of him at the level it was at the end rather than the beginning of HBP, or perhaps eliminates the hatred or contempt altogether and replaces them with pity or compassion. These feelings are never openly expressed (Harry doesn't state his emotions in words and the narrator doesn't always specify them, either) but they can sometimes be inferred from Harry's actions. When he first encounters Draco and his cronies in the RoR, he seems to think that they've gone back in time and Draco is his old self backed by his thug cronies. But the balance of power has shifted; Crabbe isn't taking orders from Draco, whose father has been disgraced. (Crabbe and Goyle have also been using the Cruciatus Curse on fellow students, as we learn from Neville in "The Lost Diadem." There's no indication that Draco has joined them in doing so.) Draco tells Harry that Harry is using his wand and Harry says the equivalent of "finders, keepers." Then he asks Draco whose wand he's using and Draco says it's his mother's, but he doesn't point the wand or cast a spell. Harry asks why they're not with Voldemort, and Crabbe, not Draco, says that they hung back to bring him in. It's unclear whether he's speaking for Draco or only for himself and Goyle. After some conversation (still no spells cast), Goyle asks what a "die-dum" is. Crabbe, hearing Ron call out to Harry, shouts "Descendo!" and part of the "mountain" of old furniture, books, and junk begins to fall. Harry cries "Finite!" and the spell ends. Crabbe starts to repeat his spell and Draco grabs his arm, shouting "No!" and warning him that he might "bury that diadem thing." Like Snape stopping the Crucio in HBP, Draco seems to be helping Harry here. Crabbe says that he doesn't take orders from Draco "no more." Crabbe tries to Crucio Harry but misses. Draco, again echoing Snape, calls out, "Stop! The Dark Lord wants him alive--" to which Crabbe responds, "So? I'm not killing him, am I? but if I can, I will, the Dark Lord wants him alive, anyway. What's the diff--" Hermione tries to Stun Crabbe, who actually casts a Killing curse at the "Mudblood." Draco yells, "Don't kill him! DON'T KILL HIM!" Both Crabbe and Goyle point their wands at Harry. Draco is wandless from a Stunning Spell aimed at Crabbe. Harry disarms Goyle but Crabbe yells "Avada Kedavra" again. Hermione hits Goyle with a Stunning Spell. Crabbe casts the Fiendfyre spell. Draco grabs the Stunned (and huge) Goyle, dragging him along. Draco and his two friends (if Crabbe deserves the label) disappear from view. Harry finds a pair of broomsticks and swoops low over the flames, trying to find them, thinking, "What a terrible way to die." The narrator notes that "he had never wanted this." Despite Ron's protests that it's too dangerous, Harry finds Draco with his arms around the unconscious Goyle. They manage to rescue not only Draco and Goyle but the tiara, and Draco expresses grief for "C-Crabbe," who has died in a fire of his own making. As I read this scene, Goyle is his usual gormless self and is only following the rather confusing lead of Crabbe and Draco, who are at odds with each other. Crabbe has clearly gone over to the Dark Side, willing to cast every Dark Curse he knows and three times trying to kill someone. Ironically and fittingly, the only one who ends up dead is himself. Draco does not cast a single spell and several times tries to stop Crabbe from doing so. It seems to me that his purpose in entering the RoR was not to help Crabbe capture Harry but to prevent him from doing so. If not actively on the side of good, he is at least morally neutral. I'm not sure how much of this Harry realizes, but he certainly knows that it's Crabbe who cast the Dark Curses, Crabbe who tried to Crucio him and kill Hermione. He sees Draco trying to comfort the unconscious Goyle, thinking that they're all going to die, and out of mercy or compassion or plain human decency he saves Draco while Ron, against his will and perhaps against common sense, pulls the unconscious Goyle onto his own broom with himself and Hermione. Carol, who thinks that Draco, though not a hero, has come a long way from the beginning of HBP and that Harry's rescue of him (and Goyle) was very much the right and proper thing to do From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 05:34:59 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:34:59 -0000 Subject: HP and Moral Choices In-Reply-To: <20070823140922.CTB31053@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176091 > MusicalBetsy here: > "Beauty and the Beast" is a perfect example of this. As the Beast > and Gaston are fighting atop a tower, Gaston starts to fall off, but > the Beast catches him and pulls him up. Then as soon as the Beast > turns away to face Belle, Gaston tries to kill the Beast...talk about > being ungrateful. zgirnius: Thanks! And Gaston was singularly lacking in redeeming features (My what a Guy ) > Musicalbetsy said: > My one big question, though, is WHY was Draco in the > RoR anyway? > Sharon: > Voldy didn't order them to stay at Hogwarts, they chose to > so they could capture Harry and deliver him to Voldy > so Draco could get back into Voldy's good books. zgirnius: Yes, in "The Elder Wand" Voldemort questions Lucius about Draco's absence, suggesting Draco might have turned traitor. He would not have, if Draco was at the school on his orders. Draco's back in the same situation he was in during the latter part of HBP. Then, he knew he and his parents would be killed if the mission to murder Dumbledore failed. In DH, Draco can see that they will all be killed if they don't prove their use to Voldemort in some way. What we don't know, is whether Draco is any more able to follow through on his plans than he was in HBP. He did have Dumbledore dead to rights, after all, but did not bring himself to kill him. In the RoR he tries to get his friends interested in the diadem (shades of his focus on repairing cabinets in HBP focusing on anything but actually doing Very Bad Things to people), uses no offensive spells, an quickly loses his wand. So my own view is that he is again driven by his desperation, but remains unable to do what he must to be a useful Death Eater. > Sharon: > I am not > sure if Draco hung back in the ROR to save Goyle > though -- I thought they were just stuck there. zgirnius: I'm happy to provide the reference. Draco grabs Goyle before starting to run; he is found with his arms wrapped protectively around his friend, so he has stuck with him. > DH, "The Battle of Hogwarts" (p.631 US Ed.): > Malfoy grabbed the Stunned Goyle and dragged him along; Crabbe outstripped them all; Harry, Ron, and Hermione pelted along in his wake, and the fire pursued them > DH (p. 633): > And he saw them: Malfoy, with his arms around the unconscious Goyle, the pair of them perched on a fragile tower of charred desks. > Sharon: > I'll have to go back and reread HPB again as well. I > don't really remember Harry pitying Draco in HBP in > the tower scene ? zgirnius: He did not, in the Tower scene. The scene I quoted was the morning of Dumbledore's funeral ? Harry is reminded of Draco when he sees Crabbe and Goyle at breakfast that day. It would seem that the contrast to Snape, who (Harry thinks) was happy to do the murder for the glory may have made Harry think more about Draco's reluctance and his difficult situation. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 23 06:49:21 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:49:21 -0000 Subject: Ending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176092 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nitalynx" wrote: > > Geoff wrote: > > > I was thinking about this on the society level and was struck by a real > > world parallel. > > > > The epilogue is set 19 years after the final showdown. It is just 18 > > years since the amazing events of 1989 when we saw the Communist > > bloc start to topple down like a house of cards. > > > Nita: > > But don't you think both the historical circumstances and the actual > events are vastly different? In Potterverse, it's Takeover - Some > Resistance - Final Showdown, all in a single year. The Soviet Union > had existed for 70 years or so before it collapsed relatively > peacefully (and it had been moving in that direction for years). > > > > There was rejoicing and euphoria. We expected that the world would > > enter a new era. Well, we did but if, 18 years on, you look around, > > especially at many of the former Communist countries, there are still > > serious problems which are slowly, oh so slowly, being tackled. Geoff: I think I may have expressed myself badly here because you have missed the main point of my parallel. I quite agree that the circumstances may be somewhat different. What I was trying to say was after 18 years, there are lots of unresolved issues in the post-Communist countries both at individual and governmental level. Perhaps we expected that someone would wave a magic wand and all would be utopian sweetness and light overnight. Attitudes which have been set for years have to be overcome and, as you rightly said, there is a lot of inertia from groups who benefitted from the old regime who are only accepting the changes unwillingly and with ill grace. Therefore, remembering that we are talking about a fictional scenario, it is quite reasonable for JKR to envisage a post-Voldemort era in which problems at these levels are still only being tackled at a very slow rate. There is suspicion between the former protagonists, there are probably former Voldemort supporters who were not openly Death Eaters and, as group members have been suggesting, the rebuilding and improvement of inter-house relationships in the wake of the Battle of Hogwarts did not get the priority and high profile that it needed. Hence, we have a similar (if not parallel) situation to that current in Eastern Europe. From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 06:48:24 2007 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:48:24 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux Question: PHILIP In-Reply-To: <46C880A9.6030609@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176093 Donna wrote: > > Please help me understand something. To make a horcrux, a > > murder has to be committed and a spell cast to put the torn > > piece of soul into an object intended to be a horcrux. When > > was the spell cast to make Harry a horcrux? Bart wrote: > What I am getting at is that there is no differential term > in the Wizarding vocabulary for a piece of a soul that broke > off and attached on its own. So, the only term we had for > what happened to Harry was "horcrux." But what happened > (interpreting the spirit formerly known as Dumbledore) was > that, when Morty tried the first AK against Harry (you know, > one definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and > over again expecting different results, but we KNOW Morty is > insane) his soul was already in such a sorry state that the > rip that would normally appear in his soul was sufficient to > split off a piece without having to cast any spells. With no > prepared container, the soul piece attached to the most suitable > container: Harry. Niru now: That's exactly right and I think it raises another interesting question. This soul bit of Voldemort's that was ripped apart, where would it have gone if Harry hadn't been there? It appears from Dumbledore's statement that the soul bit would only have been able to attach itself to a living being. Seems like some greater height of dark magic that not even dear old Voldy was aware of. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 07:44:33 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:44:33 -0000 Subject: HP and Moral Choices In-Reply-To: <20070823140124.CTB29585@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176094 > > Musicalbetsy said: > My one big question, though, is WHY was Draco in the > RoR anyway? Was he looking for Crabbe and Goyle or > did they just find him? Did he really want to be > with his old friends or did Voldy order him to be > with them? That to me is a bigger question than why > Harry saved him. > > Sharon responded: > They were waiting outside in the corridor > (dissilusioned) when Harry et al ran past and opened > the ROR, so they saw them go in and followed. Voldy > didn't order them to stay at Hogwarts, they chose to > so they could capture Harry and deliver him to Voldy > so Draco could get back into Voldy's good books. > Doddie here: Actually I believe it was Crabbe and Goyle, not Draco who were waiting in the hall and followed the trio in at least this is what they both stated, but Draco never said otherwise. This leads me to believe that seeing as the trio open the door to find "the place where things are hidden"..then Draco was already in the ROR hiding.(Probably upon his mother's orders or at least encouragement--he does have her wand after all, and she seems to have stepped up to the plate in guiding her family through this crisis.) I was more questioning why didn't Draco make use of the Vanishing Cabinets-the one in the ROR is still there? Perhaps he was scared because he didn't know if the other cabinet existed any longer, or was no longer at Borgin and Burkes..Perhaps he didn't want to leave w/o his wandless parents who were still at Voldemort's mercy. Do you think perhaps the Malfoy's had an escape plan? We do know Lucious trying to get Voldemort to let him go and find Harry--a perfect excuse to get into the castle..(Did Cissy ask Snape for help again?) Was Draco telling his cronies not to kill Harry because he didn't want a bunch of DE's or Voldemort coming into the ROR? It's been implied or at least Harry believes that Draco has the dark mark. I believe he must have had a dark mark to get up on the tower in HBP and to descend from the tower after DD's death. If Draco wanted Harry captured or dead he would have identified him in the mansion and he would have pressed his dark mark in the ROR. I just think Draco's sorted out at least some of his priorties and is trying to keep himself and his family safe and alive. Then there's the aftermath of the battle with the Malfoy's huddled around each other, not on the run, not hiding after all they'd been through. It certainly gave Harry another picture of family dynamics in the here and now with people he didn't necessarily like, respect, or admire but in the end--understood. Harry felt the slightest bit of pity for Malfoy at the end of HBP, but I'm sure that Harry had a great deal of pity, and empathy for Draco by the end of DH. Doddie: (who's really wondering why Narcissa felt she could go to Snape in HBP--did she know something about him? She certainly didn't avoid eye contact with him like she does Voldemort in DH.) From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Aug 23 07:44:04 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:44:04 +1000 (EST) Subject: HP and Moral Choices Message-ID: <20070823174404.CTC23871@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176095 > zgirnius: > Yes, in "The Elder Wand" Voldemort questions Lucius > about Draco's > absence, suggesting Draco might have turned traitor. > He would not > have, if Draco was at the school on his orders. > Draco's back in the > same situation he was in during the latter part of > HBP. Then, he knew > he and his parents would be killed if the mission to > murder > Dumbledore failed. In DH, Draco can see that they > will all be killed > if they don't prove their use to Voldemort in some > way. > > What we don't know, is whether Draco is any more > able to follow > through on his plans than he was in HBP. He did have > Dumbledore dead > to rights, after all, but did not bring himself to > kill him. In the > RoR he tries to get his friends interested in the > diadem (shades of > his focus on repairing cabinets in HBP?focusing on > anything but > actually doing Very Bad Things to people), uses no > offensive spells, > an quickly loses his wand. So my own view is that he > is again driven > by his desperation, but remains unable to do what he > must to be a > useful Death Eater. Sharon: Ah I see yes you are correct. So Draco is on the path to redemption after all. However, I think Harry still would have saved Draco even if he wasn't, just out of decency or something similar. So the book gives many instances of decent behaviour on both sides. The fact that Lucius and Narcissa don't care whether Voldie wins in the end shows they have some compassion and love, if only for their son > zgirnius: > I'm happy to provide the reference. Sharon: Thanks that's excellent, again you are correct (and I have read the book 4 times!) To my mind it is really Snape who is the hero in DH. Snape attracts the hatred of everyone he is trying to help, he does the right thing, even when it makes him look very bad. That seems to be the mark of a true hero. Harry is also a hero for giving himself up unarmed to Voldie, again, he does the right thing. But I wonder if Harry would have done it so easily (well of course it wasn't easy but you know what I mean) if his parents, Sirius and Lupin hadn't died. He was going to join them, and that was a comfort to him. I am not trying to take anything away from Harry sacrifice, but when I think of it, I realise that it was his close connection with death that allowed him to make the sacrifice. So I guess I have changed my mind -- Harry is a hero in the traditional sense, but better, becuase he doesn't try to kill off the baddies. He doesn't even use the Killing Curse on Voldie at the end - -is that becuase he knew he only ahd to disarm him to win the Elder wand -- or is it as I earlier suspected, that he couldn't bring himself to use the Avada Kadavra. Maybe a little of both? Sharon From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Aug 23 08:08:34 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:08:34 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HP and Moral Choices Message-ID: <20070823180834.CTC25461@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176096 >Doddie said: > Do you think perhaps the Malfoy's had an escape > plan? We do know > Lucious trying to get Voldemort to let him go and > find Harry-- Sharon: It was Snape who kept asking Voldie if he could go and get Harry (presumably so that he could give Harry Dumbledore's final message about Harry having to die). Lucius was just cowering in the shrieking shack after being called back from battle right? From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Aug 23 08:29:07 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:29:07 -0000 Subject: Putting the Elder Wand at risk? (Was: I would have kept the Elder Wand) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176097 Carol: > OTOH, having lived to the ripe old age of 37, maybe Harry has > had enough action and will accept a supervisory position so he > can die a natural death for the wand's sake. He certainly doesn't > appear to be as scarred as Mad-Eye or even Scrimgeour (aside from > the residual lightning-bolt scar), so either his reputation as > the hero who destroyed the Dark Lord intimidates his opponents, > or he's developed greater skill in duelling than he demonstrates > in canon, or the Expelliarmus tactic is working, or there's a > dearth of Dark wizards of any caliber post-DH. > Sharon: I wondered about that -- ie the lack of dark wizards 19 years later. Surely there are more dark wizards/witches than poor old Voldie who covet power, at least if Potterdom imitates our own society! It is my prediction that JKR will continue with her brand and write more on this theme, or at least a prequel. I know this view is not popular, but I stand by it. The wizarding world does not become innocuous automatically just becuase Voldie dies. As in history there is always some dark influence ready to step into the void. From rvink7 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 23 10:17:13 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:17:13 -0000 Subject: HP and Moral Choices In-Reply-To: <20070823123730.CTB18263@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176098 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: > > zgirnius said: > > I would point out that Dumbledore's actions > vis-a-vis Draco in HBP have > a similar flavor, so Harry's action is not even > unique to him in HP. > > > > Sharon: > > I agree with you about Dumbledore and Snape, I > just haven't come across anything quite like it in > literature. > > I still wonder what Harry's motive is for saving > Draco. Dumbledore is so disposed to Draco becuase > he sees some good in Draco, but I don't think > Harry sees any good in Draco -- he spends the > entire 6th book trying to prove what a baddie he > is. Dumbledore understands that Voldie has put > Draco in a bad position, and pities him for that. > Harry doesn't understand or pity for that reason. > Renee *offering another reason after everything else that has been mentioned*: DD thought Draco worth saving and actually died for him (yes, he was going to die anyway, but I don't think this made a difference). I don't think for a moment Harry was going nullify DD's sacrifice by letting Draco die after all, not if he could help it. Especially not, as Draco did nothing to further Voldemort's aims in DH - on the contary. From rvink7 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 23 10:22:02 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:22:02 -0000 Subject: More books (was Re: Putting the Elder Wand at risk? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176099 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sharon" wrote: > > > Sharon: > Surely there are more dark wizards/witches than poor old > Voldie who covet power, at least if Potterdom imitates our own > society! It is my prediction that JKR will continue with her > brand and write more on this theme, or at least a prequel. I > know this view is not popular, but I stand by it. The wizarding > world does not become innocuous automatically just becuase Voldie > dies. As in history there is always some dark influence ready to > step into the void. > Renee: Why would she repeat herself by writing about a struggle with a power-hungry Dark Wizard all over again? I don't see any point in this. My prediction is, that after writing the encyclopedia, she'll get enough of the Wizarding World and move on. From miamibarb at comcast.net Thu Aug 23 11:02:46 2007 From: miamibarb at comcast.net (ivogun) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:02:46 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176100 > Bruce: > > Someone--I'm not sure--suggested that Hugo was after the French > > writer VICTOR Hugo (an allusion to Krum) and Rose was to Mme. > > ROSEmerta. > > Juli: Do you think Ron would accept to name his child after Hermione's > ex-boyfriend? Or that Hermione would allow Ron to name her daughter as > Ron's teenager crush? I don't see it happening, not in a million years. Oh I see it happening--except I think Rose was named for Fleur. Ron thought he was going to get away with something naming his daughter Rose. Fleur is in the family now, so it's not good to have a big fight. Leave it to Hermione to get even by naming her son Hugo. Ron may not have made the connection, since Victor Hugo is a muggle author. Love it. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Aug 23 11:34:43 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:34:43 -0000 Subject: FILK: Just Stop Thinking About The Hallows Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176101 Just Stop Thinking About The Hallows (DH, Chap. 22) To the tune of Don't Stop Thinking About Tommorow by Fleetwood Mac http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBKkwxCV5ls THE SCENE: The Middle of Nowhere. HERMIONE is concerned over HARRY'S increasing obsession over the Deathly Hallows HERMIONE: You should wise up and swiftly curtail Any interest in Beadle tales You are obsessed with wand and stone They're two things that should be left alone Just stop thinking about the Hallows, Just stop, do not lend an ear It's a mere idle bit of lore Cloak, wand and stone, cloak, wand and stone HARRY: Though you think that it's merely smoke But I have the Invincible Cloak If I get the other two Just think how I'll mar You-Know-Who. Won't stop thinking about the Hallows, Won't stop, now it is all clear I will be besting Voldemort Cloak, wand and stone, cloak, wand and stone In the Snitch, the Stone is revealed Voldy wants to the Elder steal I know you don't believe that its true, "Narrow-minded" so Xeno called you. HERMIONE: Just say "Horcrux" and don't say "Hallows", Just stop, let your mind be clear It won't be stopping Voldemort Three Horcrux gone, three Horcrux gone Dont get off-track Dont get off-track .. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Aug 23 11:36:45 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:36:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40708230436j2f89dd7g4541d0219b6c0eb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176102 > > > Bruce: > > > Someone--I'm not sure--suggested that Hugo was after the French > > > writer VICTOR Hugo (an allusion to Krum) and Rose was to Mme. > > > ROSEmerta. > > > > Juli: Do you think Ron would accept to name his child after Hermione's > > ex-boyfriend? Or that Hermione would allow Ron to name her daughter as > > Ron's teenager crush? I don't see it happening, not in a million years. > > ivogun wrote:Oh I see it happening--except I think Rose was named for > Fleur. Ron thought he was > going to get away with something naming his daughter Rose. Fleur is in the > family now, so > it's not good to have a big fight. Leave it to Hermione to get even by > naming her son > Hugo. Ron may not have made the connection, since Victor Hugo is a muggle > author. Love > it. montims: Is this another Brit/US thing? Because I don't get it - I have lots of friends in England who have children, and I have (naturally) worked with many others. And in all of those cases, when the parents were thinking of baby names, they were choosing names that they liked, often from a baby book. I have never known anyone who named their children AFTER someone else. It happened in the past, according to literature if you wanted Great Aunt Bessie to leave you all of her money... And in Italy, in my husband's family, it followed naturally through many generations that Vincenzo's first son was called Giuseppe and his would be called Vincenzo, ad infinitum, making it very confusing and necessitating many nicknames on the Beppe, Beppone, variety. But really - when people in the real world have children, do they really name them after somebody they know, or do they just pick their favourite names??? Can the WW not do the same? Particularly if the children seem likely to spend a lot of time in the muggle world (viz. Ron's driving lessons, and their muggle grandparents, now safely restored to the UK) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Aug 23 12:01:31 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:01:31 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708230436j2f89dd7g4541d0219b6c0eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176103 > montims: > Is this another Brit/US thing? Because I don't get it - I have lots of > friends in England who have children, and I have (naturally) worked with > many others. And in all of those cases, when the parents were thinking of > baby names, they were choosing names that they liked, often from a baby > book. Potioncat: You're right. That's true in real life, and I'm sure in the WW too, but in this case it's something that sort of jumps off the page. Looking at "Nineteen Years Later" you have Teddy, Lily and James all named after grandparents; Albus Severus named after Hogwarts professors; Victorie(sorry, don't have book for spelling) named for the end of the war; and even Scorpios named for a constellation in keeping with a Black tradition. Hugo and Rose have no obvious connection with anything in the HP-WW. It actually made me stop and ask, "What? Where did those names come from?" Come to think of it, that's pretty much what our parents said when my husband and I announced each of our kids' names. Potioncat, who really enjoys threads based on topics that have no importance whatsoever, but are fun to argue. Whoops! From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Thu Aug 23 10:05:11 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:05:11 -0000 Subject: Contradiction? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176104 Around page 45 of DH, Mad-Eye says that they can't do a spell to get Harry out of Privet Drive. Then 6 people take polyjuice. Isn't this a spell and hence a contradiction? They can leave on brooms, flying motorbike (isn't this a spell?) or Thestral. Why then, doesn't Harry use his invisibility cloak and a whole different plan? Barry From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 23 13:19:06 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:19:06 -0000 Subject: Said creature under the bench.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176105 > > Annemehr: > > It seems to me you are trying to have it both ways. What *was* Harry > trying to do in the Great Hall, goad Voldemort or rescue him? > Ken: I, or Harry actually, am trying to have it both ways. He was trying to do both. This is not a situation that many of us are going to face. Voldemort is an extremely dangerous threat and having just been given his life back Harry is no longer willing to sacrifice it again. In order to save his life he has to be able to know when Voldemort will strike. And yet he also knows what that baby/creature was and he understands that he has been shown it to give Voldemort a last warning. The warning is given, and rejected, well before Voldemort has been goaded into action. There was no chance to have an extended theological discussion with Voledmort and no point really. Harry is taking no little risk by trying to do two things at once. The method he is using to judge when the attack will come is uncertain enough. Offering Voldemort a warning is handing him a tool that he could have used to turn the tables on Harry. All Voldemort had to do was pretend to be interested in remorse to knock Harry off his game. The offer Harry makes is a more dangerous and therefore a braver and nobler gesture than it appears on the surface. > Annemehr: > When I read Harry's words in that scene from Voldemort's point of > view, there is no way I can see that LV could possibly understand > what Harry is talking about, let alone consider it as the better > option. Try for some remorse! I've seen what you'll become! What in > heaven's name is Voldemort supposed to make of that? Does that sound > like the voice of reconciliation? Ken: I believe that Hermione read the same reference book on horcruxes as Voldemort. That reference told her that only remorse can heal a damaged soul. Voldemort would already have known this. Voldemort apparently had the same kind of blackout after his attack on Harry in the forest as Harry experienced. We cannot know if he too had a vision of the afterlife or what it might have been. In any event Voldemort had seen that he was on the cusp of something very serious. Harry obviously knows something about what may happen to him. Harry's offer was one of evident value which Voldemort had the ability to recognize. Whether he understood it fully or not is immaterial. He was in a position to understand its potential value and he could have learned all he needed to know by surrendering his wand and asking questions. It isn't easy to reconcile with someone who is armed and intent on killing you. I don't see what more Harry could have done in this situation. He understood that he was supposed to warn Voldemort one last time and he risked his life to offer that warning. Voldemort was done for anyway. He had no horcruxes left and he was surrounded by people who would have killed him the instant he killed Harry. He was not going to walk out of that room a free man. He had nothing at all to lose by stopping and listening to what Harry had to say. This was a real offer of reconciliation and salvation. > Annemehr: > > The Tom Riddle I saw was no more capable of feeling empathy and > remorse than of conceiving of the fifth dimension, and it seems > awfully hard to say he'd *earned* eternal misery for himself for > failing to. > Ken: That is the Calvinist position and I reject it personally although many hold it. Tom, Severus, and Harry were raised in similarly unloving environments. Harry stands out as the most noble of the three even though life handed him the worst deal. Tom's and Severus' troubles as adults were mostly of their own making. Harry gets buried under problems he never asked for. I have quite the opposite view as you and the author too then if it comes to that. Tom Riddle had no worse a deal from life than Harry. Tom chose one path, Harry chose another. Tom was in an excellent position to prosper as a decent wizard when he graduated from Hogwarts. Even as a murderer with one or two horcurxes he was far from being unredeemable at that point. Merely by stepping back from the brink he could have prospered materially and spiritually. He was no more incapable of that than you or I. But he chose to go on to greater and greater depths of evil. He chose to be what he was. He earned what he got. Ken From stittdale at hotmail.com Thu Aug 23 13:16:18 2007 From: stittdale at hotmail.com (Dale) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:16:18 -0000 Subject: perhaps naive newbie question about book III ending Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176106 When Hermione and Harry went back in time, why didn't they just tell Remus to take his potion. Then the book would have ended more happily with Scabbers being put into custody, Black being cleared and Harry living with him for the summer. Am I missing something? Of course the Hippogriff would still be dead. Thanks in advance, I'm new at the books and the group thing. Dale From margdean at erols.com Thu Aug 23 14:44:00 2007 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:44:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Contradiction? References: Message-ID: <46CD9D30.5CEA436E@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176107 Barry wrote: > > Around page 45 of DH, Mad-Eye says that they can't do a spell to get > Harry out of Privet Drive. Then 6 people take polyjuice. Isn't this a > spell and hence a contradiction? > > They can leave on brooms, flying motorbike (isn't this a spell?) or > Thestral. Why then, doesn't Harry use his invisibility cloak and a > whole different plan? An interesting question. I suspect that what would attract unwanted attention would be (for lack of a better term) the release of magical energy used in casting a spell. Something like a potion, or an enchanted item like a broom or the flying motorbike, =already= had the energy imbued in it when it was made or enchanted, so there is no additional release of energy when it is used. Ditto the Thestral, which has presumably been magical (or had abilities which we would classify as magical) from birth. Which may give us a certain amount of insight on the way magic works in the WW. --Margaret Dean From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 14:42:55 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:42:55 -0000 Subject: perhaps naive newbie question about book III ending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176108 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dale" wrote: > > When Hermione and Harry went back in time, why didn't they just tell > Remus to take his potion. Then the book would have ended more happily > with Scabbers being put into custody, Black being cleared and Harry > living with him for the summer. Am I missing something? Of course > the Hippogriff would still be dead. > > Thanks in advance, I'm new at the books and the group thing. > > Dale > ***Katie: A couple of reasons, I think. First of all, Harry and Hermione from the future were not to be seen by anyone. Had they reminded Lupin to take his potion, he would have seen them! lol Secondly, as with many things in novels, it couldn't have been that way, or we wouldn't have had Voldy returning with the help of Pettigrew in GoF. Pettigrew couldn't be captured, and Sirius couldn't have been cleared, at that point, because it would have screwed up the trajectory of the story and what needed to happen in GoF. So, basically, a plot device, but a well-supported one, seeing as it was very clear that H/H from the future "cannot be seen!!", according to Dumbledore. This is, incidentally, usually a component of any time-travel story = messing too much with the past can have grave consequences. Katie From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 14:45:43 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:45:43 -0000 Subject: Contradiction? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176109 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Barry" wrote: > > Around page 45 of DH, Mad-Eye says that they can't do a spell to get > Harry out of Privet Drive. Then 6 people take polyjuice. Isn't this a > spell and hence a contradiction? > > They can leave on brooms, flying motorbike (isn't this a spell?) or > Thestral. Why then, doesn't Harry use his invisibility cloak and a > whole different plan? > > Barry > ***Katie: Potions, strictly speaking, are not spells. While they are brewed magically, obviously, they are not really spells of their own accord. As for leaving on bewitched objects, the spells that bewitched those objects was cast long ago. There is no actual spell being performed at that moment. I think the idea was that any casting of a spell would have alerted the DE's as to what was happening. Katie From margdean at erols.com Thu Aug 23 14:48:56 2007 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:48:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names References: <8ee758b40708230436j2f89dd7g4541d0219b6c0eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46CD9E58.64E864A@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176110 Janette wrote: > But really - when people in the real world have children, do they really > name them after somebody they know, or do they just pick their favourite > names??? Can the WW not do the same? Particularly if the children seem > likely to spend a lot of time in the muggle world (viz. Ron's driving > lessons, and their muggle grandparents, now safely restored to the UK) This particular Muggle gave both of her sons "family" names (one of which has had a representative in each generation of my husband's family). So sure, it still happens. Harry and Ginny evidently follow this tradition of naming their children after beloved or admired friends and family. Which doesn't necessarily mean that Ron and Hermione are doing the same. They might just be picking names they like. --Margaret Dean From cottell at dublin.ie Thu Aug 23 14:54:31 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:54:31 -0000 Subject: Contradiction? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176111 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Barry" wrote: > > Around page 45 of DH, Mad-Eye says that they can't do a spell to get > Harry out of Privet Drive. Then 6 people take polyjuice. Isn't this a > spell and hence a contradiction? > > They can leave on brooms, flying motorbike (isn't this a spell?) or > Thestral. Why then, doesn't Harry use his invisibility cloak and a > whole different plan? Mus responds: My reading of it wasn't that they couldn't do magic, but that they couldn't do magic without being detected. That then was the point of the Seven Harries - the decoys were a way of dealing with inevitable detection. You're right, though - I can't think of an objection to Harry using the Cloak to get away. Seven Naked Harries is a more striking visual, though (allegedly), and we get a chase scene right at the beginning. Mus From salilouisa at googlemail.com Thu Aug 23 15:07:41 2007 From: salilouisa at googlemail.com (Sali Morris) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:07:41 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: <46CD9E58.64E864A@erols.com> References: <8ee758b40708230436j2f89dd7g4541d0219b6c0eb@mail.gmail.com> <46CD9E58.64E864A@erols.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176112 Janette wrote: > But really - when people in the real world have children, do they really > name them after somebody they know, or do they just pick their favourite > names??? Can the WW not do the same? Particularly if the children seem > likely to spend a lot of time in the muggle world (viz. Ron's driving > lessons, and their muggle grandparents, now safely restored to the UK) Margaret: This particular Muggle gave both of her sons "family" names (one of which has had a representative in each generation of my husband's family). So sure, it still happens. Harry and Ginny evidently follow this tradition of naming their children after beloved or admired friends and family. Which doesn't necessarily mean that Ron and Hermione are doing the same. They might just be picking names they like. Sali: I also thought that they might have family names as middle names. It looks as though that might be somewhat of a Weasley tradition. Although we don't have much to go on we do know that Ron's middle name is Bilious after an uncle (or great-uncle or something) and we learn at the wedding that Bill's is Arthur. I don't think we can tell whether their first names are family names also but if they were I would have expected Molly's brother's names to be there. So, for example, Hugo's middle name could be Arthur and then he would have an original first name and a family middle name. On a tangent, we hear Albus' middle name but not that of James and Lily. Assuming that Harry continues his propensity for naming his children after dead loved/respected ones, I'm coming up with James Sirius (which I think is an infelicitous combination) but am drawing a blank for Lily. Can anyone think of dead females from the series who are close to Harry apart from his mother? I don't think he'd name her after Tonks and I'm assuming Molly hasn't died in the intervening years. Sali, who's enjoying pure speculation. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Thu Aug 23 14:28:11 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:28:11 -0000 Subject: Contradiction? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176113 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Barry" wrote: > > Around page 45 of DH, Mad-Eye says that they can't do a spell to get > Harry out of Privet Drive. Then 6 people take polyjuice. Isn't this a > spell and hence a contradiction? > > They can leave on brooms, flying motorbike (isn't this a spell?) or > Thestral. Why then, doesn't Harry use his invisibility cloak and a > whole different plan? > I believe Mad-Eye said something about using things that were magic in themselves didn't qualify as spell-casting and so wasn't detectable, which of course would include polyjuice potion. Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Aug 23 16:09:11 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:09:11 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708230436j2f89dd7g4541d0219b6c0eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176114 montims: > But really - when people in the real world have children, do they > really name them after somebody they know, or do they just pick their > favourite names??? Can the WW not do the same? Particularly if the > children seem likely to spend a lot of time in the muggle world (viz. > Ron's driving lessons, and their muggle grandparents, now safely > restored to the UK) Jen: I just thought it was a funny idea, given the type of relationship that Hermione & Ron have. There he is 19 years later and still acting like a kid, whispering to Harry how he used a spell to get his driver's license. Thinking each one secretly influenced the naming of a child after an old crush fits with the way they tend to operate with each other. Although the more I consider it, Rose after Rosmerta wouldn't be as likely to get by Hermione as Victor Hugo would get by Ron. I can envision her narrowing her eyes, crossing her arms and seeing right through him... No, now I'm back to thinking they are simply names the two of them could agree on. Can you see *that* process, the two of them trying to agree on names? For fanfiction I guess. From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Aug 23 16:11:06 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:11:06 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series Message-ID: <19814919.1187885466998.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176115 I'd like to start out by saying that, since my cultural background is from the United States, these comments are going to be U.S.-centric. However, from what I have read in the group, it seems that, although details will differ, it seems essentially correct for Great Britain, as well. Moses smashed the 10 commandments, and had to go back to Mt. Sinai for a new copy. Hercules, in a fit of rage, killed his wife and children. King David arranged for an officer to get killed so he could bonk the officer's wife. Sir Lancelot bonked Queen Guinevere. So, it is obvious. These guys were not heroes. After all, they weren't perfect. It sounds kind of silly. Yet, currently, we expect our heroes to be perfect. Any sign of imperfection takes away their heroism. And the news media glories in finding flaws in heroes, to prove that they are not heroes. So, what's going on, here? I can't give a precise point in time that this happened, but, from my readings, I suspect that it was during WWII that heroes lost their flaws. Certainly, in the Greco-Roman tradition, heroes WERE human, and WERE flawed. Their heroism was not just in the great deeds that they did, but in the fact that they were able to do those deeds in spite of their flaws. To believe they were perfect was hubris, and if they believed in their own perfection, it would inevitably lead to their downfall. The Old Testament was certainly full of warts and all depictions of the heroes; Noah got stinking drunk, Jacob tricked Esau and Isaac to get the firstborn's share of the inheritance, Aaron cooperated with the Golden Calf, and let's not even BEGIN with King Solomon. But they were all still heroes; they were merely human, and fallible. Even Jesus was tempted to give in to his human aspects. Pre-Christian European mythologies were filled with heroes who had to overcome pride, avarice, bad tempers, drinking problems, etc. to achieve their heroism. In the United States, Ben Franklin slept with pretty much any woman who would have him (and, apparently, that was quite a few), but sleeping around was more acceptable then; Alexander Hamilton once explained away charges that he was making secret deals with a man by explaining that he was, in fact, having sex with the man's wife. Jefferson was a hypocrite, protesting slavery but borrowing money against their value, preventing him from freeing them. Woodrow Wilson was publicly a white supremacist, firing blacks from positions of authority in the federal government that they had earned under Republican presidencies, and segregating the armed forces. All these appeared in American history textbooks until about the second World War, when the wartime propaganda was pushing an idea that America was perfect, and the Axis powers were evil personified This attitude continued into the cold war; that the children born around then first discovered that there WERE flaws in the heroes when they went to college quite probably was a major impetus behind the student revolt of the 1960's. Yet this idea remains; that, in order for someone to be a hero, they must be flawless. The press, having successfully exerted its power as a counter to the government in the early 1970's, started taking delight at pointing out the flaws in people thought of as heroes by society, with the assumption that pointing out the flaws rendered the heroics of these people null and void. And people fell for it; loud denial that the flaws existed, as if it nullified the heroism, became commonplace. Older texts, which exposed the heroes' flaws, were accused of glorifying rather than exposing the flaws. And now, of course, we have Harry Potter. Harry Potter can't possibly be a hero; he cast Unforgivable Curses; he even cast Crucio just because he lost his temper. Dumbledore isn't a hero either; after all, he manipulated people. And certainly not Snape; Snape was a nasty, sarcastic, maybe even sadistic. He can't POSSIBLY be a hero! But of course, they were. Snape put his life at risk, and even lost it, in trying to stop Voldemort. Dumbledore did use people, but it was in accomplishing a task that these people very much wanted accomplished. Harry may have tortured a torturer, but he also willingly allowed himself to be killed, and later gave Voldemort a final shot at redemption, even though he was sure it wouldn't work. We can go on and on. The point is that, yes, the heroes in the Harry Potter novels do some decidedly non-heroic things. But to either think that the fact that they are heroes excuses this behavior, or that the behavior makes them less heroic, is to use a definition of heroism by which there are no heroes. They are human, and, being human, they are flawed. They are heroes in spite of these flaws, not because of them. Bart From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 16:11:33 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:11:33 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708230436j2f89dd7g4541d0219b6c0eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176116 > montims: > > But really - when people in the real world have children, do they really > name them after somebody they know, or do they just pick their favourite > names??? Can the WW not do the same? Particularly if the children seem > likely to spend a lot of time in the muggle world (viz. Ron's driving > lessons, and their muggle grandparents, now safely restored to the UK) Lisa: Well, my kids are David Andrew, Jr., named after his father; Alexa Rae, middle name after my huband's grandma; and Amy Catherine, middle name after my mother. First names are otherwise those I like. However, I have a friend whose family only uses family names when naming their children. Most of my friends don't take family names into consideration at all. I think the point of contention here is that the Potter children had "significant" names, and Bill & Fleur's child is Victoire ("victory" in French), so it's assumed that Rose & Hugo are namesakes, as well. My guess is that these are Hermione's parents' names, if they are indeed namesakes. Lisa From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Aug 23 16:19:16 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:19:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1187885956.24932.1206932181@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176117 > Alla: > > Thanks for answering my question Betsy. Personally I do not see the > first two examples as anything else but condemnation of ideology. I > mean, it is not like Slytherins left and did not join the fight. at > least if we believe Voldemort, they did join the fight, just for the > side they believed in, no? > > So, I do wonder what this has to do with their personalities. Because they're sorted on the basis of personality - even the OOP sorting song speaks of _having_ pure blood (presumably, meaning that muggleborns at least are excluded regardless of personality or ideology), not of having the ideology of pureblood supremacy. Having every single Slytherin display this ideology is saying that this personality type is inherently tied to this ideology, which, since the ideology is evil, IS a condemnation of their personality type. -- Random832 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 16:20:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:20:12 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux Question: PHILIP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176118 Niru wrote: > > That's exactly right and I think it raises another interesting question. This soul bit of Voldemort's that was ripped apart, where would it have gone if Harry hadn't been there? It appears from Dumbledore's statement that the soul bit would only have been able to attach itself to a living being. Seems like some greater height of dark magic that not even dear old Voldy was aware of. > Carol responds: I don't think so. Ron asks a similar question: "But even if we wreck the thing it lives in, why can't the soul bit just go and live in something else?" (DH Am. ed. 104). Phrased another way, "If the soul bit hadn't lodged in Harry, why couldn't it just go and live in someone else?" Hermione responds, "A Horcrux is the opposite of a human being," meaning that a soul bit (as opposed to the original human soul) can't survive long without its container. She tells Ron that if she ran him through with a sword, his soul would survive unharmed ("Which would be a real comfort to me, I'm sure," responds Ron in one of my favorite lines), but "the fragment of a soul inside [a Horcrux] depends on its container, its enchanted body, for survival. It can't exist without it" (104). IOW, if the container of a Horcrux is magically destroyed, the soul bit inside it is permanently obliterated. Since no encasement spell has been performed on the soul bit in Harry's scar, there's no need to destroy the container. The soul bit is obliterated by the AK that would have killed Harry if it weren't for the drop of Harry's blood in Voldie's veins and his surviving Horcrux. Like the soul bits in the true Horcruxes, it can't survive outside its container. (The creature under the bench, as I hope I've made clear in previous posts, is not the destroyed soul bit from Harry's scar but a vision of Voldie's mangled soul as it will be for all eternity if he shows no remorse.) At any rate, the soul bit that came loose from Voldie's unstable soul at Godric's Hollow would not have floated around for long looking for a suitable container. Hermione says that a soul bit can only briefly leave its container to enter someone who's emotionally attached to it (like Ginny with the diary) but can't remain there: "While the magical container is still intact, the bit of soul inside it can flit in and out of someone if they get too close to the object [emotionally]," but once the object is "properly destroyed, the bit of soul trapped in it [can] no longer exist" (104). It seems to me that the loose soul bit had just time enough to "flit" into Baby!Harry, who became its container, enabling it to continue to exist and function like a true Horcrux, but since no encasement spell had been performed on it, the container (Harry or his scar) did not need to be destroyed in order to destroy the soul bit, which ceased to exist as soon as Volde("you don't learn from your mistakes, do you?")mort AK'd Harry the second time. Carol, now wondering whether the lightning-bolt cut was caused by the AK exploding outward, as she previously thought, or the soul bit entering Harry without a spell From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Aug 23 16:31:56 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:31:56 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending Message-ID: <7532498.1187886716262.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176119 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com >Nagini is probably some magical combination of various snakes. I can't >think of a single poisonous snake that would get large enough to swallow a full >grown human. (perhaps she's a distant cousin to a basilisk. . . without the >death glare/petrifying thing going on.) Bart: Hmmmmmm... he might have taken some of the basilisk's sperm ("OK, snakey, just pretend I'm a cute female basilisk, ahhhh... doesn't that feel good......"), and impregnated a female python, or maybe he put a python egg (I looked it up; pythons DO lay eggs) and had it hatched by a chicken (too bad he didn't have Scabbers around for that). Maybe he learned a few tricks from Hagrid, after all. Bart From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Aug 23 16:39:56 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:39:56 -0000 Subject: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: <19814919.1187885466998.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176120 Bart: > I'd like to start out by saying that, since my cultural background is from the United States, these comments are going to be U.S.- centric. However, from what I have read in the group, it seems that, although details will differ, it seems essentially correct for Great Britain, as well. > > Moses smashed the 10 commandments, and had to go back to Mt. Sinai for a new copy. > Hercules, in a fit of rage, killed his wife and children. > King David arranged for an officer to get killed so he could bonk the officer's wife. > Sir Lancelot bonked Queen Guinevere. > > So, it is obvious. These guys were not heroes. After all, they weren't perfect. Magpie: Hmmm...is anyone complaining that these guys aren't heroes because they aren't perfect? Because I think that's a strawman. Being a hero doesn't mean you're perfect. It also doesn't mean the audience isn't supposed to ever have a problem with your behavior ever. There's a whole site on the 'net devoted to the premise that "Superman is a Dick" based on the covers of his comics--are they saying he's not a hero? No, they're saying they think he's being a dick. Lancelot (who I believe in some stories is not the Grail Hero *because* he boinked Guinevere and in some versions you actually *do* have to be perfect to find the Grail) can just not do it for some people because they think he betrayed the king. That doesn't necessarily mean that same person expects all heroes to be perfect--they might love the three protagonists of LA Confidential and consider them heroes even though they all do far worse things throughout the movie. They just think White, Exeley and Vincennes are ultimately cool while Lancelot is a jerk. I think people just want to like their heroes as characters and feel satisfied with the story. They want to be able to look at their flaws and think they just make them more heroic, the attitude you mentioned here: "I wouldn't want him to always do the right thing! The fact that he did this thing you didn't like makes him better! In fact, it's not even a flaw, it makes him human!" This is easy to do if you actually like what the hero is doing. However, if a character isn't doing it for you, you don't feel that way. And we tend to judge all characters, including heroes, the same way, on how we feel about them. The fact that Frodo Baggins gets the Ring to Mount Doom doesn't make people feel ashamed of saying, "He's a big mope--Sam should have thrown them both into Mount Doom" if that's how they feel reading it. Nor should it, really. The problem with Harry Potter for some people is not, imo, that they need him to be perfect, but that they just find the character, say, a dull-witted little punk. That's why he doesn't seem like a hero to them. He doesn't do it for them as a character. But the fact that they know he's held up as a hero makes them talk about it in those terms. So for instance, looking at something like Unforgivables, one person might be that they are shocked and horrified at a good boy using an Unforgivable and think a hero should never have that *particular* flaw. Or it could just be that they're like, "Yup, there's nothing in this universe that isn't a mark of honor when Superbrat does it. I guess Harry's power of self-righteousness protects him from the Unforgivableness" or whatever. In short, I don't think people want their heroes to be "perfect" in the sense of doing nothing wrong ever. They just want their heroes to be people that don't bug them, and that's going to vary from person to person. A person who likes Frodo thinks he's more heroic for his limitations. A person who doesn't like him thinks his limitations make him a whiny failure not worth the ink. A person who likes Batman is into watching him struggle endlessly with his inner demons. Another person thinks he's a dangerous neurotic who ought to just be in therapy. Once a character is presented as a hero, every audience member is going to judge whether s/he finds him personally inspiring. If s/he does, great they'll talk about how cool he is. If s/he doesn't, s/he'll talk about what a lame story/character they find there. The point being, they don't find the particular things this character does "makes the more heroic," they think it just gets treated as if it makes them more heroic in the story. They don't think, for instance, that it makes Hermione "more heroic" that she seems to struggle with megalomaniacal tendencies. They think her megalomaniacal tendencies are being presented as heroism. That goes beyond her failing to be perfect for them. -m From prep0strus at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 16:53:20 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:53:20 -0000 Subject: Contradiction? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176121 > > I believe Mad-Eye said something about using things that were magic > in themselves didn't qualify as spell-casting and so wasn't > detectable, which of course would include polyjuice potion. > > Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch > Of course, if Harry had known about this previously, Snape would be even angrier about his pantry, and the Dursleys would be preparing everything they eat... And for every birthday and christmas gift, I think harry would be hoping for a magical item with which to torture Dudley undetected. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Aug 23 16:51:18 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:51:18 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Contradiction? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1187887878.31023.1206937821@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176122 On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:05:11 -0000, "Barry" said: > Around page 45 of DH, Mad-Eye says that they can't do a spell to get > Harry out of Privet Drive. Then 6 people take polyjuice. Isn't this a > spell and hence a contradiction? No, it's a potion. > They can leave on brooms, flying motorbike (isn't this a spell?) or > Thestral. Why then, doesn't Harry use his invisibility cloak and a > whole different plan? They use magic, but a "spell" is something cast with a wand - not a potion or an enchanted object [even though the enchantment may have been done with a wand originally], they're not using their wands. And we have ample evidence now that Apparating is simply a nonverbal spell, despite fandom having long believed it was wandless. -- Random832 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 17:08:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:08:40 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo (was Re: Ron's Kids' names) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176123 Jen: I just thought it was a funny idea, given the type of relationship that Hermione & Ron have. There he is 19 years later and still acting like a kid, whispering to Harry how he used a spell to get his driver's license. Thinking each one secretly influenced the naming of a child after an old crush fits with the way they tend to operate with each other. Although the more I consider it, Rose after Rosmerta wouldn't be as likely to get by Hermione as Victor Hugo would get by Ron. I can envision her narrowing her eyes, crossing her arms and seeing right through him... > > No, now I'm back to thinking they are simply names the two of them could agree on. Can you see *that* process, the two of them trying to agree on names? For fanfiction I guess. Carol responds: The first thing that struck me as I read the names was that they were unfamiliar or new; the second, that they each shared an initial with a parent. I like the suggestion someone made (sorry; I can't remember who) that Ron wanted his kids to have names of their own, not names that had originally belonged to relatives. (Notice that Ron got a brand-new watch for his seventeenth birthday. Harry got, and appreciated, the dented watch that had belonged to Fabian Prewett, but to Ron, it would have been just another hand-me-down.) So I think Ron and Hermione must have agreed on brand-new names that shared a first initial with one parent. Maybe they flipped a coin to decide which parent's initial to use first, or they decided that a girl would have Ron's initial and a boy would have Hermione's. Then, like a true Muggle-born, Hermione would have pulled out a book of Muggle baby names. Rather like naming a hurricane: "Let's see. What names can we find for a girl that start with R and haven't been used by the Weasleys yet? And, no, Ron. You may not name her Rosmerta!" (If Ron offered "Rose" as a compromise, Hermione could have had her silent revenge with "Hugo," but that's just an amusing bit of speculation by our whimsical Potioncat. In fact, except for the matching initials, this whole thread is whimsical speculation, bless it!) Carol, who wouldn't put it past JKR herself to have named Hugo after Victor Hugo, but thinks she would view it as a private joke if she did so From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 17:45:58 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:45:58 -0000 Subject: HP and Moral Choices In-Reply-To: <20070823180834.CTC25461@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176124 > >Doddie said: > > Do you think perhaps the Malfoy's had an escape > > plan? We do know > > Lucious trying to get Voldemort to let him go and > > find Harry-- > > Sharon wrote: > It was Snape who kept asking Voldie if he could go and get > Harry (presumably so that he could give Harry Dumbledore's > final message about Harry having to die). Lucius was just > cowering in the shrieking shack after being called back > from battle right? > Doddie here: You're right, Lucious actually tried to get Voldeort to go into the castle: DH Ch. 32 p. 642 US ed. Lucious states, "Aren't--aren't you afraid, my Lord, that Potter might die at another hand but yours?...."Wouldn't id be...forgive me...more prudent to call off this battle, enter the castle, and seek him y-yourself?" Just prior to this we see Lucious' concern for Draco. DH Ch. 32 p. 641 US ed. Lucious pleads for his son, "My Lord...please...my son..." We also find out that Draco didn't leave the castle and join Voldemort because Voldemort states. DH Ch. 32 p. 641 US ed. "If your son is dead, Lucious, it is not my fault. He did not come and join me, like the rest of the Slytherins." I don't think we ever see Lucious in battle..the only glimpse we see was when Harry saw, "...Lucius and Narcissa Malfoy running through the crowd, not even attempting to fight, screaming for their son.". DH Ch 36. p735 US ed. My apologies for my error but even my error didn't change my opinion that Draco, Lucious and Narcissa had priorties that had more to do with saving each other than seeing Voldemort victorious. I still believe Draco was in the ROR because he was hiding. Doddie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 18:05:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:05:20 -0000 Subject: Contradiction? In-Reply-To: <1187887878.31023.1206937821@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176125 Barry wrote: > said: > > Around page 45 of DH, Mad-Eye says that they can't do a spell to get Harry out of Privet Drive. Then 6 people take polyjuice. Isn't this a spell and hence a contradiction? Random832 responded: > No, it's a potion. Carol adds: And it's prepared in advance, so even if a wand is involved in preparing the potion, there's no wand use to detect as they drink it. Moody explains that "the Trace" on Harry can detect a spell if Harry or anyone around him casts one while he's underage (DH Am. ed. 47), but no spell is involved in taking Polyjuice Potion. Barry: > > They can leave on brooms, flying motorbike (isn't this a spell?) or Thestral. Why then, doesn't Harry use his invisibility cloak and a whole different plan? random832: > They use magic, but a "spell" is something cast with a wand - not a potion or an enchanted object [even though the enchantment may have been done with a wand originally], they're not using their wands. And we have ample evidence now that Apparating is simply a nonverbal spell, despite fandom having long believed it was wandless. Carol: Mad-eye explains this, too. Harry can't Apparate or use the Floo Network or a Portkey as Pius Thicknesse has made the use of any of those forms at 4 Privet drive and imprisonable offense and the house is being magically watched (46), which leaves brooms, thestrals, and the motorbike as the only undetectable forms of magical transportation. (The riders and their forms of transportation are concealed by previously cast Disillusionment Charms until they reach the safety of the Dursleys' yard, still briefly hidden by the Blood Protection charm.) Mad-eye says straight out, "We're going to use the only means of transport left to us, the only ones the Trace can't detect, because we don't need to cast spells to use them: brooms, thestrals, and Hagrid's motorbike" (47). As to why Mad-eye and Harry (or maybe someone who could walk more silently than Mad-eye, say. Lupin, didn't just walk a good distance from 4 Privet Drive and then Apparate, as DD did with Harry in HBP, I'm not sure. Apparently, Apparition would be detectable because of the Trace on Harry and because it does, after all, require the wizard to have a wand in his possession. But, still, the Ministry might be able to track their destination. As for Harry and Mad-eye riding together on Harry's Firebolt, covered by the Invisibility Cloak, with charms on Hedwig's cage and the rucksack to make them weightless and semi-invisible, Mad-eye explains in OoP that the Invisibility Cloak won't stay on when Harry is flying (OoP am. ed. 54). The best they could have done, as far as I can see, would be a Disillusionment Charm like the one Mad-eye used on Harry in OoP. Why *all* the Harrys and all the protectors didn't have Disillusionment Charms on them is unclear. Surely, it would have been a sensible precaution against being seen by Muggles, not to mention DEs. Maybe not Voldemort himself, though. Carol, wondering whatever became of Sturgis Podmore, a member of the original advance guard, once he got out of Azkaban From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Aug 23 17:00:44 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:00:44 -0400 Subject: Back to Slytherin House (Was: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176126 Carol asks why that ambitious pure-blood Percy W. wasn't put in Slytherin. Because he *asked* to be in Gryffindor, with the rest of the family. We know that the Hat takes the students' wishes into account. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Aug 23 17:17:56 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:17:56 -0400 Subject: More books (was Re: Putting the Elder Wand at risk? ) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176127 JKR has said that she has no intention of writing anything more in the Potterverse beyond the Encyclopedia Potterana (or whatever it will be called). Personally, though, I hope she does what Katharine Kurtz does in opening her universe to other writers. Kurtz insists that any fanfiction commercially published be vetted by her as consistent with canon and up to a certain literary standard, and that she share in a portion of any revenues generated. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From shawnp089 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 16:33:14 2007 From: shawnp089 at yahoo.com (shawnp089) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:33:14 -0000 Subject: Hello new here! / Question about the Elder Wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176128 I just read the book and now I've got a question. How was Draco the owner of the Elder wand? Somehow I missed that I think. Thanks for any answers. Shawn From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 19:01:09 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:01:09 -0000 Subject: Back to Slytherin House (Was: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176129 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > Carol asks why that ambitious pure-blood Percy W. wasn't put in Slytherin. > > Because he *asked* to be in Gryffindor, with the rest of the family. We know > that the Hat takes the students' wishes into account. > > Bruce Alan Wilson ***Katie: Perhaps. Or maybe it's because the Sorting Hat knew Percy really was brave and loyal. He proved to be both those things in the end, even though he had been sidetracked by ambition for a few years. He's still not my favorite guy, but I gained a lot of respect back for him by the end. Katie From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Thu Aug 23 19:15:13 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:15:13 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Heroes in the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: <19814919.1187885466998.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <19814919.1187885466998.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176130 On 2007, Aug 23, , at 08:11, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > And now, of course, we have Harry Potter. Harry Potter can't > possibly be a hero; he cast Unforgivable Curses; he even cast > Crucio just because he lost his temper. Dumbledore isn't a hero > either; after all, he manipulated people. And certainly not Snape; > Snape was a nasty, sarcastic, maybe even sadistic. He can't > POSSIBLY be a hero! And I think of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Doing something that is against the law for reasons of conscience is acceptable in most situations, especially if no one is significantly damaged by the violation of the law. AK is clearly a violation, as the person dies. Imperio is more questionable to me. If you require someone to do something for their own good, is that bad? Crucio is probably less questionable as it HURTS. But Harry is right in saying that, in some circumstances, a stunning spell is as bad as an AK. If he had stunned Stan Shunpike and he had fallen off his broom and died, it WOULD have been equivalent to an AK. I like flawed Harry. Yes, he has a temper that sometimes get the better of him. That makes it more powerful when he actually manages to control his temper. If it were easy, it wouldn't be as heroic. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 19:17:25 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:17:25 -0000 Subject: Back to Slytherin House (Was: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176131 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" > wrote: > > > > Carol asks why that ambitious pure-blood Percy W. wasn't put in > Slytherin. > > > > Because he *asked* to be in Gryffindor, with the rest of the > family. We know > > that the Hat takes the students' wishes into account. > > > > Bruce Alan Wilson > > ***Katie: > Perhaps. Or maybe it's because the Sorting Hat knew Percy really was > brave and loyal. He proved to be both those things in the end, even > though he had been sidetracked by ambition for a few years. He's still > not my favorite guy, but I gained a lot of respect back for him by the > end. Katie > lizzyben: Don't forget, in the Potterverse, choices *show* who you are. Percy choosing to be in Gryffindor showed that he had a "loyal & brave character" at heart. JKR has said that the Sorting Hat is never wrong. If it was just a matter of students arbitrarily choosing houses that are wrong for them - the Hat would be wrong, right? But JKR says the Hat is never wrong. So, it's more like students choose a House because it reflects their own inner character. While choosing not to be in a particular House shows that you dislike that House's values/priorities, and so would not belong there. lizzyben From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 19:39:30 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:39:30 -0000 Subject: HP and Moral Choices In-Reply-To: <20070823174404.CTC23871@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176132 Sharon wrote: > > To my mind it is really Snape who is the hero in DH. Snape attracts the hatred of everyone he is trying to help, he does the right thing, even when it makes him look very bad. That seems to be the mark of a true hero. Carol responds: No argument there. Harry himself says that Snape was probably the bravest man he ever knew. I would drop the "probably." Just thinking about all the things Snape did, with little praise from DD and no credit from anyone else, his former colleagues thinking him a murderer when he's really working for DD and protecting Harry, gives me shivers. Will someone award this man a posthumous Order of Merlin First Class, please! Sharon: > Harry is also a hero for giving himself up unarmed to Voldie, again, he does the right thing. But I wonder if Harry would have done it so easily (well of course it wasn't easy but you know what I mean) if his parents, Sirius and Lupin hadn't died. He was going to join them, and that was a comfort to him. I am not trying to take anything away from Harry sacrifice, but when I think of it, I realise that it was his close connection with death that allowed him to make the sacrifice. Carol: Well, yes. I think that was the point of the Resurrection Stone, not to tempt Harry to bring his loved ones back (the temptation DD succumbed to) but to give him the courage to join them, to realize that death really was the next great adventure and not something to fear). As I said in message 174479: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174479 "With three Horcruxes destroyed, maybe four (if R and H have destroyed the cup), Harry is still capable of vengeance, even sadism, enjoying torturing the despicable Amycus Carrow. He enters the Shrieking Shack hating Snape, watches him die, doesn't know what to feel, enters the memory and leaves it understanding Snape and no longer wanting vengeance on him but still feeling betrayed by Dumbledore. He has to choose to die, setting aside any desire for vengeance, any desire to kill Voldemort, an act of love and self-sacrifice very like his mother's. He opens the Snitch with the words, "I am about to die." His loved ones give him strength to sacrifice himself, overcoming any remaining evil influence in the soul bit. And the act of love destroys the soul bit, killing it instead of himself. After that, his soul is his own and whole, and there is no more temptation to seek vengeance. A little taunting of Voldemort, but Voldemort has to be given a choice, remorse or murder. And Harry defeats him using Expelliarmus, the spell that marked his compassion for Stan Shunpike, who knew not what he did." What I meant here, in case it's not clear, is that Harry has spent most of the book not only intending to seek vengeance on Snape but to kill Voldemort, thinking, as he did in OoP, that he must either murder or be murdered. He is tempted, as LV is, by the Elder Wand, or rather (as LV is not but DD was) by the combination of the Three Hallows, which will make him the Master of Death. Until he sees Snape's memories and understands that he has to sacrifice himself, he has anticipated that he and Voldemort will each kill the other, or attempt to do so. Sharon: > > So I guess I have changed my mind -- Harry is a hero in the traditional sense, but better, becuase he doesn't try to kill off the baddies. He doesn't even use the Killing Curse on Voldie at the end - -is that becuase he knew he only ahd to disarm him to win the Elder wand -- or is it as I earlier suspected, that he couldn't bring himself to use the Avada Kadavra. Maybe a little of both? Carol responds: I'm quite sure that from the time he heard the Prophecy at the end of OoP till the time he received Snape's message in "The Prince's Tale," he expected to cast a Killing Curse, which perhaps explains his willingness to use the other Unforgiveables as well. (I think the presence of the soul bit may have been a factor as well, but I'm not arguing that here.) Snape's message tells him that he must do no such thing; he must sacrifice himself as his mother did, wandless, allowing LV to "kill" him. And after talking to Dead!DD at King's Cross (in his mind, but no less real for that), he understands that he still need not kill LV. The Elder Wand will not kill its master. All he needs is a well-timed Expelliarmus like the one in the graveyard, and the AK will backfire. (Of course, it's a bit more complex than that, but Harry neither wants nor needs to kill LV at this point. LV will do the job himself.) At any rate, Harry understands that he does not have to "murder" Voldemort, and he no longer has any such desire that I can see. We see the change most profoundly, I think, in "The Forest Again." After seeing Snape's memories, particularly the one about the soul bit that Snape was desperate for him to see, he understands that he must "walk calmly into Death's welcoming arms" without raising a wand to defend himself (DH Am. ed. 691). Realizing that he's not supposed to survive (so he and Snape think) and that his self-sacrifice is necessary to destroy the last soul bit puts a new light on his mission, which he previously thought was to fight and kill Voldemort, perhaps being killed in the process. What's required now, IMO, is Snape-like courage, walking calmly into mortal peril, rather than the Gryffindor-style courage of fighting a heroic battle, David against Goliath. Instead, Harry is terrified. "He felt his heart pounding fiercely in his chest. How strange that in his dread of death, it pumped all the harder, valiantly keeping him alive. But it would have to stop, and soon. . . . Terror washed over him as he lay on the floor, with that funeral drum pounding inside him. Would it hurt to die?" (692) As I said in an earlier post (174845), "it doesn't occur to him to try to escape, which would be futile. He knows it has to end and only he can end it. But that doesn't make the walk through the forest, the willing self-sacrifice, any easier: 'He envied his parents' deaths now. This cold-blooded walk to his own destruction would require a different kind of bravery.' He feels, ironically, more alive than ever, more aware of the miracle of human existence. He understands what he is sacrificing, but of course, he doesn't yet understand Dumbledore's plan, which looks like a betrayal. "Having reconciled himself to the (supposed) inevitability of his death and to DD's 'betrayal,' he faces fears of his own inadequacy. 'Dumbledore had overestimated him. He had failed. The snake survived' (695). His only comfort is that Ron and Hermione also know about the Nagini Horcrux and will, he thinks, destroy it. 'Like rain on a cold window, these thoughts pattered against the hard surface of the incontrovertible truth, that he must die. *I must die.* It must end' (693). Ron and Hermione seem far away. He makes his last arrangement to have Neville as a back-up to kill Nagini, unable to finish his last sentence because of a 'suffocating feeling' (696). 'Ripples of cold undulate... over his skin' as he passes Ginny. He has his moment of empathy with the now-dead Snape and Tom Riddle, those other 'abandoned boys,' as he looks at Hogwarts, the only home any of them had ever known, for what he thinks is the last time (697). "Dementors approach and he has no strength to cast a Patronus: 'He could not control his own trembling. It was not, after all, so easy to die' (697). "And then the Snitch. 'I open at the close.' Harry understands at last what the words mean, and opens it with the words, 'I am about to die' (698). The Resurrection Stone doesn't save him from death, but it gives him the hope and the courage to overcome his despair." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174845 Carol again, resuming new thoughts: Once his loved ones appear, they give him the comfort and courage he needs to face death without defending himself, "act[ing] like Patronuses" to protect him against the Dementors. The dead, whom he thinks he's about to join, are much more real to him than the living (700-01). He pulls off the Invisibility Cloak and stuffs it and the hawthorn wand wand into his robes, not wanting to be tempted to fight. The Resurrection Stone drops from his fingers, but it doesn't matter. He finds the courage to stand and receive the AK to his chest, without betraying fear (703-04). After King's Cross, with his questions answered (wish mine were!), he no longer feels fear. He has seen what death is like for DD, for LV, for his loved ones, perhaps for himself. Nothing but the next great adventure (unless you're the unrepentant Voldemort). It's "warm and light and peaceful" in King's Cross, but he has to return to "ensure that fewer souls are maimed, fewer families . . . torn apart" (722). So Harry feigns death until his final confrontation with Voldemort. Understanding the effects of his sacrifice, he is no longer afraid. After a lot of exposition (and a public vindication of Snape, hurray!), Harry sets up the moment of confrontation by in essence informing the Elder Wand that he is its master. He and Voldemort "yell . . . [their] best hope to the heavens," LV's being the Killing Curse, Harry's being Expelliarmus (743), his signature spell, taught him by Snape, which is established early in the book (via its use on Stan Shunpike) as a symbol of Harry's unwillingness to kill if he doesn't have to. "I won't blast people out of my way because they're ther," he tells Lupin, who is urging him to fight to kill. "That's Voldemort's job" (71). Carol, who thinks that Harry grows tremendously in this book, more so than any other, and who forgives him his Crucio because of his heroism at the end, his rescue of Draco, and his forgiveness and understanding of Snape From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 19:49:56 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:49:56 -0000 Subject: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: <19814919.1187885466998.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176133 > >>Bart: > It sounds kind of silly. Yet, currently, we expect our heroes to be > perfect. > Betsy Hp: I don't. I like my heroes to have flaws they have to struggle against. It's part of the reason I prefer Batman to Superman. > >>Bart: > And now, of course, we have Harry Potter. Harry Potter can't > possibly be a hero; he cast Unforgivable Curses; he even cast > Crucio just because he lost his temper. Betsy Hp: Nah. Harry Potter isn't a hero, IMO, because he's a suicidal, easily manipulated idiot. > >>Bart: > Dumbledore isn't a hero either; after all, he manipulated people. Betsy Hp: And killed his sister. And hid quivering away in his tower while evil that he'd received early warning about blossomed at his school. "Sure the kid's killed fluffy bunnies and tortured small children. But he's not in my House so screw 'im. Not my problem." > >>Bart: > And certainly not Snape; Snape was a nasty, sarcastic, maybe even > sadistic. He can't POSSIBLY be a hero! Betsy Hp: Snape was so wrapped up in his own failings he utterly failed the children placed under his care. He was horribly abused, so I cannot find it in myself to dislike him to the same extent I dislike Harry and co. But he's more something to be pitied than admired. > >>Bart: > > They are human, and, being human, they are flawed. They are heroes > in spite of these flaws, not because of them. Betsy Hp: IMO, by the end of DH, JKR shoved all of her characters into highly unrealistic caricatures. I saw nothing human in them. And certainly nothing heroic. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 20:41:19 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:41:19 -0000 Subject: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176134 > Bart: > > So, it is obvious. These guys were not heroes. After all, they > weren't perfect. > > Magpie: > Hmmm...is anyone complaining that these guys aren't heroes because > they aren't perfect? Because I think that's a strawman. Being a hero > doesn't mean you're perfect. It also doesn't mean the audience isn't > supposed to ever have a problem with your behavior ever. Alla: I actually agree with almost everything you said in this post - as in how people in general decide whether fictional character is a hero or not, meaning that this is my approach. But does anyone complaining that these guys aren't heroes because they are not perfect? Eh, sure people do complain about that IMO. The argument that good guys stoop to the level of bad guys because they used unforgiveables, I think was made quite often in the unforgivables thread. I really do not want to get into unforgivables discussion again, I am just saying that I saw plenty of arguments that when good guys do bad things that means they are not perfect, not **good** enough. Whether audience not supposed to have problems with them is IMO irrelevant, of course audience can have any problems with the characters, but complaints like that I read a plenty. Just saying that I do not think it is a strawman at all. Now what **underlines** those complaints maybe exactly what you said - reader is bugged by certain character and therefore he evaluates the wrong actions not in the - oh, his flaws just made him more heroic and human ( Harry for me. Magpie: Lancelot (who > I believe in some stories is not the Grail Hero *because* he boinked > Guinevere and in some versions you actually *do* have to be perfect > to find the Grail) can just not do it for some people because they > think he betrayed the king. That doesn't necessarily mean that same > person expects all heroes to be perfect--they might love the three > protagonists of LA Confidential and consider them heroes even though > they all do far worse things throughout the movie. They just think > White, Exeley and Vincennes are ultimately cool while Lancelot is a > jerk. Alla: Eh, sure I think of Lancelot as a big, big jerk, always did. I mean, he loved Arthur oh very so much that he did not hesitate to sleep with Gunevere. Never bought his love for Arthur, never will. But I just do not see how what Bart said is mutually exclusive from what you are saying. Because I can say that for me Lancelot is not a hero because of his **concrete** action - betraying his king AND he also buggs the heck out of me as a character. Magpie: > The problem with Harry Potter for some people is not, imo, that they > need him to be perfect, but that they just find the character, say, > a dull-witted little punk. That's why he doesn't seem like a hero to > them. He doesn't do it for them as a character. But the fact that > they know he's held up as a hero makes them talk about it in those > terms. So for instance, looking at something like Unforgivables, one > person might be that they are shocked and horrified at a good boy > using an Unforgivable and think a hero should never have that > *particular* flaw. Or it could just be that they're like, "Yup, > there's nothing in this universe that isn't a mark of honor when > Superbrat does it. I guess Harry's power of self-righteousness > protects him from the Unforgivableness" or whatever. Alla: Oh, but again the person does say which actions of Harry bug them, do they not? Probably because they know that if they just say that they find the character to be dim witted something, their post has a chance to be be well, ignored in the discussion as argument with no support, unless person is doing an opinion piece obviously. So, again, how is it mutually exclusive from what Bart said. People do complain which actions of the characters make them less heroic, while probably basing their complaints on what you said **general dislike of the character**. Am I badly confused again? magpie: > In short, I don't think people want their heroes to be "perfect" in > the sense of doing nothing wrong ever. They just want their heroes > to be people that don't bug them, and that's going to vary from > person to person. Alla: That is totally true of me. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 21:12:05 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:12:05 -0000 Subject: Back to Slytherin House - Choosing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176135 --- "lizzyben04" wrote: > > --- "Katie" wrote: > > > > --- "Bruce Alan Wilson" > > wrote: > > > > >> Carol asks why that ambitious pure-blood Percy W. > >> wasn't put in Slytherin. > >> > >> Because he *asked* to be in Gryffindor, with the > >> rest of the family. We know that the Hat takes > >> the students' wishes into account. > > > > > > Bruce Alan Wilson > > > > ***Katie: > > Perhaps. Or maybe it's because the Sorting Hat knew > > Percy really was brave and loyal. He proved to be > > both those things in the end, ... > > > > lizzyben: > > Don't forget, in the Potterverse, choices *show* who > you are. Percy choosing to be in Gryffindor showed > that he had a "loyal & brave character" at heart. > > JKR has said that the Sorting Hat is never wrong. If > it was just a matter of students arbitrarily choosing > houses that are wrong for them - the Hat would be > wrong, right? ... So, > it's more like students choose a House because it > reflects their own inner character. While choosing not > to be in a particular House shows that you dislike > that House's values/priorities, and so would not > belong there. > > > lizzyben > bboyminn: I'm in general agreement with LizzyBen. But want to point out that we have never seen anyone choose a House. Harry never says 'I want to be Gryffindor', he only says, 'not Slytherin'. The Hat of it's own accord choose Gryffindor. In the Epilog, that is essentially what Harry tells his son, tell the Hat you don't want to be in Slytherin, which is QUITE different that say he can choose which House he wants to be in. Also, indicating which House you prefer or prefer not to be in, does indicate something about your inner values. In the end, I don't think The Hat assign Houses based on any ideology. If anything ideology is a secondary reflection of morally neutral characteristics that are reflected in a negative way. Personally, I find it misguided to say that Slytherin House is uniformly Racist. If that is true then by extension, the entire Aristocracy of Europe are a bunch of pure-blood racists. To be for pure-blood is not necessarily to be against impure-blood. To engage in self-pride is not synonymous with absolute loathing of all others. I'm proud to be of Norwegian heritage, but that doesn't mean I hate the Fins, Danes, or Swedes. I have said, and still say, that there is nothing inherently wrong with any of the Slytherin characteristics. I think along the way, various individual Slytherins have warped the Slytherin attitude, but that draws from corrupt, misguided, self-serving individuals, not from the House itself. I think the Slytherin characteristics lend themselves to a greater number of bad guys, but as we see, there are similar bad guys among members of the other Houses. The accumulation of negative Slytherin attitudes have gradually warped that Slytherin landscape. Now it is up to Slytherin attitudes to change for the better, and by extension, attitudes /toward/ Slytherins will change along with them. As I said before, Slytherins caused the problem, it's up to Slytherins to fix it. Though, to some extent, it is up to the rest of the wizard world to provide an atmosphere in which Slytherins are allowed to change. As an extension of this last aspect, I don't think Mr. Slytherin was quite as racist as he is made out to be. Yes, Slytherin favored pure-blood. He felt it was safer to keep magic within magical families. But, he was justified in feeling this way. This was a time of persecution, and by switching from many remote Apprentice Schools to a single central universal school, the wizard world was placing itself at great risk. It is not by accident that Hogwarts is a walled fortress. One attack on Hogwarts could wipe out the wizard world in a single generation. So, the stakes were very high. Slytherin didn't trust muggle-borns because they were too close to muggles; meaning too many muggle associations. If a muggle-born let the secret of Hogwarts slip, it could be a disaster. So, he didn't trust them and rightly so. Slytherin's mistrust was not a general condemnation of muggle-borns, but a practical reality of the time and place. The other founders out voted him, and he left. Things seem to have worked out. No muggle-borns betrayed Hogwarts. Other, later wizards, twisted Slytherin's practical necessity to their own racist ends. I see the Slytherins we see today as a logical, but not necessarily rational, evolution of Salazar's practical necessities. This isn't really that uncommon. In fact, it has happened repeatedly throughout history. It has happened to Christians several times, it is now happening to Muslims, and has happened to many other groups; a seed to truth is twisted to meet self-serving, but generally irrational, ends. As terrible as the Slytherin we see are, I refuse to accept that they are uniformly evil and racist. I can't believe that JKR sees them that way either. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 21:22:24 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:22:24 -0000 Subject: Hello new here! / Question about the Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176136 --- "shawnp089" wrote: > > I just read the book and now I've got a question. > How was Draco the owner of the Elder wand? Somehow > I missed that I think. Thanks for any answers. > > Shawn > bboyminn: I know you would prefer a simply direct answer, but there really isn't one; opinions differ. But you can probably find discussion in which your question has already been dealt with here - "I would have kept the Elder Wand" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175990 "deathly hallows and the wands." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175890 Also, use the Search Feature, and search for 'Elder Wand'. That should get you started. Steve/bboyminn From abeandamandabustos at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 21:11:08 2007 From: abeandamandabustos at yahoo.com (abeandamandabustos) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:11:08 -0000 Subject: When did the "trace" come about? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176137 In the previous books the decree for the restriction of underage magic is only referred to as such and is never said to be a "trace." DD even states in HBP that the MOM cannot even differentiate between who is performing magic in any given place. Harry was blamed for Dobby's hover charm because the MOM did not know who cast the spell, simply that a spell had been cast. Now in DH, there is a trace that knows who does what and Harry cannot perform magic at the Burrow- even though previous canon (via DD) states that the MOM relies on wizarding parents to restrict thier children. Any thoughts? Amanda- first post- hope it didnt suck! From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Aug 23 21:28:21 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:28:21 -0000 Subject: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series/Back to Slytherin House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176138 > Alla: > > I actually agree with almost everything you said in this post - as in > how people in general decide whether fictional character is a hero or > not, meaning that this is my approach. > > But does anyone complaining that these guys aren't heroes because > they are not perfect? > > Eh, sure people do complain about that IMO. The argument that good > guys stoop to the level of bad guys because they used unforgiveables, > I think was made quite often in the unforgivables thread. > > I really do not want to get into unforgivables discussion again, I am > just saying that I saw plenty of arguments that when good guys do bad > things that means they are not perfect, not **good** enough. Magpie: I don't think that's quite the same as wanting them to be perfect, though. Like I personally don't have a real problem with Harry casting Crucio, but most of my involvement in those threads has been because I understand the case other people are making about it, which isn't really about Harry being perfect but in Harry (and others) living up to either the things they feel other people say they are in canon or just somebody they like. Like with the Unforgivables, as I understand the problems with it, it's that they feel that *canon* set up these curses as something heroes didn't use, so that's why it brought them up short when Harry did. I didn't see them that way--I felt by HBP they'd been established as something that wasn't that big of a deal no matter how it seemed in GoF. But if somebody had considered that a part of what was supposed to make Harry a hero, it was a loss when he used one. I think two things happening in arguing, because there's just nobody who wants their heroes to be perfect. I haven't heard anybody say they want to read a book where the main character just demonstrates good conduct throughout. But first if you don't like a character and his actions bug you, their little actions probably are going to bug you more. Sometimes people might lose sight of what's emotional and what's objective, so little problems get blown up into big moral issues. But second, some issues do mean more to some readers. Like, somebody who can't accept Harry throwing a Crucio might have had no problem with him using Imperius, even if they considered both Unforgivables a mistake. Or with Lancelot, you're saying you don't consider Lancelot a hero because he slept with Guinevere, which proved he didn't love Arthur etc. But someone could just as easily reply to that by saying that *you* want heroes to be perfect. Is that really what you're saying, though? Because reading that it doesn't sound to me like you want your heroes to be perfect, it reads like you just think Lancelot's a jerk and don't find him impressive. I wouldn't even be so sure that sleeping with one's best friend's wife was a deal breaker for every hero. Perhaps in a different story you might find it less despicable because of the way it happened or way it was written. So for me your saying "I don't think Lancelot's a hero--he slept with his best friend whom he supposedly loved's wife and caused all these problems for his own cause!" doesn't translate into "He can't be a hero because he isn't perfect!" Arthur's imperfect too--probably every hero you like is imperfect, so I don't think the problem is that he's failed to live up to perfection. I think it's often more like: I hate this hero, and here are all the ways he's an idiot. > > Alla: > > Oh, but again the person does say which actions of Harry bug them, do > they not? > > Probably because they know that if they just say that they find the > character to be dim witted something, their post has a chance to be > be well, ignored in the discussion as argument with no support, > unless person is doing an opinion piece obviously. > > So, again, how is it mutually exclusive from what Bart said. People > do complain which actions of the characters make them less heroic, > while probably basing their complaints on what you said **general > dislike of the character**. Magpie: For me it's that I don't think saying which actions of Harry's bug a person does not mean you want him to be perfect. It just means those actions of Harry's bug you. These actions of Harry's do make him seem less heroic to them, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't stand flaws in the character. They don't like these flaws of Harry's (possibly at least partly because of the way they're presented more than just what he does), or don't like these actions of Harry's. But maybe they love, say, Snape and think he's a hero and when confronted with his flaws think they're fine. So they do like flawed heroes--they just like flawed heroes they don't think are wastes of space.:-) Steve: As an extension of this last aspect, I don't think Mr. Slytherin was quite as racist as he is made out to be. Yes, Slytherin favored pure-blood. He felt it was safer to keep magic within magical families. But, he was justified in feeling this way. This was a time of persecution, and by switching from many remote Apprentice Schools to a single central universal school, the wizard world was placing itself at great risk. It is not by accident that Hogwarts is a walled fortress. Magpie: Mr. Slytherin put a basilisk in the school to kill Muggle-borns and cleanse the school of them. While I would have liked to have found out there was some mistake in the real idea behind Slytherin and the split amongst the founders, this really does seem to be in line with what was originally intended. We did not find out that Tom Riddle was wrong about Slytherin's "noble work" and that the basilisk was not what it seemed or perverted by Tom Riddle. I do agree that being Pureblood obviously doesn't mean you're bigoted. However, we should remember you're not Sorted for your bloodline. All the Weasleys are in Gryffindor, despite their Pure- blood. They don't view it the same way it's viewed by some others. Snape and Riddle were Half-bloods, and while they probably weren't Sorted for being bigots I think canon does point to their personalities having something seriously bad in them. It might not always manifest as Pure-blood mania, but perhaps Pure-blood mania is a natural expression of it. -m (who would not be surprised at another civil war once Slytherin is no longer "diluted" in the author's words--this is why it's so hard not to read Shadow imagery into this stuff!) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 22:03:23 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:03:23 -0000 Subject: When did the "trace" come about? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176139 --- "abeandamandabustos" wrote: > > In the previous books the decree for the restriction > of underage magic is only referred to as such and is > never said to be a "trace." DD even states in HBP > that the MOM cannot even differentiate between who > is performing magic in any given place. Harry was > blamed for Dobby's hover charm because the MOM did > not know who cast the spell, simply that a spell had > been cast. Now in DH, there is a trace that knows > who does what and Harry cannot perform magic at the > Burrow- even though previous canon (via DD) states > that the MOM relies on wizarding parents to restrict > their children. Any thoughts? > > Amanda- first post- hope it didnt suck! > bboyminn: No, your first post is fine. We have discussed this before, but not specifically regarding 'The Trace'. But that doesn't stop us from discussing it again. The problem is, we get truth, but we don't get 'whole' truth. We are feed information in bits and pieces each constituting a partial truth. But never are we give one concise comprehensive truth. But, if you put the pieces together they come close to complete truth and we find the inconsistencies aren't as great as we thought. For example, when the Trace is explained it is indicated that if Harry /or/ anyone *near* Harry performs magic, the Trace will pick it up and report it. But, nothing to indicate it specifically identifies Harry. I think it identifies location; that is, magic in the vicinity of Harry. That explains why the Ministry thought Harry cast the Hover Charm, when it was really Dobby. Magic occurred in the vicinity of Harry, and since Harry is the only wizard in the vicinity, they conclude it had to be Harry. Now in that instance, it wasn't a simple case of underage magic, which seems a misdemeanor to me. It was a case of magic in front of Vernon's muggle guests. That's a breach of the Statute of Secrecy and is a much greater crime than underage magic. That threatens to give away the presence of the entire magical world. That is a big deal, and warranted a more severe response by the Ministy. On the other hand, Fred and George seem to be experimenting with magic all the time at the Burrow. But the Burrow is an isolated magical place. No change of muggles finding out. So, a very minor crime that the Ministry leaves to the Parents. Also, since Mr. and Mrs. Weasley are performing magic in the vicinity of the Trace on Fred and George, the Trace alarm is going off all the time. The Ministry simply can't be bothered to respond to a thousand false alarms a day because of magic in the vicinity, so they leave it up to the parents, unless muggles somehow become involved. Does that make sense? Steve/bboyminn From rarpsl at optonline.net Thu Aug 23 21:55:16 2007 From: rarpsl at optonline.net (Robert A. Rosenberg) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:55:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Putting the Elder Wand at risk? (Was: I would have kept the Elder Wand) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176140 At 8:29 +0000 on 08/23/2007, Sharon wrote about [HPforGrownups] Re: Putting the Elder Wand at risk? (Was: I: >Sharon: >I wondered about that -- ie the lack of dark wizards 19 years >later. Surely there are more dark wizards/witches than poor old >Voldie who covet power, at least if Potterdom imitates our own >society! It is my prediction that JKR will continue with her >brand and write more on this theme, or at least a prequel. I >know this view is not popular, but I stand by it. The wizarding >world does not become innocuous automatically just becuase Voldie >dies. As in history there is always some dark influence ready to >step into the void. Depending on if you think the "Cosmic Balance (of Good vs. Evil)" mythos applies to Potterdom or not, may affect if a new Dark Wizard of Voldie's stature will arise or not. Under Cosmic Balance, Harry's existence and power (as the representative of Good) will cause an Evil to arise to "balance" him (just as he arose to balance Voldie). From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 22:17:58 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:17:58 -0000 Subject: Do Heroes have to be perfect? WAS: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176141 > Magpie: >> > I think two things happening in arguing, because there's just nobody > who wants their heroes to be perfect. I haven't heard anybody say > they want to read a book where the main character just demonstrates > good conduct throughout. But first if you don't like a character and > his actions bug you, their little actions probably are going to bug > you more. Sometimes people might lose sight of what's emotional and > what's objective, so little problems get blown up into big moral > issues. But second, some issues do mean more to some readers. Like, > somebody who can't accept Harry throwing a Crucio might have had no > problem with him using Imperius, even if they considered both > Unforgivables a mistake. Alla: Unfortunately I am starting to lose the reason of why we are arguing, because even though I am sure we now disagree pretty strongly about whether Harry is a hero or not, I *do** agree with everything you wrote here. I guess I am just saying that to me complaining about **actions** of the character does mean that person wants character to do the action differently - like same unforgivables - to not do them or whatever. But again, I agree with what you wrote. Magpie: > Or with Lancelot, you're saying you don't consider Lancelot a hero > because he slept with Guinevere, which proved he didn't love Arthur > etc. But someone could just as easily reply to that by saying that > *you* want heroes to be perfect. Is that really what you're saying, > though? Because reading that it doesn't sound to me like you want > your heroes to be perfect, it reads like you just think Lancelot's a > jerk and don't find him impressive. I wouldn't even be so sure that > sleeping with one's best friend's wife was a deal breaker for every > hero. Perhaps in a different story you might find it less despicable > because of the way it happened or way it was written. So for me your > saying "I don't think Lancelot's a hero--he slept with his best > friend whom he supposedly loved's wife and caused all these problems > for his own cause!" doesn't translate into "He can't be a hero > because he isn't perfect!" Arthur's imperfect too--probably every > hero you like is imperfect, so I don't think the problem is that > he's failed to live up to perfection. I think it's often more like: > I hate this hero, and here are all the ways he's an idiot. > Alla: Well, not quite, but actually close. How to put it - the sleeping with best friend's wife to me actually **is** a deal breaker as to whether I would consider the character to be a hero, you know? Not the only action, but among those action which take me to make it or break it in whether I will like the character. It is weird, in the fictional setting, I can forgive the murder, if I can see the earth shattering remorse, but will have a much harder time forgiving what Lancellot did. So, in a sense, yes, if somebody replies to me in response to accusation against Lancellot - you Alla want your heroes to be perfect. My answer will be - certainly, I want my heroes to *NOT* do certain things, you know? Sleeping with the best friend's wife would be one of them. I am not sure if that translates in wanting the heroes to be perfect. It would be like reading Harry sleeping with Hermione after her and Ron being married. Bleech. Do not get me wrong, I would care less if the hero engages in the affair with somebody's wife, whom he does not know - **in fiction**, **IN FICTION**. It is the betrayed best friend part that makes me angry usually. Have you ever watched the soap opera Sunset Beach? If you did, do you remember two brothers Ricardo and Antonio and Ricardo's fianc? Gaby, who slept with Antonio? OMG, I thought this was the most beautiful love triangle ever, and all three of them were sympathetic people and I am sure those who said that Antonio and Gaby had a great chemistry were right. But I **hated** Antonio, IMO the hypocrite priest and the coward who in my view betrayed his own brother. Nothing could make me forgive him and Ricardo was the only one I felt sorry for. I know it is often done in soap operas, but it was my first soap opera I ever watched in USA and I was, well, annoyed. And that is why I feel that people who complain about Harry performing unforgivable **may** (again generalization, so of course not true for everybody) want their heroes to not do certain things. IMO It does not mean of course that people want their heroes to be perfect in every aspect, I am sure it varies, but I guess I think that regardless as to whether person likes character or not, there are could be certain things person is not willing to forgive in the hero. Like there is a reason why you would like a character, no? I mean good writing is important, but doesn't it also matter for you what character does or not does? Like one of the most endearing things in Harry I find to be his saving people thing. I think I would have liked him less without it, while I am sure some people find it rash, reckless, etc. But this is actions, so isn't it part of how character written? Magpie: For me it's that I don't think saying which actions of Harry's bug a person does not mean you want him to be perfect. It just means those actions of Harry's bug you. These actions of Harry's do make him seem less heroic to them, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't stand flaws in the character. They don't like these flaws of Harry's (possibly at least partly because of the way they're presented more than just what he does), or don't like these actions of Harry's. But maybe they love, say, Snape and think he's a hero and when confronted with his flaws think they're fine. So they do like flawed heroes--they just like flawed heroes they don't think are wastes of space.:-) Alla: So basically you are saying that the person may be able to tolerate the very same flaw in Snape that the person is not willing to tolerate in Harry and vice versa? Sure thing then ? then to me it is clear that person is bugged by the character, not by his flaws, if person is complaining by Snape performing AK, but totally fine with Harry's Crucio and Imperio ;) Or maybe person is bugged by different flaws in the character and is not willing to tolerate those, but is willing to tolerate the others. Sure, makes sense. On the other hand ( oh boy, for someone who was not willing to talk about Unforgivables,I certainly talk a lot about them here. But just seems the best example) I have read plenty of arguments where people are just not happy with **anybody** using Unforgivables, you know? Be it Harry, Snape or anybody else, so then does it have something to do with people being bugged by the characters, or by certain action in itself? Oh Magpie, I think I am losing my train of argument. Help. Alla From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 22:22:18 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:22:18 -0000 Subject: Back to Slytherin House - Choosing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176142 > bboyminn: > > I'm in general agreement with LizzyBen. But want to > point out that we have never seen anyone choose a > House. Harry never says 'I want to be Gryffindor', > he only says, 'not Slytherin'. The Hat of it's own > accord choose Gryffindor. > > In the Epilog, that is essentially what Harry tells > his son, tell the Hat you don't want to be in > Slytherin, which is QUITE different that say he can > choose which House he wants to be in. lizzyben: Yes, you're right, it's a negative choice. You can choose where NOT to be, not necesarrily where you will be placed. Because the Hat figures that if you're begging not to be into a House, it's because that House's character & values are in opposition to your own. So, a althletic kid that asks not to be put w/all those bookworms & nerds of Ravenclaw is probably not Ravenclaw material in the first place. His choice shows who he is. bboyminn: > Also, indicating which House you prefer or prefer > not to be in, does indicate something about your > inner values. In the end, I don't think The Hat > assign Houses based on any ideology. If anything > ideology is a secondary reflection of morally > neutral characteristics that are reflected in a > negative way. lizzyben: It sure does. People (including me) have complained that Harry never faced an internal battle between good & evil, but he actually did - he faced the choice between good & evil at eleven years old, and chose good. Everything else was just gravy. The Sorting Hat strongly considered putting Harry into Slytherin House, telling him that it would bring him "greatness" - power, fame, fortune. Well, after DH we know that JKR considers unrestrained ambition & a lust for power to be true evils. DD & Snape fall into evil because of their desire for greatness & power. The "Elder Wand" symbolizes the ultimate power that various wizards want & kill over, and Harry the hero gives up. He worries that Hermione & Ron are still tempted by its power, etc. So, when the Sorting Hat tells Harry that Slytherin can help him to achieve greatness, yet Slytherin is also a House of racism - that's his temptation to EVIL. If Harry truly wanted "greatness", he'd go to Slytherin regardless of the horrible people there. On the other hand, his new friends, Hagrid & Ron, identify themselves as Gryffindors. That's the place where Harry can find love & friendship. Harry tells the Hat "NOT Slytherin, NOT Slytherin" - in that moment, he chooses friendship & love over ambition & power. He has chosen good over evil & proved himself a "true Gryffindor." It's a nice metaphor for the series as a whole. People tend to think that because Harry was "almost a Slytherin", that must mean that Slytherins can't be all evil or bad. But I think it's actually the opposite - Gryffindor is the good (love, friendship), Slytherin is the evil (greatness, power) - and by choosing NOT to go into Slytherin, Harry shows that he is truly good & "worthy" of becoming a Gryffindor. IMO, THAT'S why JKR included that moment of hesitation & doubt. That was Harry's moment to be tempted by ambition & greatness, and he resisted the temptation. Proving himself to be among the Elect. His choice in that moment (NOT Slytherin) *showed* who he was (a boy who values friendship more than power). It showed the Hat that Harry belonged among the moral elect. It was a predestined choice, as well - Harry, being who he is, would never want power over love - so his "choice" to reject Slytherin was predestined by his inner character. Once you've got the Calvinism down, it's much easier to understand how the Sorting Hat works. bboyminn: > Personally, I find it misguided to say that Slytherin > House is uniformly Racist. If that is true then by > extension, the entire Aristocracy of Europe are a > bunch of pure-blood racists. > > I have said, and still say, that there is nothing > inherently wrong with any of the Slytherin > characteristics. lizzyben: I think JKR might disagree. People try to argue that some Slyth traits are neutral - like "ambition" or "cunning." But IMO this is probably just because JKR views these traits more negatively than others might. In the same way, I like Slughorn, but that might be because I don't view his networking as negatively as JKR might. In DH, JKR emphasizes again & again the *dangers* of ambition - w/Percy, Snape, DD, the Wand. So even though we might not see ambition & cunning as a bad thing, IMO JKR does. bboyminn: > The accumulation of negative Slytherin attitudes have > gradually warped that Slytherin landscape. Now it is > up to Slytherin attitudes to change for the better, and > by extension, attitudes /toward/ Slytherins will change > along with them. lizzyben: They can't change for the better. They're Slytherins. If they had the capacity to truly make good choices, they wouldn't have ended up in that House in the first place. That's predestination. Slytherin House is where the bad people go, the ones who desire power, greatness, evil. The Hat looks into their head & sees their destiny. bboyminn: > As I said before, Slytherins caused the problem, it's > up to Slytherins to fix it. Though, to some extent, it > is up to the rest of the wizard world to provide an > atmosphere in which Slytherins are allowed to change. > > As an extension of this last aspect, I don't think > Mr. Slytherin was quite as racist as he is made out to > be. > Other, later wizards, twisted Slytherin's practical > necessity to their own racist ends. I see the > Slytherins we see today as a logical, but not > necessarily rational, evolution of Salazar's practical > necessities. lizzyben: Well, he did place a murderous Basilik into the school to keep out Muggle-borns, yes? Not sure that was a practical necessity. Steve: > This isn't really that uncommon. In fact, it has > happened repeatedly throughout history. It has > happened to Christians several times, it is now > happening to Muslims, and has happened to many other > groups; a seed to truth is twisted to meet self-serving, > but generally irrational, ends. > > As terrible as the Slytherin we see are, I refuse to > accept that they are uniformly evil and racist. I > can't believe that JKR sees them that way either. > > Just passing it along. > > Steve/bboyminn > lizzyben: Unfortunately, I believe JKR sees them as just that, and always has. Just look at her reaction when she saw that some fans were identifying themselves as Slytherins - she was "shocked" and even "disturbed!" Like she thought they were identifying with Nazis, evil & racism. The series was always headed towards this climax where the Death Eaters take over & start persecuting "Muggle-borns". She was always heading toward a finale involving the "Elder Wand" - a symbol of ambition and the desire for power & greatness. So she chose the qualities of Slytherin House to reflect these later themes - "pure- bloods" to show that they are the type of bigots who will start persecuting "Muggle-borns". "Ambitious & cunning" to show that they are the type of people who desire to achieve power & greatness by any means necessary. These are the evils of JKR's worldview, and she assigns those evils to Slytherin House. lizzyben From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Aug 23 22:42:55 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:42:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] When did the "trace" come about? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46CE0D6F.80203@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 176143 abeandamandabustos wrote: > In the previous books the decree for the restriction of underage magic > is only referred to as such and is never said to be a "trace." That's because the decree is the law, the Trace is the enforcement mechanism. > DD even > states in HBP that the MOM cannot even differentiate between who is > performing magic in any given place. Harry was blamed for Dobby's > hover charm because the MOM did not know who cast the spell, simply > that a spell had been cast. Now in DH, there is a trace that knows who > does what Not quite. It knows what magic is done WHERE, with the "where" being "around Harry" (or whatever other underage kids). There were no adult wizards present when Dobby did his thing, therefore it Couldn't Possibly have been anyone but Harry. The fact that it traces magic _around_ Harry rather than just specifically what is cast BY Harry is why none of the adults rescuing him can cast spells either. > and Harry cannot perform magic at the Burrow- even though > previous canon (via DD) states that the MOM relies on wizarding > parents to restrict thier children. NO-ONE can do magic around Harry wherever he is until the Trace is gone, or his location will be revealed. If he weren't being targeted, I'm sure it'd be just fine because the ministry would just assume "oh, there's adult wizards around" - the problem is that the trace would still be triggered in the first place, revealing the location. > Any thoughts? From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 23:30:30 2007 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:30:30 -0000 Subject: HP and Moral Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176144 > Carol responds: >snip> > When he first encounters Draco and his cronies in the RoR, he seems to > think that they've gone back in time and Draco is his old self backed > by his thug cronies. But the balance of power has shifted; Crabbe > isn't taking orders from Draco, whose father has been disgraced. > (Crabbe and Goyle have also been using the Cruciatus Curse on fellow > students, as we learn from Neville in "The Lost Diadem." There's no > indication that Draco has joined them in doing so.) > > Draco tells Harry that Harry is using his wand and Harry says the > equivalent of "finders, keepers." Then he asks Draco whose wand he's > using and Draco says it's his mother's, but he doesn't point the wand > or cast a spell. Harry asks why they're not with Voldemort, and > Crabbe, not Draco, says that they hung back to bring him in. It's > unclear whether he's speaking for Draco or only for himself and Goyle. > After some conversation (still no spells cast), Goyle asks what a > "die-dum" is. Crabbe, hearing Ron call out to Harry, shouts > "Descendo!" and part of the "mountain" of old furniture, books, and > junk begins to fall. Harry cries "Finite!" and the spell ends. Crabbe > starts to repeat his spell and Draco grabs his arm, shouting "No!" and > warning him that he might "bury that diadem thing." Like Snape > stopping the Crucio in HBP, Draco seems to be helping Harry here. > Crabbe says that he doesn't take orders from Draco "no more." Crabbe > tries to Crucio Harry but misses. Draco, again echoing Snape, calls > out, "Stop! The Dark Lord wants him alive--" to which Crabbe responds, > "So? I'm not killing him, am I? but if I can, I will, the Dark Lord > wants him alive, anyway. What's the diff--" Hermione tries to Stun > Crabbe, who actually casts a Killing curse at the "Mudblood." Draco > yells, "Don't kill him! DON'T KILL HIM!" Both Crabbe and Goyle point > their wands at Harry. Draco is wandless from a Stunning Spell aimed at > Crabbe. Harry disarms Goyle but Crabbe yells "Avada Kedavra" again. > Hermione hits Goyle with a Stunning Spell. Crabbe casts the Fiendfyre > spell. > snip> As I read this scene, Goyle is his usual gormless self and is only > following the rather confusing lead of Crabbe and Draco, who are at > odds with each other. Crabbe has clearly gone over to the Dark Side, > willing to cast every Dark Curse he knows and three times trying to > kill someone. Ironically and fittingly, the only one who ends up dead > is himself. Draco does not cast a single spell and several times tries > to stop Crabbe from doing so. It seems to me that his purpose in > entering the RoR was not to help Crabbe capture Harry but to prevent > him from doing so. If not actively on the side of good, he is at least > morally neutral. > > I'm not sure how much of this Harry realizes, but he certainly knows > that it's Crabbe who cast the Dark Curses, Crabbe who tried to Crucio > him and kill Hermione. He sees Draco trying to comfort the unconscious > Goyle, thinking that they're all going to die, and out of mercy or > compassion or plain human decency he saves Draco while Ron, against > his will and perhaps against common sense, pulls the unconscious Goyle > onto his own broom with himself and Hermione. > > Carol Jack-A-Roe: I read Draco's actions in the ROR differently. IMO. He was trying to capture Harry and take him back to Voldemort. He's hoping to be rewarded -- His family safe. He tries to stop Crabbe because he knows that Voldemort wants Harry alive. This is very obvious to the DE's. Voldemort tells us this when he is talking with Snape. Draco believes that bringing back a dead Harry is just as dangerous, if not more so, than not bringing Harry back at all. So I basically see Draco still looking out for himself (and his family) and not really being on anyones side other than those that can help him. I still can't believe he didn't end up in prison. He was responsible for Katy and at least partially responsible for the poisoning of Ron. He allowed DE's into Hogwarts, resulting in the death (while somewhat planned) of Dumbledore and injuries to others. Sorry, but Draco's scene pretending he doesn't recognize Harry doesn't quite make up for it. Jack-A-Roe From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Fri Aug 24 00:33:28 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:33:28 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Putting the Elder Wand at risk? (Was: I would have kept the Elder Wand) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176145 On 2007, Aug 23, , at 13:55, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: > At 8:29 +0000 on 08/23/2007, Sharon wrote about [HPforGrownups] Re: > Putting the Elder Wand at risk? (Was: I: Is there a reason why Harry just can't simply break the Elder Wand. His own wand was nearly broken and was unusable. If he breaks the Elder Wand into two pieces, wouldn't that prevent its future use? Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From taylorlynzie at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 00:47:19 2007 From: taylorlynzie at gmail.com (taylorlynzie) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:47:19 -0000 Subject: Magical Abilities Revealed Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176146 I seem to remember that between HBP and OotP Rowling had said in an interview that someone of apparently no magical ability was going to be revealed at the end of the series. There was speculations that it could be Petunia or Dudley Durlsey or Filch. However, who was the person that was revealed? Was the person Dumbledore's sister? If that is the case I have to say that I am a little disappointed because we did not even know about her until DH. Just wondering.... Tay From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 01:23:21 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:23:21 -0000 Subject: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176147 > Betsy Hp: > Nah. Harry Potter isn't a hero, IMO, because he's a > suicidal, easily manipulated idiot. Mike: Yeah, what was he thinking, when he walked into the forest? He had two of the Hallows in his hands, he approached the bad guys unawares. He could have just reached out with the Hawthorn wand and Expelliarmused the Elder Wand out of Voldemort's hands and he would have had all three of the Deathly Hallows. Shoot, he could've AKed the lot of 'em, Voldemort included. Nobody could have resisted, he was the Master of Death for crying out loud. Oops, there was that little matter of the soul piece still in his head. Oh hell, as the master of death he could've figured out how to get that piece out of there. He might have gotten a Dementor to suck it out, something would have worked. Damn, why didn't JKR think of this? > > Bart: > > Dumbledore isn't a hero either; after all, he manipulated people. > > Betsy Hp: > And killed his sister. And hid quivering away in his tower while > evil that he'd received early warning about blossomed at his > school. "Sure the kid's killed fluffy bunnies and tortured small > children. But he's not in my House so screw 'im. Not my problem." Mike: Wow, thanks, I wasn't sure it was Albus who killed his sister, the book was a little unclear on this. But you've set me straight. Yep quite the flaw in old Albus, wasn't it. He still fell victim to it some hundred years later, and it killed him, or would have if he didn't plan to speed up his death. In the meantime, he sat back and did nothing for Tom Riddle while Tom set himself down the path towards Dark Lordship and a place where he could not be redeemed. So Dumbledore cooked up a plan to set this biggest of his mistakes right. But I guess if heroes overcome their flaws and orchestrate the correction of their mistakes from earlier on, they must instead be just manipulative old bastards. Seems we are particular about which flaws we allow our heroes to have, and cannot forgive some mistakes even when they are ultimately corrected. > Betsy Hp: > Snape was so wrapped up in his own failings he utterly failed the > children placed under his care. He was horribly abused, so I > cannot find it in myself to dislike him to the same extent I > dislike Harry and co. Mike: I guess we've assumed that Snape was abused by his father. OK, I suppose that's a logical assumption. But he still had his mum and I hope I'm not suppose to assume that she abused him too. Unlike Harry, who had a perfectly normal childhood with loving and caring parents to raise him. Since Harry had nothing to overcome from his childhood we shouldn't be making excuses for his excesses in school like we should for Severus. Like when Harry called Hermione a "mudblood" in their fifth year. Or like when Harry hung around with those mean boys from his house who liked to practice some nasty spells on those Slytherin girls. We didn't catch Harry in the act, but we're pretty sure he was involved. > Betsy Hp: > But he's [Snape] more something to be pitied than admired. Mike: Yeah, after all Severus had no examples of how to treat his fellow wizards descently. That Lily Evans was just a conniving pretty-girl who was oblivious to the kind of boy James Potter was. Snape was right to dump her in favor of his aspiring DE housemates. They were just having a little clean fun, after all. > Betsy Hp: > IMO, by the end of DH, JKR shoved all of her characters into highly > unrealistic caricatures. I saw nothing human in them. And > certainly nothing heroic. Mike: I saw a lot of witch and wizard in these characters. I believed that was what JKR was writing about in the first place. So inside that context, inside the world she created, I have no problem seeing the human side of them and their very human struggles. And I also saw the heroes, flawed and sometimes foolish heroes. But they were heroes nonetheless, and they worked for me because of what JKR was writing and what I was reading. I read the books as a fantasy adventure and setting them in modern times did not confuse me. Especially since much of the WW was stuck in pre-1692 thinking. Harry and Hermione were the only main characters who seemed to embrace modern times, but they had a lot of catching up to do with the wizarding world and their concepts. Did that cause plot holes,... lots of them. But as I've said before, one can choose to overlook them, justify or otherwise work around them, or let them fester and ruin the story for you. I had hoped for different outcomes for some characters, for different story lines. That I didn't get them didn't mean that JKR was wrong for not giving them to me. But I never looked for an overarching moral message from the series, because JKR clued me in that she wasn't writing that kind of a book. So I wasn't disappointed when I didn't get that kind of a story. Mike From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 01:47:59 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:47:59 -0000 Subject: Voldemort/Re: Ending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176148 Renee: > And now, I hope someone can answer a rather burning question for me. > JKR has said somewhere that she was trying to depict Voldemort as a > psychopath. Now I always thought psychopathy was a condition that is > both incurable and untreatable. Psychopaths lack empathy and are > incapable of feeling remorse, among other things. Why, then, does JKR > have Harry suggest that Voldemort try for some remorse? Is this as > nonsensical as I think it is? Has she failed to take a serious look at > what psychopathy actually is. Or do I have the wrong ideas about it? > > Renee > lizzyben: And I can now provide the answer! JKR does see LV as a psychopath, and does recognize that he is therefore incapable of remorse. But, because he has Harry's blood, this means he has the blood of pure *love* in his veins, which meant that he could repent, if he had enough *courage*, which he didn't. So, he's a psychopath w/Harry's blood, and this would somehow maybe make him capable of remorse, even though there's no sign that this affected how he thinks or feels at all. Wrap your head around that one. "Meredith Vieira: Why was it important to you, Jo, to write about the cruelty and inhumanity? J.K. Rowling: I'm not sure why. (LAUGHTER) But it was what I wanted to write about most. And it's about choice. And you are shown that Voldemort. I mean, it? I suppose we're going to call him a psychopath. But he's so, in many ways, he is what he is and he's beyond redemption. Although this being Harry Potter and because I can take liberties because I have magic in my world, it is shown at the very end of the book that he did have a chance for redemption because he had taken into his body this drop of hope or love? Meredith Vieira: Harry's blood. J.K. Rowling: Right. So that meant that if he could have mastered the courage to repent, he would have been okay. But, of course, he wouldn't. And that's his choice. " From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Aug 23 21:39:08 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:39:08 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Heroes in the Harry Potter Series Message-ID: <20070824073908.CTC61390@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176149 Bart : > The point is that, yes, the heroes in the Harry > Potter novels do some decidedly non-heroic things. > But to either think that the fact that they are > heroes excuses this behavior, or that the behavior > makes them less heroic, is to use a definition of > heroism by which there are no heroes. They are > human, and, being human, they are flawed. They are > heroes in spite of these flaws, not because of them. Sharon: I actually think Harry, Dumbledore and Snape are more than heroes. In my earlier thread about moral choices I made the point that heroes usually rescue the goodies and kill off the baddies. In DH Harry saves the goodies AND the baddies, which makes him saint-like. And Snape goes without saying, he is the biggest hero of them all really, since he took no credit for any of the good that he did, at least while he was alive. Dumbledore, too, was heroic in many respects. I agree with you that today people think heroes need to be perfect. The ancient greeks knew that heroes were flawed -- most of thir mythological heroes participated in some tragic incident. Oedipus killed his father and slept with his mother for instance. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Aug 23 22:35:11 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:35:11 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] More books (was Re: Putting the Elder Wand at risk? ) Message-ID: <20070824083511.CTC66386@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176150 > Renee: > Why would she repeat herself by writing about a > struggle with a > power-hungry Dark Wizard all over again? I don't see > any point in this. > My prediction is, that after writing the > encyclopedia, she'll get > enough of the Wizarding World and move on. Sharon: You are probably right. I guess it's hard for me to let go! LOL Whenever I finish reading a HP book I always wonder what else there is to read that is as good. Now that the series is finished, what could I possibly read that will be up to the same standard??? I have read some other books over the years, but most of them I never get past the first couple of chapters. Those that I do make it through to the end, are usually pretty good, but not exceptional. Strange but I have tried other books in the fantasy genre and find them awfully tedious. Still I haven't given up hope for more in this vein from JKR -- there are plenty of precedents where authors spend a whole life writing a particular series -- James Bond (can't remember the writer), agatha Christie, many other sleuth writers. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Aug 23 22:12:31 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:12:31 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series Message-ID: <20070824081231.CTC63612@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176151 magpie: In short, I don't think people want their heroes to > be "perfect" in > the sense of doing nothing wrong ever. They just > want their heroes > to be people that don't bug them, and that's going > to vary from > person to person. Sharon: I disagree with you here, m, becuase I think it's possible to objectively identify what a hero is. I don't believe it is a matter of a hero being simply someone I like. That would be like saying there are no objective moral principles, when in fact, there are. For example, 'killing is wrong' is an objective moral principle. You can't disagree with that principle simply because you don't like it. What we do disagree upon are the caveats that go with a particular principle. For example, 'killing is wrong UNLESS it is the only way to defend oneself from certain death' or 'lying is always wrong UNLESS it is to save a life' or something like that. So, a hero is a person who sacrifices themselves in some major way to save others. What they do is more than their duty, their actions are 'supererogatory' in the sense of being over and above whatever duties they may have to others. Now the problem is not whether Harry or Frodo are heroes or not, but rather whether certain of their individual character traits or actions are likeable/good. We can still have an opinion about Harry's Crucio while continuing to beleive him to be a hero. Personally I forgive Harry the Crucio becuase he was using it on a torturer, although I would have preferred that he simply stun the guy. I probably would have done the same thing in the same situation - -really it's just like hitting someone over the head with a frypan who is trying to attack you. The Imperius curse was also excusable since it didn't really harm anyone and helped them towards their goal. IMHO. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Aug 23 22:37:53 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:37:53 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names Message-ID: <20070824083753.CTC66576@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176152 > montims: > But really - when people in the real world have > children, do they really > name them after somebody they know, or do they just > pick their favourite > names??? Can the WW not do the same? Particularly if > the children seem > likely to spend a lot of time in the muggle world > (viz. Ron's driving > lessons, and their muggle grandparents, now safely > restored to the UK) Sharon: I agree with you up to a point, but Harry has named his kids after people, so it seems to follow that Ron and Hermione would too. From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 01:59:36 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:59:36 -0000 Subject: Magical Abilities Revealed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176153 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "taylorlynzie" wrote: > > I seem to remember that between HBP and OotP Rowling had said in an > interview that someone of apparently no magical ability was going to > be revealed at the end of the series. There was speculations that it > could be Petunia or Dudley Durlsey or Filch. However, who was the > person that was revealed? Was the person Dumbledore's sister? If that > is the case I have to say that I am a little disappointed because we > did not even know about her until DH. > > Just wondering.... Tay > Lisa: JKR apparently changed her mind about that one between the interview in which she gave out that information and the actual writing of Deathly Hallows. She said as much in her interview the week after DH came out. Lisa From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Fri Aug 24 01:49:26 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:49:26 -0000 Subject: Contradiction revisted Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176154 Thanks for everyone's replies. They seem to revolve around whether magic involves using a wand or not. "The Trace, the Trace," said Mad-Eye imaptiently. "The charm that detects magical activity around under-seventeens." The quote, to me, implies any magic. But I can accept that it is supposed to mean wand use. Re the invisibility cloak: Could Harry go to a public WW place while under the cloak then disapparate? Or the Order appears as in DH and an invisible Harry hides in the sidecar? Barry From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Aug 24 02:02:39 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:02:39 -0000 Subject: Back to Slytherin House - Choosing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176155 > lizzyben: > > It sure does. People (including me) have complained that Harry > never faced an internal battle between good & evil, but he actually > did - he faced the choice between good & evil at eleven years old, > and chose good. Everything else was just gravy. Jen: Why is that a complaint, btw? I predicted prior to DH that Harry might face a decision about Snape such as Voldemort luring Harry to him using Snape as the temptation, and Harry would have to choose at a pivotal moment: revenge on Snape vs. some higher calling. So I was also a reader expecting a big good vs. evil battle prior to DH. Since it turned out he had evil inside him already with a soul piece, that wasn't the story and instead Harry's biggest choice was life vs. death. Why then is the internal battle between good and evil still necessary? It wasn't the crisis of conscience Harry was meant to face apparently. lizzyben: > The Sorting Hat strongly considered putting Harry into Slytherin > House, telling him that it would bring him "greatness" - power, > fame, fortune. Well, after DH we know that JKR considers > unrestrained ambition & a lust for power to be true evils. DD & > Snape fall into evil because of their desire for greatness & power. > The "Elder Wand" symbolizes the ultimate power that various wizards > want & kill over, and Harry the hero gives up. He worries that > Hermione & Ron are still tempted by its power, etc. Jen: I agree refusing power is virtuous in this particular story. I also notice that it's not only Slytherins or even Hogwartians who are tempted by power. I'm not clear what you're saying here for this reason. If the logic of the elect holds up then Harry wouldn't need to reject the wand for Ron and Hermione, they would do it for themselves (one example). This story isn't about the four houses of Hogwarts even though sorting and houses are important at various junctures. One fairly large part of the story is about people with unique abilities of various backgrounds who start to wonder just how far those abilities will take them, i.e., can magical power bring back the dead? Help someone discover the secret to immortality? Help a person seeking power over others? Harry even has some tastes of power himself, before realizing how much destruction that seeking power has brought into the lives of people whom he's both admired and hated across the course of seven years. Watching Dobby die and working through his grief was a pivotal moment for him to choose destruction of the Horcruxes over seeking the Hallows, another occasion when death and grief was the basis for one of his choices (and all have not been good choices as we discussed prior to DH, like when Harry chose to blame Snape for Sirius' death and hated him for it). lizzyben: > Once you've got the Calvinism down, it's much easier to understand > how the Sorting Hat works. Jen: This is also becoming the basis for the entire story from how I understand your post, something that denies any other theme or motif or symbolism to play a role. Sure, it's tempting to distill a story down to one understandable line in the narrative but doing so completely negates the parts of the story that can't be forced into this box called Calvinism and Slytherin house. From elfundeb at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 02:06:02 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:06:02 -0400 Subject: Alchemy, the Epilogue and Slytherin (long) Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708231906u1378563blcdd3fb473e4cbef5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176156 Erm. Where do I begin? The focus of this post is to draw on the principles of alchemy, which JKR read extensively before writing HP, and to take another look at some of the issues we've been debating these last few weeks, particularly the continued isolation of Slytherin house and what the epilogue has to say about it. (There are a couple of other observations about alchemy at the very end of this post.) On first reading, the epilogue appears superficial, and the message contradictory. However, when I began to read up on alchemy (something I'd never done before) and view it through that lens, the indicators of reconciliation became much clearer to me. I now believe that the sole function of the epilogue is to provide a window into the future, not 19 but 25 and 30 years down the road, using alchemical references and principles to convey the notion that the children we meet in the epilogue will continue the alchemical process of spiritual purification of the WW which has been going on at least since the generation above Harry's. I doubt I'll convince anyone who is convinced that JKR sees Slytherin traits as negative. Her view of ambition is ambivalent at best, and I recall writing a post on this subject when I was a fresh-faced newbie on this list back in 2002. The story of the Elder Wand seems to confirm her distaste for ambition; however, I believe the message is that any one of the defining house traits, if not tempered with other traits, is dangerous. The line between the ambitious and the power-hungry is thin, but so is the line between bravery and foolish recklessness, and recklessness kills. If anyone wants to quit reading right now, I'll understand. ;-) QUICK ALCHEMY SUMMARY I'm no alchemy expert. Everything I know I picked up from this list, from John Granger's book Unlocking Harry Potter: Five Keys for the Serious Reader (Zossima Press 2007), and a couple of alchemy websites. (I have not read Granger's analysis of the first part of DH, which is posted on his website.) Since it's been discussed many times, and I'm not qualified anyway, I'm going to start with a *very* oversimplified summary. According to Granger (John, not Hermione), the alchemical process is a series of purifications of a base metal into gold, accomplished by dissolving and recongealing the metal via the action of two reagents representing two polar opposites. These opposites are alternatively described as: Sol and Luna (sun and moon, or night and day) masculine and feminine (power and wisdom) Sulfur (S) and Mercury (Hg), also seen as - Ruddy Man and White Woman (Red King and White Queen) Hot/dry and cool/moist (i.e., fire and water, or in HP terms, Gryffindor and Slytherin) The chemical purification process functioned as a metaphor for spiritual purification through the resolution of forces in conflict. This purification process culminates in the chemical wedding, at which the polar opposites are resolved and merged, followed by their death and the birth of the "philosophical orphan." The death referenced is the death of the differentiated state of the two marriage partners, and the birth is the product of their merger and reconciliation. Thus, it is not necessarily a literal death. End of summary. THE ALCHEMICAL CYCLE IN THE POTTERVERSE It's fairly evident, at least in the Potterverse, that the alchemical process is iterative and repeats itself in successive generations. Harry is an obvious philosophical orphan born following a wedding of opposites -- the pureblood James and Muggleborn Lily -- after a period of conflict (amply documented in Snape's memories), and their deaths at Voldemort's hand. Harry, in his role as philosophical orphan, functions as the base metal for the next cycle of purification. As the product of a union of pureblood and Muggleborn, it was his job to defeat Voldemort, principal proponent of the pureblood supremacy cancer that Salazar Slytherin inflicted on his house. By defeating Voldemort, there are no more heirs of Slytherin to carry on Salazar's ignoble work, and the WW has been made safe for Muggleborns. It wasn't Harry's job to achieve unity between Gryffindor and Slytherin. His job was to purge the cancer that prevented Slytherin from achieving unity with the other houses. Completion of the task of reunification, however, is left for the new philosophical orphan(s) and the rest of the new generation, whom we meet briefly in the epilogue. ALCHEMICAL WEDDING(S) AND PHILOSOPHICAL ORPHANS IN DH It seems pretty clear that it was Lupin and Tonks that drew the short straw in DH and were made to take part in the symbolic chemical wedding; give birth to the new philosophical orphan, Teddy; and die. Teddy's role as philosophical orphan is foreshadowed by the newborn infant's immediate changes in hair color through the various stages (black, white, red) of the alchemical process; all three colors are mentioned by Lupin in his report. As Harry, the offspring of a muggleborn and pureblood, did battle against the pureblood ideology, if Teddy, the next philosophical orphan is to achieve house unity, he should ideally be the offspring of a Gryffindor/Slytherin relationship. While we don't know for certain what house Tonks was in, she is a Black (though a disowned one) and the Black family have historically been sorted into Slytherin. Viewing Lupin and Tonks as alchemical symbols does a great deal to explain Lupin's actions in HBP and DH. JKR presents a quarreling couple that ultimately resolves their differences; although Lupin and Tonks had a quiet, offstage wedding ceremony at the beginning of DH (probably to make sure there would be no out-of-wedlock pregnancy in the books), Lupin's doubts created opposition and estrangement that was not resolved until Teddy's birth. The peaceful appearance of Lupin and Tonks in death symbolizes their final alchemical union (and perhaps explains Tonks' single-minded purpose upon her arrival in the RoR to go join Lupin in the fighting). DOPPELGANGERS: MORE QUARRELING COUPLES AND PHILOSOPHICAL NON-ORPHANS HP is full of doppelgangers. Harry, as philosophical orphan, has several. There's Neville, another virtual orphan, whose similarities to Harry are exemplified in the prophecy. Riddle is another, only in reverse. The obvious doppelgangers for Lupin and Tonks are Bill and Fleur. Like Lupin, Bill has had a werewolf encounter that scarred him for life. Fleur's part-veela status is a counterpart to Tonks' Metamorphmagus abilities (the veela at the QWC became birdlike when angry). As Granger and others have pointed out, Fleur has her own Slytherin connection in her Phlegm nickname; she is cool and moist, in contrast to the hot, dry, passionate Weasleys. And while we don't see her quarrel with Bill, her relationship with the women at the Burrow (all Gryffindors) is unquestionably strained. To underscore the connection between the two couples, JKR has Fleur and Tonks, both 'young and whole,' publicly declare their love for their 'damaged' men in the hospital wing scene at the end of HBP. Ron and Hermione comprise a third (or perhaps the primary) quarreling couple. Though not obvious doppelgangers, Ron is Bill's brother and the one he chooses to stay with when he leaves the camping trip (he looks to Bill and Fleur for pointers on romance, too). For her part, Hermione demonstrates more than a little bit of Slytherinish cunning and ambition. Moreover, they are clearly alchemical symbols -- sulphur and mercury (Hermione stands for mercury, and her initials are the chemical symbol for mercury, Hg), Red King and White Queen (they even wore crowns in a dream of Harry's in OOP), and the resolution of their conflicts in their chemical wedding -- in the form of a symbolic kiss with the philosophical orphan as witness -- is essential to completing Harry's own purification. Fortunately, the doppelganger couples don't need to die to complete the alchemical purification (although Ron and Hermione got a symbolic death and resurrection when they went to the Chamber of Secrets for the basilisk fangs). Lupin and Tonks' death sufficed for the entire generation. THE EPILOGUE (FINALLY) JKR wasn't exactly forthcoming in the epilogue. To the uninitiated it reads like a hodgepodge of useless information. Who cares if Ron and Hermione named their firstborn Rose, or if Teddy is snogging Victoire? The little information it provides seems trivial, but virtually every component points to the next level of purification to take place in the WW, the healing of the Slytherin/Gryffindor rift. First, the epilogue functions almost exclusively as an introduction of the philosophical orphans and non-orphans in the next generation whose own purification will achieve house unity, and only incidentally on the principals of the main action in HP. Virtually everyone we meet or hear about has alchemical significance: *We meet Scorpius Malfoy, whose Slytherin heritage is reflected in his name, taken from an astrological water sign, and his resemblance to Draco. *We meet Rose Weasley, who is what I'll call a philosophical non-orphan (the product of a chemical wedding, but not an orphan) with a name rich in alchemical meaning. The rose in alchemy symbolizes the mystical marriage of opposites and thus is a symbol of unity. Ron's comments set up a conflict between her and Scorpius ("Make sure you beat him in every test") and link her romantically to Scorpius by negative inference ("don't get *too* friendly with him"). Even before I checked out the alchemy angle, I assumed this exchange foreshadowed a Rose/Scorpius marriage. Add the alchemy, and it's a chemical wedding celebrating the resolution and merger of the polar opposites Slytherin and Gryffindor. And, since we're talking about alchemy, it's an equal merger, not Gryffindor swallowing Slytherin. Both houses are validated. *We meet Albus Severus Potter, whose (obviously Gryffindor) brother likes to tease him about, among other things, becoming a Slytherin. But he says there's nothing wrong with that. His dad thinks it would be fine, too. His dad also tells Al that the Sorting Hat would take his choice into account, thereby removing Al's fear of Slytherin. I bet 10 to 1 he goes to Slytherin, notwithstanding the ambiguity of Harry's comment, where Al will provide the salt, the alchemical catalyst for the chemical reaction between Gryffindor Rose and Slytherin Scorpius. *We meet Hugo Weasley. Potioncat made an excellent joke that he was named for Victor Hugo, but secretly for Hermione's old flame Victor Krum. In fact, I believe he *was* named for Victor Hugo. The Hunchback of Notre Dame contains numerous references to Nicholas Flamel and to alchemy in general, and Victor Hugo himself apparently claimed to have spoken directly to Flamel in a seance. In our one glimpse of him he is engaged in an earnest discussion with Lily II about what houses they would be sorted into. Again, Ron's comment ("If you're not in Gryffindor, we'll disinherit you") seems to suggest that they will not automatically become Gryffindors. They also seem to be good candidates for purifying agents in this next stage of alchemical purification. *We meet James and Lily, who (as John Granger pointed out in his books long ago) also have alchemical names (James is the patron saint of alchemists, and Lily is, among other things, the name of a comic book alchemist). James is a teaser, but hopefully not a bully like his namesake. *We meet Teddy Lupin, the philosophical orphan, and learn that he is being mentored by the last such orphan *and* that he's enamored of another philosophical non-orphan, who is also the daughter of his parents' doppelgangers. Both arguably blend Slytherin and Gryffindor elements. And since they merge pureblood, muggleborn, metamorphmagus and veela heritage, perhaps their offspring will take on the next step toward purifying the WW by restoring proper relations with non-human magical beings. The fact is, every one of these characters has alchemical significance, and the one theme of the epilogue is Hogwarts houses. Second, we get evidence of an existing truce among the houses, evidenced by the exchange of nods between Harry and Draco. Really, this is progress! Third, Harry recognizes and respects Severus Snape, another Slytherin. Yes, he says Snape is brave, but his comment is a recognition that the best of us embody qualities of more than one house; they are ambitious and cunning, wise and intelligent, brave and chivalrous, and loyal and just. Like Harry. We don't know what will happen next, but this is what I'd predict: Young Al will find himself in Scorpius' compartment, where they will share sweets and Chocolate Frog cards. Al will not ask any favors of the Sorting Hat and he will find himself in Slytherin, because he is ambitious, and compassionate, and smart and cunning and brave. And Rose will drop by to see Al in his compartment, whereupon she will inform young Scorpius that he has dirt on his nose . . . . CONCLUSION Obviously, the promise that the alchemical process will accomplish the purification necessary to complete the healing of the Gryffindor/Slytherin rift is little comfort to those who read the Sorting Hat's song in OOP to mean that house unity would be essential to defeat Voldemort. The challenge of literature is to provide satisfaction within the pages of the novel, and the denouement and epilogue of DH may obscure the message too deeply for it to be understood fully by one not in possession of the alchemical key. For me, though, it's enough. ************ The rest of this post consists of thoughts on other ways in which alchemy permeates DH which really don't fit into the main thesis of the post. But I thought they might be interesting, so have left them in as an afterword. ANTI-PURIFICATION Tom Riddle as evil psychopath, unable to love or be loved or repent, represented by the flayed infant whom nobody can help, seems harsh and unnecessarily Calvinistic. However, alchemical principles would seem to decree that this must be so. Tom Sr. and Merope's marriage was the opposite of the chemical wedding which merges and resolves the two opposites. Merope essentially took Tom Sr. by trickery and when he found out, Tom Sr. left, the union was dissolved, and Merope was left to die. Because muggle and magical were in conflict, Tom is an anti-philosophical orphan. Instead of purification his magical transformations debase him further, making him less human. He is not purified, but corrupted, and he must be destroyed because he cannot repent and reform. This doesn't make the Calvinistic theology embedded in Riddle's demise any less harsh, but I do think it helps to understand the literary construct JKR was using. MORE ON LUPIN AND TONKS In addition to the quarreling couple or Gryffindor/Slytherin pairs of opposites, JKR also makes Lupin and Tonks exemplify the male/female alchemical dichotomy, except that they do so in reverse. Instead of a male sun and feminine moon, Lupin is the moon to Tonks' sun (what other explanation for those luridly bright hair colors?). Lupin, with his monthly illness, passivity and unemployability, carries obvious feminine markers. Many, if not all, of Tonks' quirks point to this dichotomy. Tonks' masculine markers include (i) wanting to be known by her surname; (ii) utter lack of feminine grace; (iii) lack of housekeeping skills; and (iv) her tough-guy law enforcement job. In HBP, however, this begins to reverse: Tonks becomes depressed over a man, a more stereotypically feminine thing to do, and in DH, Tonks stays home while Lupin wants to go off on a macho adventure with the Trio instead of fulfilling his role as a father. And, as an aside, it's possible to argue that their doppelgangers Bill and Fleur also reverse the masculine/feminine dichotomy: Fleur competed in the rather macho Triwizard Tournament; Bill's not exactly feminine, but he does sport long hair and an earring. While Tonks' character makes sense in an alchemical context, whether it makes sense from the perspective of the story is another matter. If not for the alchemy, I don't know what she adds to the book. I also often felt that the Lupin we see in DH was a square peg being forced into this triangular role. THE END. REALLY. Debbie also noting that some passages become funnier once you realize their alchemical significance and suggesting ch. 31 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From va32h at comcast.net Fri Aug 24 02:06:24 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:06:24 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: <20070824083753.CTC66576@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176157 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: > I agree with you up to a point, but Harry has named his kids after people, so it > seems to follow that Ron and Hermione would too. > va32h: Why? Harry is Harry and Ron is Ron. They are different characters and they do different things for different reasons. There are some things in the books that just are - no hidden meanings, no clues, no secret messages. In one of her post-DH interviews, JKR said that socks were just socks. She thinks socks are funny, so she mentions them a lot. Apparently, she liked those names for Ron and Hermione's children. It doesn't have to mean anything, within the book or without. va32h From margdean at erols.com Fri Aug 24 02:39:45 2007 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:39:45 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] More books (was Re: Puttingthe Elder Wand at risk? ) References: <20070824083511.CTC66386@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: <46CE44F1.2A75193C@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176158 Sharon Hayes wrote: > Whenever I finish reading a HP book I always wonder what else there is > to read that is as good. Now that the series is finished, what could I > possibly read that will be up to the same standard??? *chuckle* I remember feeling the exact same way about THE LORD OF THE RINGS ... and by that time I had read many, many books. For a while the solution was to read LotR over and over and over... > I have read some other books over the years, but most of > them I never get past the first couple of chapters. Those that I do > make it through to the end, are usually pretty good, but not exceptional. > Strange but I have tried other books in the fantasy genre and find them > awfully tedious. Have you tried the Diane Duane Wizard series that begins with SO YOU WANT TO BE A WIZARD? I find it interesting to compare these with HP because they're also about young people learning to use magic, and involve serious moral choices, but Duane goes in very different directions with it. --Margaret Dean From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 02:40:12 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:40:12 -0000 Subject: Back to Slytherin House - Choosing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176159 > Jen: Why is that a complaint, btw? I predicted prior to DH that > Harry might face a decision about Snape such as Voldemort luring > Harry to him using Snape as the temptation, and Harry would have to > choose at a pivotal moment: revenge on Snape vs. some higher > calling. So I was also a reader expecting a big good vs. evil battle > prior to DH. Since it turned out he had evil inside him already with > a soul piece, that wasn't the story and instead Harry's biggest > choice was life vs. death. Why then is the internal battle between > good and evil still necessary? It wasn't the crisis of conscience > Harry was meant to face apparently. lizzyben: Because he's doing what might be called evil things, and not even recognizing it as such. (Crucios, double-crosses, etc.) The novel doesn't even recognize it as such. Instead, there's an assumption that anything Harry does is intrinsically good & right. And that makes sense if you see it more as that Harry has already been sorted among the Elect& Good, and so his actions will always be good, even if those same actions would be wrong if a different person did it. Life vs. Death, I don't see as a big crisis for Harry. DD has trained Harry to be willing to sacrifice himself since SS at least. And Harry has always been somewhat drawn to death - the Dementors, the Veil, the Resurrection Stone, etc. What w/his loved ones cheering him one, and the grief he was in, it was almost an easy choice for him to make. > lizzyben: > > The Sorting Hat strongly considered putting Harry into Slytherin > > House, telling him that it would bring him "greatness" - power, > > fame, fortune. Well, after DH we know that JKR considers > > unrestrained ambition & a lust for power to be true evils. DD & > > Snape fall into evil because of their desire for greatness & power. > > The "Elder Wand" symbolizes the ultimate power that various wizards > > want & kill over, and Harry the hero gives up. He worries that > > Hermione & Ron are still tempted by its power, etc. > > Jen: I agree refusing power is virtuous in this particular story. I > also notice that it's not only Slytherins or even Hogwartians who are > tempted by power. I'm not clear what you're saying here for this > reason. If the logic of the elect holds up then Harry wouldn't need > to reject the wand for Ron and Hermione, they would do it for > themselves (one example). lizzyben: Well, I'm saying that refusing power is a virtue, and desiring power is a sin - therefore, the Slytherin qualities of ambition, using any means to reach their goals, etc. are sins, evil qualities. So, when the Sorting Hat promises Harry "greatness" if he goes to Slytherin, IMO JKR is representing that as Harry's temptation to evil. Once he rejects power in that instance, Harry is sorted into Goodness, and remains there. You're right, Ron & Hermione are still tempted, and DD too. But Harry isn't - he rejected power during his Sorting and that choice showed his true nature. This is why only Harry could become the master of Elder Wand, and give up the wand. DD also praises Harry for not being tempted by power. This is about Harry as the Elect, more than a Gryffindor-elect thing. Because even though Gryffindors are pretty high up, it seems like Harry is the most Elect of all - maybe it's his ability to reject power that makes him so special? (According to JKR). Jen: > This story isn't about the four houses of Hogwarts even though > sorting and houses are important at various junctures. One fairly > large part of the story is about people with unique abilities of > various backgrounds who start to wonder just how far those abilities > will take them, i.e., can magical power bring back the dead? Help > someone discover the secret to immortality? Help a person seeking > power over others? Harry even has some tastes of power himself, > before realizing how much destruction that seeking power has brought > into the lives of people whom he's both admired and hated across the > course of seven years. lizzyben: Oh, sure, there's other themes, especially related to death. The theme of power & seeking power is independent, but also relates to the Houses because Slytherins are generally characterized as more power-hungry. > Jen: This is also becoming the basis for the entire story from how I > understand your post, something that denies any other theme or motif > or symbolism to play a role. Sure, it's tempting to distill a story > down to one understandable line in the narrative but doing so > completely negates the parts of the story that can't be forced into > this box called Calvinism and Slytherin house. lizzyben: There's lots of different themes, this is just the one I'm focusing on . Because I never thought about Harry's own Sorting as being a predestined choice between good & evil, but that seems like a better interpretation given how JKR characterizes the Houses. At eleven, Harry had the choice between love (Gryffindor) or power (Slytherin) - and chose love. This choice illustrates Harry's essential goodness. At first, I thought this event was meant to show that Slytherin House had some redeemable qualities, but now I believe it was meant to show Harry's ability to reject evil. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Aug 24 02:58:43 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:58:43 -0000 Subject: FILK: Potter From the Sky Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176160 Potter From the Sky (DH, Chap. 4) To the tune of Corner of the Sky from the musical Pippin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwjSyKM7J2c THE SCENE: The Malfoy Manor. VOLDEMORT plots to dispose of Harry Potter (who must soon leave Privet Drive). VOLDEMORT: Now it's the summer season Let us get really mean And here's the reason, he will soon turn 17. Safety ends in Mugglesville Potter's planning to flee I won't let him be done in by anyone but me. Let me say this as a preamble Give me a wand, see Harry die. Just one AK and the Boy Who Lived I'll slay Gonna knock that Potter from the sky Everyone has his nightmares Everyone bears a curse I'm the man who's making Potter's nightmares even worse Understand my assignment: Intercept that young brat And I will see upon the earth the ol' Chosen One go splat. Let me say this as a preamble Give me a wand, see Harry die. Just one AK and the Boy Who Lived I'll slay Gonna knock that Potter from the sky The Ministry is taken And Hogwarts itself shall fall For I now know through sin and Thicknesse I've got it all So don't my name be saying, For it's been made Taboo And very soon you'll see me soar the wild yonder blue Let me say this as a preamble Give me a wand, see Harry die. Just one AK and the Boy Who Lived I'll slay Gonna knock that Potter from the sky. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 03:15:53 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:15:53 -0000 Subject: Was Death an easy choice for Harry to make WAS: Re:Back to Slytherin House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176161 > lizzyben: > Life vs. Death, I don't see as a big crisis for Harry. DD has trained > Harry to be willing to sacrifice himself since SS at least. And Harry > has always been somewhat drawn to death - the Dementors, the Veil, the > Resurrection Stone, etc. What w/his loved ones cheering him one, and > the grief he was in, it was almost an easy choice for him to make. > Alla: Almost easy choice to make for Harry, eh? "The suffocating feeling extinguished the end of the sentence, he could not go on" - p.696 "Ripples of cold undulated over Harry's skin. he wanted to shout out in the night, he wanted Ginny to know that he was there, he wanted her to know where he was going. he wanted to be stopped, to be dragged back, to be sent back home..." - p.697 But that was before his loved ones erm "cheered him on" as you said and as I would say gave their love to him. Let's see how "easy" it became for Harry then. "Nobody spoke. They seemed as scared as Harry, whose heart was now throwing himself against his ribs as though determined to escape the body he was about to cast aside. His hands were sweating as he pulled off the Invisibiluty Cloak and stuffed beneath his robes, with his wand. He did not want to be tempted to fight. "I was. It seems... mistaken," said Voldemort. "You weren't. Harry said it as loudly as he could, with all the force he could master. He did not want to sound afraid." - p.703. Alla: That's some strange choice of words for even **almost an easy choice to make** Does not read like easy one to me. To me it reads like courageous sacrifice, not an easy choice at all. IMO of course. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Aug 24 04:30:57 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:30:57 -0000 Subject: Alchemy, the Epilogue and Slytherin (long) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0708231906u1378563blcdd3fb473e4cbef5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176162 I am the first to admit I really don't get alchemy, but I just have to admit here that it seems like many explanations I read about how the Gryffindor/Slytherin rift is healing reminds me of Harmonian arguments for how Harry/Hermione is canon, because even though Harry is going out with Ginny, Harry and Hermione's ride on Buckbeak symbolically indicates that they are the real couple regardless. So going through all the Slytherin connections here: Debbie: > I doubt I'll convince anyone who is convinced that JKR sees Slytherin traits > as negative. Her view of ambition is ambivalent at best, and I recall > writing a post on this subject when I was a fresh-faced newbie on this list > back in 2002. Magpie: Yeah, and the house has been a generic bully house of people jeering at Harry throughout canon. That, imo, carries more weight than how JKR may or may not feel about ambition (though I agree she does seem to often show it's a bad thing). I simply don't see how the story really shows that *any* of the house traits dealt with the way Slytherin's are. It's not like people in other houses don't have problems, but I don't see the story as being about showing the danger of all the basic house qualities. Gryffindor recklessness is certainly shown as dangerous, but it doesn't seem bad the way Slytherin is. Debbie: > It wasn't Harry's job to achieve unity between Gryffindor and Slytherin. > His job was to purge the cancer that prevented Slytherin from achieving > unity with the other houses. Magpie: We know that Harry's job wasn't to unite the houses. The idea that it was his job to purge a cancer that prevented Slytherin from acheiving unity is a theory that seems entirely based on symbolism--for it to be literal I think we'd need to see actual Slytherins changing their minds about blood prejudice that they had before (something that some think is unrealistic...so I don't see what the alchemical angle adds to it). This is just one way to write the post-DH fic. We can imagine that happening or not, and we'd both be equally right. If the story isn't showing Slytherin moving towards unity, and nobody actually even saying that Slytherin's gotten rid of its cancer (as opposed to Voldemort just being dead), it doesn't seem to really connect to the story except as one idea for what might happen next if anything was happening next. We're already 19 years after the cancer's been cured, and we're still having to squint and read between the lines and consult alchemical texts to see the progress. Was Voldemort the root of the problem so his destruction will heal the rift? I don't feel confident to say that's true. I really don't see Voldemort specifically set up that way. Debbie: While we don't know for certain what > house Tonks was in, she is a Black (though a disowned one) and the Black > family have historically been sorted into Slytherin. Magpie: We do know her house from interviews. She was Hufflepuff, not Slytherin. So JKR does not have her symbolizing a marriage of Gryffindor and Slytherin. (If she was supposed to do that, shouldn't she just be a Slytherin?) An aside, but I don't think of them as a quarrelling couple as I understand the term. We don't see them quarrel much. Lupin is reticent and Tonks chases him. Lupin quarrels with Harry. Debbie: Fleur has her own Slytherin connection in her Phlegm nickname; > she is cool and moist, in contrast to the hot, dry, passionate > Weasleys. Magpie: Fleur is not in Slytherin either. She's a Beauxbatons student. Her nickname a)begins with the first two letters of her name b) refers to mucas (which is inheritantly funny and a favorite of Ginny's) and c) suggests the way French might sound to an English-speaking person. This is what I mean about the Harmonian reading--it still seems like all the connections to Slytherin have to come by avoiding actual Slytherins so that the good guy scan absorb all the moistness and coolness and phlegm and cunning they need while the actual Slytherins can play the role they play. Debbie: > JKR wasn't exactly forthcoming in the epilogue. To the uninitiated it reads > like a hodgepodge of useless information. Who cares if Ron and Hermione > named their firstborn Rose, or if Teddy is snogging Victoire? The little > information it provides seems trivial, but virtually every component points > to the next level of purification to take place in the WW, the healing of > the Slytherin/Gryffindor rift. Magpie: So rather than just write a story of Slytherin/Gryffindor coming together, she wrote an epilogue where people are taking all their cute kids to school and we're supposed to glean from arcane connections to their names and whether or not they have parents that these two houses that didn't come together in canon will come together. You can't "foreshadow" a Rose/Scorpius marriage if it's never going to happen, can you? (I mean, it will never happen because the book has ended.) Who on earth writes books like these for "the initiated" in alchemy? Well, perhaps many, but I can't imagine they think this kind of symoblism in any way holds up against actual characterization in the books. Debbie: I bet 10 to 1 he goes to > Slytherin, notwithstanding the ambiguity of Harry's comment, where Al > will provide the salt, the alchemical catalyst for the chemical reaction > between Gryffindor Rose and Slytherin Scorpius. Magpie: And I can't imagine he'll be in Slytherin at all given the actual characterization of Slytherin. I'm sure he's "worthy" of Gryffindor. But there's no point in betting either way, because there's no answer. Little Albus will never go into any house. He only exists in the last pages. Debbie: > *We meet Hugo Weasley. Potioncat made an excellent joke that he was named > for Victor Hugo, but secretly for Hermione's old flame Victor Krum. In > fact, I believe he *was* named for Victor Hugo. The Hunchback of Notre Dame > contains numerous references to Nicholas Flamel and to alchemy in general, > and Victor Hugo himself apparently claimed to have spoken directly to Flamel > in a seance. Magpie: Honestly, I think when you get this creative, you could prove Hugo represents just about anything. Debbie: > *We meet Teddy Lupin, the philosophical orphan, and learn that he is being > mentored by the last such orphan *and* that he's enamored of another > philosophical non-orphan, who is also the daughter of his parents' > doppelgangers. Both arguably blend Slytherin and Gryffindor elements. Magpie: Arguably in that Teddy's parents were a Gryffindor and a Hufflepuff and Victoire's parents were a Gryffindor and somebody from Beauxbatons who may never have spoken to a Slytherin as far as we know? I don't see a blend of Slytherin and Gryffindor at all in Teddy Lupin. "Slytherin elements" usually means "probably not actually Slytherin." Debbie: > Second, we get evidence of an existing truce among the houses, evidenced by > the exchange of nods between Harry and Draco. Really, this is progress! Magpie: Well, we have seen the evolution of that relationship, and there there's an actual Slytherin, which is good. There is no exchange of nods, btw. Harry doesn't nod, iirc. But yes, Harry and Draco have become capable of distant civility. Debbie: > Third, Harry recognizes and respects Severus Snape, another Slytherin. Yes, > he says Snape is brave, but his comment is a recognition that the best of us > embody qualities of more than one house; they are ambitious and cunning, > wise and intelligent, brave and chivalrous, and loyal and just. Like Harry. Magpie: So Harry might say Snape was brave, but we should fill in ourselves that he's saying he's great because he was also other things Slytherin even though he doesn't say it. I'd rather have seen Harry have more of a difficult reconciliation with Snape, myself. But regardless, yes, I see that Harry has dealt with Snape. I'm still not seeing any big meaning for Slytherin/Gryffindor healing here. Slytherin is not a threat with Voldemort dead. I imagine they've gone through plenty of calm periods throughout history. > Debbie: > We don't know what will happen next, but this is what I'd predict: Magpie: Yeah, we do know what happens next. Nothing. The book is over. Al's not sitting under any Sorting Hat in canon or becoming friends with any Slytherins. To this reader, the idea of cutie pie Al getting himself into Slytherin still seems unbelievable and like fanfic. So I could work out my own prediction where none of these kids has much at all to do with little Scorpius Malfoy and it would be just as possible. Debbie: > > Obviously, the promise that the alchemical process will accomplish the > purification necessary to complete the healing of the Gryffindor/Slytherin > rift is little comfort to those who read the Sorting Hat's song in OOP to > mean that house unity would be essential to defeat Voldemort. Magpie: Nope no comfort at all--makes me more wonder why she put the stupid song in there at all. The unity wasn't necessary, it didn't happen, and if JKR didn't write it I'm not writing it in myself (at least, not as an add-on to canon--I can imagine whatever I want in my head.) I can't imagine getting much out of any story that was based on this kind of symbolism if it wasn't actually played out with the characters. It seems to me more like the school was just purified enough by getting rid of Slytherin in the crunch, leaving them only with the Slytherins who had purified themselves in Gryffindor fire. Didn't John Granger continue to push for H/Hr and Snape as a vampire even after HBP based on alchemy? I seem to remember many of his theories not holding up at all, but maybe I'm remembering wrong. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Aug 24 04:37:33 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:37:33 -0000 Subject: Alchemy, the Epilogue and Slytherin (long) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0708231906u1378563blcdd3fb473e4cbef5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176163 Debbie: > As the product of a union of pureblood and Muggleborn, it was his > job to defeat Voldemort, principal proponent of the pureblood > supremacy cancer that Salazar Slytherin inflicted on his house. By > defeating Voldemort, there are no more heirs of Slytherin to carry > on Salazar's ignoble work, and the WW has been made safe for > Muggleborns. Jen: Wow Debbie, really an amazing post. This point hit me like an 'aha' I forgot about completely - no more Slytherin heirs. I'm curious, do you think there's any alchemical meaning to Voldemort talking about the cutting away of the diseased parts of the family trees so that only 'true blood' remains? It reminds me now of the reverse process of purification happening in certain families, because the refusal to allow new blood into the families is why the Gaunts ended up as they did. So he's contributing to his own demise in a way. The only thing I'm wondering about here is whether the literal death of Salazar Slytherin's line will actually lead to unity - isn't that a recreation of what already happened, Salazar leaving Hogwarts and the other Founders? Debbie: > It wasn't Harry's job to achieve unity between Gryffindor and > Slytherin.His job was to purge the cancer that prevented Slytherin > from achieving unity with the other houses. Completion of the task > of reunification, however, is left for the new philosophical orphan >(s) and the rest of the new generation, whom we meet briefly in the > epilogue. Jen: JKR may have been combining some of her alchemical readings in the story because the Jungian view of alchemy, the psychological view, is that Harry's journey toward wholeness is the unifying principle that made it possible for Voldemort to die. When Harry completes the journey by integrating all he's lost, with the last stage a circle back to the first in recreating Lily's sacrifice, then he can truly live (shades of the prophecy). Actually, they work together since alchemists believed the transformation of the soul/self was part of the process. Debbie: > Because muggle and magical were in conflict, Tom is an anti- > philosophical orphan. Instead of purification his magical > transformations debase him further, making him less human. He is > not purified, but corrupted, and he must be destroyed because he > cannot repent and reform. Jen: Wouldn't the addition of Harry's blood change his composition somewhat? He's given the mother love from another union that created a philosophical orphan. It was important to the story but perhaps not in alchemical terms. Can't think of much else to add - really enjoyed reading your thoughts. :) From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 05:06:55 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:06:55 -0000 Subject: Was Death an easy choice for Harry to make WAS: Re:Back to Slytherin House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176164 > Alla: > Almost easy choice to make for Harry, eh? > > But that was before his loved ones erm "cheered him on" as you said > and as I would say gave their love to him. lizzyben: I'd have no problem w/giving their love to him, but these ghost were actually *encouraging* Harry to die. Creeped me out a little. Especially Sirius - he was suspicious of DD, didn't trust him, and always cared about Harry's best interests first. So now, Sirius learns that DD intends for Harry to sacrifice himself as part of the Plan, & he's just fine w/that? "Does it hurt?" "Dying? Not at all," said Sirius. "Quicker and easier than falling asleep." That doesn't sound like Sirius at all to me. And I'm just cynical enough to wonder if DD actually planted these fake ghosts to persuade Harry to follow through in case he started to have second thoughts. Alla: > Let's see how "easy" it became for Harry then. > > "Nobody spoke. They seemed as scared as Harry, whose heart was now > throwing himself against his ribs as though determined to escape the > body he was about to cast aside. His hands were sweating as he pulled > off the Invisibiluty Cloak and stuffed beneath his robes, with his > wand. He did not want to be tempted to fight. > "I was. It seems... mistaken," said Voldemort. > "You weren't. > > Harry said it as loudly as he could, with all the force he could > master. He did not want to sound afraid." - p.703. > > > Alla: > That's some strange choice of words for even **almost an easy choice > to make** Does not read like easy one to me. To me it reads like > courageous sacrifice, not an easy choice at all. IMO of course. > lizzyben: Well, this was just my personal reaction - cause I've always thought that DD was basically brainwashing Harry to be a martyr. It's just that I believed that Harry would cut the puppet-strings eventually & make his own choices, and he didn't, really. Even after he learns DD's plan, even after he knows he was lied to & manipulated, Harry goes obediently trotting off to his death. Just as he'd been trained to do. Now that we know DD's plan, his "training" off Harry seems even more cold-blooded. For example, it's pretty clear now that DD *did* intend to send 11-year-old Harry to face Quirrel/LV - giving Harry practice in facing LV & death. Same deal w/the COS - rewarding Harry for showing "personal loyalty" to DD, encouraging a need to be the hero & save people. DD gives extra points to Harry for saving Fleur's sister, facing Quirell, etc. All these things encourage 3 things in Harry: an absolute loyalty to DD, a "saving-people-thing", & a willingness to die. So in a sense, it was an easy choice for Harry to make - it was almost a habit. He'd rushed into danger & death many times before. So in an odd way, he was in his comfort zone - heroism. In another sense, of course it was very brave of him, & a tremendous sacrifice. I just wish that JKR, or Harry, had figured a way out of it. And that's mostly a difference in values - JKR seems to believe that choosing to die is the most brave & noble thing that one can do, & I really don't agree. It seems to cross some invisible line from accepting death to almost glorifying it. lizzyben From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 05:07:43 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:07:43 -0000 Subject: When did the "trace" come about? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176165 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > I think it identifies location; that is, magic in > the vicinity of Harry. That explains why the Ministry > thought Harry cast the Hover Charm, when it was really > Dobby. Magic occurred in the vicinity of Harry, and > since Harry is the only wizard in the vicinity, they > conclude it had to be Harry. But, if only underage wizards have the Trace on them, how come the Ministry didn't know that it couldn't be Morfin who killed the Riddles? I'm sure Morfin was older than seventeen. They should have known it was someone underage who committed the murders, not Morfin, right? Ah well, if JKR was ever asked about it, she'd probably say that the Trace was not yet invented when LV was underage ... :-). zanooda, still confused about the Trace From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 06:00:20 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:00:20 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: References: <20070824083753.CTC66576@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: <2795713f0708232300n6cff220chaa2ad6767e88bd65@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176166 montins: But really - when people in the real world have children, do they really name them after somebody they know, or do they just pick their favourite names??? Can the WW not do the same? Particularly if the children seem likely to spend a lot of time in the muggle world (viz. Ron's driving lessons, and their muggle grandparents, now safely restored to the UK) Lynda: Well, lets see. One of my cousins is named Samuel, after his father, Sam, but called Andy because his mother found calling two people in the house Sam was confusing. Anderson was her maiden name so she called him Andy. A friend of mine is a Colgate (yep from the toothpaste family) and her second son's middle name is Colgate. I also have friends who are naming all of their children after friends and relatives. Their oldest is David Rosario, after a friend of the family and his paternal grandfather. The second is Madison Rosario also after a family friend and the same paternal grandfather. I have been told that all the kids they have will have the middle name Rosario. Its a family tradition. So it does still happen, to varying degrees. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Aug 24 06:11:45 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:11:45 -0000 Subject: Back to Slytherin House - Choosing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176167 > lizzyben: > Because he's doing what might be called evil things, and not even > recognizing it as such. (Crucios, double-crosses, etc.) The novel > doesn't even recognize it as such. Instead, there's an assumption > that anything Harry does is intrinsically good & right. And that > makes sense if you see it more as that Harry has already been > sorted among the Elect& Good, and so his actions will always be > good, even if those same actions would be wrong if a different > person did it. Jen: This is a false construct if the story wasn't primarily about Harry's struggle within himself to choose to go down the path of good or the path of evil. It presumes JKR was supposed to give weight to moments that weren't crucial to the particular conflict Harry was facing. It's like saying 'this is what the story should be about so she didn't do it right' when in fact that wasn't what the story was about. That's not to say some choices Harry (JKR) made shouldn't be questioned or critiqued in their own right, but critiquing them for not being part of a story that doesn't exist...it's a circular logic to me. The story *is* in part about the connection between Harry and Voldemort and how Harry had the possibility within himself, literally, to become Voldemort if he chose to do that - he can open the chamber with Parseltoungue; he can learn the secrets of Voldemort's power through the mind-link; he can unite the Hallows and defeat death if he beats LV to the Elder wand. At each juncture Harry rejects what Voldemort embraces because he's protected by love and surrounded by people who are helping him along his journey, from one of the smartest and most powerful wizards, to 'probably the bravest man' to the most lowly of the WW represented by the enslaved House Elves. I get it about not liking the story presented, if it wasn't meaningful or whatever. I don't understand creating a new story based on a criteria that isn't present, especially with completed canon. lizzyben: > Life vs. Death, I don't see as a big crisis for Harry. DD has > trained Harry to be willing to sacrifice himself since SS at least. > And Harry has always been somewhat drawn to death - the Dementors, > the Veil, the Resurrection Stone, etc. What w/his loved ones > cheering him one, and the grief he was in, it was almost an easy > choice for him to make. Jen: So chapter 34 didn't happen basically? The whole point was that Harry thought he knew how to die all along because he continually put himself in harm's way with his saving people thing (including saving himself), but when it actually came to voluntarily dying, "all those times he'd thought that it was about to happen and escaped, he had never really thought of the thing itself..." Sure he's surrounded by death his whole life, much of it at the hands of Voldemort and Bellatrix, and he's choosing to go out in the forest to them and offer his life without fighting back, refusing to do what comes naturally to him in other words - fight for life instead of succumbing to death. He wants his family *back*, he doesn't want to die to be with them except at the crucial moment when Voldemort is possessing him. His wish to die and be with Sirius is a defining moment for why Harry didn't choose the path Voldemort did. > lizzyben: > Well, I'm saying that refusing power is a virtue, and desiring power > is a sin - therefore, the Slytherin qualities of ambition, using any > means to reach their goals, etc. are sins, evil qualities. > So, when the Sorting Hat promises Harry "greatness" if he goes to > Slytherin, IMO JKR is representing that as Harry's temptation to > evil. Once he rejects power in that instance, Harry is sorted into > Goodness, and remains there. Jen: Yet apparently he wasn't meant to be tempted by evil but protected by love. He doesn't want to be sorted into the same house as a boy who reminds him of the guy who bullied him his whole life or the man who murdered his parents. Harry rejected Slytherin before he ever put the hat on his head or heard a Sorting song talking about qualities of Slytherin. lizzyben: > This is why only Harry could become the master of Elder Wand, and > give up the wand. DD also praises Harry for not being tempted by > power. This is about Harry as the Elect, more than a Gryffindor- > elect thing. Because even though Gryffindors are pretty high up, it > seems like Harry is the most Elect of all - maybe it's his ability > to reject power that makes him so special? (According to JKR). Jen: He *is* tempted by power (unlike the temptation to evil that never happened) when he wants to collect the Hallows instead of destroying the Horcruxes. It takes a traumatic loss and his connection back to the Dumbledore, the realization that the Elder wand is one thing he can seek but can't find, for Harry to reject his quest for power. Love again. > lizzyben: > Because I never thought about Harry's own Sorting as being a > predestined choice between good & evil, but that seems like a better > interpretation given how JKR characterizes the Houses. At eleven, > Harry had the choice between love (Gryffindor) or power > (Slytherin) - and chose love. Jen: Gryffindor, the house of love - that's not part of the story. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 06:58:04 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:58:04 -0000 Subject: Alchemy, the Epilogue and Slytherin (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176168 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Jen: JKR may have been combining some of her alchemical readings in > the story because the Jungian view of alchemy, the psychological > view, is that Harry's journey toward wholeness is the unifying > principle that made it possible for Voldemort to die. When Harry > completes the journey by integrating all he's lost, with the last > stage a circle back to the first in recreating Lily's sacrifice, > then he can truly live (shades of the prophecy). > > Actually, they work together since alchemists believed the > transformation of the soul/self was part of the process. Tonks: I think that Granger and some others go too much into the details of Alchemey and not the essence. Most of the Alchemy that I have read is from Jung and it makes a lot of sense. I uderstand it to be a spiritual process that transends all religions. Rowling said that the houses were the elements. I was confused about Slytherin, since I thought that all of the houses would combine. The union of all opposites is God. And the process of Christian Alchemy is for the human which is the base material (lead) to be transformed into the image of Christ (gold). It is as simple as that. And Harry being both Everyman and a Christ symbol did this by his willingness to die. The union of fire and water is important. Perhaps this union is symbolized in Harry's son who is named after a Gryffindor and a Slytherin. Tonks_op From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 07:30:45 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:30:45 -0000 Subject: Back to Slytherin House - Choosing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176169 --- "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > lizzyben: > > Because he's doing what might be called evil things, > > and not even recognizing it as such. (Crucios, > > double-crosses, etc.) The novel doesn't even > > recognize it as such. Instead, there's an assumption > > that anything Harry does is intrinsically good & > > right. ... > > Jen: > This is a false construct if the story wasn't > primarily about Harry's struggle within himself to > choose to go down the path of good or the path of > evil. bboyminn: I'm going to stray off on a tangent here. I think what I have to say is related, but doesn't quite follow the existing flow of conversation. Is this a story about Good and Evil? I say yes, indeed Harry represents Good and Voldemort represents Evil. More importantly, is this story about Harry's internal struggle with Good and Evil? I say no. It is a story about struggle between Good and Complacency. Once again, I ask, where were all the other Gryffindors when Harry/Ron/Hermione were off on their adventures? They were tucked nice and toasty warm in their beds. Completely willing, and perfectly content, to leave the struggle of good and evil, right and wrong, to the grown ups and to the authorities. And once again, I say, All that must be done for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. All that must be done for Evil to flourish is for people to choose what is easy over what is right. Harry is a man of action. He is not willing to let the world work itself out. He is going to jump in and do what is right regardless of the consequences. He simply can not stand by, while evil flourishes. Yet, do we condemn all those students who didn't know or care about the Philosopher's Stone, and who quietly did nothing? Do we condemn all those students who were toasty warm in their beds instead of actively trying to stop a great evil (The Basilisk) that was threatening their school? No, I don't think we do, because they are just everyday ordinary citizens, who get by because they mind their own business. But at some point, 'Evil Business' becomes everyone business. At some point you can't simply remain passive. You can't simply sit by and leave it to others. At some point, someone has to step forward and take an active stance against Evil and corruption, and even against complacency. Who steps forward? Who opposes Evil from the very beginning? Who flatly refuses to take the easy path, when the path of Right is so clear? The Hero, that's who. Once Harry is willing to lead the way, and once the circumstances become so dire that the Path of Easy is clearly failing, then others step forward to help. But if the Hero doesn't step forward first and lead, others are unlikely to follow. Now certainly, we DO condemn the people who are clearly evil and corrupt. But for the ordinary citizen, every single day is a struggle between good and evil. Good is action for what is right but with potential damaging consequences, and evil is passive acceptance of what is easy, usually, in the long run, with much worse consequences. Harry does make a choice, a VERY HARD choice. In the face of evil, large and small, he choses hard action over easy passivity. Because that is the only way to hold evil at bay. That is the only way to live with a clear conscience. Is this the easy default choice for our fated Calvinistic Hero? No, I don't think so. Clearly Harry's choice bring him misery, a misery he dearly wants to escape, but always the call of Right overrides his desire to escape the misery and stress he constantly faces. I think this is at the core of the story. I think all of the moral sub-lessons spring from this one greater lesson. At some point, in issues large and small, we must choose between what is Right and what is Easy. If that is not a strong and positive moral lesson, then I don't know what is. And I find it impossible to believe that anyone, real or fictional, doesn't struggle against immense easy safe inertia in order to bring themselves to action in the name of Right. I think that is the great moral dilemma of the day. Do we sit back and leave the salvation of earth, on every front, to others, or do we, figuratively, pick up the sword and allows ourselves to be moved to action? Harry... who isn't always right, but who is always a man of Right Action. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From mros at xs4all.nl Fri Aug 24 07:54:01 2007 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:54:01 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Was Death an easy choice for Harry to make WAS: Re:Back to Slytherin House References: Message-ID: <000701c7e623$f3f2d4d0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 176170 lizzyben: >>>>Now that we know DD's plan, his "training" off Harry seems even more cold-blooded. For example, it's pretty clear now that DD *did* intend to send 11-year-old Harry to face Quirrel/LV - giving Harry practice in facing LV & death. Same deal w/the COS - rewarding Harry for showing "personal loyalty" to DD, encouraging a need to be the hero & save people. DD gives extra points to Harry for saving Fleur's sister, facing Quirell, etc. All these things encourage 3 things in Harry: an absolute loyalty to DD, a "saving-people-thing", & a willingness to die. So in a sense, it was an easy choice for Harry to make - it was almost a habit. <<< Marion (delurking for a minute before diving under again): So true. The scary bit is that the whole series is a story about a young boy who is told exactly what evil is and which part of the human race embodies that evil. He is told that he alone can save his people from this evil. He does so, even joining a secret society and a secret army, training himself and others to defeat Evil. He gets told that in order to defeat Evil he is to sacrifice himself. He is told that there is an afterlife and that, if he is courageous there will be rewards in the afterlife and loads of people who will welcome him in that afterlife with open arms. And then, just as he has been told to do by his bearded master, he highjacks a jumbojet and flies it into the Twin Towers. Uh. No, he takes a few packets of Sarin and steps on the train to Tokyo during rush hour and.. Uh, well, you get my point. Dumbledore has all the characteristics of a Bin Laden and a Shoko Asahara. Harry Potter is just as courageous as a terrorist bomber. You have to admit, suicide bombers are pretty courageous. They willingly lay down their lives for an ideal, to fight what they think is Evil. Yup, suicide bombers are pretty courageous. I just don't think them very admirable, that's all. Marion (going back to thesis and lurkerdom) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 11:37:46 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:37:46 -0000 Subject: Was Death an easy choice for Harry to make WAS: Re:Back to Slytherin House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176171 > > Alla: > > That's some strange choice of words for even **almost an easy choice > > to make** Does not read like easy one to me. To me it reads like > > courageous sacrifice, not an easy choice at all. IMO of course. > > > > > lizzyben: > > Well, this was just my personal reaction - cause I've always thought > that DD was basically brainwashing Harry to be a martyr. Alla: Well, yes I get that and I am responding that your personal reaction for me falls flat in the face of canon. Of course we are all free to have any personal reaction we like, but reaction that it was **almost an easy choice to make** IMO has no support in canon. lizzyben: > Now that we know DD's plan, his "training" off Harry seems even more > cold-blooded. For example, it's pretty clear now that DD *did* intend > to send 11-year-old Harry to face Quirrel/LV - giving Harry practice > in facing LV & death. Same deal w/the COS - rewarding Harry for > showing "personal loyalty" to DD, encouraging a need to be the hero & > save people. DD gives extra points to Harry for saving Fleur's sister, > facing Quirell, etc. All these things encourage 3 things in Harry: an > absolute loyalty to DD, a "saving-people-thing", & a willingness to die. Alla: I would like some canon please for Dumbledore encouraging Harry to die in all those things. I was always thinking that DD knew somehow about Quirrell and Harry's explanation to Ron and Hermione is correct, that DD wanted to give him a chance and all that, but are you saying that DD arranged Chamber of Secrets too for example? I seem to remember Dumbledore rescuing Harry in PS and in CoS Fawkes sending rescue. So who again was encouraging Harry to die? And of course we know that there was no danger for Fleur sister, but Harry did not know that and just wanted to save her. So, sure DD approved Harry's bravery and encouraged it, but encouraged to die? Not IMO. Lizzyben: > So in a sense, it was an easy choice for Harry to make - it was almost > a habit. He'd rushed into danger & death many times before. So in an > odd way, he was in his comfort zone - heroism. Alla: Huh? What habbit? Are we now equaling desire to save people with the desire to go out and die? Canon, please with Harry having a habit to sacrifice his life? Lizzyben: In another sense, of > course it was very brave of him, & a tremendous sacrifice. Alla: Glad we agree on that. Lizzyben: I just wish > that JKR, or Harry, had figured a way out of it. And that's mostly a > difference in values - JKR seems to believe that choosing to die is > the most brave & noble thing that one can do, & I really don't agree. > It seems to cross some invisible line from accepting death to almost > glorifying it. Alla: You wish JKR figured a way out of it? But there was a piece of Voldemort in Harry's head that could not be killed any other way, was it not? Jen: So chapter 34 didn't happen basically? The whole point was that Harry thought he knew how to die all along because he continually put himself in harm's way with his saving people thing (including saving himself), but when it actually came to voluntarily dying, "all those times he'd thought that it was about to happen and escaped, he had never really thought of the thing itself..." Sure he's surrounded by death his whole life, much of it at the hands of Voldemort and Bellatrix, and he's choosing to go out in the forest to them and offer his life without fighting back, refusing to do what comes naturally to him in other words - fight for life instead of succumbing to death. He wants his family *back*, he doesn't want to die to be with them except at the crucial moment when Voldemort is possessing him. His wish to die and be with Sirius is a defining moment for why Harry didn't choose the path Voldemort did. Alla: What she said basically. From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 11:42:28 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:42:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: <2795713f0708232300n6cff220chaa2ad6767e88bd65@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070824083753.CTC66576@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> <2795713f0708232300n6cff220chaa2ad6767e88bd65@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40708240442i3151240dx44fef091bc1c7e73@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176172 > > Lynda: > > Well, lets see. One of my cousins is named Samuel, after his father, Sam, > but called Andy because his mother found calling two people in the house > Sam > was confusing. Anderson was her maiden name so she called him Andy. A > friend > of mine is a Colgate (yep from the toothpaste family) and her second son's > middle name is Colgate. I also have friends who are naming all of their > children after friends and relatives. Their oldest is David Rosario, after > a > friend of the family and his paternal grandfather. The second is Madison > Rosario also after a family friend and the same paternal grandfather. I > have been told that all the kids they have will have the middle name > Rosario. Its a family tradition. So it does still happen, to varying > degrees. montims: yes, but again I think this is more of a US (or Italian) thing than a UK one, as I said originally... The WW tends to name its children by a theme (as the Romans did) - alliterative, or after stars, or flowers, etc - if they have any pattern at all. Some are named after their uncles (maybe the Weasleys hoped Uncle Bilius would leave them some money if they took his name for Ron - money must have been getting tight when he was born...) After WW2, a lot of Winstons were around (viz. 1984 and Winston Smith), and I understand and applaud Victoire as a name in the circumstances. But I suppose I don't really understand the point in naming a child the same as a parent (it must make sorting out the post and telephone calls difficult for a start), or even naming the child after a hero, like Albus Severus - would this be to keep the names alive, so every time one says Albus to the boy, one automatically thinks of Dumbledore? Or is the hope that the child will develop the characteristics of the eponymous hero? (Or pop star or whatever - how many young Kylies are running around?) Either way, it seems an awful lot for a child to live up to. If he screwed up, would it be thrown back at him that he was not as good as the original? (Obviously not in the perfect Potter family, but hypothetically...) I stand, as ever, to be corrected... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 12:32:02 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:32:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Back to Slytherin House - Choosing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40708240532h120d2bb2s311306d2380c3e19@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176173 > > Jen: Yet apparently he wasn't meant to be tempted by evil but > protected by love. He doesn't want to be sorted into the same house > as a boy who reminds him of the guy who bullied him his whole life or > the man who murdered his parents. Harry rejected Slytherin before he > ever put the hat on his head or heard a Sorting song talking about > qualities of Slytherin. montims: interesting point - all the members of this thread who are upset by the Sorting Hat: if Hogwarts were divided into its 4 houses - criteria for belonging to each having been set by the founders 1000 years ago, based on the students' personalities - however there was no Hat and instead all the students came for an open day, met the Head of the Houses and exemplary students from each, asked and were asked questions, etc, and ended up in the same houses that the Hat would have sorted them into, based on character and comfort zone, would that also have been wrong? (This was more or less what happens when I went to my Grammar school, although it was also based on 11-plus results, and similar to what happens to students going up to University, choosing what college to go to...) I think the Hat just shortcuts that procedure. How often do we see students who are unhappy with the Hat's choice, or who are shunned by their housemates or Head of House as being different? bboyminn: Is this the easy default choice for our fated Calvinistic Hero? No, I don't think so. Clearly Harry's choice bring him misery, a misery he dearly wants to escape, but always the call of Right overrides his desire to escape the misery and stress he constantly faces. I think this is at the core of the story. I think all of the moral sub-lessons spring from this one greater lesson. At some point, in issues large and small, we must choose between what is Right and what is Easy. If that is not a strong and positive moral lesson, then I don't know what is. And I find it impossible to believe that anyone, real or fictional, doesn't struggle against immense easy safe inertia in order to bring themselves to action in the name of Right. I think that is the great moral dilemma of the day. Do we sit back and leave the salvation of earth, on every front, to others, or do we, figuratively, pick up the sword and allows ourselves to be moved to action? Harry... who isn't always right, but who is always a man of Right Action. montims: I agree totally, and this was the thing that stirred me after I first reread the book (not after I first read it, because then I just felt drained...). As well as the Trio's efforts, Neville really comes to the fore, and is inspirational. I applauded Molly leaping in like a tigress. People didn't like my suggestion of using this "righteous anger" to combat real life injustice, but I can't understand how people who get so exercised by the iniquities of the fictional world, and its possible parallels with Naziism or the much more historical (is this correct?) Antebellum South of America, and the dastardly use of Unforgivables, will not use that horror and indignation and vigour to condemn Real Life iniquities - torture and genocide, oppression, capital crimes, slavery (of people, not fictional house elves), etc, etc... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 13:06:10 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:06:10 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708240442i3151240dx44fef091bc1c7e73@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176174 > montims: > yes, but again I think this is more of a US (or Italian) thing than a UK > one, as I said originally... Lisa: Oh, I thought you meant the opposite. In my experience with British friends -- and British friends of my sister -- naming children honorarily is even more prevalent in Great Britain than in America. In America, we have far more "creative" names (either via spelling or uniqueness), while in Great Britain, traditional names are more common. Even my nephew's wife, a native New Zealander, insisted on naming one of their children after her mother. I think it's a widespread thing. Lisa From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Fri Aug 24 06:38:21 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:38:21 -0000 Subject: Contradiction revisted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176175 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Barry" wrote: > "The Trace, the Trace," said Mad-Eye imaptiently. "The charm that > detects magical activity around under-seventeens." > The quote, to me, implies any magic. But I can accept that it is > supposed to mean wand use. I have to contradict myself. It can't be just wand magic. Harry was fingered when Dobby did elf magic. In a previous post, I wondered whether muggles could see moving photos. With all the newspapers and books in the WW, I'm sure one of them would have left a moving photo in the muggles world. Which would then be on YouTube in a moment! Barry From salilouisa at googlemail.com Fri Aug 24 13:34:35 2007 From: salilouisa at googlemail.com (Sali Morris) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:34:35 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Was Death an easy choice for Harry to make WAS: Re:Back to Slytherin House In-Reply-To: <000701c7e623$f3f2d4d0$63fe54d5@Marion> References: <000701c7e623$f3f2d4d0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176176 Marion: Harry Potter is just as courageous as a terrorist bomber. You have to admit, suicide bombers are pretty courageous. They willingly lay down their lives for an ideal, to fight what they think is Evil. Yup, suicide bombers are pretty courageous. I just don't think them very admirable, that's all. Sali: I didn't really want to get involved in this but I have to say that Harry strikes me as a very strange sort of terrorist/suicide bomber, laying down his life in such a manner that the only person who gets hurt (aside from himself) is the one person trying to kill him and in a situation which calls for no fight, no explosion, no possibility where anyone else can get accidentally caught in the crossfire. A situation where the only weapon (lets say weapon for the sake on analogy) fired was not fired (or caused to be fired) by him. In fact, a situation that his opponent had been trying to draw him into, as opposed to a sneak attack on innocents and non-combatants. This was also something that was happening at the height of a war, that both sides had been engaged in for some time. It did not happen out of the blue in the middle of peace, or a long distance from where any actual fighting was going on. I am sorry but I really don't see where the similarity between Harry and a suicide bomber lies apart from in possible brainwashing and definite manipulation from an authority figure. And that happens in plenty of situations that do not lead to suicide bombing. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stittdale at hotmail.com Fri Aug 24 13:26:27 2007 From: stittdale at hotmail.com (Dale) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:26:27 -0000 Subject: perhaps naive newbie question about book III ending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176177 > ***Katie: > So, basically, a plot device, but a well-supported one, seeing as it > was very clear that H/H from the future "cannot be seen!!", > according to Dumbledore. This is, incidentally, usually a component > of any time-travel story = messing too much with the past can have > grave consequences. Dale: I agree on the plot device aspect. But they were seen. Harry saw himself and that actually saved him. From rvink7 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 24 13:50:05 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:50:05 -0000 Subject: Voldemort/Re: Ending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176178 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > > Renee: > > And now, I hope someone can answer a rather burning question for me. > > JKR has said somewhere that she was trying to depict Voldemort as a > > psychopath. Now I always thought psychopathy was a condition that is > > both incurable and untreatable. Psychopaths lack empathy and are > > incapable of feeling remorse, among other things. Why, then, does JKR > > have Harry suggest that Voldemort try for some remorse? Is this as > > nonsensical as I think it is? Has she failed to take a serious look at > > what psychopathy actually is. Or do I have the wrong ideas about it? >> > lizzyben: > > And I can now provide the answer! JKR does see LV as a psychopath, and > does recognize that he is therefore incapable of remorse. But, because > he has Harry's blood, this means he has the blood of pure *love* in > his veins, which meant that he could repent, if he had enough > *courage*, which he didn't. So, he's a psychopath w/Harry's blood, and > this would somehow maybe make him capable of remorse, even though > there's no sign that this affected how he thinks or feels at all. Wrap > your head around that one. > > "Meredith Vieira: Why was it important to you, Jo, to write about the > cruelty and inhumanity? > J.K. Rowling: I'm not sure why. (LAUGHTER) But it was what I wanted to > write about most. And it's about choice. And you are shown that > Voldemort. I mean, it? I suppose we're going to call him a psychopath. > But he's so, in many ways, he is what he is and he's beyond > redemption. Although this being Harry Potter and because I can take > liberties because I have magic in my world, it is shown at the very > end of the book that he did have a chance for redemption because he > had taken into his body this drop of hope or love? > Meredith Vieira: Harry's blood. > J.K. Rowling: Right. So that meant that if he could have mastered the > courage to repent, he would have been okay. But, of course, he > wouldn't. And that's his choice. " Renee: Lizzyben, thank you so much for providing that quote - I'd forgotten all about it, and it explains a great deal, helping me to pinpoint what is my main problem with the HP series. At first, JKR's explanation looked like complete gibberish to me. So Voldemort is written as a psychopath, as having a RL condition that makes a person incapable of remorse and of making choices based on love and empathy (I'm not saying psychopaths can't be helped, as it seems to be possible to condition them into making the right decisions if you start early enough, but according to canon this never happened to Voldemort.) So in a way, he's not culpable. Yet the infusion with a drop of love-saturated blood apparently renders him capable of making a - courageous - choice. So in a different way, he *is* culpable. Attempting to wrap my mind about this, I see a peculiar mixture of realism and symbolism, in that the literal level of storytelling seems to say one thing, and the symbolic level seems to say something diametrically opposed. The result, for me, is a kind of cognitive dissonance. The HP books aim for realism (also as per JKR herself), yet at one of the most crucial points of the whole series it takes an injection with pure symbolism to make the story work. Many people on this list don't seem to have a problem with this, but I do. In RL and in realistic stories, psychopaths can't be helped with a transfusion of morally sound blood, as there is no such thing as morally sound blood. But in a symbolical tale, a psychopath who apparently was already beyond help at age eleven is not the most lucky of characters to represent a *choice* between good and evil, between redemption and perdition. This only creates confusion. And the fact that a mental illness is discussed in moral terms doesn't help either. To me, terms like psychopathy and redemption are phenomena of a different order and should not be lumped together the way JKR does in the interview. The confusion created by JKR's comments is often deplorable. Not for the first time, I wish she'd keep her mouth shut whenever an interviewer steers her towards interpreting her own story for us. The books never call Voldemort a psychopath Yet in his case, her use of the term in an interview wasn't really needed to illustrate the problem. A boy who is genetically and environmentally doomed to become mentally ill but made morally accountable through a purely symbolical act - to me, that's a narrative monster. Don't misunderstand me: I still like the Harry Potter books. They have a great deal to offer when it comes to dealing with the lure of power and ambition, coping with death, showing the power of love and the value of courage. I still think they're highly entertaining and engrossing reads. But on some counts, and notably when it comes to handling the character of the Evil Overlord, they fail dismally because of an unsuccesful blend of realism and symbolism. From now on, I think I'll stick to a symbolical reading only, for instance Debbie's wonderful interpretation of the Epilogue. *sigh of relief* I've managed to label it. Now I can finally stop fretting! Maybe someone else who agrees with me, can tackle this problem with regard to the the role of Slytherin House, another notorious stumbling block. Renee From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 13:58:58 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:58:58 -0000 Subject: Was Death an easy choice for Harry to make WAS: Re:Back to Slytherin House In-Reply-To: <000701c7e623$f3f2d4d0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176179 > Marion (delurking for a minute before diving under again): > > So true. The scary bit is that the whole series is a story about a young boy who is told exactly what evil is and which part of the human race embodies that evil. He is told that he alone can save his people from this evil. He does so, even joining a secret society and a secret army, training himself and others to defeat Evil. He gets told that in order to defeat Evil he is to sacrifice himself. He is told that there is an afterlife and that, if he is courageous there will be rewards in the afterlife and loads of people who will welcome him in that afterlife with open arms. lizzyben: Yes, it's beyond creepy. Teenage Harry & friends are a mirror of teenage Snape & Regulus. The Order is a mirror of the Death Eaters. One group is "good" & one is "evil", but the organization & structure is very similar. Young Regulus idolizes LV the same way that Harry idolizes DD. Young Snape joins a group of "Death Eater wanna-bes"; Harry & friends form a group of "Order wanna-be's". Both groups are absolutely devoted to their charismatic leader, both groups use peer pressure to gain converts & silence dissent. It is "cool" to be in the DA, just like it was "cool" for a Slytherin to hang out w/the DE crowd. The charismatic leaders take these teenagers when they're still idealistic, inexperienced, & stupid, and demand absolute loyalty. The Mauraders joined the Order when they were in their teens, as do Harry & co; and almost all the DE joined while still in their teens. They are all told that they are part of the Elect (pure-bloods, Gryffindors), the ones whose mission is to fight Evil in the form of "the other" (Muggles, Slytherins). They join an underground group to fight the "others", and fight the official government. And all of them are willing to lay down their lives for their Leader, w/o ever knowing that Leader's real plans or agenda for them. It's almost a bit like a cult. It is quite a bit like a terrorist group. Marion: > And then, just as he has been told to do by his bearded master, he highjacks a jumbojet and flies it into the Twin Towers. > > Uh. > > No, he takes a few packets of Sarin and steps on the train to Tokyo during rush hour and.. > > Uh, well, you get my point. > > Dumbledore has all the characteristics of a Bin Laden and a Shoko Asahara. lizzyben: I got a definite "suicide bomber" vibe after reading DD's "Vengence is yours"! speech to Harry in HBP. Here's this kid, who just wants to play Quidditch & snog Ginny, and DD is hitting every button in order to convince him to become a martyr instead. He tells Harry - you must kill him! You'll never rest until you've done it! Do it for your family, your people, your honor!!! Until Harry gets a "flame" burning inside him & swears that he wants to be the one that will take this person out. Oh, and DD also brings up Sirius' horrible death in order to encourage vengence & hatred in Harry - then, when Harry vows to take out as many Death Eaters as he can, DD pats his arm awkwardly. Good boy. DD lies to Harry, manipulates him, inflames his passions, but never ever tells Harry his real agenda. He's using Harry's idealism, his inexperience, & his desire to please. Worst of all, he's using Harry's love to inspire him to hate. It reminded me of the speeches that terrorist leaders & tyrants use to whip up their followers. Marion: > Harry Potter is just as courageous as a terrorist bomber. You have to admit, suicide bombers are pretty courageous. They willingly lay down their lives for an ideal, to fight what they think is Evil. > Yup, suicide bombers are pretty courageous. > I just don't think them very admirable, that's all. > > Marion (going back to thesis and lurkerdom) lizzyben: You've articulated exactly why that part was so horrifying to me. Yes, Harry is brave, & yes, he's making a sacrifice. But he's not doing it as an independent act, he's doing it because his Leader wants him to. And Harry never even tries to consider if there might be another way to do this, never even considers that his Leader might be lying to him about this. (And why wouldn't he? He knows now that DD did lie to him in the past.) He doesn't *think*. He just follows DD's orders, obediently, blindly, fanatically. Just as he had been trained to do. Yes, in this universe DD & the Order actually *are* good, and the "other" actually *is* evil, but it's also an eeire insight into what happens when the "other" becomes totally dehumanized & demonized. About what happens when peer pressure & a need to conform leads people into making choices & joining groups that they wouldn't otherwise support. About just how far good people are willing to go when their society, their Leader, their friends, indoctrinate them in an ideology at an early age. Harry's death march was courageous, but it was also a total submission to his Leader & his ideology, a total abandonment of critical thinking, and a total embrace of martyrdom. In this story, we can get inside of a torn society, & get inside the head of a good person as he is indoctrinated in its hatreds & rivalries, watch as he begins to accept the evil of "the other" & shut down his humanity, listen as his Leader encourages his vengence & hatred, see how his Leader encourages him to risk his life to show his personal loyalty & goodness, up till the point that the good person willingly dies in the service of his Leader & his ideology. Personally, I consider it a tragedy. lizzyben From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 14:11:29 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:11:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Was Death an easy choice for Harry to make WAS: Re:Back to Slytherin House In-Reply-To: References: <000701c7e623$f3f2d4d0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <8ee758b40708240711v3f914d83u33463c358e36a524@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176180 On 8/24/07, Sali Morris wrote: > Marion: > Harry Potter is just as courageous as a terrorist bomber. You have to > admit, > suicide bombers are pretty courageous. They willingly lay down their lives > for an ideal, to fight what they think is Evil. > Yup, suicide bombers are pretty courageous. > I just don't think them very admirable, that's all. > > Sali: > I didn't really want to get involved in this but I have to say that Harry > strikes me as a very strange sort of terrorist/suicide bomber, laying down > his life in such a manner that the only person who gets hurt (aside from > himself) is the one person trying to kill him and in a situation which > calls > for no fight, no explosion, no possibility where anyone else can get > accidentally caught in the crossfire. A situation where the only weapon > (lets say weapon for the sake on analogy) fired was not fired (or caused > to > be fired) by him. In fact, a situation that his opponent had been trying > to > draw him into, as opposed to a sneak attack on innocents and > non-combatants. > This was also something that was happening at the height of a war, that > both > sides had been engaged in for some time. It did not happen out of the blue > in the middle of peace, or a long distance from where any actual fighting > was going on. montims: I would agree with this. If anything, Harry's "suicide" is more along the line's of Buddhist priests' self-immolation. I'm at work, so can't look up too much, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation discusses it a bit. However, I would have put it, in fictional terms, as more like king vs king, or "High Noon" for the American readers - where the goodie and baddie fight it out once and for all, in the hopes that normal citizens will be able to sleep soundly in their beds afterwards... As Sali said, nobody else was harmed, neither in the forest nor in the Great Hall, when LV and Harry battled... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 14:25:22 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:25:22 -0000 Subject: Said creature under the bench.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176181 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > > > > Annemehr: > > > > It seems to me you are trying to have it both ways. What *was* Harry > > trying to do in the Great Hall, goad Voldemort or rescue him? > > > > Ken: > > I, or Harry actually, am trying to have it both ways. He was trying to > do both. [...] In > order to save his life he has to be able to know when Voldemort will > strike. And yet he also knows what that baby/creature was and he > understands that he has been shown it to give Voldemort a last > warning. [...] The offer > Harry makes is a more dangerous and therefore a braver and nobler > gesture than it appears on the surface. > Annemehr: Okay, fair enough -- from Harry's point of view (but with reservations regarding JKR's PoV, which will be the balance of my post). > > > Annemehr: > > > When I read Harry's words in that scene from Voldemort's point of > > view, there is no way I can see that LV could possibly understand > > what Harry is talking about, let alone consider it as the better > > option. > > Ken: > > I believe that Hermione read the same reference book on horcruxes as > Voldemort. That reference told her that only remorse can heal a > damaged soul. Voldemort would already have known this. Voldemort > apparently had the same kind of blackout after his attack on Harry in > the forest as Harry experienced. We cannot know if he too had a vision > of the afterlife or what it might have been. In any event Voldemort > had seen that he was on the cusp of something very serious. Annemehr: It is true, we cannot know if LV had a vision of the afterlife, or whether he experienced anything like the flayed child existence that Harry saw. Since he and Harry both blacked out, you might expect them to have had congruent visions as well, but there are two arguments against it. First of all, LV can not have had the same "near death experience" that Harry had in which he would have had a chance to "go on," because LV was still tied to Earth by the Nagini Horcrux. Secondly, he did not act as though he had just had any kind of shattering experience as that. He seemed to wake up in a bit of confusion perhaps, but his only concern seemed to have been whether or not Harry was dead. And with Harry supposedly dead, at this point there was no reason not to take a breather if he thought he might have anything important to consider. We see nothing of the sort; no hesitation at all. Ken: > Harry > obviously knows something about what may happen to him. Harry's offer > was one of evident value which Voldemort had the ability to recognize. > Whether he understood it fully or not is immaterial. He was in a > position to understand its potential value and he could have learned > all he needed to know by surrendering his wand and asking questions. Annemehr: I have to disagree. These things are externals: a book that mentions remorse, Harry's warning, even a possible vision of a flayed baby (which I maintain would indeed have come "from without" i.e. from the same source Harry had it from). Whether he understood it fully or not is crucial: he can't have understood it *at all.* Internally, *of himself,* he knows *nothing* of love, and therefore, remorse. Hell, even if he had been somehow persuaded that it would be in his best interests to stop killing and hurting people, it still wouldn't have helped him. He may have been left alone and lived many more years, but because of his complete inability to have remorse, his soul would never have healed. His fate would only have been delayed. So, a discussion about the fate of his soul, even if he'd been willing to have one, would not have helped him after all. Ken: > > It isn't easy to reconcile with someone who is armed and intent on > killing you. I don't see what more Harry could have done in this > situation. [...] This was a > real offer of reconciliation and salvation. > Annemehr: Again, I'm not blaming Harry for this at all. He did show some compassion after all, though it was useless as DD said it would be. My beef -- with the author -- is that it was an offer that was both impossible for LV to accept and his only hope. > > > Annemehr: > > > > > The Tom Riddle I saw was no more capable of feeling empathy and > > remorse than of conceiving of the fifth dimension, and it seems > > awfully hard to say he'd *earned* eternal misery for himself for > > failing to. > > > > Ken: > > That is the Calvinist position and I reject it personally although > many hold it. Annemehr: Yep. So do I. But, do you see it in the books, or not? Because it's screaming out at me, and it's one of my biggest problems with the story. Ken: > Tom Riddle had no > worse a deal from life than Harry. Tom chose one path, Harry chose > another. Tom was in an excellent position to prosper as a decent > wizard when he graduated from Hogwarts. Even as a murderer with one or > two horcurxes he was far from being unredeemable at that point. Merely > by stepping back from the brink he could have prospered materially and > spiritually. He was no more incapable of that than you or I. But he > chose to go on to greater and greater depths of evil. He chose to be > what he was. He earned what he got. Annemehr: Then you have to be saying either of two things: LV was not a psychopath, or LV *chose* to be a psychopath. To me, neither one is a viable option. He looks like a psychopath, walks like a psychopath, and quacks like a psychopath -- the only way he could be not-a-psychopath is if JKR put something else in the text to indicate that. She didn't. Therefore, he was absolutely more incapable of healing himself *by remorse* than you or I, and as I pointed out, merely stopping murdering would not have helped him. In Kings Cross, the myopia Harry had lived with through no choice of his own had fallen from him -- he was healed. I would wish that the psychopathy Tom Riddle had been saddled with, also through no choice of his own, would be similarly healed. Who knows how he would have appeared then? By the way, in case anyone is thinking of that post-DH interview where JKR said that LV did indeed have the chance to repent, because of "-- this drop of hope or love--" -- because of Harry's blood in his veins, I must demur. [ http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0729-dateline-vieira.html scroll down near the end] Firstly, I must demur because, though the interviews were fun and "fair game" for theorising, now that the series is complete they are no substitute for what is actually in the text, in fact they are often contradictory. (I'm not asserting, in general, that the author is *absolutely* "dead" -- that'd be a whole other discussion -- just that in this case they're not helpful.) Secondly, and more importantly, this assertion is one of those things that is indeed contradicted in the text. If LV, for the first time ever, is suddenly experiencing within himself the true ability to *love* that night in the graveyard, you'd have to expect it to have *some* effect. You'd have to; the sudden presence of love within ought to be huge. Instead, we see quite the opposite: not only does he think and act just the same as ever, but at the end of OoP, he is tortured by the presence of love within Harry while he is possessing him. This is a flat-out contradiction of the interview comment. If LV carried love in his veins via Harry's blood, either 1) he would experience constant pain in his body from it, or 2) he ought to have been able to withstand the same emotion in Harry that he carried in his veins. One or the other. It's that vision of the 11-year-old-child Tom in the orphanage that gets to me -- so young, and so obviously *put* (by fate) onto a tragic path. And here comes the twinkly, but cold and distant Dumbledore, and what does he do? He takes one look, and goes for intimidation tactics -- just the thing for reaching out to a poor young psychopath, eh? Sheesh. Annemehr P.S. Understand that I am not disputing JKR's right to write this, or anyone else's to see value in it, I'm only explaining the depth of my own distaste and disappointment. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 14:38:41 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:38:41 -0000 Subject: perhaps naive newbie question about book III ending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176182 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dale" wrote: > > > ***Katie: > > > So, basically, a plot device, but a well-supported one, seeing as it > > was very clear that H/H from the future "cannot be seen!!", > > according to Dumbledore. This is, incidentally, usually a component > > of any time-travel story = messing too much with the past can have > > grave consequences. > > Dale: > I agree on the plot device aspect. But they were seen. Harry saw > himself and that actually saved him. > ***Katie again: That's very true. However, that was something that could not have been foreseen before they used the Time-Turner to go back. Even Harry didn't realize it at first. So, they couldn't have gone back with the *purpose* of being seen, because that would have been against the rules of time travel. The fact that Harry *was* seen by himself was only excused by the fact that the Harry from the past *thought* he was seeing his father. Had the Harry from the past actually realized he was seeing himself, that could have had some negative repercussions. So, even though Harry DID see himself, he: 1 - Didn't *know* it was himself. 2 - Didn't go back with the *intention* of contacting anyone directly or being seen, which was the original question in this thread - why didn't they just tell Lupin to take his potion? They couldn't, because they weren't *supposed* to be seen. The fact that Harry was seen was not intended. Katie From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Aug 24 14:43:27 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:43:27 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Was Death an easy choice for Harry to make WAS: Re:Back to Slytherin House Message-ID: <28604789.1187966607193.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176183 Marion (delurking for a minute before diving under again): >Harry Potter is just as courageous as a terrorist bomber. You have >to admit, suicide bombers are pretty courageous. They willingly lay >down their lives for an ideal, to fight what they think is Evil. >Yup, suicide bombers are pretty courageous. >I just don't think them very admirable, that's all. Bart: How many people did Harry kill? How many people did Harry TRY to kill? Were the people who Harry was fighting trying to kill him? Who tried to kill whom first? Therein lies the difference. Remember, shoving an elderly woman into the path of a car is NOT the same as shoving an elderly woman OUT of the path of a car, regardless of what the moral equivalence crowd says. Bart From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 14:42:35 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:42:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Was Death an easy choice for Harry to make WAS: Re:Back to Slytherin House In-Reply-To: References: <000701c7e623$f3f2d4d0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <8ee758b40708240742w224e4b37waacf1d42bc233b9f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176184 > > lizzyben: > > You've articulated exactly why that part was so horrifying to me. > Yes, Harry is brave, & yes, he's making a sacrifice. But he's not > doing it as an independent act, he's doing it because his Leader > wants him to. And Harry never even tries to consider if there might > be another way to do this, never even considers that his Leader > might be lying to him about this. (And why wouldn't he? He knows now > that DD did lie to him in the past.) He doesn't *think*. He just > follows DD's orders, obediently, blindly, fanatically. Just as he > had been trained to do. > > Yes, in this universe DD & the Order actually *are* good, and > the "other" actually *is* evil, but it's also an eeire insight into > what happens when the "other" becomes totally dehumanized & > demonized. About what happens when peer pressure & a need to conform > leads people into making choices & joining groups that they wouldn't > otherwise support. About just how far good people are willing to go > when their society, their Leader, their friends, indoctrinate them > in an ideology at an early age. Harry's death march was courageous, > but it was also a total submission to his Leader & his ideology, a > total abandonment of critical thinking, and a total embrace of > martyrdom. In this story, we can get inside of a torn society, & get > inside the head of a good person as he is indoctrinated in its > hatreds & rivalries, watch as he begins to accept the evil of "the > other" & shut down his humanity, listen as his Leader encourages his > vengence & hatred, see how his Leader encourages him to risk his > life to show his personal loyalty & goodness, up till the point that > the good person willingly dies in the service of his Leader & his > ideology. Personally, I consider it a tragedy. montims: and this is my last post today, I think... We see two boys in the same school year going through this - Draco and Harry. Draco sees through the horror of LV, and continues only through fear for his family. He does not experience "a total abandonment of critical thinking, and a total embrace of martyrdom". Why is it a tragedy for us to read of "what happens when peer pressure & a need to conform leads people into making choices & joining groups that they wouldn't otherwise support."? I would have thought it was a necessity for children to realise these things, so we aren't doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Unfortunately (*old fogy alert*) people no longer seem to admire honour, "fair play", and doing the Right Thing. If JKR helps to make children more honourable and to think before making allegiances, I admire her for it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 15:27:22 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:27:22 -0000 Subject: Was Death an easy choice for Harry to make WAS: Re:Back to Slytherin House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176185 > lizzyben: > You've articulated exactly why that part was so horrifying to me. > Yes, Harry is brave, & yes, he's making a sacrifice. But he's not > doing it as an independent act, he's doing it because his Leader > wants him to. zgirnius: This is not the reason given in the book. > DH, "The Forest Again": > Dumbledore's betrayal was almost nothing. > And Dumbledore had known that Harry would not duck out, that he would keep going to the end, because he had taken the trouble to get to know him, hadn't he? Dumbledore knew, as Voldemort knew, that Harry wouldn't let anyone else die for him now that he had discovered it was in his power to stop it. zgirnius: I spent a couple of years debating the motives of one Severus Snape, which never struck me as odd, because we see little of him, and that through the eyes of a boy who despises him, and hear little of him, and that from other characters who like him little more. Without agreeing, I could see why other people might form vastly different ideas of him than I did. I find it odd to be discussing the motivations of the viewpoint character, which are explicitly stated in the text, in the form of accounts of his thought processes coming from the narrator who sees inside him. In addition to the first line I cited (Dumbledore's *betrayal*), and the stated evidence for why Harry is walking to his death (the rest of my quote), there is additional evidence Harry is not doing it for Dumbledore - *he* is not among those Harry brings back with the Resurrection Stone. He is not one of Harry's beloved dead, anymore. >lizzyben: > And Harry never even tries to consider if there might > be another way to do this, never even considers that his Leader > might be lying to him about this. (And why wouldn't he? He knows > now that DD did lie to him in the past.) zgirnius: I suppose Voldemort's ultimatum is not a reason for Harry to act now rather than later? Anyway, Harry sees/feels the truth of it - he has, after all, been living with that connection for quite some time. He also sees the logic of the plan, precisely because he *is* capable of "critical thinking". > DH, "The Forest Again": > Now he saw that his life span had been determined by how long it took to eliminate all the Horcruxes. Dumbledore had passed the job of destroying them to him, and obediently he had continued to chip away at the bonds tying not only Voldemort, but himself, to life! How neat, how elegant, not to waste any more lives, but to give the dangerous task to the boy who had already been marked for slaughter, and whose death would not be a calamity, but another blow against Voldemort. zgirnius: That's why he believes Dumbledore. Because, far from being stupid, dull, and easily led, Harry is a bright enough boy when he cares to apply himself. He sees the full elegance and parsimony of the plan from the point of view of Dumbledore the Puppetmaster, and it makes sense. Only the later revelations (that Harry was *not* supposed to die, and *that* was the goal of Dumbledore's plans) cause Harry to revise his views. Not to resume being Dumbledore's pupil and follower (as you would have it, it seems) but to recognize that Dumbledore did love him, and want him to survive, which allows Harry to see him, again, as a friend. From elfundeb at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 15:48:28 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:48:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Said creature under the bench.. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0708240848r3a38c2bcua272d9da75a9dcd7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176186 Annemehr: By the way, in case anyone is thinking of that post-DH interview where JKR said that LV did indeed have the chance to repent, because of "-- this drop of hope or love--" -- because of Harry's blood in his veins, I must demur. [ http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0729-dateline-vieira.html scroll down near the end] Firstly, I must demur because, though the interviews were fun and "fair game" for theorising, now that the series is complete they are no substitute for what is actually in the text, in fact they are often contradictory. (I'm not asserting, in general, that the author is *absolutely* "dead" -- that'd be a whole other discussion -- just that in this case they're not helpful.) Debbie: I've never put much, if any, stock in interview statements. For one thing, they were marketing devices, and too often her serious comments seemed at odds with the message (conscious or unconscious) between the covers of the book. Annemehr: Secondly, and more importantly, this assertion is one of those things that is indeed contradicted in the text. If LV, for the first time ever, is suddenly experiencing within himself the true ability to *love* that night in the graveyard, you'd have to expect it to have *some* effect. You'd have to; the sudden presence of love within ought to be huge. Instead, we see quite the opposite: not only does he think and act just the same as ever, but at the end of OoP, he is tortured by the presence of love within Harry while he is possessing him. This is a flat-out contradiction of the interview comment. If LV carried love in his veins via Harry's blood, either 1) he would experience constant pain in his body from it, or 2) he ought to have been able to withstand the same emotion in Harry that he carried in his veins. One or the other. Debbie: I agree that Harry's blood had no effect on Voldemort's lack of capacity for love, and correspondingly, that scrap of Voldemort's soul had no effect on Harry's capacity for evil. Harry could not be turned from Good and Voldemort could not be turned from Evil. Harry's immunity from Voldemort's soul stands in stark contrast to the effect of the locket horcrux on him (DH ch. 15.) There's no explanation whatsoever for that difference in effect, but JKR hasn't given us any reason to believe that either could change. Annemehr: It's that vision of the 11-year-old-child Tom in the orphanage that gets to me -- so young, and so obviously *put* (by fate) onto a tragic path. And here comes the twinkly, but cold and distant Dumbledore, and what does he do? He takes one look, and goes for intimidation tactics -- just the thing for reaching out to a poor young psychopath, eh? Sheesh. Debbie: The magical explanation for this is that Dumbledore's legilimency skills enabled him to peg Riddle properly right off the bat as incapable of responding to love. But the scene plays out as a human encounter, not a magical one (despite the burning bush, er, wardrobe), and on a human level it's just creepy. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Aug 24 15:49:51 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:49:51 -0000 Subject: Voldemort/Re: Ending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176187 Renee: > In RL and in realistic stories, psychopaths can't be helped with a > transfusion of morally sound blood, as there is no such thing as > morally sound blood. But in a symbolical tale, a psychopath who > apparently was already beyond help at age eleven is not the most > lucky of characters to represent a *choice* between good and evil, > between redemption and perdition. This only creates confusion. And > the fact that a mental illness is discussed in moral terms doesn't > help either. To me, terms like psychopathy and redemption are > phenomena of a different order and should not be lumped together > the way JKR does in the interview. Jen: This is the weakest part of the story for me as well. Setting aside the interview for a moment, in story terms it appears JKR is going for the idea that Slytherin's line took themselves to the logical end if they valued only pure blood - the Gaunts. So Tom was a result not only of the choices of his lineage with 'a vein of instability and violence' (HBP, 'House of Gaunt'), but also Merope's choice to enter a loveless marriage that, upon failing, sapped her of her will to live and she left behind an abandoned and unloved Tom Jr. From inside the story, a drop of new magical blood - presumably Muggleborn blood to dilute the pure blood (?) - with love of the mother could be enough to offer a chance for change. Not sure I'm buying it. Voldemort's and Harry's choices don't come across as real choices to me at times, rather as playing out choices made for them by others. Technically Harry could walk away, that's part of the narrative. I suppose Tom's choice was that with his smarts and Hogwarts education, he could have made a pretty good living as a criminal instead of seeking world domination and immortality! Still, I can't ignore the text that says he was doomed from the start because he was unloved, a lack of choice at a level that Harry doesn't face. There's confusion for me about drawing Riddle as she did, with the above apparently unintended message as the logical outcome (as I understand it at least). Since she's gotten used to answering questions in snippets and interviewers keep asking the same questions, her answers don't satisfy my interest to know what she considered the underlying structure to her story - was it alchemy? Hero's quest? Bildungsroman? Jungian search for wholeness? Primarily Christian? If it's all of the above and more, then the mixed messages and many different readings make sense to me. If she was trying to achieve one main purpose, I'd like to know that in order to analyze whether the series achieved the aim intended (although likely the emotional appeal of the stories wouldn't change for me). Jen From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 16:00:27 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:00:27 -0000 Subject: Seen or Unseen - Time turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176188 > > > ***Katie: > > > > > So, basically, a plot device, but a well-supported one, > > > seeing as it was very clear that H/H from the future > > > "cannot be seen!!", according to Dumbledore. Mike: Watch your step here Dale, big plot hole ahead. Because as soon as Dumbledore said that to Hermione she should have said, 'What are you talking about, what law? I've been using this thing all year to get to my classes, of course I've been seen while I was time-turned.' Ron even confirms that; Hermione, according to Ernie McMillan, hasn't missed a Muggle Studies class and it was the same time and day of the week that Ron and Harry had a different class with Hermione. So how the heck can Dumbledore tell Hermione that she knows the rule, when that rule *has* to be clearly contridictory to the reason for her getting the time turner in the first place. > ***Katie again: > > So, even though Harry DID see himself, he: > 1 - Didn't *know* it was himself. > 2 - Didn't go back with the *intention* of contacting anyone > directly or being seen, which was the original question in this > thread - why didn't they just tell Lupin to take his potion? They > couldn't, because they weren't *supposed* to be seen. The fact > that Harry was seen was not intended. Mike: I definitely agree with Katie, both on plot device and what was set up as *could not do* rule/law/standard of time travel. You can't change the past too much, and in JKR's time travel you don't change the past at all. It all happened that way the first time through, you just didn't know it. But Dale's question begs another. How come Lupin didn't see TTed Harry and Hermione on the Marauder's Map? He said he was watching the Trio and even guessed they were under James' cloak. So when TTed and non-TTed almost ran into each other in the entrance hall, why doesn't Lupin see two Harry and two Hermione dots?. Then, TTed H&H sat outside of Hagrid's hut close enough to hear most of what went on inside, and when the Trio were leaving Hagrid's, H&H were close enough to hear all of what was said. And the kids were keeping their voices down because Fudge and Co. were at Hagrid's front door. They must have been close enough for Lupin to see their dots on the Map, especially as there would not have been any other dots around to muddle up the situation. Ah well, maybe Lupin was in on the plan from the beginning. JKR must have told him to keep his mouth shut on this one and she'll allow the DADA curse to just get him fired, unlike what happened to his two immediate predecessors. Mike From weasleys.rock at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 16:07:56 2007 From: weasleys.rock at yahoo.com (weasleys.rock) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:07:56 -0000 Subject: When did the "trace" come about? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176189 weasleys.rock: It is in my opinion that the entire wizarding community is being traced or "watched." Magic is said to put out energy which could be tracable by some means which I think the MOM has tapped into. The trace in heavily put upon underaged wizards and witches because they are, if you will pardon the term, irresponsible. It's just like driving. We cannot learn to drive until the law thinks we are responsible enough to drive a motor vehicle. The same goes with magic. zanooda2: > Ah well, > if JKR was ever asked about it, she'd probably say that the Trace > was not yet invented when LV was underage ... :-). weasleys.rock: This goes along with my theory that the whole community is being "watched." There may have been a flag to say that magic was performed in front, and towards, muggles, but not by WHOM. Random832: > The fact that it traces magic _around_ Harry rather than just > specifically what is cast BY Harry is why none of the adults > rescuing him can cast spells either. > NO-ONE can do magic around Harry wherever he is until the Trace is gone, > or his location will be revealed. If he weren't being targeted, I'm sure > it'd be just fine because the ministry would just assume "oh, there's > adult wizards around" - the problem is that the trace would still be > triggered in the first place, revealing the location. weasleys.rock: I agree here with Random832. If underaged magic was not traced at the time LV committed the murders then the wizarding world would have most likely been discovered already. That was only 50 or so years earlier. The most likely reason why Morfin was accused of the murders is because it breeches the Code of Secrecy which was put into place sometime in the 1600s, according to the HP Lexicon. The same for Pettigrew's murders of the 12 muggles. Not because it was underaged magic. This supports my claim that MOM is watching ALL magic being used. The children are not banned from doing magic. I agree that it is up to the adult wizards and witches to moderate the children's use of magic. I believe that in a magical household, the restriction is a bit lenient, unless, of course, there are muggles around. It seems that only when muggles are present, is the decree absolutely necessary. Case in part, the Weasleys always practice Quidditch during the summer in a field where muggles can't see, yet they never seem to get a notice from MOM. Harry, unfortunately, is always surrounded by muggles when he is not at school. I believe that even if he was in a room alone but muggles were nearby, say in another room, he will still be notified by MOM if he preformed any magic, especially if he were still underaged. From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Aug 24 17:34:13 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort/Re: Ending Message-ID: <16650629.1187976853933.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176190 Jen: >This is the weakest part of the story for me as well. Setting >aside the interview for a moment, in story terms it appears JKR is >going for the idea that Slytherin's line took themselves to the >logical end if they valued only pure blood - the Gaunts. So Tom was >a result not only of the choices of his lineage with 'a vein of >instability and violence' (HBP, 'House of Gaunt'), but also Merope's >choice to enter a loveless marriage that, upon failing, sapped her of >her will to live and she left behind an abandoned and unloved Tom >Jr. From inside the story, a drop of new magical blood - presumably >Muggleborn blood to dilute the pure blood (?) - with love of the >mother could be enough to offer a chance for change. Not sure I'm >buying it. Bart: Here's another way of looking at it. At one point, in HBP I believe, DD says that Morty is beyond hope. Having, specifically with Morty in mind, done some reading on psychopathy and sociopathy, it is clear that Morty WAS intended to be a psychopath, albeit an unusually effective one (and that's even considering the multiple "Let's see if AK works on Harry THIS time!" attempts). This means that Morty has an illness which can be described as lacking a connection to his own soul (which is why he has so little difficulty making horcruxes). So, even if the blood had an effect, there was pretty much no chance that Harry's offer would have worked. But Harry's offer wasn't about Morty; it was about HARRY. Morty is effectively reverted to a subhuman state, no longer able to make choices. Harry can. So, look what happens: 1) Harry confronts Morty. 2) Harry tells Morty what's going to happen. 3) Harry gives Morty a chance to fix things. 4) Morty refuses the offer. 5) Morty tries to kill Harry, Harry tries to DISARM Morty. 6) The AK backfires. Again. The point is not that Morty had any chance at changing. It's that Harry GAVE him the chance that makes a difference. It's a very Christian message, that even the very worst people have a chance to repent and receive forgiveness for their sins, even if it rarely happens. If even Morty has the chance, then the reader, who can generally be considered to be a better person than Morty, has a chance, too. There was a similar theme going on in the BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER series, where, by the end, there were two vampires with souls, Angel and Spike. But, while Angel had a soul forced upon him, Spike, while still soulless, made the choice of getting a soul. The result was that Angel was in continual conflict with the demon within him, afraid it will take over, while Spike was able to turn his inner demon towards good. >Technically Harry could walk away, that's part of the narrative. I >suppose Tom's choice was that with his smarts and Hogwarts education, >he could have made a pretty good living as a criminal instead of >seeking world domination and immortality! In a way, Tom's talent was his undoing. There was only one real choice he had; he COULD have seen that there was something wrong with himself, and tried to get it cured. However, he was so effective that he never saw any particular reason to do so. Note that the others in the orphanage received every bit as little love as Tom received, yet, as far as we know, none of the other kids from the orphanage became evil overlords. Also, lacking touch with his soul, Morty could not even envision anything worse than what death held for him. Morty was a catalyst. The change came in Harry, able to resist temptation when DD was not. Bart From lmcdanl at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 24 17:13:55 2007 From: lmcdanl at sbcglobal.net (mariejgrangerpotter) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:13:55 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176191 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sali Morris" wrote: > Sali: > I also thought that they might have family names as middle names. It > looks as though that might be somewhat of a Weasley tradition. > Although we don't have much to go on we do know that Ron's middle > name is Bilious after an uncle (or great-uncle or something) and we > learn at the wedding that Bill's is Arthur. I don't think we can > tell whether their first names are family names also but if they > were I would have expected Molly's brother's names to be there. So, > for example, Hugo's middle name could be Arthur and then he would > have an original first name and a family middle name. Marie: Ginevra's middle name is Molly, to add some credence to your theory. Also, I've always thought Fred and George were a modernization of sorts of Fabian and Gideon. It could be Frederick Gideon and George Fabian for all we know, though. Oh, and Percy is probably short for Percival, which is one of Dumbledore's middle names. As for Ron and Hermione's choices of names, I agree that Hugo's middle name is probably either Arthur or Fred(rick). I'm secretly amused that Rose's name follows the Evans family tradition of floral names. Her middle name isn't likely to be Molly, but I think Minerva is a good possibility, given how much Hermione admired her. Or her mother's name, if it isn't Rose. > On a tangent, we hear Albus' middle name but not that of James and > Lily. Assuming that Harry continues his propensity for naming his > children after dead loved/respected ones, I'm coming up with James > Sirius (which I think is an infelicitous combination) but am drawing > a blank for Lily. Can anyone think of dead females from the series > who are close to Harry apart from his mother? I don't think he'd > name her after Tonks and I'm assuming Molly hasn't died in the > intervening years. James Sirius or James Remus seem most likely to me. It seems odd that he named one of his sons after Snape but not after Lupin, unless James has two middle names. For Lily, I find it easier to find middle names if you make the first name Lilian/Lilyan, but I think Nymphadora and Minerva are likely candidates. I suppose Ginevra and Hermione are possibilities as well. Or her middle name could be Muriel after the Weasley Great Aunt. ~Marie, who has 3 family names herself. My brothers both have family and/or honorary names. Family and Biblical names run in my husband's family. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 18:53:15 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:53:15 -0000 Subject: Back to Slytherin House - Choosing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176192 lizzyben wrote: > > > > It sure does. People (including me) have complained that Harry never faced an internal battle between good & evil, but he actually did - he faced the choice between good & evil at eleven years old, and chose good. Everything else was just gravy. Jen replied: > Why is that a complaint, btw? I predicted prior to DH that Harry might face a decision about Snape such as Voldemort luring Harry to him using Snape as the temptation, and Harry would have to choose at a pivotal moment: revenge on Snape vs. some higher calling. So I was also a reader expecting a big good vs. evil battle prior to DH. Since it turned out he had evil inside him already with a soul piece, that wasn't the story and instead Harry's biggest choice was life vs. death. Why then is the internal battle between good and evil still necessary? It wasn't the crisis of conscience Harry was meant to face apparently. Carol responds: On one level, having a soul bit inside himself could tempt Harry to evil, for example, the desire for revenge against Snape, the use of a Crucio on Carrow, the temptation to become Master of Death. But I think that Harry would have faced these temptations anyway, and, except for the Crucio, he rejected the temptations and accepted the necessity to sacrifice himself after viewing Snape's memories and calling his beloved dead to give him the courage to join them (as he thought). But I think it's possible that the central conflict, particularly the conflict within Harry, is not good vs. evil but what is right vs. what is easy. (Voldemort has already rejected the concept to good and evil, believing that there is only power and those too weak to use it, as Quirrel says in SS/PS.) There is nothing easy in Harry's decision to face death without fighting back, as I've shown in other posts. Choosing Horcruxes over Hallows is also choosing right over easy. Snape, too, faces this conflict, choosing what is easy (his Slytherin friends over Lily; becoming a DE; revealing the Prophecy) and pays the price for that choice when Lily dies. He spends the rest of his life, particularly the last two years, making up for that wrong choice, doing what is right rather than what is easy. And Lupin, weak throughout the series but suddenly imbued with what looks like a suicidal desire to kill and be killed, also makes the difficult but right choice to go back to his wife and child. In all cases, the characters' worst enemy seems to me to be not Voldemort but himself. Carol, admitting that Voldemort was never faced with that choice and wishing that he had been From rvink7 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 24 19:31:16 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:31:16 -0000 Subject: Voldemort/Re: Ending In-Reply-To: <16650629.1187976853933.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176193 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Bart: At one point, in HBP I believe, DD says that Morty is beyond hope. Having, specifically with Morty in mind, done some reading on psychopathy and sociopathy, it is clear that Morty WAS intended to be a psychopath, albeit an unusually effective one (and that's even considering the multiple "Let's see if AK works on Harry THIS time!" attempts). This means that Morty has an illness which can be described as lacking a connection to his own soul (which is why he has so little difficulty making horcruxes). Renee: Does the term "soul" belong in a medical context? If not (and I don't think it does), this is just another example of mixing up categories, of working on two different levels. And it doesn't solve the problem of choice, or the lack thereof in Tom Riddle's case. Bart: So, even if the blood had an effect, there was pretty much no chance that Harry's offer would have worked. But Harry's offer wasn't about Morty; it was about HARRY. Morty is effectively reverted to a subhuman state, no longer able to make choices. Renee: The problem, of course, is the "no longer", as JKR fails to make clear that he ever had a choice. Also, the "no longer able to make choices" goes against JKR's statement in the interview that the drop of blood did give him a choice. Bart: > The point is not that Morty had any chance at changing. It's that Harry GAVE him the chance that makes a difference. It's a very Christian message, that even the very worst people have a chance to repent and receive forgiveness for their sins, even if it rarely happens. If even Morty has the chance, then the reader, who can generally be considered to be a better person than Morty, has a chance, too. Renee: But the whole point is that Voldemort has no chance. You just said he was unable to make choices at that point, so aren't you contradicting yourself here? Offering a chance to someone who, from a pathological point of view, is unable to take it turns the Christian message of forgiveness into an empty gesture. And on a literal level, I don't buy JKR's explanation that he had a chance because he carried Harry's blood inside him - though I do on a symbolical level. > > >Technically Harry could walk away, that's part of the narrative. I > >suppose Tom's choice was that with his smarts and Hogwarts education, > >he could have made a pretty good living as a criminal instead of > >seeking world domination and immortality! > > In a way, Tom's talent was his undoing. There was only one real choice he had; he COULD have seen that there was something wrong with himself, and tried to get it cured. Renee: I'd like to see some canon evidence for what you're saying here. You make a supposition about Tom having a real choice, but I simply don't see it in the text, and not even JKR seems to think it's there. Bart: > Morty was a catalyst. The change came in Harry, able to resist temptation when DD was not. > Renee: Oh yes, I fully agree with that. But to me, that doesn't solve the problem of writing a psychologically realistic character who fulfills all the Real World criteria of psychopath, and then switching to symbolical mode by having this character magically injected with a drop of hope and love in order to make him accountable for his last choice. This way, the origin of evil remains a Riddle and it won't do to make statements about the status of Tom's soul in the afterlife. But then, Dante's habit of making statements about souls by putting people in Hell has always been a pet peeve of mine. Just so you know where I'm coming from. Renee From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 19:37:55 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:37:55 -0000 Subject: Contradiction revisted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176194 --- "Barry" wrote: > > Thanks for everyone's replies. They seem to revolve > around whether magic involves using a wand or not. > "The Trace, the Trace," said Mad-Eye imaptiently. > "The charm that detects magical activity around > under-seventeens." The quote, to me, implies any > magic. But I can accept that it is supposed to mean > wand use. > bboyminn: " ...to me, implies any magic." But does 'any magic' reflect the presence of magic or the /creation/ of magic. Notice Moody doesn't say 'magic' he says 'magical activity'. 'Activity' implies active dynamic magic, not static magic. Plus, the Trace is spoken about and expanded on in other parts of the book. When you combine all the information, I think it is clear that it is speaking about the creation of new magic. In other words, the casting of spells. Note that while Dobby didn't use a wand to create the Hover Charm, he still /cast/ a spell. > Barry: > Re the invisibility cloak: Could Harry go to a public > WW place while under the cloak then disapparate? bboyminn: But if they could get Harry to a wizarding place in order to disguise his magic amoung the crowds, why bother, why not just take him directly where he needs to be? Why not skip the side track to Diagon Alley and take him straight to the Burrow? >Barry: > Or the Order appears as in DH and an invisible > Harry hides in the sidecar? > > Barry > bboyminn: Certainly, this is a better thought. But it sort of nullifies the 'Decoy' operation. If 6 pairs of Harry and partners leave, and a seventh leaves without a Harry. That might be a give away. Also, we know the Invisibility Cloak isn't fool-proof. Nagini can see through it; after a fashion. In his own way, Mad-Eye can see through it. They may not be able to see Harry but they might be able to detect the heat from his body. Also, it didn't seem to matter how many decoys they had, the DE had enough people at the ready to follow them all. So, invisible Harry would still have been followed and attacked. The minute he tried to defend himself, his position would have been given away. So the result would likely have been very close to what it already was. Still, even though I can think of reasons why it wouldn't work, it still is a good idea, and now that you mention it, I'm surprised they didn't consider it. Just rambling. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 20:07:41 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:07:41 -0000 Subject: ...question about book III ending - Being Seen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176195 --- "Katie" wrote: > > --- "Dale" wrote: > > > > > ***Katie: > > > >> So, basically, a plot device, but a well-supported > >> one, seeing as it was very clear that H/H from the > >> future "cannot be seen!!", according to Dumbledore. > >> This is, incidentally, usually a component of any > >> time-travel story = messing too much with the past > >> can have grave consequences. > > > > Dale: > > I agree on the plot device aspect. But they were > > seen. Harry saw himself and that actually saved > > him. > > > ***Katie again: > That's very true. However, that was something that > could not have been foreseen before they used the > Time-Turner to go back. Even Harry didn't realize it > at first. ... The fact that Harry *was* seen by > himself was only excused by the fact that the Harry > from the past *thought* he was seeing his father. > ... bboyminn: Katie touched on it, but didn't really expand on the key issue. It is not about being seen, it is about the /consequences/ of being seen. Just as it is not about changing time, which you likely can do, it is about the /consequences/ of changing time. The consequences of your actions in some way altering time can set up unresolvable time loops and paradoxes. If Harry and Hermione has gone back in time and resolved their need to go back in time, then they would not go back in time, which means the problem they solved would no longer be solved, which in turn would necessitate them going back in time to solve it, and around and around it goes. The classic unresolvable time loop is going back in time and killing your father. When Harry saw himself, nothing actually changed. There were no consequences of that action. Yes, Harry saved himself, but from the perspective of normal!Harry, it was his father who saved him. >From the perspective of TimeTravel!Harry we see the truth and realize what actually happened. Again, this doesn't create an unresolvable time loop or paradox. So, everything is OK relative to the rules of time travel. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Aug 24 20:47:51 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:47:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort/Re: Ending Message-ID: <12523773.1187988471074.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176196 From: Renee Renee: >Does the term "soul" belong in a medical context? If not (and I don't >think it does), this is just another example of mixing up categories, >of working on two different levels. And it doesn't solve the problem >of choice, or the lack thereof in Tom Riddle's case. Bart: I'm not sure the term "psychology" belongs in a medical context (not in the Scientologist sense, but in the sense that it is a HIGHLY inexact science). But I AM inferring, from the books, how JKR defines a "soul". I don't want to get into heavy theology now, but a characteristic of psychopathy and sociopathy is a lack of either empathy or conscience, which, at least to me, seems pretty clearly attached to what JKR calls the soul. Renee: >The problem, of course, is the "no longer", as JKR fails to make clear >that he ever had a choice. Also, the "no longer able to make choices" >goes against JKR's statement in the interview that the drop of blood >did give him a choice. Once again, we're working with inexact terminology. What is meant by a "choice" in this context? Morty doesn't show any more sign that he's mentally affected by the blood than Harry shows that he is mentally affected by the Mortysoul. Perhaps what the blood does is give Morty the OPPORTUNITY; in other words, before, he couldn't even make an intellectual decision to exhibit remorse, and now, he can. But, on an emotional level, there is no more indication that Morty would even consider it as there is that Harry would drop it all and become a death eater. Bart: >> The point is not that Morty had any chance at changing. It's that >Harry GAVE him the chance that makes a difference. It's a very >Christian message, that even the very worst people have a chance to >repent and receive forgiveness for their sins, even if it rarely >happens. If even Morty has the chance, then the reader, who can >generally be considered to be a better person than Morty, has a >chance, too. Renee: >But the whole point is that Voldemort has no chance. You just said he >was unable to make choices at that point, so aren't you contradicting >yourself here? Offering a chance to someone who, from a pathological >point of view, is unable to take it turns the Christian message of >forgiveness into an empty gesture. And on a literal level, I don't buy >JKR's explanation that he had a chance because he carried Harry's >blood inside him - though I do on a symbolical level. I've mentioned this before, here, but in the book, THE WONDERFUL WIZARD OF OZ (NOT to be confused with the movie), it is demonstrated early on that each of Dorothy's companions already possesses what they thought they didn't have. Notably, the Tin Woodsman mentions that, because he has no heart, he has to walk very carefully, because he might heartlessly step on some small creature and kill it. In other words, he doesn't just have compassion on an emotional level; he manages to achieve it on an intellectual level, deciding logically that compassion is something that is beneficial to have. Morty, due to his illness, had no conscience. However, what the blood did was give him the possibility, if he could decide that restoring his soul was to his advantage, he could do so, and possibly even be cured. Unfortunately one of the symptoms of psychopathy (and why psychopaths are rarely successful) is that going that deep intellectually is pretty much impossible. Renee: >I'd like to see some canon evidence for what you're saying here. You >make a supposition about Tom having a real choice, but I simply don't >see it in the text, and not even JKR seems to think it's there. Bart: Morty offered Lily a chance to live. Yes, it was to his long-term advantage to do so; it would help cement the loyalty of a valuable lieutenant. But that's the point: he IS capable of choosing good, if he is intellectually convinced it's to his long-term advantage. And that's just what Harry tried to do; convince him that it was to his long-term advantage to repent. Bart From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 21:02:40 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:02:40 -0000 Subject: Goblin fanatic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176197 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > Random832: > > Anyway, sarcasm aside, Goblins come off here as being pretty > > incompetent in legal/financial terms: life tenancy isn't > > unheard of in property rights among humans, though usually > > applies to real estate rather than > > physical items - so there's no reason to think that humans > > wouldn't understand the concept if they were told. That leaves > > the conclusion that Goblins are either too bloody stupid to > > specify what exactly they're charging money for, or they're > > committing what amounts to fraud, becaise the prices > > wizards are willing to pay, and thus what they _are_ paying, > > are set on the _assumption_ that they're buying the item free > > and clear, and therefore they are paying many times more gold > > than they would for a non-transferable lifetime lease. > > So even if we DO accept > > that the goblins are right about what's ACTUALLY being sold, > > they are overcharging by deception. > > zgirnius: > The way I take 'goblin fanatic', what I figure is that the goblin > who sold Godric the sword did understand that the human buyer was > buying it forever, for himself, his descendants, and any other > entities to which those individuals might choose to give the > sword, for ever and ever. And he set the price accordingly. > > But 'goblin fanatics' like Griphook don't think that goblin had the > right to do so. It goes against his culture and permanently > deprives other goblins of the item. Which is what makes them > fanatical - it means they refuse to ever deal with humans on human > terms. (A human who refused ever to consider buying a goblin > artifact for his/her life only, or did and then claimed to have > bought it for ever, would be guilty of same). > I look at Griphook as akin to an indigenous person trying to rescue a tribal artifact from a group who knew something of goblin customs, yet in their might took those artifacts in exchange for things of ultimately lesser value to the goblins. In other words, wizards traded a great deal of goblin culture for trinkets, then limited the goblins to the reservation of banking, which corrupted their natures, and the practice of their native crafts. And still, the goblins apparently had a history of resisting their role in the magical world. It's like Native Americans trading land for beads, all the time not understanding the trade in land itself, as land belonged to everyone, then having that land taken from them by force and continued guile. Griphook acted to retake possession of his culture, if only symbolically, just as the Native Americans retook possession of Alcatraz Island in the late-1960s. Griphook is trying to recover goblin culture, not for himself, but for all goblins. He is willing to lie to Voldemort's followers to protect it. He is willing to endure Fleur's negativity to preserve it. He is willing to bargain with a wizard to recover it. He is willing to risk his life in a trip back to Gringotts to secure it. He is willing to run off with it despite the dominant power of wizards. The fact that Harry Potter is willing to double-cross Griphook and to justify a lie like an attorney-in-training disturbed me as much as his use of Unforgivables (which are probably now standard among Aurors, as waterboarding is excusable to the current U.S. president). The fact that Griphook realizes he is being lied to and takes action makes me respect this particular goblin quite a bit. After all, why should Harry Potter's priorities be Griphook's, especially when Harry is not willing to share the truth with the goblin? Harry does not risk only the lives of his willing friends and himself, by the way. He asked this presumed sub-human to assume a dangerous risk. But as Edmund Hillary to Griphook's Sherpa, as Dumbledore to Snape, sacrifice of inferiors is the natural order. And in the end, Manifest Destiny prevailed, as a true Gryffindor (white, straight, rich wizard) recovered the sword from the creepy native, and all is well in Little England. The history books will recall how Griphook betrayed Harry Potter (as Wikipedia does at the moment). Others have argued that the goblins are the Jews of the Potterverse, and money-handling is the restricted profession of the ghetto. I can see why some make this comparison, but the scapegoated role held by Jews is still, I think, held by Slytherins. They are ambitious, cunning, ruthless. They are out for themselves and not to be trusted. They stick together, and won't fight for your group, only for themselves, with their mysterious arts and exclusive natures. The goblins are even more "Other" than the Slytherins. For me, Griphook was one of the only characters in DH who had a will of his own. He used it to act for a greater good; it just wasn't the dominant culture's good. In other words, he was a "fanatic," as JKR has characterized him in interviews. lealess From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 21:21:56 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:21:56 -0000 Subject: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176198 > >>Mike: > Yeah, what was he [Harry] thinking, when he walked into the forest? > > So Dumbledore cooked up a plan to set this biggest of his mistakes > right. But I guess if heroes overcome their flaws and orchestrate > the correction of their mistakes from earlier on, they must instead > be just manipulative old bastards. Seems we are particular about > which flaws we allow our heroes to have, and cannot forgive some > mistakes even when they are ultimately corrected. Betsy Hp: I think it comes down to what Magpie said. It's not that anyone's looking for perfect hereos. It's just some things are palatable for some folks, and other things are not. Neither Harry nor Dumbledore are palatable for me. Not because they're not perfect, but because their flaws are, for me, utterly fatal. There are things I cannot admire. And both Harry and Dumbledore do and/or have them. Though I will say that for me, it's not so much a particular flaw, it's how that flaw is handled. Alla brought up the Lancelot/Arthur/Guinevere love triangle. And there are some versions of that tale that make the adultary pretty unpalatable, I agree. But in other versions, I've wept for all involved. Including Mordred which is a bit of a hat trick. Which means, I suppose, it all comes down to how the author spins things. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Snape was so wrapped up in his own failings he utterly failed the > > children placed under his care. He was horribly abused, so I > > cannot find it in myself to dislike him to the same extent I > > dislike Harry and co. > >>Mike: > I guess we've assumed that Snape was abused by his father. > Betsy Hp: I was more thinking about the general abuse a Slytherin child faces in the WW. And it was doubly bad for Snape because he tried to make himself worthy of a Gryffindor's love. So he became Lily's slave and Dumbledore's dog. His entire life defined by doors shut in the face of his apologies and the words, "You disgust me" ringing in his ears. At first I was pretty upset that Snape had let down the Malfoys (especially Draco) and all of the Slytherin children placed under his care. Then I realized that I was expecting far too much of what was essentially a woefully abused and mishandled child who grew into a broken man. (A plant kept out of the sun, indeed.) JKR would have me believe (I think this was her thinking anyway) that *as* a Slytherin Snape was so incapable of feeling love and friendship that he never really missed it. But she breathed too much depth into her Slytherin characters in earlier books for me to buy their shallowness in the last one. (DH's Crabbe and Goyle made no sense to me.) Which is actually the problem in a nutshell. I *liked* Draco. I *liked* Snape. Heck, I related far better to Draco, with his hysterics and wrong-footing and love of drama and his "Father says..." than to worshipped and adored Harry. Draco was me as a kid. So when JKR ended the book by saying everything I related to was the sort of thing only "bad" people could feel... Yeah, I was a bit insulted. And confused. "So it's *bad* to love your parents, and it's *good* to stuff people in lockers?" I've been working through the confusion ever since. Betsy Hp From Meliss9900 at aol.com Fri Aug 24 21:23:19 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:23:19 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176199 In a message dated 8/17/2007 8:27:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time, va32h at comcast.net writes: My first thought was - oh well JKR is tired of being asked why James and Lily didn't Apparate or use a Portkey or otherwise escape, so she made a new rule (Apparition requires wands) and made James and Lily wandless in that scene. ************************************** Well I've always thought that apparition required a wand because it was magic. and magic in her universe requires a wand. Is it possible that portkeys and apparition don't work in a house protected by fidelius? Or that the house was protected by additional charms and wards to make apparition impossible within the house. The trio have to Apparate onto the front step at Grimmauld Place. At the Burrow everyone seems to walk out beyond the protective shield to apparate although they did portkey in originally. That said James running to check the door wandless is odd. He grew up in the wizard world, reaching for a wand should have been second nature to him. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvink7 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 24 21:40:43 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:40:43 -0000 Subject: Voldemort/Re: Ending In-Reply-To: <12523773.1187988471074.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176201 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > From: Renee > Renee: > >Does the term "soul" belong in a medical context? If not (and I don't > >think it does), this is just another example of mixing up categories, > >of working on two different levels. > Bart: > I'm not sure the term "psychology" belongs in a medical context (not in the Scientologist sense, but in the sense that it is a HIGHLY inexact science). But I AM inferring, from the books, how JKR defines a "soul". I don't want to get into heavy theology now, but a characteristic of psychopathy and sociopathy is a lack of either empathy or conscience, which, at least to me, seems pretty clearly attached to what JKR calls the soul. Renee: We're not talking psychology here, but psychiatry, which does belong in a mecial context (and I don't quite understand what the Scientology movement has to do with it). And "Soul" is a concept that does not belong in this context. > Renee: > >The problem, of course, is the "no longer", as JKR fails to make clear > >that he ever had a choice. Also, the "no longer able to make choices" > >goes against JKR's statement in the interview that the drop of blood > >did give him a choice. Bart: > > Once again, we're working with inexact terminology. What is meant by a "choice" in this context? Morty doesn't show any more sign that he's mentally affected by the blood than Harry shows that he is mentally affected by the Mortysoul. Perhaps what the blood does is give Morty the OPPORTUNITY; in other words, before, he couldn't even make an intellectual decision to exhibit remorse, and now, he can. But, on an emotional level, there is no more indication that Morty would even consider it as there is that Harry would drop it all and become a death eater. Renee: Adding a drop of blood doesn't affect the intellectual decision of a psychopath; from a medical point of view, blood is morally neutral. My problem is, that JKR switches from psychological realism - depicting Voldemort realistically as a psychopath - to (perhaps religious) symbolism by using the blood in order to give Voldemort a chance, choice or opportunity (what you call it is of no importance to my argument). Apparently I failed to make myself clear: I'm not challenging the moral workings of JKR's story, but her technique. > Renee: > >I'd like to see some canon evidence for what you're saying here. You > >make a supposition about Tom having a real choice, but I simply don't > >see it in the text, and not even JKR seems to think it's there. > > Bart: > Morty offered Lily a chance to live. Yes, it was to his long-term advantage to do so; it would help cement the loyalty of a valuable lieutenant. But that's the point: he IS capable of choosing good, if he is intellectually convinced it's to his long-term advantage. And that's just what Harry tried to do; convince him that it was to his long-term advantage to repent. Renee: What evidence did Voldemort have that Harry was speaking the truth? Anyway, some of the symptoms of psychopathy are poor judgement and lack of risk-assessment. That's probably why Voldemort killed Lily instead of merely stunning her, which would have brought him both Harry's death *and* the loyalty of a valuable lieutenant. So no, he wasn't capable of choosing good on an intellectual level at all. Renee From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 22:36:56 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:36:56 -0000 Subject: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176202 Betsy Hp wrote: > > At first I was pretty upset that Snape had let down the Malfoys (especially Draco) and all of the Slytherin children placed under his care. Then I realized that I was expecting far too much of what was essentially a woefully abused and mishandled child who grew into a broken man. (A plant kept out of the sun, indeed.) > Carol responds: Can you explain what you mean by this statement? I can't tell whether you're talking about snape as HoH or headmaster. In either case, he could not have prevented Draco from becoming a DE to avenge his father (though he did protect him all year). And only two of his former students (Crabbe and Goyle) appear to be corrupted by the Carrows. Theo Nott, though his father was a DE, does not appear to have joined Voldemort, and no sytherins fought for Voldie (who is clearly lying to Lucius). All of them followed Pansy and Filch out of the Great Hall on McGonagall's orders, and only Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle hung back (ostensibly to turn Harry over to LV, but given that Draco never cast a spell in the RoR and kept trying to keep Crabbe from doing so, I'm not sure that was really his intention). Contrast the hotbed of budding DEs under Slughorn in Severus's own school years. Lucius Malfoy, Bellatrix Black (actually probably older than Lucius), the Lestrange brothers, Macnair, Avery, Mulciber, Rosier, Wilkes, and probably many others all became DEs (as did Snape himself). Snape's record as HoH is much better. Did you notice that Snape prevented Ginny from going into Hogsmeade (where she might be kidnapped by DEs as Luna was on Platform 9 3/4), just as he tried to prevent Harry from doing so in PoA, and that he closed all the secret passageways, which kept the students from sneaking into Hogsmeade but also kept the DEs out? Reinstating Umbridge's decrees kept the more timid students from defying the Carrows and getting injured and at the same time encouraged the DA members to rebel? Not to mention that Ginny's, Neville's and Luna's detention gave them a chance to be alone with Hagrid? Think what Hogwarts would have been like if Yaxley or Dolohov were in charge. McGonagall and Flitwick, at least, would have ended up in Azkaban with DEs in their place. As it was, Snape let the permanent faculty members subvert the Carrows exactly as they had done with Umbridge. I realize that it's all done off-page, but everything I've mentioned here can be supported by canon. He could not prevent the Crucios without giving away his true loyalty, just as he could not rescue Charity Burbage, but he did encourage resistance and allow both the DA and Hagrid to remain in hiding. (I think he knew perfectly well that they were using the RoR.) Carol, who does not see Snape as at all a broken man and thinks he did the best job possible of protecting the students without arousing the suspicion of the Carrows From spaced_out_space_cadet at hotmail.com Fri Aug 24 22:41:26 2007 From: spaced_out_space_cadet at hotmail.com (spacedoutspacecadet) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:41:26 -0000 Subject: The Children & Rose and Hugo Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176203 Hey Guys, I"m not sure if this has been posted before (if it has would love the reference) How do we know that Victorie (sorry if this is wrong, I don't have my book to reference) is actually Bill and Fleur's child?? Is this just a general assumption or is there canon to base it off? With Hermione and Ron's children I can see Hermione and Ron arguing over names, and quite simply little Rose may have gotten her name because JK likes to name people after flowers. Or Ron or Hermione could have made the comment that she looked like a rose when born. As for Hugo... I'll have to think more on that one! I really need to get my copy back from my mum so I can read it again... Spaced Out Space Cadet From margdean at erols.com Fri Aug 24 23:19:10 2007 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:19:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Children & Rose and Hugo References: Message-ID: <46CF676E.A458AB5E@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176204 spacedoutspacecadet wrote: > I"m not sure if this has been posted before (if it has would love the > reference) How do we know that Victorie (sorry if this is wrong, I > don't have my book to reference) is actually Bill and Fleur's child?? > Is this just a general assumption or is there canon to base it off? Educated guess, based on the fact that "Victoire" is a French name, and that she's stated to be the cousin of Harry and Ginny's kids (obviously on the Weasley side, since Harry has no siblings). Conceivably she could be the daughter of Percy, Charlie, or George, but Bill seems the best bet because he was already married by the end of DH (and thus has more time to sire a daughter who'd be old enough to be Teddy Lupin's girlfriend) and has a French wife. --Margaret Dean From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Fri Aug 24 23:59:15 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:59:15 -0000 Subject: Regarding Voldemort being a psychopath Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176205 First off I'll start by saying that being proclaimed a psychopath is not a diagnosis or representative a specific mental disorder. So while JKR proclaimed Voldemort to be a psychopath, she isn't saying anything other than Voldemort had serious psychological issues going on that involved lack of empathy, impulse control problems, and difficulty maintaining healthy interpersonal relationships. She is not saying he's clinically depressed, has a schizoaffective disorder, bi- polardisorder, or any sort of personality disorder. This doesn't mean that he's had this condition since birth since psychopathology is not a specific mental disorder. Even Riddle's torture of the other children and the bunny doesn't continue as it once had once Riddle begins to attend Hogwarts. Riddle has enough social skills to charm the teachers(not an easy thing for an 11 to17 y.o. to do), and have the respect of his fellow Slytherins...until around his fifth year when the COS was opened and the first murder (Moaning Myrtle) occurred. Then we see the behaviors(killing, his muggle family, framing his uncle for it) after the first splitting of Voldemort's soul and it spirals down from there. It seems that the more his soul was split, the more he killed, and he's killed more times than just killing to make Horcruxes inadvertent or otherwise. The more Voldemort killed in DH the more I wondered if Voldemort would just destroy himself because if he split his soul anymore it had some sort of effect akin to splitting an atom. Beyond that I truly wondered how much human he did have left in him other than the bone of his father stolen no less, Peter's hand, Harry's blood,(eww recipie for voldie's body is dusgusting), and the remaining microscopic maimed bit of soul. In the final showdown between Harry and Voldemort I don't think that Harry was wasting his time to give Voldemort another chance. He still had Harry's blood and we know that blood has caused many miraculous things to happen; not only to Harry--only known survivor of the AK, but also aided in Voldemort obtaining a "new" body. I think Harry was wise to hedge his bets by talking to Riddle, he's seen this is how Riddle likes to operate and how statements Riddle cannot understand unhinge him in a special way. (Like DD's worse things than death statement in OOP, like his taunting of Harry in GOF, even the little chat in PS/SS). I thought Harry's speech to Riddle helped Harry's sense of timing of when to cast his expelliarmus. Of course Harry will try to give Riddle another chance and a chance for remorse even as ridiculous as it sounds. If DD did it for Snape then there was no way Harry wouldn't do the same. Harry didn't do this for Voldemort alone, but for himself too. At King's Cross station he kept wanting to go over to that thing under the bench, and DD did tell him it was beyond help. DH Ch35 p.709 "Are you sure we can't do anything?" "There is no help possible." further down DD states again "Of house-elves and children's tales, of love, loyalty, and innocence, Voldemort knows and understands nothing." So Harry did know his speech was fairly useless, as far as trying to change Riddles heart..but he thought it worth a try, besides, his speech may have enlightened those gathered around who were watching and listening. Doddie, From bgrugin at yahoo.com Sat Aug 25 00:54:44 2007 From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:54:44 -0000 Subject: Seen or Unseen - Time turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176206 > > > > ***Katie: > > > > > > > So, basically, a plot device, but a well-supported one, > > > > seeing as it was very clear that H/H from the future > > > > "cannot be seen!!", according to Dumbledore. > > Mike: > Watch your step here Dale, big plot hole ahead. Because as soon as > Dumbledore said that to Hermione she should have said, 'What are you > talking about, what law? I've been using this thing all year to get > to my classes, of course I've been seen while I was time-turned.' MusicalBetsy here: Maybe in her situation it's okay for others to see the time-turned Hermione AS LONG AS no one sees BOTH Hermiones at the same time. After all, that would make anyone wonder what the heck was going on. This is just a guess, BTW. > But Dale's question begs another. How come Lupin didn't see TTed > Harry and Hermione on the Marauder's Map? He said he was watching > the Trio and even guessed they were under James' cloak. So when TTed > and non-TTed almost ran into each other in the entrance hall, why > doesn't Lupin see two Harry and two Hermione dots?. > > Mike > MusicalBetsy again: Okay, another guess. Maybe the Marauder's Map doesn't pick up time turned people? Possibly? Maybe? Cause it's the only explanation that works?? MusicalBetsy, just trying to fix any plot holes so she can go back to enjoying the books without anything getting in her way... From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Sat Aug 25 01:17:47 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:17:47 -0000 Subject: Social Correlates of Hogwarts Houses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176207 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: [huge snip] > HUFFLEPUFF: [snippage] > They can occasionally produce a surprising, if > slightly shallow, prodigy like Cedric Diggory. [more snippage] Shaunette now: I liked your interpretation/summing-up of each house, Lupinlore (and forgive me, all, if this has been asked already, I'm hopelessly behind in my reading again), but "shallow" Diggory? I don't remember anything shallow about him. Have I forgotten something? -Shaunette, who doesn't assume those with good looks, athleticism and popularity necessarily lack depth :P From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sat Aug 25 01:16:34 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:16:34 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Back to Slytherin House - Choosing Message-ID: <20070825111634.CTD84428@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176208 montims: > People didn't > like my suggestion of using this "righteous anger" > to combat real life > injustice, but I can't understand how people who get > so exercised by the > iniquities of the fictional world, and its possible > parallels with Naziism > or the much more historical (is this correct?) > Antebellum South of America, > and the dastardly use of Unforgivables, will not use > that horror and > indignation and vigour to condemn Real Life > iniquities - torture and > genocide, oppression, capital crimes, slavery (of > people, not fictional > house elves), etc, etc... > Sharon: Why would you assume that? It is the people who express their righteous anger at the horrors in fiction who would be most likely to be the ones to also do so in real life, at least in my experience. Most people have never experienced 'righteous anger' at all in their lives, unless it concerns themselves. Anyone who can understand the horrors in HP and experience indignation on behalf of the characters is already 90% towards doing the same in real life. I teach moral philosophy to first year university students and most of them have no idea what the world is really like, what horrors are being perpetrated in countries far away (and at home). Once they are faced with it, they almost always take it on board, understanding that feeling moral outrage about what is happening in, say, Sudan, gives them cause to act to help alleviate suffering. But that's just my own experience and the context is a university classroom in Australia -- so probably can't generalise too much. Whether reading HP helps people develop the same sense of moral outrage is another question. I still think it would depend on the person's prior experience. From Meliss9900 at aol.com Sat Aug 25 01:36:19 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:36:19 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Children & Rose and Hugo Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176209 In a message dated 8/24/2007 6:18:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time, margdean at erols.com writes: > I"m not sure if this has been posted before (if it has would love the > reference) How do we know that Victorie (sorry if this is wrong, I > don't have my book to reference) is actually Bill and Fleur's child?? > Is this just a general assumption or is there canon to base it off? JKR said so in her post DH interview. She may change her mind on other things but I trust her to have the kids straight. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Aug 25 01:29:39 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:29:39 -0000 Subject: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176210 Carol: > Did you notice that Snape prevented Ginny from going > into Hogsmeade (where she might be kidnapped by DEs > as Luna was on Platform 9 3/4), just as he tried to > prevent Harry from doing so in PoA, and that he closed > all the secret passageways, which kept the students from > sneaking into Hogsmeade but also kept the DEs out? > Reinstating Umbridge's decrees kept the more timid > students from defying the Carrows and getting injured > and at the same time encouraged the DA members to > rebel? Not to mention that Ginny's, Neville's and > Luna's detention gave them a chance to be alone with > Hagrid? Think what Hogwarts would have been like if > Yaxley or Dolohov were in charge. McGonagall and > Flitwick, at least, would have ended up in Azkaban > with DEs in their place. As it was, Snape let the > permanent faculty members subvert the Carrows exactly > as they had done with Umbridge. I realize that it's > all done off-page, but everything I've mentioned here > can besupported by canon. He could not prevent the > Crucios without giving away his true loyalty, just as > he could not rescue Charity Burbage, but he did > encourage resistance and allow both the DA and Hagrid > to remain in hiding. (I think he knew perfectly well > that they were using the RoR.) houyhnhnm: Thank you for your excellent analysis of Headmaster Snape's role at Hogwarts. It is, as you say, all supported by canon. Snape was probably one of the best headmasters under extreme duress that Hogwarts had ever had. It gives a sense of what his style of leadership must have been like as Head of Slytherin House. I imagine he must have been highly respected by the students of his House. They would have looked to him for guidance in trying to make sense of the events in which they were caught up. And Snape had to pretend to be Voldemort's right hand man. This is how I see Snape letting down the Slytherin children who were placed under his care. I have no idea if it is what Betsy meant. Imagine how confusing it must have been for Slytherin students to see the the man they so admired staunchly supporting Voldemort. Some of them might already have been questioning the DEs' agenda. They might have been open to a rejection of the pure-blood ideology. Where was their guidance? It is not surprising to me that no Slytherin student stayed to fight. It's no wonder that Slytherin's banner was not seen in the Room of Requirement. Not only during the final year were they subjected to this confusing deceit. From the time of Voldemort's first downfall, Snape had to cultivate an identity he could take back to Voldemort when Voldemort made his inevitable return. He had to be a yes man to Lucius Malfoy. He had countenance attitudes and practices he didn't really believe in, such as allowing the Slytherin password to be "pureblood". What kind of message did that send to Slytherin students? When he could have used his own experience to help them see how wrong that path was instead? I don't blame Snape. It was Dumbledore with all of his talk of "Love" who chose necromancy, blood rituals, and prophecies over simple human love. Dumbledore with his tragic flaw, his love of power. From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Aug 25 01:58:25 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:58:25 -0400 Subject: Calvinism, was RE: Said creature under the bench.. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176211 When I first started to post on this list, my spell-checker persistently tried to change Slytherin to Lutheran. Given how much Calvinism has come up in recent posts, I wonder if this is entirely coincidence. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ddamian1 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 25 02:00:05 2007 From: ddamian1 at yahoo.com (ddamian1) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:00:05 -0000 Subject: Train Station Dream Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176212 I am having trouble understanding in Bk 7 what the train station was all about. I would appreciate if someone could give me some insight into that. Was it a dream? ddamian1 From ekrdg at verizon.net Sat Aug 25 02:13:12 2007 From: ekrdg at verizon.net (Kimberly) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:13:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending References: Message-ID: <002701c7e6bd$7e616cf0$2d01a8c0@MainComputer> No: HPFGUIDX 176213 Thanks Ceridwin for the questions ! ---------------------------------------------------------- CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 1, The Dark Lord Ascending Questions: 1. Snape and Yaxley "raised their left arms in a kind of salute." Is this a reference to World War II and the likening of the Death Eaters to the Nazis, in Deathly Hallows? I'd have to say that I think so, yes. 3. The peacock at Malfoy Manor is mentioned at least twice in the book. What is its significance? The initial peacock passage refers to them as "pure" white. Had it been just stated as white, I would have paid less notice. The pure reference, to me, was symbolic of the "pure-blood" status and that theme. Also, they are said to be "strutting majetically". Strutting, when I try to visualize strutting, I think of someone holding their head high, giving off an air of pride, etc. The Malfoys would qualify. Lastly, "majestically", synonymous with regal, royal, king. I took them to represent things that the Malfoys and other DE's stood for- 1. pure-bloods being superior 2. being proud, haughty 3. nobility, royal, and again, superior 4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think might be the person hanging unconscious above the table? That scene set an air of "This is going to be one dark book" for me. I seriously, seriously, seriously was convinced it was McGonagall. It was all I could do to keep reading. It actually made me sick in my stomach to read that scene. 6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat of honor at his right hand. Is this because Snape is his "right-hand man"? Or is Voldemort "keeping his friends close, and his enemies closer"? I'm not really sure. The jury's still out for me on how loyal LV thought Snape was. Was LV totally convinced of Snape's loyalty or was he, like us, waiting for the end of book 7 to find out ! (Not likely but funny to think...) 7. Yaxley's information is different from Snape's. Is anyone in the Ministry who is not a member of the Order of the Phoenix aware that the Order will move Harry earlier than expected? I didn't think so ? 10. Lucius and his family are clearly not happy with Voldemort's presence. Is this because Lucius is still disgraced from his botched mission at the Ministry and his use of the diary Horcrux? Does their apparent discomfort at the situation foreshadow their lack of involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts? Voldemort appears to have been unhappy with Malfoy for quite a while. We learn from DD that he was most unhappy with Lucius after what happy to the diary. Then he fouls up at the Ministry in OotP, Draco fails to kill DD in HBP (which I believe Voldemort knew Draco would fail and he was given the task as an assurance of having another strike against his family). The beginning of DH, the Malfoys aren't exactly on Voldemort's good DE list. I saw a realization there, perhaps the Malfoys saw it too. They were disposable in Voldemort's eyes. He did not consider Lucius to be faithful, he was no longer a trusted devoted or even needed servant of the Dark Lord. I think that's where Lucius and Narcissa must have begun to think of preserving and protecting themselves, looking out for their family unit rather than aiding and assisting Voldemort. 11. Wormtail is described as sitting so low that his chair looks unoccupied. Is this further sign of his physical deterioration as seen in HBP? Is this because he would rather not be there? Is it just that he is a small man? Or is it symbolic in some way? A combination.... a small man anyway but also that he is afraid of drawing attention to himself. 12. The Malfoys do not make much eye contact with Voldemort. When Voldemort looks at Snape, other Death Eaters look away. Are all of the Death Eaters at the manor happy with Voldemort's return? I'm sure there are levels of happiness at the Dark Lord's return. Measure Bellatrix up against Pettigrew. Bellatrix is bursting with excitement where as Pettigrew still seems cowardly, afraid, and no where near as bold as a DE should be. I think he made a wrong choice ages ago but at this point is stuck where he is and he knows it. So no, I think there are some that now seeing what LV is prepared to do, might not be happy at his return and are only going along with it out of fear. 14. Why does Voldemort praise Bellatrix, then humiliate her? Because he's one sick, psychotic wizard. 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she pleads and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this the first time he could not save someone? Was Charity Burbage someone Snape could not save? What choice did he have in that scene ? If he'd have attempted to save her then he'd have probably been killed in the process by LV or Bella or another faithful servant. 19. Why are the Purebloods dwindling? For one, they keep killing eachother. Two, there are limited options as for finding someone to mate with. 21. Why does Voldemort think that Lucius does not need his wand anymore? I can see LV thinking that the only purpose of a wand is to further his plans. Lucius is no longer trusted to do the Dark Lord's bidding so why would he need a wand ? 22. Do you think Voldemort is planning on dispensing with the Malfoys eventually? Yes, and the Malfoys think it too. Kimberly From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Aug 25 01:53:12 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:53:12 -0400 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176214 My father was a Junior, but he didn't like his first name so always went by his middle name. That's why I'm not a "III.' Although I could have gone by 'Trip' or 'Trey.' Different cultures have very different naming patterns. I'm told that among the Jews it is considered very bad luck to name a child after a living relative, for example. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Aug 25 02:44:57 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:44:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort/Re: Ending In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46CF97A9.4040202@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176215 Renee wrote: Renee: > What evidence did Voldemort have that Harry was speaking the truth? Oh, maybe it's because it's stated a few dozen times in the books that Morty is, next to Snape, probably the world's greatest leglimens? Bart From Meliss9900 at aol.com Sat Aug 25 02:40:13 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:40:13 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: When did the "trace" come about? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176216 In a message dated 8/24/2007 12:10:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time, zanooda2 at yahoo.com writes: But, if only underage wizards have the Trace on them, how come the Ministry didn't know that it couldn't be Morfin who killed the Riddles? I'm sure Morfin was older than seventeen. They should have known it was someone underage who committed the murders, not Morfin, right? Ah well, if JKR was ever asked about it, she'd probably say that the Trace was not yet invented when LV was underage ... :-). ****************** Because it could have been Morfin. All the Trace shows is that *someone* did magic around an underage wizard. It doesn't reveal the perpetrator's identity to the Ministry. So when Riddle killed his father and grandparents the Trace would have been activated but because there was a known muggle hater in the area the Ministry did not look any further than Morfin. Just as when Dobby did magic in the Durlseys' home the Trace was activated and because Harry is the only wizard in the Little Whingeing area the Ministry didn't look any further into the violation. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From delrosal_2004 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 25 02:57:41 2007 From: delrosal_2004 at yahoo.com (delrosal_2004) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:57:41 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo - Explanation of Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176217 Here is my take: Rose is actually named after her mother!! "Hermione" is a type of English Rose. Hugo was named as an allusion to the 13th Century Scottish noble, Sir Hugo de Gifford, who was known as the 'Wizard of Yester'. He was considered to be a powerful warlock and necromancer who built Yester Castle (aka Ha'Goblins Hall) through magic. JK Rowling often named characters based on name play or as allusions to mythological figures. Professor Lupin was obviously a play on the word lupine for his being wolf-like or a werewolf. Then there was Sybill Trelawney, Professor of Divination, whose first name alludes to the Sybil/Sybilline Prophecies. -Lily From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 25 03:47:09 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:47:09 -0000 Subject: Alchemy, the Epilogue and Slytherin (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176218 > Magpie: > Yeah, and the house has been a generic bully house of people > jeering at Harry throughout canon. Mike: Right, JKR needed a generic 'house of bad guys' and she made Slytherin fill that role. And for this story, I have no problem with that. I'll expound below. > Magpie: > It's not like people in other houses don't have problems, > but I don't see the story as being about showing the danger > of all the basic house qualities. Gryffindor recklessness is > certainly shown as dangerous, but it doesn't seem bad the way > Slytherin is. Mike: Well of course that's not what the story was about, I don't know anybody who thought it was. But in the next breath you say the story does show a Gryffindor trait as dangerous, just not as bad as the Slytherin trait of (unadulterated ambition?). So we are talking about a matter of degrees here. Let's compare which dangerous trait caused the most damage between Harry and Draco. Draco's ambition to become a DE is realized and he introduces other DEs into Hogwarts. It results in one dead on his side, (by friendly fire) and one mauled member of the opposition who subsequently makes a full recovery. Oh, by the way, Draco was directed by his top guy towards all of his actions. But we'll say the ultimate cause was Draco's ambition, for the sake of argument. Harry recklessly goes charging off to the MoM on his saving people bravery bent. It results in one dead on his side (by hostile fire), several badly injured on his side requiring extensive hospitalization but all making full recoveries, and one permanently baby-headed member of the opposition. So, according to canon, which houses trait was more damaging? > > Debbie: > > It was Harry's job to purge the cancer that prevented Slytherin > > from achieving unity with the other houses. > > Magpie: > We know that Harry's job wasn't to unite the houses. The idea that > it was his job to purge a cancer that prevented Slytherin from > acheiving unity is a theory that seems entirely based on symbolism Mike: Yes, I believe that was the basis for Debbie's post. She was using the Alchemical symbolism. > Magpie: > (cont) --for it to be literal I think we'd need to see actual > Slytherins changing their minds about blood prejudice that > they had before (). Mike: I don't see why. We're talking about purging the cancer that was Tom Riddle, at least that's the way I read what Debbie was saying. It was Tom Riddle that continued "Salazar Slytherin's noble work" of purging the school of Mudbloods. It was Tom Riddle that fomented all the latent pure-blood fanaticism. As Steve has pointed out in numerous posts, pride in pure-bloodism doesn't have to be vindictive. It is possible to be wary of Muggleborns and to be concerned for too much change without wanting to see all the Mudbloods put to death. But Tom Riddle's brand of pure- blood mania was a cancer. Not to mention highly hypocritical since he was a half-blood himself. Doesn't that just scream mania for the sake of directing mayhem, without Riddle believing a word of it himself? > Magpie: > > > Was Voldemort the root of the problem so his destruction will heal > the rift? I don't feel confident to say that's true. I really don't > see Voldemort specifically set up that way. Mike: This is where I disagree with the way you have read the Slytherin problem. Because I see Voldemort as the entire reason why Slytherin is treated the way it is throughout the whole series. Tom Riddle starts out as this charmer. Dumbledore said "he had the sense never to try to charm me as he charmed so many of my colleagues." (HBP p.361) He also explained how he collected a gang of "friends" that had a sort of "dark glamour" (p.361-2). In the Sluggish Memory we saw how even the older boys had looked up to him. And these were the forerunners of the Death Eaters, indeed some became the first DEs. That was Riddles first generation of Slytherins he corrupted, his own generation. By the time Riddle returns to Britain to make "Lord Voldemort's Request" he has four DEs in tow. And none of these were the same kids mentioned in the Sluggy memory. He's building his followers. According to Sirius, "they thought Voldemort had the right idea,... there were quite a few people, before Voldemort showed his true colors, who thought he had the right ideas about things..." (OotP p.112) We're talking about Riddle's generation and the following generation. Riddle is still in the charmer mode, trying to appeal to the masses while hiding his true intentions. Dumbledore (and Harry when he saw Riddle in action as a youngster) saw how good Riddle was at playing this part. And he's targeted Slyhterins, still. All his recruits seem to be his housemates and their children, with a few newcomers from like-minded backgrounds. By the time the Sev/James/Lily generation are in school, the Slytherins with aspirations towards becoming DEs don't seem to be hiding their intentions. Lily chides Sev with, "You and your precious little Death Eater friends -- you see, you don't even deny it! You don't even deny that's what you're all aiming to be! You can't wait to join You-Know-Who, can you?" (DH p.675-6) But the Slytherins don't have to deny it, because Voldemort hasn't completely exposed himself to the WW at large, yet. [Warning: Speculation coming] I pictured Riddle starting his reign of terror off small. Mostly by eliminating any possible rivals and recruiting their followers over to him. That's the way Al Capone did it, and that's why there wasn't this hue and cry in the beginning to stop him. After all, he was just killing other bad guys. That's what I pictured Tom doing. Killing small time Dark Wizards with the Ministry looking the other way, secretly grateful that LV has eliminated another troublemaker. He might even have come across as this vigilante that was officially condemned, but unofficially applauded. By the time Harry and Draco's generation hit the school, Riddle has been exposed to the WW for what he is. But he has previously built up this cadre of DEs and like-minded followers that remembered that they were winning before GH. Lupin and Sirius told us so in OotP. That is part of what the DEs tell their children, Draco's generation. The despoilment continues. And what do these DE kids have to compare their leader to? An obviously corrupt Ministry, run by power-mongers like Crouch or inept bumblers like Fudge that harbor their own latent elitisms. Slytherins were seduced by Tom Riddle, three generations of them. That's canon. Horace Slughorn not only fell victim to Riddle's charms, he showed Riddle how to influence from behind the scenes (the Slug Club). That's canon. The overt opposition to Riddle and the DEs was just as cruel as the DEs. That's canon. Dumbledore's opposition was mostly underground and secretive, the Slytherins didn't see it, didn't hear Dumbledore's message, hell, weren't even told that Riddle was a half-blood. That's canon. Why wouldn't they think it was their turn to be on top? Where was the cogent opposition to set the Slytherins right? This is the way I read the series and why Slytherin was the *bad guy house*. I was told that Voldemort was the ultimate bad guy and that most of his followers came from Slytherin. Then I was told how he has "always been able to charm the people [he] needed." (CoS p.310) And he set out to charm the Slytherins, and it worked. And from the end of OotP on it became Harry's job to eliminate Voldemort, to cut out the cancer of Slytherin. "...And either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives..." > Magpie: > So Harry might say Snape was brave, but we should fill in ourselves > that he's saying he's great because he was also other things > Slytherin even though he doesn't say it. "Do not think I underestimate the constant danger in which you place yourself, Severus. To give Voldemort what appears to be valuable information while withholding the essentials is a job I would entrust to nobody but you." (DH p.684, pensieve memory) Does this not speak of Snape's cunning, his ability to fool Voldemort? Are you so sure this message was lost on Harry? Harry had known since OotP that Snape was spying on Voldemort, he just wasn't convinced which side Snape was on, which side was getting the bogus information. Harry wasn't going to admire Snape's cunning if it was being done on Voldemort's behalf, that's only natural. After this memory, I have no doubt that Harry has a new found appreciation for Snape's Slytherin quality, because now he knows it was being used for his side. > Magpie: > But regardless, yes, I see that Harry has dealt with Snape. I'm > still not seeing any big meaning for Slytherin/Gryffindor healing > here. Mike: We aren't suppose to be seeing Gryffindor/Slytherin healing here. We are suppose to see healing between a Gryffindor and a Slytherin. And we are suppose to see that as a start. At least that's the way I see it. > Magpie: > Slytherin is not a threat with Voldemort dead. I imagine > they've gone through plenty of calm periods throughout history. Mike: So Voldemort was the cancer? Conversely, couldn't I also say that without Voldemort, Slytherin is no longer the *bad guy house*? I agree, I imagine that there were periods of turmoil and calm since the time of Hogwarts founding. Salazar Slytherin started out as friends with Godric Gryffindor. Canon doesn't really explain what caused the rift and eventual departure of Slytherin. My guess; Slyhterin became demented from practicing too much Dark Magic (the kind defined by Red Hen). That's when he put the Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets. From that time onward, various Slytherin decendents caused varying amounts of mayhem in the WW. No canon, well, I have one example. The story we just read. Mike From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Aug 25 04:00:12 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 04:00:12 -0000 Subject: FILK: Stand By Your Clan Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176219 Stand By Your Clan To the tune of Stand By Your Man by Tammy Wynette http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew Dedicated to Andy Poe THE SCENE: NARCISSA MALFOY explains her DH behaviors NARCISSA: Sometimes it's hard to be a mother When you have a lovely son like mine. But the Dark Lord became our landlord, Draco's life he tried to undermine. Because I love him, had to save him - Even went to Spinners End to whine. Vold weren't forgiving, now he ain't living, But I have preserved our male line. Stand by your clan, to stop Vold's military, I offered aid to Harry to save my one and only. Voldy can scram, who cares what became of him, But Scorpius must have his Gran! I'm no Sheehan! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 25 04:36:03 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 04:36:03 -0000 Subject: When did the "trace" come about? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176220 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Meliss9900 at ... wrote: > Because it could have been Morfin. All the Trace shows is that > *someone* did magic around an underage wizard. It doesn't reveal > the perpetrator's identity to the Ministry. I thought *around* really means around, close by :-). At least in the same house! Gaunt house and Riddle house were on two different sides of town. You are right that the Trace doesn't reveal the identitiy of a person, but shouldn't it show that the person is underage? In Riddles case, the Trace should have shown that either some teenager killed them, or that some teenager was present (around) when Morfin did it. Or maybe I still understand it all wrong ... :-). zanooda From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 25 05:09:57 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:09:57 -0000 Subject: Voldemort/Re: Ending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176221 > Renee: > Lizzyben, thank you so much for providing that quote - I'd forgotten > all about it, and it explains a great deal, helping me to pinpoint > what is my main problem with the HP series. > > At first, JKR's explanation looked like complete gibberish to me. So > Voldemort is written as a psychopath, as having a RL condition that > makes a person incapable of remorse and of making choices based on > love and empathy (I'm not saying psychopaths can't be helped, as it > seems to be possible to condition them into making the right decisions > if you start early enough, but according to canon this never happened > to Voldemort.) So in a way, he's not culpable. Yet the infusion with a > drop of love-saturated blood apparently renders him capable of making > a - courageous - choice. So in a different way, he *is* culpable. lizzyben: And this gets into a whole other level of weirdness - so Harry's very *blood* is moral?? Harry's blood is what allows him to make moral choices or courageous choices? "Goodness" isn't something you achieve over time, or learn from experience or good examples, it's something that courses through your veins from birth - something you are either born with or born without. And this has a parallel w/the Gaunts - whom she implies have "bad" blood because of their focus on maintaining Slytherin lineage. So, in a sense, Harry is the ultimate "pure blood" - because his blood is pure & moral. And the Slytherins have "bad blood", and "bad blood" will out eventually. (OMG, doesn't Aunt Marge say that about her dogs??). It's creepy creepy! Renee: > Attempting to wrap my mind about this, I see a peculiar mixture of > realism and symbolism, in that the literal level of storytelling seems > to say one thing, and the symbolic level seems to say something > diametrically opposed. The result, for me, is a kind of cognitive > dissonance. The HP books aim for realism (also as per JKR herself), > yet at one of the most crucial points of the whole series it takes an > injection with pure symbolism to make the story work. Many people on > this list don't seem to have a problem with this, but I do. lizzyben: Yeah, that's exactly it & that's probably the source of my cognitive dissonance as well. JKR switches between symbolic & realistic so fast that it gives you whiplash - are the Slytherins symbols of moral failings, or are they actual children who have toys & dolls & parents who love them? And she sometimes throws symbols together in ways that clash & create confusion. (Harry as Christ, Harry as Avenger.) Renee: > In RL and in realistic stories, psychopaths can't be helped with a > transfusion of morally sound blood, as there is no such thing as > morally sound blood. But in a symbolical tale, a psychopath who > apparently was already beyond help at age eleven is not the most lucky > of characters to represent a *choice* between good and evil, between > redemption and perdition. This only creates confusion. lizzyben: The way she says "that was his choice" was a little chilling to me - he never had a choice, really, as most people acknowledge. And yet in the same breath she says "and, of course, he wouldn't (repent)" - if it's a given that LV wouldn't repent, how is it a choice? You get into this weird circular reasoning - LV had a choice, but that choice was already predestined. And she also says that she wanted to write about cruelty & inhumanity because "it's about choice". "And you are shown that Voldemort." So, the psychopath who can't choose goodness is her example of the ability to choose goodness over cruelty? Talk about confusing! Renee: And the fact > that a mental illness is discussed in moral terms doesn't help either. > To me, terms like psychopathy and redemption are phenomena of a > different order and should not be lumped together the way JKR does in > the interview. lizzyben: Yes, that is definitely another concern. JKR doesn't seem to make any allowances for mental illness at all through the novels; instead she seems to actually characterize it as a personal moral failing. I'm thinking here of Merope & Snape as well - both very damaged people that JKR condemns as immoral & unworthy. Of course, if you take the predestination to its ultimate end, it *is* their fault that they are damaged by their environment - because a superior person would have gotten over it. Renee: > The confusion created by JKR's comments is often deplorable. Not for > the first time, I wish she'd keep her mouth shut whenever an > interviewer steers her towards interpreting her own story for us. The > books never call Voldemort a psychopath Yet in his case, her use of > the term in an interview wasn't really needed to illustrate the > problem. A boy who is genetically and environmentally doomed to become > mentally ill but made morally accountable through a purely symbolical > act - to me, that's a narrative monster. lizzyben: It makes no sense to me at all. It seems like a dodge so that JKR doesn't have to feel bad about predestining LV to damnation. The weirdest thing, to me, is that she seems to think that the ending *shows* that LV could repent because of Harry's super-moral blood. Uh, did *anyone* here get that impression from the finale? In the debate on this issue, I haven't seen one person say that LV could feel remorse because he had Harry's blood, but JKR seems to think that message was obvious in the last chapter. It's stuff like this that makes me think sometimes that the book she wrote is totally different from the book fans read. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 25 06:06:23 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:06:23 -0000 Subject: Train Station Dream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176222 --- "ddamian1" wrote: > > I am having trouble understanding in Bk 7 what the > train station was all about. I would appreciate if > someone could give me some insight into that. Was > it a dream? > > ddamian1 > bboyminn: Probably the closest real-life illustration would be a Near Death Experience. Harry was hanging in the twilight between life and death. In these instances it is not uncommon to meet a family member or other loved one. These 'persons' act as a guide to lead you on into death, or to send you back into life. So, to some extent, it was a dream, it was happening inside Harry's head, but, just as in Near Death Experience, that doesn't mean it wasn't real. While not physically real, it was very much spiritually real. Or at least, that's how I see it. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 25 06:20:58 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:20:58 -0000 Subject: When did the "trace" come about? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176223 --- "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- Meliss9900@ wrote: > > > > Because it could have been Morfin. All the Trace > > shows is that *someone* did magic around an > > underage wizard. It doesn't reveal the perpetrator's > > identity to the Ministry. > > zanooda: > > I thought *around* really means around, close by :-). > At least in the same house! Gaunt house and Riddle > house were on two different sides of town. ... > shouldn't it show that the person is underage? In > Riddles case, the Trace should have shown that either > some teenager killed them, or that some teenager was > present (around) when Morfin did it. ... > > zanooda > bboyminn: We have seen from other examples of encounters with wizard's law that the Ministry is not the most consistent or thorough system around. They may have indeed detected Underage Magic, but when they came to investigate a known muggle hater in the area, he confessed...case closed. The fact that some underage wizard might have been in the vicinity seems minor when you have the person who actually committed the crimes and further have his complete confession. The Ministry, being the politicians that they are, would want the case solved and want the embarrassing incident over and done with, and out of the public mind. So, once they can a confession, the would have not proceeded further in the case. Look at the case of Hagrid's conviction. That story has more holes that Swiss Cheese. Yet, Hagrid's conviction satisfied the Ministry and School needs. It eliminated a lot of embarrassing question that neither the Ministry or the School would want to answer. The rule of law seems to be, get someone in jail and sweep the details under the rug. I'm not at all surprise that this little detail was overlooked. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 25 06:54:15 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:54:15 -0000 Subject: Regarding Voldemort being a psychopath In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176224 --- "doddiemoemoe" wrote: > > > First off I'll start by saying that being proclaimed > a psychopath is not a diagnosis or representative a > specific mental disorder. So while JKR proclaimed > Voldemort to be a psychopath, she isn't saying > anything other than Voldemort had serious > psychological issues ... > bboyminn: Maybe Sociopath is a better description. Certainly, Voldemort was a megalomaniac; that's why every plan he conceived failed. Because Voldemort couldn't conceive that any plan create by a magnificent genius like him, could possibly be flawed. He was so thoroughly convinced of his own perfection and superiority that no plan he conceived ever need to be analyzed or discussed. It was by its very nature perfect, and if it was screwed up, it was because his inadequate inept henchmen screwed it up. It's never the plan; always the execution. Certainly, given his penchant for killing his own men, no one was going to argue with him. Even when the plan could be seen as flawed, you are safer with a flawed plan than arguing with a deranged megalomaniac. > Doddie, > > > In the final showdown between Harry and Voldemort I > don't think that Harry was wasting his time to give > Voldemort another chance. ... I think Harry was wise > to hedge his bets by talking to Riddle, he's seen this > is how Riddle likes to operate and how statements > Riddle cannot understand unhinge him in a special way. > bboyminn: Oh absolutely. Harry was slinging BULL like there was no tomorrow, and I think he was doing it on purpose because he knew that as long as Voldemort felt like he was in control of himself and the situation, he would not let his guard down. Voldemort is using Occlumency against Harry, but when Voldie gets excited or emotional, lets his guard drop and that is when Harry is able to see into his mind. If Harry, has any hope of knowing when the curse is coming, he needs to rattle Voldemort. So, Harry starts tellings stories that even we the enlightened readers aren't quite sure how much truth is contained therein. Maybe Harry is the Master of the Elder Wand, and maybe he is not. Maybe a lot of things. The point is there is enough truth in his story which in turn instills enough doubt that Voldemort starts to lose his cool. As Harry continues talking we see that his sense of Voldemort's intent grows stronger, so that when Voldemort actually throws his curse, Harry is ready. Wisely played if you ask me. > Doddie, > > Of course Harry will try to give Riddle another > chance and a chance for remorse even as ridiculous > as it sounds. ... > bboyminn: I think this is important. I think Harry giving Voldemort one last chance to repent and feel remorse shows a lot about Harry's character. Certianly there was an element of 'rattling Voldemort's cage', but I think the offer was real. He wanted Voldemort to take a look at his life and see that he was wrong before he died. He want to give him one last very small very unlikely chance at redemption. > Doddie, > ... > > So Harry did know his speech was fairly useless, as > far as trying to change Riddles heart..but he thought > it worth a try, besides, his speech may have > enlightened those gathered around who were watching > and listening. > > Doddie, > bboyminn: I think this is typical good guy behavior. You always give the bad guy a chance to surrender before you blow him away, just on the off chance that he might get smart at take the offer. I don't think Harry expected Voldemort to change, but still he wanted the offer on the table. He wanted to offer Voldemort a way out. I think it was important for Harry to enlighten those around him. Because with each revelation, Voldemort's mystic dropped a notch. With each revelation, the people became less afraid, and Voldemort became more afraid. I think as it progresses, Voldemort goes from feeling in control to feeling surrounded, and the crowd goes from feeling defeated to feeling in control. It's a subtle shift in power. Like I said...well play Harry. Steve/bboyminn From Meliss9900 at aol.com Sat Aug 25 08:10:10 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 04:10:10 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: When did the "trace" come about? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176225 In a message dated 8/24/2007 11:36:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time, zanooda2 at yahoo.com writes: I thought *around* really means around, close by :-). At least in the same house! Gaunt house and Riddle house were on two different sides of town. You are right that the Trace doesn't reveal the identitiy of a person, but shouldn't it show that the person is underage? In Riddles case, the Trace should have shown that either some teenager killed them, or that some teenager was present (around) when Morfin did it. Or maybe I still understand it all wrong ... :-). ****************** I'm not sure that the houses were in different parts of the village however the Ministry might have figured that a teenager wouldn't have been able to manage an AK. Fake!Moody in GOF tells the class that they could all point their wands at him and say the words he doubts he'd get so much as a nosebleed. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvink7 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 25 10:26:19 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:26:19 -0000 Subject: Voldemort/Re: Ending In-Reply-To: <46CF97A9.4040202@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176226 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Renee wrote: > Renee: > > What evidence did Voldemort have that Harry was speaking the truth? > > Oh, maybe it's because it's stated a few dozen times in the books that > Morty is, next to Snape, probably the world's greatest leglimens? > > Bart > Renee: Okay, I'll grant you that one (though it wasn't my main point). From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sat Aug 25 13:40:05 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:40:05 -0000 Subject: Regarding Voldemort being a psychopath In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176227 "doddie wrote: > > > > > > First off I'll start by saying that being proclaimed > > a psychopath is not a diagnosis or representative a > > specific mental disorder. So while JKR proclaimed > > Voldemort to be a psychopath, she isn't saying > > anything other than Voldemort had serious > > psychological issues ... > > > > bboyminn responed: > > Maybe Sociopath is a better description. Certainly, > Voldemort was a megalomaniac; that's why every plan > he conceived failed. Because Voldemort couldn't > conceive that any plan create by a magnificent > genius like him, could possibly be flawed. He was > so thoroughly convinced of his own perfection and > superiority that no plan he conceived ever need > to be analyzed or discussed. It was by its very nature > perfect, and if it was screwed up, it was because his > inadequate inept henchmen screwed it up. It's never > the plan; always the execution. *big huge snip* Doddie again: Actually Sociopath, and megolomaniac are yet other descriptive terms that describes certain traits--lack of empathy, inability to form interpersonal relationships etc. but neither are mental disorders. Sociopath and Psycopath are actually interchangable terms and megolomania is not the same as having a narcistic personality disorder. I am happy that you, much like JKR are not arbitrarily handing out diagnoses. It's an understanding that some behaviors are a result of certain charateristics. Not that I disagree with your reasoning I think it's pretty spot on. I just wanted to get out from under any theory that applied JKR's depiction of Voldemort being a psyhopath enable folks to make excuses for him because he had a mental disorder. As for the final battle, I'm not quite sure if Voldemort is applying occlumency at this point as you stated, not that it would do much good as there is no more HorcruxHarry. I'm not sure why he would do it unless... Wow..do you think that by the final battle Voldemort still thinks Harry is still in his mind? Now this makes a great deal of sense, I can see how Voldemort mistakes Leguilmency for empathy at this point..to mistake magic for character development. Now I have to re-examine Snape all over again- -awww thought I was done with that! LOL I laugh but it's true. I'm no Snape fan and still haven't come round to Harry's point of view..but if Snape confused empathy with legumency then it may explain a great deal of his character development--even him being mean/cruel to many of his students. No wonder the occlumency lessons with Harry were an unmitigated disaster it was quite clear that Harry was an individual with a great deal of empathy, if not during the time of the lesson(especially after the Snape's worse memory scene) it was perfectly clear after his friendship with Luna. To cut off Harry's empathy would be akin to severing a limb.(makes me want to play knock-knock on DD's head and ask if anyone's home in OOP--which I'm sure Harry felt like doing in same book.) So I suppose my question to you is do you think one of Vodlemort's final thoughts were that Harry was a legumeins--"reading" his mind and sewing doubts, OR was Voldemort unhinged because Harry felt pity for him? And I'm glad that you too think it's important that Harry enlightens those around him which I thought he did, well beyond the realm of the trio and well beyond the final battle--a true hero. However, the final battle was more important because in addtion to Harry supporter's being present there were DE's there too and all listened to Harry to basically say "Stay back, he's mine." and ALL obeyed even the Centaurs and House Elves.(just like Voldie had done in the past only with DE's.) Doddie, (who was really looking forward to taking 19 years to forgive Snape..proof positive that *I* wasn't sure if I loathed him or was really enjoying loathing him...perhaps some of both.) From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sat Aug 25 13:55:52 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:55:52 -0000 Subject: The Children & Rose and Hugo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176228 "spacedoutspacecadet" wrote: > > Hey Guys, *snip* > With Hermione and Ron's children I can see Hermione and Ron arguing > over names, and quite simply little Rose may have gotten her name > because JK likes to name people after flowers. Or Ron or Hermione > could have made the comment that she looked like a rose when born. As > for Hugo... I'll have to think more on that one! *minor snippage* When I saw Hermione and Ron's children's names I simply thought these were the names of Hermione's parents... In some dark recess of my mind I always wondered what sort of names those who named Hermione had... I just thought, "Well, now I know.". I know JKR spoke that she had envisioned Hermione having a muggle sister..was there ever a mention of a name? If not I'm sure it would have been Rose....JKR probably omited her after she realized she couldn't possibly make the books any longer than what they already were. And if Hermione's father was named Hugo and her mother named Rose, it makes it so fitting...especially after the charm she placed upon them...and their exile in Austrailia. Doddie From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 25 15:18:49 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:18:49 -0000 Subject: Said creature under the bench.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176229 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" wrote: > > > Annemehr: > > Then you have to be saying either of two things: LV was not a > psychopath, or LV *chose* to be a psychopath. Ken: I don't believe I have ever said that Riddle is a psychopath. It is only a word to me and a word that I do not understand to any depth. If I ever do use it, I use it only as a synonym for evil because I do not know what a phsycologist means by it. I think it evident that I do believe that Riddle is what he is because of his choices. He is obviously capable of rational thought and that implies to me that he can choose to repent of his evil although it would cost him great pain to do so. It is equally clear to me that the author agrees in general terms with my opinion since Harry's offer to Riddle at the end and the vision of that creature under the bench have no meaning and no purpose otherwise. Repentance was still open to Riddle right up to the end. Geoff mentioned one of Jesus' parables that I agree seems to reflect what the author was thinking in this section of the book. I can think of another. It is the parable of the man who hires workers to harvest his crop at the local market. He goes to the market several times during the day and sends anyone who is willing to work to his field. Finally, an hour before sunset he sends the stragglers to his field. When the day is done he gathers all the workers together and pays them all the same wage. This angers the ones who went out at dawn and worked all day but the owner of the field tells them that they have no complaint since they received the wage they were promised. Certainly Jesus was not trying to tell us how best to motivate workers in this life. The point of the parable is that repentance is effective no matter how late in life you come to it. The New Testament is not part of Harry Potter canon of course. Yet the author would seem to be familiar with it and seems to be borrowing ideas from it. > > Annemehr > > P.S. Understand that I am not disputing JKR's right to write this, or > anyone else's to see value in it, I'm only explaining the depth of my > own distaste and disappointment. > Ken: There is only so much we here can do to help you with that. Ultimately it is the author's responsibility to sell you on what she is saying and since she has failed you all we can do is suggest that you look at the series again from what would seem to be her point of view. I have never read Riddle as being trapped by fate. I have always read him as being trapped by his choices. Over time those choices have made it all but impossible for him to turn back from them. Almost impossible but not absolutely impossible. The series has talked all along about the importance of choices and to have the villain be a helpless robot, programmed by fate, really tears the heart out of it. The vision of the creature and Harry's understanding that its purpose was to tell him to offer Riddle one last chance argues that the author intended the reader to see Riddle as someone who in spite of all still could choose to repent. The whole story has a lot of similarity to the Luke Skywalker story in the Star Wars series. Some see Riddle as Darth Vader and therefore the ending is one in which Vader does not repent. I'd argue that Riddle is more like the Emperor, Bellatrix more like Vader. Neither repents at the end in this version but the idea that even the Emperor could have done is one that is not "discussed" in the films. It is a shame that the author failed to sell you on this concept because it makes for a far more interesting conclusion, in my opinion. It offers hope and a warning to those who may consider themselves too far gone. Ken From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 25 15:53:30 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:53:30 -0000 Subject: Alchemy, the Epilogue and Slytherin (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176230 > > Magpie: > > Yeah, and the house has been a generic bully house of people > > jeering at Harry throughout canon. > > Mike: > Right, JKR needed a generic 'house of bad guys' and she made > Slytherin fill that role. And for this story, I have no problem with > that. I'll expound below. Magpie: I'm not saying I have a problem with it either--I mean, I would have preferred something else, but I'm just taking it as a given here and saying that's why I don't see a lot of symbolism at the end that's indicating a coming together. And why I think interpretations that blur everything more from the beginning just don't ring true. > > Magpie: > > It's not like people in other houses don't have problems, > > but I don't see the story as being about showing the danger > > of all the basic house qualities. Gryffindor recklessness is > > certainly shown as dangerous, but it doesn't seem bad the way > > Slytherin is. > > Mike: > Well of course that's not what the story was about, I don't know > anybody who thought it was. But in the next breath you say the story > does show a Gryffindor trait as dangerous, just not as bad as the > Slytherin trait of (unadulterated ambition?). So we are talking about > a matter of degrees here. Magpie: I was referring to the theory I thought was presented here, which seemed to me to be putting Slytherin problems on the same level as Gryffindor ones, with the book exploring each ones strengths and weaknesses, and I just don't think they are shown that way. This was all part of what read to me an interpretation that was leading towards a symbolic coming together in the epilogue. I have no problem saying that Gryffindors are shown to have problems too, I disagree with the idea that the story is about showing the different problems that come from each house. Gryffindor faults have a totally different weight than Slytherin faults, and do not add up to them both being the same, but different, imo. Mike: > Let's compare which dangerous trait caused the most damage between > Harry and Draco. Draco's ambition to become a DE is realized and he > introduces other DEs into Hogwarts. It results in one dead on his > side, (by friendly fire) and one mauled member of the opposition who > subsequently makes a full recovery. Oh, by the way, Draco was > directed by his top guy towards all of his actions. But we'll say the > ultimate cause was Draco's ambition, for the sake of argument. > > Harry recklessly goes charging off to the MoM on his saving people > bravery bent. It results in one dead on his side (by hostile fire), > several badly injured on his side requiring extensive hospitalization > but all making full recoveries, and one permanently baby-headed > member of the opposition. > > So, according to canon, which houses trait was more damaging? Magpie: Slytherin's. Harry's intentions were good--the book even barely blames him for what happened to Sirius, because it was LV and Bellatrix's fault (she dies the same way he did). (Harry himself blames Snape and then presumably stops doing that, but without any change scene in canon.) Sirius' running off, too, is done with the best of intentions. Draco's joining the DEs is bad in itself. Sirius was a flwaed hero who is rightly mourned. Crabbe got himself killed. Crabbe "deserved" to die, Sirius was murdered. Draco brought many of his own troubles on himself. Harry was targetted by bad guys and triumphed due to his Gryffindor qualities. (Draco's use of Slytherinish ways of protecting himself in the final battle earns him a punch.) Gryff recklessness might put you in physical danger (in itself something admired in the WW--witness the TWT), but Slytehrins put their souls in danger, which is far worse. > > Magpie: > > We know that Harry's job wasn't to unite the houses. The idea that > > it was his job to purge a cancer that prevented Slytherin from > > acheiving unity is a theory that seems entirely based on symbolism > > > Mike: > Yes, I believe that was the basis for Debbie's post. She was using > the Alchemical symbolism. Magpie: I know, but my point is that symbolism is only resonant, imo, when it's reflected in the story. > > Magpie: > > (cont) --for it to be literal I think we'd need to see actual > > Slytherins changing their minds about blood prejudice that > > they had before (). > > Mike: > I don't see why. We're talking about purging the cancer that was Tom > Riddle, at least that's the way I read what Debbie was saying. It was > Tom Riddle that continued "Salazar Slytherin's noble work" of purging > the school of Mudbloods. It was Tom Riddle that fomented all the > latent pure-blood fanaticism. Magpie: Because, as I said, it needs to be somehow established in the story, imo. If the fanaticism is latent, it's part of Slytherin. Debbie talked of Slytherin being "purified" by Tom Riddle's killing, but I thought Jen's view was more in step with the story when she asked if this wasn't a reenactment of Slytherin's leaving the school, since now we have the Heir of Slytherin being ritualistically killed by a Gryffindor. I don't see a "different" Slytherin throwing off their original founder and forging a new way. In fact, far from it being Purified by LV's death, it felt to me like DH *was* Slytherin in its purest form. The fact that Slytherin was known for his own Pure-blood supremist beliefs reinforces that. This was Slytherin out of control, unchecked. Mike: > > As Steve has pointed out in numerous posts, pride in pure-bloodism > doesn't have to be vindictive. It is possible to be wary of > Muggleborns and to be concerned for too much change without wanting > to see all the Mudbloods put to death. But Tom Riddle's brand of pure- > blood mania was a cancer. Not to mention highly hypocritical since he > was a half-blood himself. Doesn't that just scream mania for the sake > of directing mayhem, without Riddle believing a word of it himself? Magpie: Steve's view is never presented in canon, though, that I can see. Quite the opposite. The Weasleys *don't* have Pure-blood pride. At all. I can't think of a single place it's shown as being just a healthy thing. This slightly different view of Steve's is perfectly reasonable (and put forth in fanfic often), I just don't see it being put forth in canon. I don't think canon shows us a distinction between the good Pure-blood pride and Tom Riddle's mania. Sometimes the pride might be less threatening, but not good that I can remember. Whether Tom Riddle believes it or not doesn't really matter--I would say that he does believe it, yes. Almost every character in canon who's said anything bigoted about Pure-blood supremacy has been said to "not really believe it" underneath (it's always those other characters who really believe this stuff). I think they do believe themselves superior (or at least want to, if we get into the anxiety that might be lurking in their unconscious). > > Magpie: > > > > > > Was Voldemort the root of the problem so his destruction will heal > > the rift? I don't feel confident to say that's true. I really don't > > see Voldemort specifically set up that way. > > Mike: > This is where I disagree with the way you have read the Slytherin > problem. Because I see Voldemort as the entire reason why Slytherin > is treated the way it is throughout the whole series. But Tom Riddle is the *heir* of Slytherin, who wanted to purge the school of Mudbloods. That's why there's a snake *waiting* for him when he gets to school. We have no better Slytherin presented to us that's just been perverted--that's an ending many of us expected to get, so that we could see the "real" Slytherin. It didn't happen. Everything we hear about Slytherin sounds Voldemort-friendly. Sure Voldemort is the reason tensions are as high as they are during canon, but he just seems to add violence and extremism to stuff that's there. The founding story is that there was dischord, and then when Slytherin left the other three could live in peace. Slytherin has been set apart since then, not since Tom Riddle arrived. Harry's never surprised to discover signs of a very different Slytherin in the past. Slytherin was the bad guy from the beginning. If they were going to create a new Slytherin they'd have to do it themselves from scratch, which is not in the story. >> > Magpie: > > So Harry might say Snape was brave, but we should fill in ourselves > > that he's saying he's great because he was also other things > > Slytherin even though he doesn't say it. > > "Do not think I underestimate the constant danger in which you place > yourself, Severus. To give Voldemort what appears to be valuable > information while withholding the essentials is a job I would entrust > to nobody but you." (DH p.684, pensieve memory) > > Does this not speak of Snape's cunning, his ability to fool > Voldemort? Are you so sure this message was lost on Harry? Magpie; We were talking about a line in the epilogue. Harry tells AS a guy he knew who was one of the bravest he ever met was in Slytherin. > > > Magpie: > > But regardless, yes, I see that Harry has dealt with Snape. I'm > > still not seeing any big meaning for Slytherin/Gryffindor healing > > here. > > Mike: > We aren't suppose to be seeing Gryffindor/Slytherin healing here. We > are suppose to see healing between a Gryffindor and a Slytherin. And > we are suppose to see that as a start. At least that's the way I see > it. Magpie: I see Harry's own personal issues resolved. > > > > Magpie: > > Slytherin is not a threat with Voldemort dead. I imagine > > they've gone through plenty of calm periods throughout history. > > Mike: > So Voldemort was the cancer? Conversely, couldn't I also say that > without Voldemort, Slytherin is no longer the *bad guy house*? Magpie: No, Voldemort was not "the cancer." Voldemort was the cause of the most recent two wars. The "cancer" of Slytherin if there is one, imo, at best in remission, still latent and untreated. Mike: > I agree, I imagine that there were periods of turmoil and calm since > the time of Hogwarts founding. Salazar Slytherin started out as > friends with Godric Gryffindor. Canon doesn't really explain what > caused the rift and eventual departure of Slytherin. Magpie: No, but it tells us Slytherin was a Pure-blood fanatic like Riddle--I can't remember if it's actually in canon that Godric was a champion of Muggle-born rights but we know he was. (I find the bigger mystery to be why they were friends at all--I wonder if Godric had his own summer o'evil like Dumbledore and just took longer to wake up.) We know the fighting was stopped when Slytherin left, and ever since then the school has not been whole. Seems a lot like what happened here--Slytherin was ritualistically cast out again. This reads to me as a victory for our heroes, but not an overturning of the original situation. Not that interviews are canon, but I find the author's words about Slytherin in the future go along with my impressions too. Slytherin has happily been "diluted." (A particularly interesting word to use given their problems.) -m From rvink7 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 25 16:09:43 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:09:43 -0000 Subject: Regarding Voldemort being a psychopath In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176231 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "doddiemoemoe" wrote: > > > "doddie wrote: > > I am happy that you, much like JKR are not arbitrarily > handing out diagnoses. Renee: I'm not sure if you're denying that JKR called Voldemort a psychopath (if you're not, my apologies), but she did do so in one of her interviews. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sat Aug 25 17:05:20 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:05:20 -0000 Subject: Regarding Voldemort being a psychopath In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176232 : > > > > > > "doddie wrote: > > > > I am happy that you, much like JKR are not arbitrarily > > handing out diagnoses. > > Renee: > I'm not sure if you're denying that JKR called Voldemort a psychopath > (if you're not, my apologies), but she did do so in one of her > interviews. > Doddie again: The point is that being a psychopath is not a diagnosis of a mental disorder. I'm not denying what JKR said, just clarifying that calling someone a psychopath is not akin to assigning to someone a mental disorder. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sat Aug 25 17:42:03 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:42:03 -0000 Subject: The Children & Rose and Hugo In-Reply-To: <46CF676E.A458AB5E@erols.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176233 > spacedoutspacecadet wrote: > > > I"m not sure if this has been posted before (if it has would love the reference) How do we know that Victorie (sorry if this is wrong, I don't have my book to reference) is actually Bill and Fleur's child?? > > Is this just a general assumption or is there canon to base it off? > > Educated guess, based on the fact that "Victoire" is a French > name, and that she's stated to be the cousin of Harry and Ginny's > kids (obviously on the Weasley side, since Harry has no > siblings). Conceivably she could be the daughter of Percy, > Charlie, or George, but Bill seems the best bet because he was > already married by the end of DH (and thus has more time to sire > a daughter who'd be old enough to be Teddy Lupin's girlfriend) > and has a French wife. > > > --Margaret Dean > And if Hermione's father ...and her mother ...especially after ... > their exile in Austrailia. > > Doddie - aussie now - Another possibility for Victoire is related from Hermione's side of the family. It could be the girl about the same age as Ted was Hermione's little sister. Her parents would have been childless in Australia and about as old as JKR herself when she had her youngest. They were charmed to want to go to Australia , and to not remember a daughter, but not charmed to not to want to have kids. They took Hermione to France one year, and Melbourne is in the state of VICTORIA. aussie (trying to get Australia featured in the Potter series) From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Aug 25 17:55:50 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:55:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Regarding Voldemort being a psychopath In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46D06D26.6010906@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176234 Steve wrote: >>First off I'll start by saying that being proclaimed >>a psychopath is not a diagnosis or representative a >>specific mental disorder. So while JKR proclaimed >>Voldemort to be a psychopath, she isn't saying >>anything other than Voldemort had serious >>psychological issues ... bboyminn: > Maybe Sociopath is a better description. Certainly, > Voldemort was a megalomaniac; Bart: He is a psychopath. The only reason for saying that "psychopath" is not a diagnosis is because it is not present in a commonly used book of diagnoses, one for which politics is almost as important as medicine. Psychiatry is also a very inexact science; the diagnosis of a psychiatric condition can depend not on the symptoms, but on your country of residence. Anybody here can look up "psychopath" in any one of many internet sites or books available from the public library; JKR certainly did. Bart From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sat Aug 25 18:29:50 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:29:50 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176235 "Ceridwen" wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------- > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 1, > > Questions: > > 1. "raised their left arms in a kind of salute." > > 2. Saluting the gate with their left arms makes them able to pass > through the wrought iron gate. Is this a tacit confirmation that > there was indeed a blocking spell on the tower in HBP which only > allowed Death Eaters to enter? aussie: If it was to put the mark against the barrier spell, the left forearm would be parallel to the chest, a Roman salute > 4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think > might be the person hanging unconscious above the table? aussie: Prof Trelawney. Her prophecy was the focus of OotP and she is the only way to get the prophecy now. > 6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat at his right hand. Is this > because Snape is his "right-hand man"? Or is Voldemort "keeping > his friends close, and his enemies closer"? aussie: Both ... Voldemort has no friends, only servants. > 10. Lucius and his family are clearly not happy with Voldemort's > presence. Is this because Lucius is still disgraced from his > botched mission at the Ministry and his use of the diary Horcrux? > Does their apparent discomfort at the situation foreshadow their > lack of involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts? aussie: This will be clarified when Harry is taken to Malfoy Manor. > 13. Snape looks comfortably into Voldemort's eyes when the other > Death Eaters turn away. We see an example of Voldemort's Legillimency > later in the book. How strong is Snape's Occlumency? aussie: Very strong. He may even have to allow Voldemort to peek at meetings with the Order while repressing meetings with DD. Voldy has never seen Lily in Snape's mind since coming back, even though that is the thought foremost in his mind. > 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape > tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not > save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she > pleads and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this > the first time he could not save someone? Was Charity > Burbage someone Snape could not save? aussie: Dumbledore never fully trusted Snape. DD never spoke of Horcruxes or Hallows with Severus. He could have been lying. Charity worked with Snape for up to 17 years. As DD said of Snape, "You disgust me." > 19. Why are the Purebloods dwindling? > > 20. Voldemort has no issues with "pruning" the family tree of > undesirables, even though they may be pure-blood or half-bloods. > Yet, he is displeased with Burbage's article and her assertion > that the dwindling of Pureblood families is a good thing. > Voldemortsays, of Charity Burbage, "She would have us all mate > with Muggles... or, no doubt, werewolves..." He includes himself > with the Purebloods here. Does he think his Muggle father's > family doesn't count? Or is he actively enforcing the idea that > he, too, is a Pureblood? aussie: Pedigrees go crazy after in-breeding so I support Charity's article. Since Tom actively murdered his Muggle father, he sees that as cutting muggle ties while assured that he is heir of one of the most ancient wizarding lines. > 21. Why does Voldemort think that Lucius does not need his wand > anymore? > > 22. Do you think Voldemort is planning on dispensing with the > Malfoys eventually? aussie: Kill the 3 Malfoys and the Manor will be inherited to Lucius side of the family. Voldy will keep them as long as he likes Malfoy Manor as HQ. But to keep them alive and to keep the only killer in the family armed are 2 different things From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Aug 25 18:28:42 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:28:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Regarding Voldemort being a psychopath In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46D074DA.8050300@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176236 doddiemoemoe wrote: > Actually Sociopath, and megolomaniac are yet other descriptive terms > that describes certain traits--lack of empathy, inability to form > interpersonal relationships etc. but neither are mental disorders. > Sociopath and Psycopath are actually interchangable terms and > megolomania is not the same as having a narcistic personality > disorder. I am happy that you, much like JKR are not arbitrarily > handing out diagnoses. It's an understanding that some behaviors > are a result of certain charateristics. Bart: Once again, just because it's not in the DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS or THE INTERNATIONAL STATISTICAL CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASES AND RELATED HEALTH PROBLEMS does not mean that it does not exist. And there are proposals to put it into both. Bart > > Not that I disagree with your reasoning I think it's pretty spot on. > I just wanted to get out from under any theory that applied JKR's > depiction of Voldemort being a psyhopath enable folks to make > excuses for him because he had a mental disorder. > > As for the final battle, I'm not quite sure if Voldemort is applying > occlumency at this point as you stated, not that it would do much > good as there is no more HorcruxHarry. I'm not sure why he would do > it unless... Wow..do you think that by the final battle Voldemort > still thinks Harry is still in his mind? > > Now this makes a great deal of sense, I can see how Voldemort > mistakes Leguilmency for empathy at this point..to mistake magic for > character development. Now I have to re-examine Snape all over again- > -awww thought I was done with that! LOL I laugh but it's true. I'm > no Snape fan and still haven't come round to Harry's point of > view..but if Snape confused empathy with legumency then it may > explain a great deal of his character development--even him being > mean/cruel to many of his students. No wonder the occlumency lessons > with Harry were an unmitigated disaster it was quite clear that > Harry was an individual with a great deal of empathy, if not during > the time of the lesson(especially after the Snape's worse memory > scene) it was perfectly clear after his friendship with Luna. > > To cut off Harry's empathy would be akin to severing a limb.(makes > me want to play knock-knock on DD's head and ask if anyone's home in > OOP--which I'm sure Harry felt like doing in same book.) > > So I suppose my question to you is do you think one of Vodlemort's > final thoughts were that Harry was a legumeins--"reading" his mind > and sewing doubts, OR was Voldemort unhinged because Harry felt pity > for him? > > And I'm glad that you too think it's important that Harry enlightens > those around him which I thought he did, well beyond the realm of > the trio and well beyond the final battle--a true hero. However, the > final battle was more important because in addtion to Harry > supporter's being present there were DE's there too and all listened > to Harry to basically say "Stay back, he's mine." and ALL obeyed > even the Centaurs and House Elves.(just like Voldie had done in the > past only with DE's.) > > Doddie, > (who was really looking forward to taking 19 years to forgive > Snape..proof positive that *I* wasn't sure if I loathed him or was > really enjoying loathing him...perhaps some of both.) > > > > Lots of great events happening in summer 2007, so start making your travel plans now! > > Phoenix Rising: New Orleans, May 17 - 21 http://www.thephoenixrises.org/ > Enlightening 2007: Philadelphia, July 12 - 15 http://enlightening2007.org/ > Sectus: London, July 19 - 22 http://www.sectus.org/index.php > Prophecy 2007: Toronto, August 2 - 5 http://hp2007.org/ > > Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST_READ > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > From random832 at fastmail.us Sat Aug 25 18:32:31 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:32:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Regarding Voldemort being a psychopath In-Reply-To: <46D06D26.6010906@sprynet.com> References: <46D06D26.6010906@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <46D075BF.7080806@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 176237 Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Steve wrote: >>> First off I'll start by saying that being proclaimed >>> a psychopath is not a diagnosis or representative a >>> specific mental disorder. So while JKR proclaimed >>> Voldemort to be a psychopath, she isn't saying >>> anything other than Voldemort had serious >>> psychological issues ... > > bboyminn: >> Maybe Sociopath is a better description. Certainly, >> Voldemort was a megalomaniac; > > Bart: > He is a psychopath. The only reason for saying that "psychopath" is not > a diagnosis is because it is not present in a commonly used book of > diagnoses, one for which politics is almost as important as medicine. I'm not sure which book you mean -- According to Wikipedia: The official stance of the American Psychiatric Association as presented in the DSM-IV-TR is that psychopathy and sociopathy are obsolete synonyms for antisocial personality disorder. The World Health Organization takes a similar stance in its ICD-10 by referring to psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality, asocial personality, and amoral personality as synonyms for dissocial personality disorder. As for an actual diagnosis, here's some further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_Checklist-Revised_%28PCL-R%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#Establishing_the_diagnosis See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduct_Disorder I'm no psychiatrist, but I don't think Tom Riddle, in fact, fails to meet any of these criteria. From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Sat Aug 25 16:05:46 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:05:46 -0000 Subject: Train Station Dream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176238 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ddamian1" wrote: > > I am having trouble understanding in Bk 7 what the train station was > all about. I would appreciate if someone could give me some insight > into that. Was it a dream? > > ddamian1 > I think that JK left this fairly vague so as to allow the widest possible interpretations for fans. Personally I find it more satisfying to think of as a 'real place'. Not necessarily a physical 'real place' but nonetheless a place where Dumbledore was present rather than this whole scene just being in Harry's mind and Harry reinterpreting information he already had. A departure lounge for the hereafter perhaps. But if it was solely in Harry's mind ( a dream or a vision) then how was Dumbledore able to give Harry information which he had not previously known? My interpretation leans towards it being a place of waiting, of departure and for Harry this resolved itself into Kings Cross Station which was a real place that for him had had that function in life. It is perhaps a little like the Gery Havens in LOTR, which I know is a real place but you could also take a ship there, as Frodo did, which could find the 'straight road' to escape the physical curve of the earth to the undying lands. So the Grey Havens also had a dual function of being a real harbour and also a departure point for a from of the 'afterlife'. Although for Frodo as a mortal he would still die and 'leave the circle of the world'. The Undying land was for him a step on the journey. In my post Potter musings, of which there have been many, I feel that Dumbledore had lingered in this place of waiting for the purpose of having this conversation with Harry. The theme of life after death as a 'journey' seem to resonate in the books and I have taken this to be a form of purgatory as the deeds done in life will affect the length of the journey and the method of travel available. Harry as a young man with little in the way of 'debt' to repay could well 'take a train'. I suspect that Dumbledore as an old man with many 'meetings' to make probably had a long walk ahead of him with a heavy pack to carry which he would have to shed along the way as he met with others and dealt with his 'issues'. I hope he also lingered for Snape who deserved a companion for his journey and a helping hand with his 'very' heavy load, some of which Dumbledore had made for him! In this interpretation then the place will be 'Hell' for Voldemort whose sundered soul will arrive as 'flayed babies' incapable of even starting the journey. I mused a scene where Snape appears at the very end of the conversation coalescing out of the mist into which the scene is dissolving. Harry and he greet each other tentatively, perahps Snape with a brief nod and for the first time calling him 'Harry'. Harry merely responds 'Sir' but for the first time in his life with respect abd a look of compassion. Snape and Harry at this point see the pack that Snape must lift and Harry helps him to put it on, realising its crushing weight. He then says to Snape 'Don't carry any burden for your dealings with me Sir' and part of the load comes away in his hand and disolves into the mist. The pack is lighter as a result. Dumbledore calls to Snape that they must leave and so must Harry and as they turn to leave Harry says 'I won't forget you, either of you' and the mist swallows them. Harry wake up in the forest. My own interpretation I know but I have had work through such scenes in my mind particularly with regard to some 'resolution' for Snape. Sorry if this is not very coherent I am in many ways still struggling with my own emtional response to the book. allthecoolnamesgone From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Sat Aug 25 16:42:53 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:42:53 -0000 Subject: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176239 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > houyhnhnm: > I don't blame Snape. It was Dumbledore with all of his > talk of "Love" who chose necromancy, blood rituals, and > prophecies over simple human love. Dumbledore with his > tragic flaw, his love of power. Rowena: I don't quite understand this. Exactly how would 'simple human love' have defeated Voldemort? Prophecies are not optional, they will come true one way or another. And as we see from Greek myth *and* HP the result of trying to alter prophecy is only to fullfill them. On the other hand, as DD explains and Harry finally understands the prophecy does not control either his actions or Voldemort's it just predicts them. Voldy *WOULD* try to prempt the threat and so create his nemesis. And Harry *WILL* do everything in his power to destroy Voldemort because it must be done and he's in the best position to do it. Lily's valiant death in defense of her son gave him a ready made and very powerful protection that it would have been idiotic for DD to ignore. Harry's danger was very real, even before Voldy came back, and the protection of his mother's blood kept him safer than anything else could. Really don't understand the Necromancy - the resurrection stone? From fmaneely at bellsouth.net Sat Aug 25 17:25:44 2007 From: fmaneely at bellsouth.net (fhmaneely) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:25:44 -0000 Subject: The Children & Rose and Hugo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176240 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "doddiemoemoe" wrote: > > And if Hermione's father was named Hugo and her mother named Rose, it > makes it so fitting...especially after the charm she placed upon > them...and their exile in Austrailia. > Actually I think Hugo refers to Victor Hugo, one of Hermione's favorite authors' and Rose is probably for Madame Rosemerta, Ron's favorite pub owner. Fran From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 25 20:00:44 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:00:44 -0000 Subject: King's Cross railway station dream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176241 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allthecoolnamesgone" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ddamian1" wrote: > > > > I am having trouble understanding in Bk 7 what the train station was > > all about. I would appreciate if someone could give me some insight > > into that. Was it a dream? allthecoolnamesgone: > I think that JK left this fairly vague so as to allow the widest > possible interpretations for fans. > > Personally I find it more satisfying to think of as a 'real place'. > Not necessarily a physical 'real place' but nonetheless a place where > Dumbledore was present rather than this whole scene just being in > Harry's mind and Harry reinterpreting information he already had. A > departure lounge for the hereafter perhaps. But if it was solely in > Harry's mind ( a dream or a vision) then how was Dumbledore able to > give Harry information which he had not previously known? > > My interpretation leans towards it being a place of waiting, of > departure and for Harry this resolved itself into Kings Cross Station > which was a real place that for him had had that function in life. Geoff: I certainly visualise it as a real place. So does canon: '"Tell me one last thing," said Harry. "Is this real? Or has this been happening insdie my head?" Dumbledore beamed at him and his voice sounded loud and strong in Harry's ears even though the bright mist was descending again, obscuring his figure. "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"' (DH "King's Cross" p.579 UK edition) I have twice drawn a comparison with Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Here, the station commander, Ben Sisko, is told by the Bajoran people, in whose territory the space station lies, that he is their prophesied Emissary. On a number of occasions, he meets with the Prophets, the spiritual beings whom the Bajorans worship and the meeting place is an undefined place out of space and time consisting largely of white mist (does that sound vaguely familiar?). It is certainly a Near Death Experience or something analagous to one. Dumbledore makes it clear twice that Harry is not dead: ''But you're dead," said Harry. "Oh yes," said Dumbledore matter-of-factly. "Then... I'm dead too?" "Ah," said Dumbledore, smiling still more broadly. "That is the question, isn't it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not." They looked at each other, the old man still beaming. "Not?" repeated Harry. "Not," said Dumbledore.' (ibid. p.567) 'Harry sat in thought for a long time, or perhaps seconds. It was very hard to be sure of things like time, here. "He killed me with your wand." "He failed to kill you with my wand," Dumbledore corrected Harry. "I think we can agree that you are not dead..." (ibid. p.570) This doesn't entirely help the analysis, except that it rules out purgatory - which I wouldn't expect from JKR since she is a Protestant and not a Catholic. The oddity is that it is a place where Harry can decide to go on or go back... I think I shall have to cop out and fall back on Shakespeare: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (Hamlet Act 1 Scene 5) Perhaps JKR is a Star Trek fan like me. :-) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 25 20:23:10 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:23:10 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176242 Geoff: I have to admit that I haven't had time to really look at the thread on Chapter 1 but looking at the questions set for the OWL candidates, one has occurred to me which isn't on the list and I wonder whether other group members might have any theories.... Why did JKR create Charity Burbage, Professor of Muggle Studies, just to be killed by Voldemort in Chapter 1? She is effectively a non-entity. we have no other references to her and I have to say that it left me emotionally untouched because she was a stranger, just another name in the long list of Voldemort's victims.That probably sounds callous but that often happens in real life situations. Had it been a name which we knew - even one of the lesser known staff such as Professor Sinistra or Professor Vector - for me, that would have had considerably more impact than the unfortunate victim we briefly met here. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 25 20:57:32 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:57:32 -0000 Subject: Alchemy, the Epilogue and Slytherin (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176243 > Mike: > > I agree, I imagine that there were periods of turmoil and calm > since > > the time of Hogwarts founding. Salazar Slytherin started out as > > friends with Godric Gryffindor. Canon doesn't really explain what > > caused the rift and eventual departure of Slytherin. > > Magpie: > No, but it tells us Slytherin was a Pure-blood fanatic like Riddle- -I > can't remember if it's actually in canon that Godric was a champion > of Muggle-born rights but we know he was. Alla: Well, yeah, I mean if you consider the wizards of the month canon, I think it is pretty clear that he was. >From the website. "Salazar Slytherin Medieval (precise dates unknown) One of the four celebrated Founders of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Salazar Slytherin was one of the first recorded Parselmouths, an accomplished Legilimens, and a notorious champion of pureblood supremacy" Godric Gryffindor Medieval (precise dates unknown) One of the four famous Founders of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Godric Gryffindor was the most accomplished dueller of his time, an enlightened fighter against Muggle-discrimination and the first owner of the celebrated Sorting Hat. Alla: I mean, seems to me Tom or no Tom, Slytherin's philosophy was quite bad originally. Maybe he started to be crasy at some point in his life. Alla. From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Sat Aug 25 21:22:05 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:22:05 -0000 Subject: King's Cross railway station dream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176244 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > "He killed me with your wand." > "He failed to kill you with my wand," Dumbledore corrected Harry. "I > think we can agree that you are not dead..." > (ibid. p.570) > > This doesn't entirely help the analysis, except that it rules out purgatory > - which I wouldn't expect from JKR since she is a Protestant and not a > Catholic. The oddity is that it is a place where Harry can decide to go on > or go back... > > I think I shall have to cop out and fall back on Shakespeare: > "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of > in your philosophy." > (Hamlet Act 1 Scene 5) > > Perhaps JKR is a Star Trek fan like me. :-) Star Trek too is a series where philosophical questions crop up in nearly every episode. The Shakespeare quote is apt too. This is part of the attraction of the HP books is it not, they make us think. As do LOTR, the Narnia books and His Dark Materials. I just used the term 'Purgatory' in the sense of an 'expiatory' journey, is that a better term? Rather than the formal Catholic doctrine. I too come from a Protestant tradition and have been a practising Christian in the past but less so now regretably. I was just trying to fit the KC scene into the image from the book of some kind of journey after death, perhaps stretching the image of a place to start a journey further than JKR intended. Also from a need to find some kind of salvation for Snape which seems ommitted. He doesn't even get a funeral, in fact as far as the book goes his body is just left in the Shrieking Shack, even Voldemort's body got laid in a side room. Snape just seems to be abandoned by all, ignored. allthecoolnamesgone From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Aug 25 21:44:34 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:44:34 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176245 Geoff: > > Why did JKR create Charity Burbage, Professor of Muggle Studies, > just to be killed by Voldemort in Chapter 1? Ceridwen: I think Rowling didn't want to have an emotionally charged death so early in the book. She may have thought that readers thinking the body dangling above the table possibly being someone we know was enough for an opening gambit. Bait and switch, sudden relief when she was someone we had never met. We also get the previously dead Bathilda Bagshot, whose name we've heard before but who we have never met, around halfway through. The really emotional deaths all happen toward the end, at the Battle of Hogwarts. I think that was to give the ending more of a punch. I wish I'd thought of this question, Geoff! I'd love to see what others think. Ceridwen. From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Sat Aug 25 21:54:07 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:07 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <85D52C03-7207-47D0-85A0-3EB81D6E55A9@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176246 On 2007, Aug 25, , at 12:23, Geoff Bannister wrote: > Why did JKR create Charity Burbage, Professor of Muggle Studies, > just to be killed by Voldemort in Chapter 1? > > She is effectively a non-entity. we have no other references to her > and I have to say that it left me emotionally untouched because > she was a stranger, just another name in the long list of Voldemort's > victims.That probably sounds callous but that often happens in real > life situations. > > Had it been a name which we knew - even one of the lesser known > staff such as Professor Sinistra or Professor Vector - for me, that > would have had considerably more impact than the unfortunate > victim we briefly met here. Ah, but that is often the way with war. The situation is horrible, but I think, even though this is disgusting, I can stand it. And I begin to wonder about myself - do I think the horror of war less horrible just because I didn't know this person? How easy it is to take a more distanced view when I don't really know the victim. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Aug 25 22:41:05 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:41:05 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176247 > Ceridwen: > I think Rowling didn't want to have an emotionally charged death so > early in the book. She may have thought that readers thinking the body > dangling above the table possibly being someone we know was enough for > an opening gambit. Bait and switch, sudden relief when she was someone > we had never met. We also get the previously dead Bathilda Bagshot, > whose name we've heard before but who we have never met, around halfway > through. The really emotional deaths all happen toward the end, at the > Battle of Hogwarts. I think that was to give the ending more of a > punch. > > I wish I'd thought of this question, Geoff! I'd love to see what > others think. zgirnius: I wonder whether Charity's name might not make it into future volumes of PoA.... I think she was in retrospect a logical person to kill, because it sets the scene for the Muggle Registration and other bloodist policies of the puppet Ministry, and it provides a job opening for Alecto Carrow. And I think she wanted to kill someone, to make tons of points. How evil Voldemort it, that Draco is still ambivalent, how evil Snape is not to be disturbed (on reread, what an amazing actor), reintroduce the nasty Nagini, and more. I'm not sure it is the sort if thing she had worked out in her outline, hence lack of need to mention her back in PoA, when Hermione actually had her for a class. I disagree a bit about the deaths. Hands down, no comparison, the most impactful death was Dobby's, which is more towards the middle - three Horcruxes left to go, not counting Harry). For me, anyway. (This from a Snape fan who always thought Dobby was annoying!) From ekrdg at verizon.net Sat Aug 25 22:57:07 2007 From: ekrdg at verizon.net (Kimberly) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:57:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending References: Message-ID: <003e01c7e76b$49514bd0$2d01a8c0@MainComputer> No: HPFGUIDX 176248 >Geoff: >I have to admit that I haven't had time to really look at the >thread on Chapter 1 but looking at the questions set for the >OWL candidates, one has occurred to me which isn't on the list >and I wonder whether other group members might have any >theories.... >Why did JKR create Charity Burbage, Professor of Muggle Studies, >just to be killed by Voldemort in Chapter 1? Kimberly: For me, her character and death indicated how war affects those not even involved in it. We see that someone who is very peripheral, could be a casualty. You have countries that are at war and an innocent, never heard of individual is killed in a car-bombing. We get a brief glimpse of someone and then they're gone. It also was rather successful in setting the tone of the book. There would be deaths and that was just the beginning. Kimberly From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 25 23:47:16 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:47:16 -0000 Subject: The House of Slytherin (was Alchemy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176249 > Magpie: > but I'm just taking it as a given here and > saying that's why I don't see a lot of symbolism at the end that's > indicating a coming together. And why I think interpretations that > blur everything more from the beginning just don't ring true. Mike: I'm weak on the symbolism myself. I prefer to interpret the canon more straight forward. At this point in Debbie's essay she had not yet explored the symbolism. So when you brought up the generic bully house irrespective of where we were in Debbie's essay, I was responding to that point of yours. And I didn't think you were talking about a bully house with respect to end of story symbolism, since the bully house theme was brought up in book one and was barely if at all present in DH. > Magpie: > I was referring to the theory I thought was presented here, which > seemed to me to be putting Slytherin problems on the same level as > Gryffindor ones, with the book exploring each ones strengths and > weaknesses, and I just don't think they are shown that way. Mike: I guess I didn't read that in Debbie's essay. I thought she was saying that untempered traits of any house could get one in trouble. And that taking a Slytherin or a Gryffindor trait to it's extreme could prove to be a bad thing. That seemed to me to be the extent of what Debbie was saying, at least at this point. I did not see her weighing the relative value of Gryffindor versus Slytherin traits. > Magpie: > Gryffindor faults have a totally different weight than > Slytherin faults, and do not add up to them both being > the same, but different, imo. Mike: I don't agree, or I should say, I don't agree with your statement that Slytherin faults are worlds worse than Gryffindor faults. Not if you look at them objectively as opposed to through the Gryffindor prism. > > Mike previously: > > So, according to canon, which house's trait was more damaging? > > Magpie: > Slytherin's. > > Harry's intentions were good--the book even barely blames him for > what happened to Sirius, because it was LV and Bellatrix's fault Mike: We weren't talking about intentions, we were talking about Harry's chivalrous Gryffindor trait that was taken to an extreme causing him to go into his reckless saving-people-thing mode. And Harry does too blame himself for Sirius' death, its only later that he tries to rationalize and shunt the blame off onto Snape. I don't think anybody was fooled by this, and I don't think the author intended for us to believe that Snape was at fault, either. It's such an obvious irrational denial of fault by Harry that we don't even need to see when he gets over this. > Magpie: > Sirius' running off, too, is done with the best of intentions. > Draco's joining the DEs is bad in itself. Mike: How are these Gryffindor or Slytherin traits or faults? > Magpie: > Sirius was a flwaed hero who is rightly mourned. Crabbe got > himself killed. Crabbe "deserved" to die, Sirius was murdered. Mike: Sirius wasn't mourned by the other side, and I bet Crabbe was mourned by his parents, if they survived. But these are Gryffindor and Slytherin characters, not character traits or faults of the houses. > Magpie: > Draco brought many of his own troubles on himself. Mike: Agreed, but that isn't strictly a Slytherin trait or fault. > Magpie: > Harry was targetted by bad guys and triumphed due to his > Gryffindor qualities. (Draco's use of Slytherinish ways of > protecting himself in the final battle earns him a punch.) Mike: Really? Harry's Gryff qualities were always shown as helpful? I'll leave the OotP example out. Just use DH. The Trio come up with a cunning plan to retrieve the Locket from Umbridge. We could credit them with daring for this also. Then Harry chivalrously helps all the Muggleborns to escape. Good thing to do, imo and the author's, but it causes them to almost get caught. Which of course results in the endless camping trip to nowhere. The Gringott's raid, cunning plan that included using Imperio if needed, and it was needed. Again, the Gryff trait of daring could apply also. But without these two Slyhterinish cunning plans, the Gryffindorish daring would mean nothing. > Magpie: > Gryff recklessness might put you in physical danger > but Slytherins put their souls in danger, which is far worse. Mike: Other than the heir of Slytherin (and probably Bella) I find no basis in canon for your statement of "souls in danger". Murder is not a trait that the Hat sorts for. It is not a Slyhterin trait nor isolated as only a Slytherin fault. > Magpie: > Because, as I said, it needs to be somehow established in the > story, imo. If the fanaticism is latent, it's part of Slytherin. > but I thought Jen's view was more in step with the story > when she asked if this wasn't a reenactment of Slytherin's leaving > the school, since now we have the Heir of Slytherin being > ritualistically killed by a Gryffindor. Mike: I too liked Jen's interpretation. I think it dovetails nicely with my interpretation that it's the Slytherin decendants, starting with the original Slytherin himself, that have put the cancer into the Slytherin house. I realize now that I forgot to include Salazar in my previous post as the cancer originator. And with the last of the Slytherin line eradicated, who knows what would happen. > Magpie: > I don't see a "different" Slytherin throwing off their original > founder and forging a new way. In fact, far from it being > Purified by LV's death, it felt to me like DH *was* Slytherin in > its purest form. The fact that Slytherin was known for his own Pure- > blood supremist beliefs reinforces that. This was Slytherin out of > control, unchecked. Mike: Yes, this was Slytherin's house, cancerous at the start. And the one heir we saw attend Hogwarts, persisted in the original Slytherin's ways. He affected and infected three generations of Slytherins. So for 50 years, the heir of Slytherin held sway over the rest of the Slytherins. You say that it was Slytherin at it's purest, yet I saw many of the original (to the reader) proponents showing disgust, fear, and cringing obedience to the cancerous one. Are these the people that you saw no change in, saw nothing in canon that would indicate they've changed their minds about following the "Slytherin" way as defined by one with the Slytherin blood? > Magpie: > Steve's view is never presented in canon, though, that I can see. > Quite the opposite. The Weasleys *don't* have Pure-blood pride. Mike: Snipping right here just to say that the Weasleys (and James, Sirius, Regulus and Ma and Pa Black) are examples of pure-bloods that don't buy into the cancerous pure-blood mania. They have different degrees of pure-blood pride, but none of them bought the "kill the Mudbloods" line. That the Weasleys may not have pride, per se, is beside the point. They *are* pure-bloods that don't denegrate the non pure- bloods. That's enough for me to see that pure-blood mania is restricted to those that have been infected by the cancer. > Mike: I don't mind you snipping this, it was long and boring anyway. But I did it to present canon for Tom Riddle as the cancer of Slytherin. I now amend that to include all of Salazar's heirs and the man himself. But what you didn't do was refute my assertion with you own canon. > Magpie: > But Tom Riddle is the *heir* of Slytherin, who wanted to purge the > school of Mudbloods. That's why there's a snake *waiting* for him > when he gets to school. We have no better Slytherin presented to us > that's just been perverted--that's an ending many of us expected to > get, so that we could see the "real" Slytherin. It didn't happen. Mike: Yes, I know Tom was the heir, that was my argument, at least that's what I thought I was arguing for. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough. If that's the case, I apologize. If you are going to look for a "better Slytherin", you have to get someone outside of the three generations that Tom infected. We have one of those, Horace Slughorn. And we know Sluggy escorted the kids of his house to safety then returned to fight against Voldemort. > Magpie: > Everything we hear about Slytherin sounds Voldemort-friendly. Sure > Voldemort is the reason tensions are as high as they are during > canon, but he just seems to add violence and extremism to stuff > that's there. Mike: So how is this not Riddle's fault, and ultimately Salazar's fault? Much of the storyline in HBP was shown so we would see how Tom Riddle subverted Uncle Horace's house out from under him. (as Goddlefrood would say) So naturally, what we saw of the Slytherins during Harry's time in school would look "Voldemort-friendly". If Lucius warns Draco that to be seen as antagonistic towards Harry would be imprudent, do you think he also might have warned him about making anti-Voldemort noises? What about the other DEs that walked free, what do you think they taught their kids about being Voldemort- friendly? I say that "the stuff that's there" was put there by Voldemort, for the most part. But then I would need a more definitive explanation than "stuff" to be sure. > Magpie: > The founding story is that there was dischord, and then when > Slytherin left the other three could live in peace. Slytherin > has been set apart since then, not since Tom Riddle arrived. > > Slytherin was the bad guy from the beginning. If they were > going to create a new Slytherin they'd have to do it themselves > from scratch, which is not in the story. Mike: OK, we agree that Salazar started the whole *bad house* thing. Then Riddle, as his heir, continued it. It seems we may agree that various Slytherin heirs down through the ages may have fomented various degrees of discord. So now there is no longer a "Slytherin" to carry on Salazar's "noble work". That is in the story. Draco Malfoy, our main protagonist to Harry was disgusted with what he had to do because of Voldemort, and scared of what Voldemort could or would do to him. That's in the story. As for starting from scratch, I think just getting rid of the pure-blood mania would be enough. YMMV > > > Magpie: > > > So Harry might say Snape was brave, but we should fill in > > > ourselves that he's saying he's great because he was also other > > > things Slytherin even though he doesn't say it. > > > > Mike: > > Does this not speak of Snape's cunning, his ability to fool > > Voldemort? Are you so sure this message was lost on Harry? > > Magpie; > We were talking about a line in the epilogue. Harry tells AS a guy > he knew who was one of the bravest he ever met was in Slytherin. Mike: No, you had postulated (or rather denied) that we should fill in what else Harry meant to say, in a manner that suggested that he didn't think of Snape's Slytherin qualities as heroic. I think Harry, after viewing the memories in the Princes Tale, did think Snape's cunning was heroic. The fact that he doesn't bring them up to his eleven-year-old son does not change for me what I feel Harry has internalized. The lack of positive evidence does not prove the negative. > Magpie: > No, Voldemort was not "the cancer." Voldemort was the cause of the > most recent two wars. The "cancer" of Slytherin if there is one, > imo, at best in remission, still latent and untreated. Mike: I presented my canon for Voldemort being the cancer. The pure- bloodism was both the cause and the vehicle used to spread the cancer. And I admit that it was started by Salazar way back in the beginning. But I also read that this cancer was conflated by an hereditary Slytherin not simply House of Slytherin members. He alone was able to bring together the disparate groups of followers, a grouping that fell apart in his absence. Simply put, "It's all about stopping Voldemort, isn't it? These dreadful things that are happening are all down to him..." (HBP p.475) One-quarter of the wizarding world may have been doomed to purgatory as long as the devil incarnate was preying on that one-quarter for followers. Now that he's banished for good, and has no heirs to continue his work, I have hope for *all* the wizarding world. As Draco showed in the Epilogue, they don't have to like each other. As long as they aren't trying to kill each other, that's good enough for me. Mike From Lesaja at gmx.de Sat Aug 25 23:27:36 2007 From: Lesaja at gmx.de (leslesaja) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:27:36 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176250 Hello to you all, reading DH left me very confused und feeling uncomfortable, and I was very relieved to read that I'm not the only one. JudySerenity: > This leaves me wondering, if maybe JKR just wasn't all that clear, in > her own mind, of what message she wanted to convey, and how she should > convey it. At least, I hope she just wasn't clear. I would be even more > upset if "Revenge is a good thing," and "You can't be a good person > unless you're born that way," were really the messages she wanted to > communicate. There seemed to be morals or ethics in the books I share, but with DH some of them seem to have turned. Sometimes I thought, "oh, that reads ambiguous, but JKR can't have meant it that disconcerting way, maybe she hadn't the time or the space to resolve it more clearly", but then I read quotes from her and it seems she DID mean it. For me, it is what JKR has said in interviews etc after DH that make me feel really bad, 'cos these have cut the possibilities for interpretation. I have even wondered if she mocks her fans somehow, e.g. when she says "Snape is not a hero" _and_ "Snape is a hero". I think she must have realised that there are a lot of people for whom it is important what she says and intends to say with her books. So either she is still misleading her readers or she means what she says - and I don't know what to think of either. When starting to read HP, I got the impression that JKR wrote in a style that took Harry's POV as the one of a child at this age, seeing the seemingly obvious surface of persons & events and judging by this, and while adding less obvious hints, remarked and interpreted by more mature readers, she would lead Harry and the younger readers to realise that there are always at least two sides of a medal, that you can't split everything in good and bad, have easy solutions etc, and especially to understand the motives, the "whys" and the "wherefores" that make people do the things they do, that make people the way they are. Therefore for me it was clear from the beginning and throughout all the books, that Snape was on the "good side", because IMO there were plenty of hints that Harry did not see. And JKR showed that e.g. with the scene when HRH practise a spell with cushions while speculating about Snape; the boys fail, but Hermione with her last statement succeeds. They're aiming with their spells, but don't hit the target, as their speculations don't either. Or that we readers could easily see (but Harry did not realise), that Snape, about to kill Dd and showing "hatred and repulsion", mirrors exactly Harry's feelings not long ago, *when he did something terrible to Dd because he had promised Dd to do so* So I was convinced that one message of HP would be, that with people getting to now each other, one can understand each other better, and that this would lead to an approach of minds and then there would be a way of a more peaceful living with each other. - It would not have been necessary for me that DH shows the latter, but I can't see the way opened to it either. I thought JKR pointed on things that are wrong (in WW as well as in RL), showing the causes why things develop in a wrong way, sometimes even hinted a possible solution. E.g. when Dudley's school talks with his parents about his bullying and about his overweight, the teachers there don't look away, and that's right. And Dudley starts boxing as sports in his school - I don't like boxing, but it's ok for me if it leads to something good, and sports, even boxing, can do so. You have to accept the rules of the sport, it's a fight one vs one, you have to deal with defeats, you have to practise, to work if you want to be successful, and when you succeed (or improve) you can be proud of yourself, get self confindence because of the things you did for yourself (and btw loose some weight ;-) ). I remember Harry mocking Dudley for boxing, and Dudley replied that he has won against a boy who was older than him. So, when I read scenes like the first time James and Severus met, for me it shows that the hostility between them starts because of that what they have learned at home: one group of people is better than the other. It's nothing personal, it's not about greasy hair, dark wizards, pure-blood-supremacy, it's just "my parent(s) have been in this house, and this house is better than (an) other(s)". So I would think, that's the point where to start when changes shall ever happen, but I can't see anything like that with e.g. Harry talking to Albus Severus. There is nothing like "it doesn't matter in which house you are sorted to, because although they are different, they all are ok. You'll be sorted to the house that suits you best/ brings out the best of you (something like that I would have liked); to become a good wizard doesn't depend on the the house you belong to, it depends on that what _you_ _do_." Harrys children could have _grown_ _up_ with their parents saying something like this, demonstrate their position to their children and other people. If you do so, 19 years should show some change. But JKR didn't write anything like that, and she doesn't seem to have intended that readers wish something like that. When JKR created the WW, she put in things that didn't seemed right or good, but added e.g. comments from characters that at least set up the question if this or that is right or not. One example is the house-elfs-slavery. Hermione, as a muggle-born, is shocked when she learns that this slavery exists. Ron, as a wizard who has grown up with that, has never asked himself until then if maybe slavery is wrong. - That Hermione then tries to start changes in maybe not the best way, was very okay for me, 'cos that is how some teenagers act: enthusiasic with the best intentions, but not regarding all consequences. But, and that is right IMO, she tries to make other people think about it. - Another example is the "bouncing ferret". Draco tried to hex Harry when he turned his back to him, and he gets a deserved punishment - that's maybe the reading of children, feeling glad that Draco gets hurt. But, there is McG, saying that they don't punish students physically. So I read this as "yes, you may feel that hurting someone is right if they deserve it because they did or tried to do something bad, many people feel that way, but it is NOT right". As it seems, I have totally misinterpreted the UC's and light & dark magic, 'cos I thought that UC's are Dark Magic. Somehow I thought that, in a fight, in a defense against dark magic, light magic would mean to disarm and to immobilise the enemy and protect yourself. I thought that light magic would always be reversal, so what shall I think of the spell that scarred Marietta for the rest of her life? Scars that write a word on your face, like a Cain's Mark, and that is a deserved punishment for something you've done at the age of 15 or 16? I thought AK is dark magic and casting this spell would split your soul, and so I was sure with HBP, that Dd indeed had wanted to act Snape as if he would AK him, but because Dd would never demand somebody to cast an UC, that Snape faked the AK while nonverbal casting a spell that only lifted Dd, who died while he fell by the poison he had drunken in the cave. So that Snape's spell even had not lead to Dd's dead by smashing to the ground, because Dd was dead before he touched the ground, poisoned. I have thought it was crucial that Snape did nothing that _killed_ Dd, that Dd would never have asked for that. I thought that this scene was written to show that things are not always like they seem to be, in a much more deeper way than JKR eventually revealed. I thought that Harry trying to Crucio Bellatrix was a way to show the readers how the cruelty of people can corrupt a good person to be cruel, too. It was completely understandable that Harry wanted revenge in that situation, and if he had succeeded, it would have been forgivable IMO. But he did not, because although full of hatred, he didn't really meant to torture, and I was relieved because of that. He tried Crucio on Snape, in a very similar situation. If he would have succeeded we don't know, 'cos Snape blocks his spell, saying "No UC's from you". And I, thinking as always that Snape is on the good side, assumed that Snape not only didn't want to be tortured, but also wanted to prevent Harry from casting an UC because UC's are evil dark magic that damage your soul. Why else JKR should have written that line for Snape? So I was shocked about the situation and the way Harry used Crucio in DH. - Maybe he only suceeded because of V's raging soul piece inside him, that is not my point now. - Harry uses Crucio, with no further thought about it. (Compare this with his reaction after slashing Draco with Sectumsempra, he was terrified by what he has done). Just a simple "yeah, you have to mean it", in a situation like this! But wait, there is McG, she'll say something like "But Harry, by all the spells you know, how can you Crucio him? That's an UC!" She didn't, instead she says "gallant" and uses Imperio without any need, much lesser need than Harry at Gringot's. That was a scene where I thought JKR must have somehow forgotten to add a sentence that would hint that maybe it was not warrantable to use Crucio. But all that she says is "well, Harry's not a saint", and I'm thunderstrucked, I can hardly believe she really means that. So the moral message here is: "when Harry, a good person, uses an UC, tortures someone, though it's maybe not nice, but it doesn't make him evil." When someone believes they are good and they are right, it is not evil when they do to others what they think they deserve, when they take law in their own hands. Although it's not about the UC's, a similar scene is when McG fights Snape. She tries to kill him, not with an AK, but with flying daggers. Yes, she thinks Snape has killed Dd, and yes, it's war. But what about all that DADA-stuff? Was it not the point to counter dark magic with non-dark? A wand is no pistol, no gun, you can choose what your magical weapon does. I thought when the WW was given that advantage in regard to RL, JKR was showing that at least then there are other means to counter the threat of being killed or injured. I thought JKR meant that if you are not forced to kill, injure or torture in order to defend yourself, then you shall not do it. I thought when Dd fought against V, it showed the difference between a good wizard and an evil one, with the good one trying to block spells and to bind his enemy. But now I tend to think that Dd didn't try to kill V only 'cos he knew it would have been useless. JudySerenity: > What bothered me most, though, was Dumbledore. I actually wasn't > bothered at all by the fact that he had been teenaged friends with > Grindelwald, resulting in tragic consequences. I liked that very much, 'cos Dd became much more human in my eyes, and I thought that would help Harry and readers to understand that people can do wrong things - and, very important, how and why this could have happened -, truely regret, have learned from this and _decide_ to change their life. That events like this can make a person set a moral standard for themselves and act according to them - and I thought that one of them would be for Dd that a good goal does not justify any means. This piece of Dd's past explained so wonderful why he was giving people second chances, did good things, did the right things even if it seemed wasted, because of his moral principles - as it seemed to me. It's somehow like Hagrid, who acts because of his feelings and his love for every living creature, his faith that there is goodness in everyone. Although this love and faith often seem to be very naive, Hagrid succeeds e.g. in socialising Grawp (of course it helps being not so sensitive to physical harm). Hagrid was for me an other example of a character, who brings out the good of someone because he treats them well, and I always thought Dd was the same. Because when he reaches out a hand to Draco, he _creates_ the (or at least "a") possibility for Draco to turn to the good side. He can do so only because he understands Draco, and can offer him to withdraw him from the forces that push him to evil. With offering protection for Draco and his parents, he shows him a way out of a DE existence. So I thought one message of HP was "treat people well, reach out a hand, even to the bad ones, that enhances the chances that they can turn good. if you treat them bad, they stay/turn bad." JudySerenity: > No, what bothered me about Dumbledore was how he treated Snape. (snip) Oh, yes. Indeed. That turned everything what I thought about Dd upside down. For me, it was cruel. And I'm not convinced, like others have suggested, that Dd is pretending in order to force the best out of Snape. > And then, we don't see any kindness from Dumbledore to Snape > until Snape's been working for him for 14 years. Meanwhile it is hard for me to see even true kindness, based on liking. I thought that Dd and Snape had grown to a kind of father-son-relationship, with Snape being the lost son that had returned after recognising that he had taken the wrong path. I favoured the idea, that there indeed was NO ironclad reason for Dd to trust Snape, that the ultimate point would be that there can never be such a proof, that you have to choose to trust someone. And I favoured the idea that JKR would write it in such a way that would make the readers wonder if Dd's trust, given without a last ironclad proof, Dd's faith in the goodness of Snape, maybe was the cause that Snape turned to or stayed on the good side. I hoped for that. I haven't re-read books 1-6, but is it kindness what we see from Dd? He says "I'm fortunate that I have you", fortunate, not glad or happy. If you got mistrustful in Dd like me, you can read everything he says to Snape in Snape's memories like mere reward and encouragement for Snape for doing as Dd wants. There isn't any affection in Dd's words that would be a sign of an emotional relationship from Dd to Snape. He acknowledges Snape's skills, but how does it sound like for Snape (who died still believing that Dd has only used him all the time), when Dd says "Do not think that I underestimate the constant danger in which you place yourself, Severus. To give Voldemort what appears to be valuable information while withholding the essentials is a job I would entrust to nobody like you."? Like "you are the perfect tool because of your quite unique skills, and I know you live a hell of a life because of that, so terrible I want no other person has to live."? Another message of HP seems to be, that it emphasises the loyalty to a person, not to an own, as "right" recognized/developed morality. It's not "Snape fought for us!" or "Snape fought for the good side/ freedom /justice", it's "Snape was Dd's man", and of course Harry is "Dd's man". DH emphasises the loyalty to a leader (and that is "F?hrer" in German, outch), not to question his motives and ways. As so often before, Harry has the same feelings like Snape towards Dd, when he feels used, not fully trusted, not given the whole truth by Dd, when he gets to know that Dd knew all time that Harry has to die by V's hand. And suddenly with King's Cross, for Harry everything is okay again with Dd, but I can't follow him. I miss forgiveness in the books, too, here we get forgiveness, but I can't understand how Harry can Dd forgive so easily. "Oh, you guessed there was a 90% chance that I would survive! Well then... And anyways, all you did turned out well, so everything was right and good." In the end, it seems, Dd was wiser than anyone, and because of that, we may not understand why he does what he does...? Just follow the leader, be "his man", and whatever he wants you to do or to ignore is right, and therefore if you do what he wants you'll be good. I don't like that, I prefer to follow moral rules and not persons. It's easier to lose track of means and motives if you follow a person, especially if you are emotionally connected to this person. It hinders people thinking for themselves IMO. va32h: > But I also firmly believe that JKR lost sight of her own series. Either > it got away from her or she just became tired of it - but I don't > believe that Deathly Hallows is a fitting end to the series. I don't > believe it captures the spirit of Harry Potter as I have come to know > it, (snip) I wondered if somehow her characters grew out of her determined story-ending, if that is possible. So that the end of the story that she had fixed from the beginning didn't fit anymore. She gives us a backstory of Snape that makes him so understandable IMO, she parallels him so often with Harry and contrasts him to James regarding their childhood, she mirrors their first time at the Hogwarts Express and the different ways their school-life take, she states clearly IMO that children that grow up under different circumstances don't have the same chances to actually choice anything, or that sometimes fortuity may have an influence on somebody's life - what would have happened if Severus hadn't shared the compartment with James? Would Snape had ever been the target of his bullying? Would Sirius have chosen Gryffindor (if that is possible) if he had met Severus, but not James in the compartment? With her way of writing, with the scenes she presents us, JKR rises questions like these. She parallels Riddle, Snape and Harry as the abandonned boys, but what made the difference in their life? Was Riddle born evil, as he was evil at age eleven, seemingly already beyond any chance of changing? Is it fate or predestination what determines life? Or is it a question of how big the love of a mother is, even if she's dead? Harry's parents are dead, but they loved him, his mother loved him more than her life and died for him (a way to prove the love for your child); Harry grew up neglected, even maltreated physically and mentally. Riddle was not neglegted, but without loving parents; his mother died not for him, by dying she left him as his father did before, so she didn't live for him (an other way to prove the love for your child), maybe she didn't love him at all. Snape maybe had a loving mother, but was either very poor or somehow neglected; his mother appears to be weak, so her love was not big enough. It doesn't count which care a child actually recieves, but how much his mother loves/loved him, even if she isn't there while it grows up. The environment doesn't determine your ways in life, they are determined by the love of your mother in the moment you're born, maybe in the moment you were recieved. Harry was recieved with the true love of his parents for each other. Riddle was recieved with a selfish love from his mother for his father and a false or forced love from his father to his mother. And Snape? Was there an unrequited love between his parents? Has the love from his father for his mother died away with the years, so they had a weak love, a love that was not true? Like a divorced marriage? If you deny that the enviroment you grow up in influences your life, then you deny the possibility of choices and changings. Your life is determined, and as it is so by the love of your mother, your life itself is proof to how good your mother is, how big her love is - is that the fundamental message of the books? I hope my post is not too confusing and apologise if it is, as English is my second language. Greetings from Germany, LesAJa From dreadr at yahoo.com Sat Aug 25 23:45:00 2007 From: dreadr at yahoo.com (dreadr) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:45:00 -0000 Subject: The Children & Rose and Hugo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176251 spacedoutspacecadet wrote: > I"m not sure if this has been posted before (if it has would > love the reference) How do we know that Victorie (sorry if this is > wrong, I don't have my book to reference) is actually Bill and > Fleur's child?? > > Is this just a general assumption or is there canon to base it > off? JKR has stated in an interview (I want to say the one she did for Bloomsbury, but am not positive. The interview should still be available at Leaky Cauldron.) that Victoire is the daughter of Bill and Fleur. Thanks, Debbie From leahstill at hotmail.com Sun Aug 26 00:30:02 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:30:02 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176252 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > Ceridwen: >> Questions: > > > > 1. Snape and Yaxley "raised their left arms in a kind of salute." > > Is this a reference to World War II and the likening of the Death > > Eaters to the Nazis, in Deathly Hallows? Leah: Yes, the first of many. It becomes much clearer with the Muggle registration committee, resistance movements with radio broadcasts etc. Those scenes individually were very well done, but to me, it seemed as if part of a novel about Nazism had been transposed into one which already had problems in combining the levels of reality and symbolism/s on which it was operating. > > 2. Saluting the gate with their left arms makes them able to >pass through the wrought iron gate. Is this a tacit confirmation >that there was indeed a blocking spell on the tower in HBP which >only allowed Death Eaters to enter? Leah: I think that was quite possible. > > 3. The peacock at Malfoy Manor is mentioned at least twice in the book. What is its significance? Leah: I think having peacocks on the lawn is a stereotype of English stately homes. They are symbolic of pride and vanity. They can alos symbolise immortality and are on a yew hedge, another symbol of immortality, so symbolise the DE's cravings. Their paleness reflects the paleness of the Malfoys themselves. They are noisy birds, so may function as a warning device against intrusion. In Greek myth, the peacock's tail displayed the hundred eyes of Argus, used as a guardian by Juno, so that might also refer to a guarding/caretaking role. In alchemy, the peacock's tail represented the turning point in the process- beginning of the final stage. > > 4. On the first reading of Deathly Hallows, who did you think > might > > be the person hanging unconscious above the table? Leah: I had no strong view. I did wonder if it was Trelawney. I did expect it to be someone we knew. > > 5. Only one person already in the room looks up at the >unconscious revolving body above the table: Draco Malfoy. Once the >body is resuscitated, he no longer looks at her. Why? Leah: The looking is horrible fascination; I think he is repulsed but can't tear himself away. There were times during HBP when he thought he was going to fail in his task (his weeping in the bathroom) and he must think that this could so easily have been him. Once Charity becomes a 'living person' again, Draco can't bear the reality of the situation. I suspect the others have seen this before. They don't want to look, because then they will eventually have to look away and betray any feelings of pity etc to VM. In the case of others, Charity's simply part of the furniture. > > > 6. Voldemort gives Snape the seat of honor at his right hand. >Is this because Snape is his "right-hand man"? Or is > Voldemort "keeping his friends close, and his enemies closer"? Leah: Mainly, it is the place of honour, I think, but Voldemort trusts no one completely. Anyone who can dispose of the 'only one Voldemort ever feared' with a flick of the wand will need watching. >. > > > 7. Yaxley's information is different from Snape's. Is anyone >in the Ministry who is not a member of the Order of the Phoenix >aware that the Order will move Harry earlier than expected? Leah: I don't think so. > > 8. Several things that happen later in the book are alluded to in > > this chapter. When discussing the Imperiusing of Pius Thicknesse, > > Yaxley suggests that Thicknesse can subjugate the other heads of > > departments at the Ministry to bring down Minister Rufus > Scrimgeour. > > Was Scrimgeour killed by the Imperiused heads of the various > > departments under Thicknesse's direction? Leah: My impression on a first read was that he was killed as part of an outside attack on the Ministry, though the above reading is quite possible >> > 9. Who is Snape's informant? Who does Voldemort think it is? >Is it the same person? Leah: I think Voldemort thinks it is Mundungus, and I think Snape probably does use him. But of course Snape also discusses matters with DD, something that LV is blissfully unaware of. > > 10. Lucius and his family are clearly not happy with Voldemort's > > presence. Is this because Lucius is still disgraced from his > botched > > mission at the Ministry and his use of the diary Horcrux? Does > their > > apparent discomfort at the situation foreshadow their lack of > > involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts? Leah: I don't think Lucius had any interest in getting Voldemort back. He was doing very nicely, thank you, when Fudge was Minister, able to dabble in the Dark Arts and have a top box at the Quidditch world cup. I don't think Lucius' position with Voldemort ever fully recovered from the loss of the diary horcrux, and his chance to redeem himself at the MOM was lost. Furthermore, Draco failed either to kill DD or die trying. I think the Malfoys see themselves on a very slippery slope and want out. > > 11. Wormtail is described as sitting so low that his chair >looks unoccupied. Is this further sign of his physical >deterioration as seen in HBP? Is this because he would rather not >be there? Is itjust that he is a small man? Or is it symbolic in >some way? Leah: I think that it's a combination of those factors. He is small, and spent twelve years as a small animal. I think those years in the wrong body took their toll. He's insignificant in Voldemort's eyes, and Pettigrew would like to keep it that way. He's doing the equivalent of blending with the wallpaper. > . > > 12. The Malfoys do not make much eye contact with Voldemort. When Voldemort looks at Snape, other Death Eaters look away. Are all of the Death Eaters at the manor happy with Voldemort's return? Leah: It's no fun working for a psychopath, you never know when you will put a foot wrong. I think there are some, Bellatrix and the Carrows for example, who see this as a further chance to indulge both their sadistic streaks and pure blood mania, but others who didn't go to Azkaban, who were doing ok in their lives during his absence and would really rather prefer LV to be still in Albania- not something they would want him to read in their eyes. > > 13. Snape looks comfortably into Voldemort's eyes when the other > > Death Eaters turn away. We see an example of Voldemort's > Legillimency > > later in the book. How strong is Snape's Occlumency? Leah: I wouldn't think Occlumency could get much better than this. > > 14. Why does Voldemort praise Bellatrix, then humiliate her? Leah: That's how psycho tyrants work. No one is sure where they stand or when they will fall and therfore is grateful for any crumb of favour which suggests they are safe for the time being. Leah: > > 15. Where were the Lestrange brothers? Don't know, and don't particularly care. They have always been complete nonentities, allowing the spotlight to be on Bellatrix. I assume they are probably at the table, but not mentioned. I don't think Bellatrix has any feelings for her husband. > > > > 16. When Harry reviews Snape's memories later in the book, Snape > > tells Dumbledore he has only watched people die whom he could not > > save. Yet he looks dispassionately at Charity Burbage as she > pleads > > and cries. Was Snape lying to Dumbledore? Was this the first time > > he could not save someone? Was Charity Burbage someone Snape could > > not save? Leah: What could Snape do that would not betray him to Voldemort? Charity's pleas to Snape are an echo of Dumbledore's on the Astronomy Tower. I think they are used here to initially reinforce Snape as ESESnape, but when we look back after 'The Prince's Tale' we can see that Snape is following through on DD's plan here, just as he was on the Tower. I don't think Snape's words to DD were a lie. I thought they were an indication of how, though he believed he was still motivated by love for Lily, he had in fact gained in compassion - the words are part of Snape's redemption. Unfortunately, I don't imagine this is the first time the plan has forced Snape to sit through occasions like this. It must have been appalling for him and have taken tremendous self-control. > > > 17. Voldemort refers to "Mudbloods" as "thieves" of the Wizarding > > World's "knowledge and magic." This charge is repeated later in > the > > book. Is it possible for a witch or wizard to have her or his > magic > > stolen? Is it possible to steal knowledge without leaving that > > knowledge for others as well? Leah: I don't think so, and we are given no indication elsewhere in canon that this can be so. I think it is meant to be similar to the way lies are told about minority hate groups- like Jews allegedly poisoning wells in the Middle Ages. > > 18. When Charity Burbage's body falls to the table, several Death > > Eaters jump back in their chairs. Draco falls off his chair to the > > floor. Is this symbolic of some Death Eaters not being fully > behind > > Voldemort's agenda? Or was it simply surprise? Leah: Surprise, and shock. I think the majority of people at that table are tense, living on the edge of their nerves, and would react to any sudden happening. A body falling is just an extreme. > > 19. Why are the Purebloods dwindling? Leah: As Ron explained once, there are not enough purebloods for them to marry without interbreeding - all the pureblood families are related. Anyone who is not a pureblood fanatic is therefore likely to marry a muggle-born, or even a muggle, because there is a wider choice of partners. Inbreeding can also cause infertility. As the pureblood population dwindles, the proportion of muggleborns in the WW will rise. > > 20. Voldemort has no issues with "pruning" the family tree of > > undesirables, even though they may be pure-blood or half- bloods. > > Yet, he is displeased with Burbage's article and her assertion that > > the dwindling of Pureblood families is a good thing. Voldemort > > says, of Charity Burbage, "She would have us all mate with > Muggles... > > or, no doubt, werewolves..." He includes himself with the > Purebloods > > here. Does he think his Muggle father's family doesn't count? Or > is > > he actively enforcing the idea that he, too, is a Pureblood? Leah: I think in his own mind he is a pureblood. He has exterminated all trace of his father's family. > > > 21. Why does Voldemort think that Lucius does not need his wand > > anymore? Leah: It's an emasculation of Lucius. All power has been removed from him. Not a great move - now Lucius has only one thing to lose- his family. > > 22. Do you think Voldemort is planning on dispensing with the > > Malfoys eventually? Leah: They are very expendable, but there might be some use for them. If at any moment they can serve him better dead, dead they will be. > > 23. Voldemort invites Nagini to dine on the corpse of Charity > > Burbage. What do you imagine the reactions of the others around > the > > table might be? This idea has been presented in the books before. > > When do you think Nagini has disposed of the evidence before? Is > > this part of her value to Voldemort, or is Voldemort giving his pet > a > > treat? Leah: I would think everyone with the possible exception of Bellatrix is repulsed, and also terrified. I expect Bertha Jorkins was a snack back in Albania and others we don't know. Hope nice Mr Fortescue didn't end up as snake meal. I think this a treat for Nagini; she is after all closely linked to VM. It is also a final domination over the enemy. Leah, thanking Ceridwen for her questions. From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Sun Aug 26 00:57:08 2007 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:57:08 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: Inbreeding of Witches and Wizards Message-ID: <46D0CFE4.00003B.04052@LIFESAVER> No: HPFGUIDX 176253 It has been brought out several times that wizard pureblood is fading out and if it were not for marrying muggles, witches and wizards would soon be finished. My question is, Are the wizard communities so closed/segregated that they don't associated with other wizard communities throughout the world? If not they sure are missing out on a chance of bringing in new blood and strengthening the existing wizard blood. Are they really that stupid or backward" to realize this? Donna [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 26 01:03:36 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:03:36 -0000 Subject: When did the "trace" come about? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176254 zanooda wrote: > > I thought *around* really means around, close by :-). At least in the same house! Gaunt house and Riddle house were on two different sides of town. You are right that the Trace doesn't reveal the identitiy of a person, but shouldn't it show that the person is underage? In Riddles case, the Trace should have shown that either some teenager killed them, or that some teenager was present (around) when Morfin did it. Or maybe I still understand it all wrong ... :-). Melissa replied: > I'm not sure that the houses were in different parts of the village however the Ministry might have figured that a teenager wouldn't have been able to manage an AK. Fake!Moody in GOF tells the class that they could all point their wands at him and say the words he doubts he'd get so much as a nosebleed. Carol responds: The houses are close by, in the same small village, Little Hangleton. Morfin refers to the Riddle House as "the big house on the hill," IIRC. However, to me the key point is that no underage wizard is known to *live* in Little Hangleton. Frank Bryce mentioned a pale, dark-haired teenage boy to the Muggle police, but no such boy was mentioned to the Aurors, who, in any case, had Morfin's confession to the murders. The Aurors didn't know that the Muggle Riddles had a wizard son or grandson, and it never occurred to them to check further. They probably figured that some underage witch or wizard happened to be nearby when the murders were committed and let it go at that. Tom Riddle had Stunned his uncle, stolen his ring, murdered his parents, and disappeared before the Aurors even arrived. (If they sent an owl announcing their intended arrival, Morfin would have ignored the message even if he was conscious and could read, which is doubtful.) all evidence pointed to him, just as it did to Sirius Black so many years later. In contrast, Harry's underage magic was detected in his own neighborhood, where he was the only known wizard. So by their caclulations, Harry had to be the person performing the magic. (They wouldn't have bought the house-elf story if he'd had a chance to tell it.) Carol, filling the plot hole as best she can and not very troubled by it From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Aug 26 01:53:05 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:53:05 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176255 LesAJa: I wondered if somehow her characters grew out of her determined story-ending, if that is possible. So that the end of the story that she had fixed from the beginning didn't fit anymore. Ceridwen: Welcome, Les! Your post was understandable. I think you're right about the characters growing away from the story ending Rowling wrote as she began to write the series. If you have ever tried to write a story or a fan fiction, you'll see that sometimes, characters disagree with your idea of a story. Rowling said this has happened to her: one character who was supposed to have died, Arthur Weasley in OotP, did not die. Two characters who were supposed to live, died instead. It was the story, or the characters, dictating the change. Another point about the characters, and the plot, too, growing away from the original story ending is that Rowling was new at writing when she originally wrote the ending. Her skills improved as she wrote each book. When she went back to the original ending, with the changes for who lived and who died, the difference between the young, new writer she once was, and the experienced and successful writer she became, was very obvious. Perhaps, to her, the ending still made a lot of sense. I think the story, the characters, and the direction the books took, should have meant a new ending, written with her improved skill, and using the more nuanced plots that deveoloped over the series. Ceridwen. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Aug 26 02:29:09 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 02:29:09 -0000 Subject: Alchemy, the Epilogue and Slytherin (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176256 > > Mike: > > > > I agree, I imagine that there were periods of turmoil and calm > > since > > > the time of Hogwarts founding. Salazar Slytherin started out as > > > friends with Godric Gryffindor. Canon doesn't really explain > what > > > caused the rift and eventual departure of Slytherin. > > > > Magpie: > > No, but it tells us Slytherin was a Pure-blood fanatic like Riddle- > -I > > can't remember if it's actually in canon that Godric was a > champion > > of Muggle-born rights but we know he was. > > > Alla: > > Well, yeah, I mean if you consider the wizards of the month canon, I > think it is pretty clear that he was. > > From the website. > > "Salazar Slytherin > Medieval (precise dates unknown) > One of the four celebrated Founders of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft > and Wizardry, Salazar Slytherin was one of the first recorded > Parselmouths, an accomplished Legilimens, and a notorious champion of > pureblood supremacy" > > > Godric Gryffindor > Medieval (precise dates unknown) > One of the four famous Founders of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and > Wizardry, Godric Gryffindor was the most accomplished dueller of his > time, an enlightened fighter against Muggle-discrimination and the > first owner of the celebrated Sorting Hat. > Alla: > > I mean, seems to me Tom or no Tom, Slytherin's philosophy was quite > bad originally. Maybe he started to be crasy at some point in his > life. Magpie: I agree. I'm not basing what I'm saying on the website canon, even. I just think those things back up what we're told in actual canon about Salazar being a Pure-blood supremist. I don't think we're specifically told that Gryffindor was a champion of Muggle-born rights in the books--that bit might have been news to us on the website. That Slytherin was a notorious champion of pureblood supremacy was not. Tom Riddle really was, it seems to me, carrying on Slytherin's "noble work" in purging the school of Muggle-borns. Mike: I'm weak on the symbolism myself. I prefer to interpret the canon more straight forward. At this point in Debbie's essay she had not yet explored the symbolism. So when you brought up the generic bully house irrespective of where we were in Debbie's essay, I was responding to that point of yours. And I didn't think you were talking about a bully house with respect to end of story symbolism, since the bully house theme was brought up in book one and was barely if at all present in DH. Magpie: Sorry about that! Iirc, I think the paragraph that was in was about whether JKR thought JKR was the bad house, and the fact that they were presented as bullies throughout seemed like a good reason to consider them a bad house. It seemed like the main reasons readers would see them that way, however they imagined JKR thought about qualities the Hat associated with them. This isn't a real history where there's facts outside the text that might change them. > Magpie: > Gryffindor faults have a totally different weight than > Slytherin faults, and do not add up to them both being > the same, but different, imo. Mike: I don't agree, or I should say, I don't agree with your statement that Slytherin faults are worlds worse than Gryffindor faults. Not if you look at them objectively as opposed to through the Gryffindor prism. Magpie: I don't think Slytherin's traits are that bad either, if anyone was just asking my opinions. But the Gryffindor prism is the book's prism. In the book I think they clearly are significantly worse and the house has problems Gryffindor doesn't have. There is no other Slytherin except the one we see through Harry. Mike: We weren't talking about intentions, we were talking about Harry's chivalrous Gryffindor trait that was taken to an extreme causing him to go into his reckless saving-people-thing mode. And Harry does too blame himself for Sirius' death, its only later that he tries to rationalize and shunt the blame off onto Snape. I don't think anybody was fooled by this, and I don't think the author intended for us to believe that Snape was at fault, either. It's such an obvious irrational denial of fault by Harry that we don't even need to see when he gets over this. Magpie: Intentions are important, I think, and Harry's actions don't at all get him into as much trouble as the Slytherin's do. Harry's blaming himself for putting other people in danger is a common thought of his, whether it's because he had a bad idea or because they're trying to protect him, and yes, canon says flat-out that it's nor really Snape's fault. But I still think it's clear Harry's Gryffindor qualities run amuck are nowhere near those of Draco Malfoy's or any other Slytherin. Would you really say that the narrative seems to judge Harry's mistake the same way it judges Draco's or Snape's in joining the DEs? I think Harry's mistake is presented as a good thing gone bad. It's sympathetic, not "disgusting." > Magpie: > Sirius' running off, too, is done with the best of intentions. > Draco's joining the DEs is bad in itself. Mike: How are these Gryffindor or Slytherin traits or faults? Magpie: Harry's rushing into danger to protect those he loves is Gryffindor. Joining the DEs to enforce Pureblood supremacy and promote yourself over others is Slytherin. If somebody asked for a cliche of the two houses, those are the two that would come to my mind. > Magpie: > Sirius was a flwaed hero who is rightly mourned. Crabbe got > himself killed. Crabbe "deserved" to die, Sirius was murdered. Mike: Sirius wasn't mourned by the other side, and I bet Crabbe was mourned by his parents, if they survived. But these are Gryffindor and Slytherin characters, not character traits or faults of the houses. Magpie: We're reading about Sirius' side. You can't separate the events from the story. I think the book directly links these kinds of traits to the houses. We can deconstruct it ourselves easily enough, but I think it gives an inaccurate picture of the books to suggest that they read that way. That's why people so often refer to those who read from the bad pov as doing "subversive readings." Mike: Really? Harry's Gryff qualities were always shown as helpful? I'll leave the OotP example out. Just use DH. The Trio come up with a cunning plan to retrieve the Locket from Umbridge. We could credit them with daring for this also. Then Harry chivalrously helps all the Muggleborns to escape. Good thing to do, imo and the author's, but it causes them to almost get caught. Which of course results in the endless camping trip to nowhere. The Gringott's raid, cunning plan that included using Imperio if needed, and it was needed. Again, the Gryff trait of daring could apply also. But without these two Slyhterinish cunning plans, the Gryffindorish daring would mean nothing. Magpie: And they saved the world doing all these things. Yes, one can certainly associate the use of Unforgivables with being Slytherin qualities, but these are Gryffindors. They save a bunch of hapless Muggle-borns and destroying the Dark Lord's soul--this is not, imo, presented as a bad thing in the books. They're Gryffindors no matter what Slytherin-ish traits they seem to be using, and they're trying to do good things. It's not like whenever you're being smart you're being Ravenclaw, and whenever you're being loyal you're a Hufflepuff.Cunning and ambition can be okay traits (if not as impressive as courage, I think the book makes clear) but Gryffindor is also a group of people. > Magpie: > Gryff recklessness might put you in physical danger > but Slytherins put their souls in danger, which is far worse. Mike: Other than the heir of Slytherin (and probably Bella) I find no basis in canon for your statement of "souls in danger". Murder is not a trait that the Hat sorts for. It is not a Slyhterin trait nor isolated as only a Slytherin fault. Magpie: And to me it seems like just the most fitting language for what seems obvious. It's hard for me to believe that someone reading the book would think that the view of the book was that it's equally bad about to be reckless about the way you fight evil and to be like one of the kids in Slytherin. Harry's actions also lead to him being loved and admired and being a hero. Acting like a bully (a bully identified as such in this text) leads to bad things. I imagine most readers want to "be" Harry whatever he's doing. Not so much Draco. Mike: I too liked Jen's interpretation. I think it dovetails nicely with my interpretation that it's the Slytherin decendants, starting with the original Slytherin himself, that have put the cancer into the Slytherin house. I realize now that I forgot to include Salazar in my previous post as the cancer originator. And with the last of the Slytherin line eradicated, who knows what would happen. Magpie: Well, nothing will happen, because the book is over. Since the book never shows us a hint of this other version of Slytherin that we've never seen but will somehow emerge now that the last relative of this guy is dead it doesn't seem relevent. If the idea is that the death of Voldemort will mean that from now on Slytherins will no longer cheat at Quidditch or just basically be the kind of people they have all been shown as, I need to see that in the book itself. That's how JKR writes things throughout (unsurprisingly). She makes the case for the symbolism in order for it to work. I find it impossible to believe that any of this stuff "would" happen or that I'm intended to think it will happen when the author didn't set it up. It would be easy enough to do if that was part of what was going on. Mike: Yes, this was Slytherin's house, cancerous at the start. And the one heir we saw attend Hogwarts, persisted in the original Slytherin's ways. He affected and infected three generations of Slytherins. So for 50 years, the heir of Slytherin held sway over the rest of the Slytherins. You say that it was Slytherin at it's purest, yet I saw many of the original (to the reader) proponents showing disgust, fear, and cringing obedience to the cancerous one. Are these the people that you saw no change in, saw nothing in canon that would indicate they've changed their minds about following the "Slytherin" way as defined by one with the Slytherin blood? Magpie: Yes, it's cancerous at the start. Slytherin could not have corrupted his own house; the house is as he imagines it. Some Slytherins are eventually horrified by the truth of the house--they're attracted to it but don't have the stomach for it full blast (just as there are Gryffindors attracted to courage whose courage fails them). What I did not see was the kind of change you're talking about written as a result of this. If there's going to be a new Slytherin from now on led by Slytherins who are going to change what it stands for, we should see it. It's not like I don't understand the logic of this idea. I think it would have been a fine thing to happen. But it didn't. It has not reinvented itself much by the last page of the book. Mike: Snipping right here just to say that the Weasleys (and James, Sirius, Regulus and Ma and Pa Black) are examples of pure-bloods that don't buy into the cancerous pure-blood mania. They have different degrees of pure-blood pride, but none of them bought the "kill the Mudbloods" line. That the Weasleys may not have pride, per se, is beside the point. They *are* pure-bloods that don't denegrate the non pure- bloods. That's enough for me to see that pure-blood mania is restricted to those that have been infected by the cancer. Magpie: Where do any of these people express pride in being Pureblood? Sirius rejects his family's notions of superiority, James marries a Muggleborn. Just being a Pureblood doesn't indicate they're proud of being Pureblood. Mike: I don't mind you snipping this, it was long and boring anyway. But I did it to present canon for Tom Riddle as the cancer of Slytherin. I now amend that to include all of Salazar's heirs and the man himself. But what you didn't do was refute my assertion with you own canon. Magpie: I didn't see what there was to refute. I know Riddle's history. Obviously he's the leader of the movement we call the DEs that were the bad guys in the story. But I see nothing in canon that makes me separate Riddle from his followers. It's too much absolving everybody from their responsibility--These guys would not have been as dangerous if it weren't for Riddle as a leader, but I think we're still seeing them for real when they're following them. Like I said, it's not that this idea couldn't work for me ever. It makes sense to me. I just need it established in the actual canon in the same way the basilisk as killer of Muggle-born weapon is established and the Horcruxes are established. We're dealing with a magic universe so it's not like it's impossible to show Riddle's death meaning this. But it's not shown that way that I can see. It seems more like Tom Riddle showed up and there were all these people who were drawn to what he was selling. And not by coincidence, they were chosen for his house to begin with. That's where the author put them, and the more the series went on the more she associated Slytherin with his followers. Mike: Yes, I know Tom was the heir, that was my argument, at least that's what I thought I was arguing for. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough. If that's the case, I apologize. If you are going to look for a "better Slytherin", you have to get someone outside of the three generations that Tom infected. We have one of those, Horace Slughorn. And we know Sluggy escorted the kids of his house to safety then returned to fight against Voldemort. Magpie: Shouldn't Slughorn be suffering from the cancer too? He was alive while Slytherin had heirs. And of course he does say Muggle-borns are inferior in general, just as Phineas, who also was before Voldemort's time, uses the word Mudblood. Slughorn is the best Slytherin we see, and he still doesn't rise to the level of people in other houses. Being a DE isn't the only way to show you're a bad Slytherin. Mike: So how is this not Riddle's fault, and ultimately Salazar's fault? Much of the storyline in HBP was shown so we would see how Tom Riddle subverted Uncle Horace's house out from under him. (as Goddlefrood would say) So naturally, what we saw of the Slytherins during Harry's time in school would look "Voldemort-friendly". Magpie: I feel like I'm trapped in some sort of circular argument. Slytherin was founded by Slytherin. He founded it on his principles, which included ranking some Wizards above others based on their blood. Ambition and cunning are also said to be things the houses sort for. The best Slytherin we see is somebody who treats people well if he thinks there's something in it for him. The worst are genocidal murders. In the middle we've got a crew not admirable people (or sometimes people fans might like but Harry doesn't seem to find very good). Harry never comes across anything to show him that Slytherin's perverted--he knows they've been made violent and scary via Voldemort, but he's not Imperiusing them. When someone rises to power on bigoted ideals, he's taking advantage of bigotry that's there, imo. There is no other Slytherin that the one between the pages of the book, and that house has pretty consistent weaknesses. Mike: If Lucius warns Draco that to be seen as antagonistic towards Harry would be imprudent, do you think he also might have warned him about making anti-Voldemort noises? What about the other DEs that walked free, what do you think they taught their kids about being Voldemort- friendly? I say that "the stuff that's there" was put there by Voldemort, for the most part. But then I would need a more definitive explanation than "stuff" to be sure. Magpie: Of course I think Draco's beliefs are influenced by his upbringing. I also think the book judges him as bad despite that. Within the pages of the book, Slytherin is consistently bad. There's no other Slytherin that exists. > Magpie: > The founding story is that there was dischord, and then when > Slytherin left the other three could live in peace. Slytherin > has been set apart since then, not since Tom Riddle arrived. > > Slytherin was the bad guy from the beginning. If they were > going to create a new Slytherin they'd have to do it themselves > from scratch, which is not in the story. Mike: OK, we agree that Salazar started the whole *bad house* thing. Then Riddle, as his heir, continued it. It seems we may agree that various Slytherin heirs down through the ages may have fomented various degrees of discord. So now there is no longer a "Slytherin" to carry on Salazar's "noble work". That is in the story. Draco Malfoy, our main protagonist to Harry was disgusted with what he had to do because of Voldemort, and scared of what Voldemort could or would do to him. That's in the story. As for starting from scratch, I think just getting rid of the pure-blood mania would be enough. YMMV Magpie: Slytherin started Slytherin, and I think Slytherin continues without him. Yes, there's no more actual heir, but I don't see a single thing in the book that sets up Voldemort's death as meaning the kind of result you're describing, and it has to be there for me to say that that's what happened. We're not even told they got rid of the Pureblood mania--why would they have? We don't even know if the Malfoys did. > Magpie; > We were talking about a line in the epilogue. Harry tells AS a guy > he knew who was one of the bravest he ever met was in Slytherin. Mike: No, you had postulated (or rather denied) that we should fill in what else Harry meant to say, in a manner that suggested that he didn't think of Snape's Slytherin qualities as heroic. I think Harry, after viewing the memories in the Princes Tale, did think Snape's cunning was heroic. The fact that he doesn't bring them up to his eleven-year-old son does not change for me what I feel Harry has internalized. The lack of positive evidence does not prove the negative. Magpie: Yes, I still deny we should fill in what else Harry meant to say. If Harry meant to say something else he would have said it. Harry knowing that Snape also showed great cunning does not mean that Harry actually meant to say anything more than what he did to his son. I didn't say Harry didn't internalize it, I said he didn't mean to say it in the epilogue. Harry's been a fan of cunning for years when he himself displays it. > Magpie: > No, Voldemort was not "the cancer." Voldemort was the cause of the > most recent two wars. The "cancer" of Slytherin if there is one, > imo, at best in remission, still latent and untreated. Mike: I presented my canon for Voldemort being the cancer. The pure- bloodism was both the cause and the vehicle used to spread the cancer. And I admit that it was started by Salazar way back in the beginning. But I also read that this cancer was conflated by an hereditary Slytherin not simply House of Slytherin members. He alone was able to bring together the disparate groups of followers, a grouping that fell apart in his absence. Simply put, "It's all about stopping Voldemort, isn't it? These dreadful things that are happening are all down to him..." (HBP p.47 One-quarter of the wizarding world may have been doomed to purgatory as long as the devil incarnate was preying on that one-quarter for followers. Now that he's banished for good, and has no heirs to continue his work, I have hope for *all* the wizarding world. As Draco showed in the Epilogue, they don't have to like each other. As long as they aren't trying to kill each other, that's good enough for me. Magpie: So they're no longer trying to kill each other. That's the happy ending, and that's fine. I don't think it makes Slytherin not the worst house. Thousands of pages tell me this and there's nothing that overhauls the house that I can see. You feel that kiilling Voldemort will magically change the personality of Slytherin, one that was bad beyond its Pureblood mania? I think that's just speculating what might happen outside the book in our mind. I see nothing in the book that sets of Voldemort as the bad element that's preying on the good element that is Slytherin. I see Slytherins being less admirable people at every turn, in different ways (not just as Pureblood supremists), and with no hint of some magic spell that Voldemort cast to make them as bad as we see. Even in your history here you seem to be saying that it's better now because they no longer have a leader that will bring all their bad qualities together--and that I would say is true, but that doesn't make the Slytherins better as individual personalities. It keeps their potential for hurting others in check,imo. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 26 02:32:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 02:32:31 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176257 aussie wrote: > > aussie: Dumbledore never fully trusted Snape. DD never spoke of Horcruxes or Hallows with Severus. He could have been lying. Charity worked with Snape for up to 17 years. As DD said of Snape, "You disgust me." Carol responds: The words "You disgust me" are spoken at a specific moment in relation to a specific incident. The words "I trust Severus Snape completely" are spoken sixteen years later, repeatedly, under very different circumstances, after Snape has earned the trust that he did not have when DD spoke those words to a young Death Eater who cared for nothing except his fears for Lily. Dumbledore explains why he cannot provide Snape with complete information, and he states directly, "It is not a question of trust" (DH Am. ed. 684). It has to do with Snape's closeness to the Dark Lord and the danger of letting that information slip. The parallels with Harry is extremely clear; he, too, is provided only the information he needed at any particular time. The last, most crucial message, is supplied by Snape. "Come to my office tonight, and you shall not complain that I have no confidence in you" (DH Am. ed. 685). Dumbledore thought well enough of young Snape, who had spied for him "at great personal risk," to testify in his favor before the Wizengamot and to repeat, at Karkaroff's hearing, that Snape "is now no more a Death Eater than I am." DD not only gave Snape a teaching position and made him Head of Slytherin House at the age of 21 or so, he trusted him to watch over Harry for seven years (maybe more--it's not clear whether Harry was being watched before he went to Hogwarts) and over the students of Hogwarts after DD's death. In Harry's sixth year, he gave him the cursed DADA position, knowing that he would teach the students what they needed to know. He assigned him the crucial tasks of getting the Sword of Gryffindor to Harry and giving Harry the message that he must sacrifice himself. He trusted Snape, and only Snape, to kill him. It's a long way from "You disgust me" to "I am fortunate, extremely fortunate, that I have you, Severus" (681), but Snape has proven his courage, his loyalty, and his consummate skills as Occlumens, Healer, and spy. We see no one except Harry and Snape holding conversations with Portrait!DD after DD's death, and Snape is the only adult who actively aids Harry in his quest on DD's orders. Snape may not know everything, but neither does Harry. They both know more than anyone else, and from the secretive Dumbledore, that's a significant show of trust. Carol, realizing that the verb tenses in this post are messed up but unable to correct the errors because she's trying to prevent a too curious someone from seeing the spoilers! From juli17 at aol.com Sun Aug 26 03:18:20 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:18:20 EDT Subject: The House of Slytherin (was Alchemy) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176258 > Magpie: > Gryffindor faults have a totally different weight than > Slytherin faults, and do not add up to them both being > the same, but different, imo. Mike: I don't agree, or I should say, I don't agree with your statement that Slytherin faults are worlds worse than Gryffindor faults. Not if you look at them objectively as opposed to through the Gryffindor prism. Julie: Well, I do think we automatically make certain judgments based on our own societal influences and upbringing, and as far as I know, in the English-speaking world, ambition and cunning are very ambiguous traits that are more often used with negative connotations, while courage is a trait that almost always has positive connotations. That doesn't mean those traits *can't* be used in opposite ways (I'm sure Bella would have been very "courageous" in her refusal to disavow or repent her alliegiance to the Dark Lord under any amount of torture, for instance), but we don't really see them used in opposite ways in the books. (For instance, Peter doesn't turn the Gryffindor traits into negative ones, he simply doesn't actually *have* any signature Gryffindor traits. Heck, Bella would have made a better Gryffindor than Peter did, given her physical sort of courage and nutty impulsiveness, not to mention her zero sense of self-preservation!) It would have been more balanced if even *one* Slytherin had used his/her traits toward something good. Snape used what is commonly considered a Gryffindor trait, courage, to prove his (relative) goodness. (Cunning may have come into it a bit--for instance Snape punishing the Gryffs in DH by sending them to the Forbidden Forest--but both Dumbledore and Harry note that Snape's *best* trait was his un-Slytherinish courage.) Regulus also used courage, and loyalty to another--Kreacher, also not standard Slytherin traits. For instance, what if we found out Kingsley Shackelford was a Slytherin? A Slytherin who 19 years later is the Minstry of Magic, using one of his signature Slytherin traits, ambition, to actually better the WW! *That* would have made the point that the personality traits of Slytherin House are not automatically more negative or of lesser value than Gryffindor (Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff) traits. Julie, who is going to consider Kingsley a Slytherin from now on, unless someone pops my bubble by pointing out that I missed some reference assigning him to another House ;-/ ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 26 03:34:56 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 03:34:56 -0000 Subject: Was Death an easy choice for Harry to make WAS: Re:Back to Slytherin House In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708240742w224e4b37waacf1d42bc233b9f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176259 > montims: > and this is my last post today, I think... We see two boys in the same > school year going through this - Draco and Harry. Draco sees through the > horror of LV, and continues only through fear for his family. He does not > experience "a total abandonment of critical thinking, and a total embrace of > martyrdom". lizzyben: That's why I liked Draco better. :) At the same point, Harry was proudly proclaiming himself "Dumbledore's Man!" Harry totally forgets the anger & frustration he felt towards DD in OOTP once DD decides to pay attention to him again. He's quite literally willing to jump off a cliff for DD. montims: > Why is it a tragedy for us to read of "what happens when peer pressure & a > need to conform > leads people into making choices & joining groups that they wouldn't > otherwise support."? I would have thought it was a necessity for children > to realise these things, so we aren't doomed to repeat the same mistakes > over and over again. lizzyben: Because we actually aren't shown that. When it comes to the Gryffindor students, using peer pressure to make people join a group is totally OK. (Witness the coercion & later branding of Marietta). Silencing dissent or ostracizing someone who questions that group is also totally OK (Witness the bullying of Zacharias Smith). We aren't asked to question the "good guys" actions, but simply accept them because it's "our" group. That's basically a gang mentality - and the text seems to approve of that when it comes to the appointed "good guys." montims: Unfortunately (*old fogy alert*) people no longer seem > to admire honour, "fair play", and doing the Right Thing. If JKR helps to > make children more honourable and to think before making allegiances, I > admire her for it. lizzyben: Honor & fair play are often missing in DH - instead, "our" group is allowed to do dishonorable & unfair things. The Right Thing is what "we" say it is - and varies based on what is most convenient for us. There's really no standards at all - beyond allegiance. Allegiance is the most important thing, and if you are allied w/the right group, you are allowed total leeway in how you treat others. Instead of making kids think before making allegiances, IMO it seems to reinforce all the benefits of conformity, group identification, & allegiance w/an "in-group". From springhollowranch at yahoo.com Sun Aug 26 03:27:39 2007 From: springhollowranch at yahoo.com (springhollowranch) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 03:27:39 -0000 Subject: Foreshadowing in PoA movie Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176260 I don't usually post, but I know there was some discussion after the last book was read about what JKR meant when she said there was a scene in PoA that "gave her chills." We have the dvd and my children have watched it about a million times, and I have been re-reading the series as a whole. I wonder if it could be the part where Harry and Sirius are talking and he says something like--it's a shame I got to spend so much time with James and so very little time with you--can't remember the direct quote, but then in HBP Dumbledore says to Harry "it's cruel that you and Sirius had such a short time together." I wonder if her chills were because she knew that she would kill Sirius off in OoP. springhollowranch ***Elfy reminder*** Discussion of JKR's comment and possible foreshadowing in the books needs to refer to canon. Please take other discussion about movies to our sister list, HPFGU-Movie: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/ From catlady at wicca.net Sun Aug 26 05:49:30 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 05:49:30 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lily/ Neither Can Live/Snape Saves /The 'Taboo'/ Naming Offspring Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176261 Judy Serenity wrote in : << But, this raises the question again: If Voldemort wasn't willing to spare Lily for Snape's sake, then why, when Voldemort showed up at Godric's Hollow, did he give her a chance to "step aside"? Or, if Voldemort did tell Snape that he would spare Lily, then why did Snape show up, desperate, frantic, begging Dumbledore to save her? >> As I posted many years ago, LV told Snape that he was willing to leave Lily alive as a gift for Snape but would kill her if she interfered with him killing Harry, and LV was telling Snape the truth (which seems Out of Character for LV). And Snape believed LV (which seems stupid) but knew that Lily would never accept her life in exchange for not defending her baby, so he turned to Dumbledore to please rescue Lily (and her baggage). Alla wrote in : << I wonder sometimes what If Voldemort indeed incapacitated Lily and killed Harry and James only, did Snape seriously thought Lily would become his? >> Imperius. Love Potions. Confundus. Obliviation. Zgirnius wrote in : << Dumbledore in the second meeting with Snape in "The Prince's Tale" states that Snape, like the Potters, placed his trust in the wrong person. I took that to mean Voldemort. >> This goes along with Potioncat's question in the immediately preceding post: << has anyone else noticed places in any of the books where JKR seems to be winking at her fans or laughing at herself? >> When DD told Snape that both Lily and Snape had placed their trust in the wrong person, he meant Lily trusting a disloyal Secret Keeper and Snape trusting LV. But the first time I read it, my instant thought was 'they trusted Lily's life to the same wrong person: Dumbledore'. I posted that on 7/22/07, but unfortunately not on this list. Montavilla47 agreed in : << This is a bit off-topic, but I find that quote very ironic. Because yes, Snape had put his faith in the wrong person. Not Lord Voldemort (who he obviously didn't have faith in, since he ran to Dumbledore after Voldemort said he'd spare Lily), but in Dumbledore. He put his faith in Dumbledore to prevent the tragedy, and he agreed to do "anything" in return. And Dumbledore let him down--and still insisted on full payment. >> That post was too good to be snipped. Geoff quoted in : << "Nobody," said Harry simply. "There are no more Horcruxes. It's just you and me. Neither can live while the other survives and one of us is about to leave for good..." >> In that statement from Harry, "neither can live while the other survives" means about the same as "This town ain't big enough for both of us" in a Western. Did JKR and the power that spoke through Trelawney put that phrase into the Prophecy just so Harry could say it at the show-down? If it had additional meaning in the Prophecy, what did it mean? Why wasn't it 'neither can die while the other survives'? Carol wrote in : << In any case, he could not have saved her from an Avada Kedavra. His specialty is healing (or slowing) Dark Curses >> I don't think it makes a difference whether she was to be killed by Avada Kedavra, a bullet, or a venomous bite from Nagini. He couldn't save her without blowing his cover and the mission, as you said. If he was willing to blow his cover and the mission, to save her right away, he couldn't have saved her from the bad guys' second try after they responded to his first effort by outnumbering and killing him. But he could have tried equally to pull her out of the way of the flying curse, bullet, or snake head; tried equally to stun Voldemort before he picked up his wand or gave the order. Carol wrote in : << I was glad to see that the fear of Voldemort's name had a basis in VW1 reality and that Ron was the one to explain the Taboo >> It doesn't make sense to me that the Taboo (that should have been named Trace) was in effect during VWI. In DH, the Order of Phoenix people were easily found and killed or captured because they said Voldemort's name. They were in the habit of saying Voldmort's name because Dumbledore had encouraged them to. Surely DD was already encouraging them to say Voldemort's name during VWI. Do you think DD would have encouraged it if he knew about the Taboo? Do you think the Order wouldn't have found out about the Taboo when they had spies and infiltrators and DD's little silver gadgets? montims wrote in : << when people in the real world have children, do they really name them after somebody they know, or do they just pick their favourite names??? >> Here in USA, both things happen. Enough parents name their children some name that they just happen to like that one can tell what decade a woman was born in because her given name is Dakota (those aren't 'women' yet, still 'girls') or Brittany or Chelsea or Liza. The fashion trends in boys' names are less strong, so that John, Michael, and David are always in the top five. I read someone on some list saying that Rose and Hugo are currently popular names for babies in the UK. But it is quite the common thing in US to name one's child after someone. I was named Rita after my late grandmother Marguerite and my brother was named Alan after my other grandmother Ellen. Quite a number of men are Juniors or IIIs, meaning they were given the exact same name as their father (and as their grandfather, for the IIIs). Sometimes it is not exactly the same name, as for example Frank Sinatra was named after his father but he was Franklin and his father was Francis. It used to be somewhat common to name boys after the reigning President, providing Woodrows during the Wilson presidency, Calvins under Coolidge, Herberts under Hoover, and Franklins under Roosevelt. Sali wrote in : << On a tangent, we hear Albus' middle name but not that of James and Lily. Assuming that Harry continues his propensity for naming his children after dead loved/respected ones, I'm coming up with James Sirius (which I think is an infelicitous combination) but am drawing a blank for Lily. >> Surely little James's middle name is Harry and little Lily's middle name is Ginevra. Rowling appears to live in a universe where the first born child of each sex has the name of the parent of that sex for middle name. For example, Hero Harry's middle name is James, Bill Weasley's middle name is Arthur, and Ginny's middle name is Molly. Jen wrote in : << Thinking each one secretly influenced the naming of a child after an old crush fits with the way they tend to operate with each other.>> It was a cute fan-theory but, if true, it sounds like a symptom of a horrible marriage. If each one wants to name their child after their old flame for no reason other than the person having been an old flame, and each one wants to keep this secret from the other, of course the desire for secrecy is fear that the spouse will be jealous, and that fear of jealousy seems to me that indicate that the spouse has real reason to be jealous, i.e. that each spouse secretly would rather be married or having an affair with his/her old flame. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Aug 26 06:38:59 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 06:38:59 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176262 LesAJa: > I favoured the idea, that there indeed was NO ironclad reason for > Dd to trust Snape, that the ultimate point would be that there can > never be such a proof, that you have to choose to trust someone. > And I favoured the idea that JKR would write it in such a way that > would make the readers wonder if Dd's trust, given without a last > ironclad proof, Dd's faith in the goodness of Snape, maybe was the > cause that Snape turned to or stayed on the good side. I hoped for > that. Jen: I think you are saying that Snape loving Lily made the story you wanted impossible, because that was a concrete reason Dumbledore trusted Snape instead of trusting him on faith? I read their relationship as very similar to what you expressed wanting to see: Snape's love for Lily, still inside him even after his life as a DE - a choice that JKR once said requires suppressing virtually all of the good side of a person (paraphrased) - wasn't really very much for Dumbledore to hang his trust upon. It's hard to imagine many leaders who are charged with the safety and security of so many in a war-type situation would believe that love alone was enough to make a person worthy of an offer to change sides. There was no guarantee Lily would be saved, no guarantee Snape would want anything to do with Dumbledore if his objective was met, etc. Then Dumbledore backed up his offer with other actions that helped Snape rejoin the community he'd lost: Dumbledore vouched for Snape in court, offered Snape safety should Voldemort return and gave him a job and home back at Hogwarts, which according to Harry's assessment in the forest, was the 'first and best home' Snape knew. The Pensieve memories from Snape are incomplete, meant only to fill in the necessary parts of the story that Harry has to understand in order to realize he can trust Snape and therefore believe the pivotal moment when Dumbledore talks of how Harry must sacrifice himself. JKR did something *very* surprising in this chapter and the entire series in my opinion - never revealing Snape's actions as a DE. The only indication we have of the depths to which Snape had sunk was the way Dumbledore addressed Snape in their first meeting. Dumbledore was meeting a man who was following Voldemort until the point something happened that shook him to his core - Lily's life was threatened. Presumably nothing else would have turned him from Voldemort's side. The goodness left in Snape was that he still carried a deep love for his longtime friend, even though Lily had closed the door on their relationship, married his enemy and, as far as Snape knew, given up on him. Just as Dumbledore could see the possibility for a bit of goodness left in Pettigrew, he trusted Snape's love for Lily was enough to give him a second chance. LesAJa: > He acknowledges Snape's skills, but how does it sound like for > Snape (who died still believing that Dd has only used him all the > time), when Dd says "Do not think that I underestimate the constant > danger in which you place yourself, Severus. To give Voldemort what > appears to be valuable information while withholding the essentials > is a job I would entrust to nobody like you."? Like "you are the > perfect tool because of your quite unique skills, and I know you > live a hell of a life because of that, so terrible I want no other > person has to live."? Jen: The quote is actually, "...I would entrust to nobody but you" rather than 'nobody like you' - not sure if the word 'like' influenced your reading or not but it changes up the meaning for me to read it with 'like.' When reading your response, the question that springs to my mind is 'what other life was open to Snape other than the life he had with Dumbledore?' His choices were few when he first approached Dumbledore to help Lily. He could have stayed with Voldemort and done nothing to try to save the Potters. When Voldemort returned, Snape might have chosen to leave Hogwarts as Karkaroff did (and be killed for his effort) or to declare himself part of the Order (and also be killed). Dumbledore offered him a chance to make a difference with the rest of his life rather than to be a DE or to be killed, and to Snape's credit, he turned his second chance into a life that mattered. Re: the way Dumbledore talks to Snape, the fact that he lied to him about Harry and kept the Horcruxes from him, one thing I kept in mind while reading the Pensieve scenes was that Dumbledore and Snape were very dependent on Snape being able to continue his superb Occlumency in order to fool Voldemort. Dumbledore wasn't able to reveal everything to Snape for that reason and Snape was a master at shutting off his emotions so he wouldn't betray a weakness to Voldemort. The limitations present likely hindered a father/son relationship from developing although their complete trust in each other struck me as very intimate in a different way from emotional intimacy. LesAJa: > In the end, it seems, Dd was wiser than anyone, and because of > that, we may not understand why he does what he does...? Just > follow the leader, be "his man", and whatever he wants you to do or > to ignore is right, and therefore if you do what he wants you'll be > good. I don't like that, I prefer to follow moral rules and not > persons. It's easier to lose track of means and motives if you > follow a person, especially if you are emotionally connected to > this person. It hinders people thinking for themselves IMO. Jen: Thinking about the real world for just a moment, it's difficult to think of a moral system that exists without being attached to a person or deity. Religion, social justice, spirituality, political movements - whatever a person chooses to ascribe belief to involves either identifiable leaders or identifiable deities who offer a moral system to follow. There are no deities in the Wizard World, so JKR substituted identifiable leaders who represent ideologies. Nevertheless, distilling down the WW to two main ideologies and their respective sides, with a large third group of people who don't want to commit to either side or don't realize they should, doesn't necessarily make for a consistent moral system when reading the books! Like you described in your original post, there are points where the ideologies aren't clearly defined and it leads to actions and events that aren't immediately connected to one side or the other. A big gray area. My reading of Dumbledore's talk with Harry in King's Cross was different from yours. While Harry still needed to know information only Dumbledore had, Harry was no longer in the role of student to a teacher. Dumbledore offered the only thing he had left, the truth, which brought Harry's secondary quest in DH to an end. Snape's memories were the impetus to get him to King's Cross, and Dumbledore's story was the foundation for Harry determining what he would do next: return and help the living. He could begrudge this man, now dead, for his faults and failings, weaknesses and losses, or Harry could forgive Dumbledore and move on. There wasn't a reason I could see for Harry refusing his forgiveness when Dumbledore asked for it. > I hope my post is not too confusing and apologise if it is, as > English is my second language. Jen: No confusion at all! Very nice post, thank you. From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Sun Aug 26 07:15:16 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:15:16 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176263 guzuguzu: [snips] > I'm going to make one more attempt to explain argument: My opinion is > that the Molly-Bella duel scene was not well-written as it did not > ring true in the context of the books, and was written like a show > down in an action movie. [snips] Shaunette now: I found Molly's *line* really cheesy, but I found the *scene* believable. In short, I agree that it was a little too "action movie", but I wasn't surprised that Molly prevailed. Maybe "NOT MY DAUGHTER!!!" would have been alright. "B*TCH!" sort of turned a cheer into a groan. > ***Katie replies: [more snippage] > Are ANY of these people specifically qualified to fight Dark wizards? > > No. [HUGE snip] Shaunette again: I'm actually hoping not to get into the Molly vs. Bella thing much, though I agree, Katie, that there's nothing unrealistic about Molly's victory based on qualifications etc. Here's the REAL reason I quoted you just now: I don't think one needs any qualification to fight "Dark" wizards because being "Dark" doesn't mean being "skilled"! The DE's sort of...suck, don't they? Sure seemed to. But--regardless--one needs qualification, or training, or skill, to fight someone with qualification, or training, or skill. And I guess one needs qualification to call oneself an Auror, an official (and yes, more skilled than not) Dark Wizard catcher. But what's a "Dark" wizard anyway? Someone who uses "Dark" spells or who causes mayhem isn't necessarily a deadly adversary. I think the term "Dark wizard" is kinda silly , actually (yes, I know it's canon and all). I mean, imagine cops calling themselves "Bad Person catchers"! Now, before anyone gets into the fact that "Dark" magic and those who use it, in the WW, is somewhat different from the idea of doing "bad" stuff in the RW, let me say that I am aware of this. It still seems like an awfully childish and simple way of looking at things. But that's the thing with the WW, it's terribly backward and unfair and hopelessly (though understandably) medieval, isn't it? -Shaunette, hoping she's not so behind in her reading that this has already been discussed to death From leahstill at hotmail.com Sun Aug 26 08:38:58 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 08:38:58 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lily/ Neither Can Live/Snape Saves /The 'Taboo'/ Naming Offspring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176264 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > Alla wrote in > : > > << I wonder sometimes what If Voldemort indeed incapacitated Lily and > killed Harry and James only, did Snape seriously thought Lily would > become his? >> > > Imperius. Love Potions. Confundus. Obliviation. Leah: I don't think Snape had any thought of Lily becoming 'his'. If Snape had wanted to use love potion on Lily, he could have done so while they were still at school. When Rita Skeeter is writing about Hermione's love life in GOF, she quotes Pansy Parkinson as sayng that Hermione is 'quite brainy' enough to make a love potion. We have to think that the Half-Blood Prince could have managed one too. In Slughorn's first lesson, a large cauldron of love potion is bubbling away, suggesting that making it will at some time form part of the NEWT syllabus. However, it doesn't feature in Harry's lessons, so we never see any reference to it by the Prince. Neither does Harry turn to the Prince for help when Ron eats Romilda's chocolates. HBP is full of the Prince's writings and of love potions, but the two are never linked. If there was to be any indication that Snape intended forcing himself on Lily in this way, I think we would have seen some Princely reference to Amortentia. (And since he didn't intend to use the method that would come most naturally to him, I don't think Snape had any idea of using another method of rape such as the Imperious curse). I don't think that Snape wanted Lily kept alive for his personal pleasure. He wanted her alive because he could not bear to be in a world in which she did not exist. He may have hoped that she might come to care for him, but I think that's as far as it went. I think there's further indication of that in Harry's final scene with Voldemort. Voldemort tells Harry that Snape 'desired' Lily, but then admitted there were women more worthy of him (fairly clearly sexually worthy). Harry responds "That is what he would have told you", an echo of words used by Dumbledore to Harry to explain Snape's apparently shifting loyalties. The fact that Harry in extremis, and with the Prince's memories fresh in his mind, rejects desire as Snape's primary motivation for saving Lily is, I think, significant. Leah From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Aug 26 11:03:48 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:03:48 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708230436j2f89dd7g4541d0219b6c0eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176265 > montims: > Is this another Brit/US thing? Because I don't get it - I have lots of > friends in England who have children, and I have (naturally) worked with > many others. And in all of those cases, when the parents were thinking of > baby names, they were choosing names that they liked, often from a baby > book. I have never known anyone who named their children AFTER someone > else. Annemehr: Come to think of it, JKR -- Joanne -- and her sister Dianne were both named after Anne, their mother. So she would certainly be used to the idea. And maybe it also shows where JKR got some of her playfulness with words. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sun Aug 26 07:56:40 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:56:40 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long) Message-ID: <20070826175640.CTE23871@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176266 Shaunette: (SNIP> Now, before anyone gets into the fact that "Dark" > magic and those who > use it, in the WW, is somewhat different from the > idea of doing "bad" > stuff in the RW, let me say that I am aware of this. > It still seems like > an awfully childish and simple way of looking at > things. But that's the > thing with the WW, it's terribly backward and unfair > and hopelessly > (though understandably) medieval, isn't it? > Sharon: But these are children's books. Children need to be able to understand good and bad, black and white. So if it's simplistic to call the baddies *dark wizards* then surely that is entirely appropriate. Perhaps JKR should rewrite the series for adults and answer all our complex questions;-p When I asked my daughter (now aged 14, but started reading them aged 8) what messages she got from the books she said: * friendship/love is more important than anything *sometimes good people do bad things but that doesn't make them bad *you should always try to do what is right rather than what is easy *unselfishness, courage, modesty, friendship and sacrifice are the kinds of virtues that we should try to develop *snogging means kissing (LOL!) Making the underlying meanings more complex would change the series completely -- into *adult* fiction. From cantone2007 at gmail.com Sun Aug 26 11:47:55 2007 From: cantone2007 at gmail.com (cantone2007) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:47:55 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names References: Message-ID: <001001c7e7d6$f9dce750$ab096551@Desktop> No: HPFGUIDX 176267 Annemehr: wrote : >> Because I don't get it I have never known anyone who named their >> children AFTER >>someone > >else. I'm amazed you have never known anyone who has named their children after anyone. Most of my relatives / friends have names which belonged to parents or grandparents before them. In some areas it is family tradition that eldest sons are named after their father's. If, for instance, you check census results for Cullercoats in Tyneside you will over and over see sons named after their fathers. To illustrate it with someone well known. Andy Taylor, former guitarist with Duran Duran is the youngest son of two. His eldest brother shares their father's name. Andy's own son is also named Andrew. Why would someone want to name their child some random name that's in fashion this year when they could name them in respect of forebears and have a name with some history to it, relevant to the family? JC [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jenlundq at hotmail.com Sun Aug 26 14:10:24 2007 From: jenlundq at hotmail.com (pwrmom2) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:10:24 -0000 Subject: Train Station Dream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176268 > allthecoolnamesgone I thought your interpretation was beautiful. I am adding that to my imagination. I waited until this weekend to read 7 for the 2nd time and, of course, picked up a lot I missed since I wasn't just trying to get through the story to see what happened. I've thought a lot about Snape. Actually started rereading the whole series after reading 7 last month and I look at Snape in a whole new light. I like this resolution you made. Pwrmom2 From jenlundq at hotmail.com Sun Aug 26 14:17:36 2007 From: jenlundq at hotmail.com (pwrmom2) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:17:36 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176269 Geoff: > Why did JKR create Charity Burbage, Professor of Muggle Studies, > just to be killed by Voldemort in Chapter 1? > > She is effectively a non-entity. we have no other references to > her and I have to say that it left me emotionally untouched because > she was a stranger, just another name in the long list of Voldemort's > victims.That probably sounds callous but that often happens in real > life situations. My personal opinion wasn't that the death was supposed to have much impact on us, think of the other deaths in the opening chapters of the other books, people we really don't know or care about. I think the purpose of this was to show Voldemort's feelings about Muggle studies. It wasn't enough just to kill her, he kind of tortured her. In his opinion she is a major traitor, a witch who respects Muggles, worse she teaches impressionable magical youth to respect and understand them as well. The ultimate blood traitor. Also, he had her hanging there with Malfoy present, I think to make an impression on him as well, he knew who she was, look at his reaction to her presence there. Pwrmom2 From dama.silmariel at gmail.com Sun Aug 26 15:03:46 2007 From: dama.silmariel at gmail.com (silmariel) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:03:46 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Foreshadowing in PoA movie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56f2b65c0708260803s5b8c0ecbhd6cb6b0e258231a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176270 On 8/26/07, springhollowranch wrote: > I don't usually post, but I know there was some discussion after the > last book was read about what JKR meant when she said there was a scene > in PoA that "gave her chills." We have the dvd and my children have > watched it about a million times, and I have been re-reading the series > as a whole. I wonder if it could be the part where Harry and Sirius > are talking and he says something like--it's a shame I got to spend so > much time with James and so very little time with you--can't remember > the direct quote, but then in HBP Dumbledore says to Harry "it's cruel > that you and Sirius had such a short time together." I wonder if her > chills were because she knew that she would kill Sirius off in OoP. > > springhollowranch I didn't notice that, I caught two details. First, Stan Shunpike and the small head in the bus, that pointed me to dark magic, so when in HBP Stan got arrested and Harry though it was unjust, well, I had my doubts, and when he was later shown in DH chasing harry with other DE, I though the film's director hat hit gold (by sheer dumb luck, I'm sure). Second, I think is in the train but not sure, Harry is looking at his reflection in the window and the reflection just for a brief moments turns into a striking resemblance of Quirrell. Since Harry the Horcrux also 'carries' Voldemort as Quirrell did, I think that's the kind of image that could gave JKR the chills. Silmariel From jenlundq at hotmail.com Sun Aug 26 14:47:08 2007 From: jenlundq at hotmail.com (pwrmom2) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:47:08 -0000 Subject: Inbreeding of Witches and Wizards In-Reply-To: <46D0CFE4.00003B.04052@LIFESAVER> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176271 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Donna" wrote: >> My question is, Are the wizard communities so closed/segregated that they > don't associated with other wizard communities throughout the world? If not > they sure are missing out on a chance of bringing in new blood and > strengthening the existing wizard blood. Are they really that stupid or > backward" to realize this? > > Donna Donna, I don't think necessarily that they are stupid or backward, I think it's convenience. I think we take for granted in this day and age of the Internet and speaking to people all over the world, the realities. Yes, we are a global community, but how many people actually meet and marry someone from another country, unless they happen to have a reason to go to another country. Is it realistic for someone in the UK, where this takes place, to wake up one morning and say, "Well, there are no pure blood wizards that I've met in at Hogwarts or around my community that I want to marry, I think I'll move to Romania and go find a pure-blood to marry there, instead of marrying this muggle-born that I have gotten to know and love. " You have to remember these are human beings, and while some cultures do have arranged marriages, the UK isn't one of them. In cultures where people usually marry for love, that is what you look for...different from dog breeding where people look at the bloodlines and pick who should mate, possibly ship in some "sperm" from a great bloodline in another country. Just my opinion, I think the whole thing that was disturbing to Voldemort was how the bloodlines were getting mixed because of that dreaded word "love." With all of the Hitler comparisons, look at how his master race were the blond hair blue eyed people, for LV and Hitler, love had nothing to do with procreation. They were the dog breeders looking at bloodlines and characteristics they wanted to bring forward in the next generation. pwrmom2 From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Aug 26 16:26:08 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:26:08 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: <001001c7e7d6$f9dce750$ab096551@Desktop> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176272 JC quoted: > Annemehr: wrote : > > > > >> Because I don't get it I have never known anyone who named their > >> children AFTER > >>someone > > >else. Annemehr: Actually that wasn't me; I was only quoting montims. Personally, I'm *all* too familiar with the practice of naming children after people as my brother and I were given the exact same names as our respective same-gender parents. Imagine - a house with four people and only two names. Probably explains why I was so quick to take my husband's name when I got married. ;) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Aug 26 16:32:06 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:32:06 -0000 Subject: Responses of children (Re: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long)) In-Reply-To: <20070826175640.CTE23871@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176273 > Sharon: > But these are children's books. Children need to be able to > understand good and bad, black and white. So if it's simplistic to > call the baddies *dark wizards* then surely that is entirely > appropriate. Perhaps JKR should rewrite the series for adults and > answer all our complex questions;-p > > When I asked my daughter (now aged 14, but started reading them aged 8) what messages she got from the books she said: > * friendship/love is more important than anything > *sometimes good people do bad things but that doesn't make them bad > *you should always try to do what is right rather than what is easy > *unselfishness, courage, modesty, friendship and sacrifice are the kinds of > virtues that we should try to develop > *snogging means kissing (LOL!) Jen: That's quite a nice list! Two times when my son and I went separate ways in the area of black/white vs. gray reading were 1) the scene at Gringotts 2) Epilogue. Reading "Gringotts," he thought it a good thing they finally got hold of another Horcrux and was *most* concerned about the state of the dragon and its freedom. Meanwhile, I was fretting over the whole planning stage and actions of the Trio for goblin relations, etc., (although equally relieved to see the dragon escape). After reading the part in the Epilogue where Harry talked to Albus Severus, my son's reaction was first to laugh at the name, 'that's funny, he named him Albus Severus,' LOL - that went on for awhile. Then after we finished the reading, his only response was, "Harry was saying Slytherin is good now, right?" I wasn't sure how to respond since my reading was taking into account all the other books, all the comments here, all my own expectations, blah blah blah.... I ended up muttering one of those patently useless parent things when it's hard to explain everything you're thinking, "Yeah, I think maybe that's what he's saying there - that's what you see, right?" He didn't care, he was already headed out the door to play ball, certain of his rightness...;) Jen From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Sun Aug 26 16:39:49 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:39:49 -0000 Subject: Foreshadowing in PoA movie In-Reply-To: <56f2b65c0708260803s5b8c0ecbhd6cb6b0e258231a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176274 silmariel: > > I didn't notice that, I caught two details. > > First, Stan Shunpike and the small head in the bus, that pointed me to > dark magic, so when in HBP Stan got arrested and Harry though it was > unjust, well, I had my doubts, and when he was later shown in DH > chasing harry with other DE, I though the film's director hat hit gold > (by sheer dumb luck, I'm sure). > Lisa: But Stan wasn't really a Death Eater, was he? He was just imperiused? Good catch, though, either way -- that one got by me! silmariel: > Second, I think is in the train but not sure, Harry is looking at his > reflection in the window and the reflection just for a brief moments > turns into a striking resemblance of Quirrell. Since Harry the Horcrux > also 'carries' Voldemort as Quirrell did, I think that's the kind of > image that could gave JKR the chills. Lisa: Oh, I didn't catch that one, either; still don't remember it, I'll have to re-read! For me, the most outstanding unintentional foreshadowing was in the werewolf scene, where Snape shielded the children from Werewolf! Lupin, illustrating his ongoing protection of the innocent. Lisa From mindy at 012.net.il Sun Aug 26 16:27:50 2007 From: mindy at 012.net.il (mindy@IKzahav) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:27:50 +0200 (Jerusalem Standard Time) Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names References: Message-ID: <46D1AA06.000004.01996@COMP-0KEVJRSDLW> No: HPFGUIDX 176275 Annemehr: > Come to think of it, JKR -- Joanne -- and her sister Dianne were both > named after Anne, their mother. So she would certainly be used to > the idea. And maybe it also shows where JKR got some of her > playfulness with words. Hi, Just to stick in my 2 cents worth but I am Jewish and in the Jewish tradition, most babies are named for a deceased relative or famous leader. Usually a Grandfather or grandmother. Almost everyone I know. mindy From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Aug 26 16:59:50 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 26 Aug 2007 16:59:50 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 8/26/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1188147590.14.25213.m46@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176276 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday August 26, 2007 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 26 17:08:12 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:08:12 -0000 Subject: King's Cross railway station dream. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176277 "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > I certainly visualise it as a real place. So does canon Canon tells us it was real, it does not tell us it is a place. Harry's thoughts and emotions are certainly real. allthecoolnamesgone" Wrote: > if it was solely in Harry's mind >( a dream or a vision) then how was > Dumbledore able to give Harry information > which he had not previously known? It is not clear to me that Dumbledore told Harry anything he didn't already know; I've lost count how many times when Harry asked a question Dumbledore responded "but you already know". I think that with Dumbledore's last comment to Harry at King's Cross JKR is giving her readers permission to interpret it as Harry's subconscious working out the answers, or the waiting room for the afterlife, or JKR admitting that even she does not know all the secrets in the Potter universe. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Aug 26 20:24:51 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 20:24:51 -0000 Subject: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176278 Rowena: > I don't quite understand this. Exactly how would > 'simple human love' have defeated Voldemort? houyhnhnm: Maybe if Dumbledore had nurtured his students and staff instead of focusing on his secret magical plan, seen and fostered their potential as human beings rather than sacrificing that potential to their usefulness as tools, Voldemort might never have come back. Rowena: > Prophecies are not optional, they will come true > one way or another. And as we see from Greek myth > *and* HP the result of trying to alter prophecy is > only to fullfill them. houyhnhnm: Not according to Dumbledore or JKR. "If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been fulfilled? Would it have meant anything? Of course not! Do you think every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecy has been fulfilled?" (HBP, Scholastic, 310) JKR: It's the "Macbeth" idea. I absolutely adore "Macbeth." It is possibly my favorite Shakespeare play. And that's the question isn't it? If Macbeth hadn't met the witches, would he have killed Duncan? Would any of it have happened? Is it fated or did he make it happen? I believe he made it happen. (LC/Mugglenet interview) Rowena: > Lily's valiant death in defense of her son gave him > a ready made and very powerful protection that it > would have been idiotic for DD to ignore. houyhnhnm: That kind of proves my point. A world in which a mother refusing to stand aside and allow her child to be murdered is such a rare marvel as to invoke magic is a world in dire need of "simple human love". From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Aug 26 19:45:34 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:45:34 -0400 Subject: Inbreeding of Witches and Wizards Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176279 Donna: "My question is, Are the wizard communities so closed/segregated that they don't associated with other wizard communities throughout the world? If not they sure are missing out on a chance of bringing in new blood and strengthening the existing wizard blood. Are they really that stupid or backward" to realize this? " A good question. I think that what works against this is one of two factors (or possibly a combination of both). 1. Transportation. "Quiddich Through the Ages" says that intercontinental and transoceanic Apparition is impossible; hence, long distance travel must be by Muggle means. 2. Education. Most Wizardling children are educated at boarding school--Hogwarts, Durmstrang, Beaubatons, Salem, and other un-named ones--means that most people pair off with schoolmates. That is the natural effect of putting adolescents in that sort of social pressure cooker. Now, not all magebrats marry from school, nor do all attend school in their home catchments. (Witness Bill's marriage to a French witch and the Malfoys' having considered sending Draco to Durmstrang.) But the majority do. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From lealess at yahoo.com Sun Aug 26 21:01:30 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:01:30 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176280 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > LesAJa: > > In the end, it seems, Dd was wiser than anyone, and because of > > that, we may not understand why he does what he does...? Just > > follow the leader, be "his man", and whatever he wants you to do > > or to ignore is right, and therefore if you do what he wants > > you'll be good. I don't like that, I prefer to follow moral rules > > and not persons. It's easier to lose track of means and motives > > if you follow a person, especially if you are emotionally > > connected to this person. It hinders people thinking for > > themselves IMO. > > Jen: Thinking about the real world for just a moment, it's difficult > to think of a moral system that exists without being attached to a > person or deity. Religion, social justice, spirituality, political > movements - whatever a person chooses to ascribe belief to involves > either identifiable leaders or identifiable deities who offer a > moral system to follow. There are no deities in the Wizard World, > so JKR substituted identifiable leaders who represent ideologies. > > Nevertheless, distilling down the WW to two main ideologies and > their respective sides, with a large third group of people who don't > want to commit to either side or don't realize they should, doesn't > necessarily make for a consistent moral system when reading the > books! Like you described in your original post, there are points > where the ideologies aren't clearly defined and it leads to actions > and events that aren't immediately connected to one side or the > other. A big gray area. > > My reading of Dumbledore's talk with Harry in King's Cross was > different from yours. While Harry still needed to know information > only Dumbledore had, Harry was no longer in the role of student to a > teacher. Dumbledore offered the only thing he had left, the truth, > which brought Harry's secondary quest in DH to an end. Snape's > memories were the impetus to get him to King's Cross, and > Dumbledore's story was the foundation for Harry determining what he > would do next: return and help the living. He could begrudge this > man, now dead, for his faults and failings, weaknesses and losses, > or Harry could forgive Dumbledore and move on. There wasn't a > reason I could see for Harry refusing his forgiveness when > Dumbledore asked for it. > > > I hope my post is not too confusing and apologise if it is, as > > English is my second language. > > Jen: No confusion at all! Very nice post, thank you. > I agree that is a very nice post, too. I think one of the the fundamental messages of the HP books is the nature of faith, the submission of the will to the teachings of god, even if that path takes a person to the valley of the shadow of death. With faith, the person need not fear death and, in fact, has been prepared for it all his life. Thus, Dumbledore does indeed stand in for a Christian god, and Harry is his loyal and unquestioning follower, standing in for his son, surrounded by loved ones Dumbledore has given Harry the means to resurrect to support and comfort him in his sacrifice. And aren't the ways of a god mysterious? Mortals perhaps cannot understand them. Simple faith requires people to believe that god has the greater good in mind, and perhaps even loves his creations (only Harry, at it turns out), although he may also judge them harshly (Tom, Severus). He may stand back and refuse to interfere in the lives of humans (Tom), or he may see all and orchestrate each move, taking into account the wild card of free will (Harry's hatred of Severus). He may ask his followers to forgive their neighbors (Severus-Sirius), or he may send them righteously into battle (Harry-Tom). All of these interpretations are supported in the canon, as they may be in the Christian bible. Dumbledore showed a great deal of grief and humility at King's Cross, it is true, and his back story humanized him, but there was never any question of Harry not following him. Harry, who was not particularly perceptive or good at controlling his emotions or capable of loving others in a non-personal way or even able to formulate a simple plan, had the one thing that mattered in the end -- faith. I am coming at this conclusion from the perspective of someone who completely rejects it. I live in a country, after all, where our president says he talks to god, and he seems to have less moral qualms about his actions than Harry Potter. Nevertheless, I think faith is the fundamental message of the books. Give up your will and trust in god. I also agree with those who point out that the doctrine of predestination figures into the books' theme in a big way. lealess From geebsy at yahoo.com Sun Aug 26 20:41:00 2007 From: geebsy at yahoo.com (geebsy) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 20:41:00 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176281 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > > 19. Why are the Purebloods dwindling? > > 22. Do you think Voldemort is planning on dispensing with the > Malfoys eventually? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see > "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database "Geebsy" writes: I really just want to respond to question 22, although question 19 certainly is pertinent. I found it enteresting that everyone seems to think that LV is going to kill the Malfoys. Surely not. He effectively unmagics (or unmans) Lucius by taking his wand, but he, his wife and son are superb examples of the kind of wizard he prizes. If we take the Nazi examples to the extreme, they are blonde and beautiful and bound to be breeding stock. Pure-bloods are dying out and yet kill this superb family? No way. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 26 22:02:14 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:02:14 -0000 Subject: Responses of children (Re: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176282 > Jen: After reading the part in the Epilogue where Harry talked to Albus > Severus, my son's reaction was first to laugh at the name, 'that's > funny, he named him Albus Severus,' LOL - that went on for awhile. > Then after we finished the reading, his only response was, "Harry was > saying Slytherin is good now, right?" I wasn't sure how to respond > since my reading was taking into account all the other books, all the > comments here, all my own expectations, blah blah blah.... I ended > up muttering one of those patently useless parent things when it's > hard to explain everything you're thinking, "Yeah, I think maybe > that's what he's saying there - that's what you see, right?" He > didn't care, he was already headed out the door to play ball, certain > of his rightness...;) Alla: Jen, I actually find your son's reaction to be very interesting. I do wonder if somebody else's kids made a similar remark in any way, shape or form. Meaning whether they took from Harry naming his kid Albus Severus that JKR is saying that Slytherin is now good. The only kiddo in my family is 2.5 now so, there would be a long time till I can know her reaction to this :) Because if several kids took same message from this event ( of course it is not a reasonable statistics, but still) then at least I think we can make an argument that JKR successfully drove this message at least to the younger audience. IF of course she intended to give the message about the changes in Slytherin. I mean, maybe kids did not need to see the good Slytherin emerge or to see the good in the Slytherins we saw, maybe, just maybe if they were not invested in the house of Slytherin in general, maybe that was indeed enough for them to accept the changes in Harry POV as the changes in the Slytherin itself? I wonder. Of course maybe no other kid took this message, so I could be totally off base here. JMO, Alla From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sun Aug 26 23:18:29 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:18:29 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Responses of children (Re: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long)) Message-ID: <20070827091829.CTE90240@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176283 Alla: Jen, I actually find your son's reaction to be very interesting. I do wonder if somebody else's kids made a similar remark in any way, shape or form. Meaning whether they took from Harry naming his kid Albus Severus that JKR is saying that Slytherin is now good. Sharon: The message my daughter (and I) got from the epilogue was that just becuase a category of people did some bad things in the past, that doesn't mean that all people in that group are bad, or that the group itself can't *change*. Similar to saying that Germans initiated the Holocaust, and so as a nation did a bad thing, but we don't treat Germans today as if they're about to do it again. Times change, people learn from their mistakes etc. That's what we go out of it anyway. Alo, to me, Malfoys nod to Harry signifies his acknowledgement of a truce or even of geniality between the two. Harry did save Draco's life a couple of times, and Draco, via that nod, acknowledges it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 00:00:18 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:00:18 -0000 Subject: Responses of children (Re: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176284 --- "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > Sharon: > > > > > When I asked my daughter (now aged 14, but started > > reading them aged 8) what messages she got from the > > books she said: > > * friendship/love is more important than anything > > * sometimes good people do bad things but that > > doesn't make them bad > > * you should always try to do what is right rather > > than what is easy > > * unselfishness, courage, modesty, friendship and > > sacrifice are the kinds of virtues that we should > > try to develop > > *snogging means kissing (LOL!) > bboyminn: Definitely a cool list, right in the spirit of things. > Jen: > > > After reading the part in the Epilogue ..., my son's > reaction ... response was, "Harry was saying Slytherin > is good now, right?" I wasn't sure how to respond > .... I ended up muttering one of those patently > useless parent things when it's hard to explain > everything you're thinking, "Yeah, I think maybe > that's what he's saying there - that's what you see, > right?" ... > > Jen > bboyminn: Not trying to discredit your son's opinion of anything, just trying to expand on the thought. I don't think Slytherin's are suddenly 'good' now, I think they are better; better than they were. I think anytime you get a large group of 'ambitious' people together, they are bound to be a degree of corruption, even if only corruption of thought. But that is also true of many other groups, though perhaps to a lesser degree. Slytherins are always going to be plotting and planning ways to get ahead in the world, some perhaps even skirting the edges of what is ethical. But still, I only see them as collectively slightly worse than any other group of people. I think now that Voldemort has lost, and the adult Slytherins of the world have had time to think and quaffed a few ales, I'm sure they've concluded that Voldemort would have been bad for business, and what is bad for business is bad for Slytherins. Stability breeds prosperity. So, it is too the advantage of Slytherins, who want to prosper, to promote stability in the world. So, collectively they have a new set of priorities. I know I have really said much and what I did say was all speculation, but I find it hard to see peace time Slytherins as being any more than slightly more ambitious, and therefore only slightly more corrupt than the world at large. I have expressed this opinion before several times, and didn't get much support. I will point out that I'm not a big Slytherin fan or big Slytherin supporter or defender, but I do think, the general 'badness' of Slytherin has been exaggerated both by imaginations and by circumstances. Not worth much but there it is. Steve/bboyminn From magpye29 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 26 23:52:18 2007 From: magpye29 at hotmail.com (Mellanie Crowther) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 19:52:18 -0400 Subject: Inbreeding of Witches and Wizards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176285 Bruce Alan Wilson: Now, not all magebrats marry from school, nor do all attend school in their homecatchments. (Witness Bill's marriage to a French witch and the Malfoys' havingconsidered sending Draco to Durmstrang.) But the majority do. Couldn't one argue, however, that Bill actually did meet his wife through school, because didn't they meet at/through the Tri-Wizard Tournament when she was a participant? Mellanie My reading blog: http://booksalongtheway.blogspot.comCheck out BookCrossing: http://members.bookcrossing.com/r/af32e6a28c06102a8555 From karenwineberg07 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 00:32:36 2007 From: karenwineberg07 at yahoo.com (karenwineberg07) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:32:36 -0000 Subject: Inbreeding of Witches and Wizards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176286 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Mellanie Crowther wrote: > Couldn't one argue, however, that Bill actually did meet his wife > through school, because didn't they meet at/through the Tri-Wizard > Tournament when she was a participant? I have to agree with you Mellanie. If Bill had not been in charge of the dragons during the Tri-Wizard Tournament, he most likely would never have met Fleur in the first place, so it wasn't a matter of him marrying a French Witch, it was a matter of marrying a witch he met at Hogwarts. Karen From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Aug 27 01:52:16 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 01:52:16 -0000 Subject: Responses of children (Re: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176287 > Alla: > Jen, I actually find your son's reaction to be very interesting. I > do wonder if somebody else's kids made a similar remark in any way, > shape or form. Meaning whether they took from Harry naming his kid > Albus Severus that JKR is saying that Slytherin is now good. > I mean, maybe kids did not need to see the good Slytherin emerge or > to see the good in the Slytherins we saw, maybe, just maybe if they > were not invested in the house of Slytherin in general, maybe that > was indeed enough for them to accept the changes in Harry POV as > the changes in the Slytherin itself? Jen: I wanted to clarify that it was the entire conversation between Harry and Albus Severus, not just the name alone (I didn't explain very well). His take was Harry-as-parent said it was OK to be in Slytherin, you know? I extrapolated from there that in his worldview, where he's still dependent on his parents for many things, that if a parent who seems to love his child says being in Slytherin house is OK, then it really is OK. A parent wouldn't send a child to spend time somewhere if it's a bad place. An older child might see more gray area there of course, or even another 9 y.o.- don't know. Jen, off to get said child to bed over protestations about the first day of school tomorrow. ;) From random832 at fastmail.us Mon Aug 27 02:23:05 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:23:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Alchemy, the Epilogue and Slytherin (long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46D23589.3010601@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 176288 > Alla: > > Well, yeah, I mean if you consider the wizards of the month canon, I > think it is pretty clear that he was. Canon, perhaps, but canon for what? It's clear, certainly, that these things are widely believed in modern times, but we all know how much history can distort things. From penhaligon at gmail.com Mon Aug 27 03:04:42 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 20:04:42 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Inbreeding of Witches and Wizards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FDA1CE8F5BE43C88437A1C303BAB739@Home> No: HPFGUIDX 176289 Karen said: > I have to agree with you Mellanie. If Bill had not been in charge > of the dragons during the Tri-Wizard Tournament, he most likely > would never have met Fleur in the first place, so it wasn't a matter > of him marrying a French Witch, it was a matter of marrying a witch > he met at Hogwarts. > > Karen It was Charlie who was at Hogwarts for the first task with the dragons. Bill accompanied his mother to the final task, where they supported Harry ... the other competitors had their parents and family there. Fleur first cruised Bill on the morning of the task, when all the competitors and the families met after breakfast. Panhandle -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.8/973 - Release Date: 8/25/2007 5:00 PM From carylcb at hotmail.com Mon Aug 27 03:01:48 2007 From: carylcb at hotmail.com (clcb58) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 03:01:48 -0000 Subject: Inbreeding of Witches and Wizards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176290 > > Mellanie Crowther wrote: > > Couldn't one argue, however, that Bill actually did meet his wife > > through school, because didn't they meet at/through the Tri-Wizard > > Tournament when she was a participant? > Karen (with snips): > If Bill had not been in charge of the dragons during the Tri-Wizard > Tournament, he most likely would never have met Fleur in the first > place Bill wasn't in charge of the dragons. That was Charlie. Bill (who had already graduated and was working for Gringotts) came with Molly to watch Harry during the last challenge when the champions' families were invited. He met Fleur there and got to know her later when she got a job at the Ministry to "improve her English." clcb58 From magpye29 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 27 03:58:20 2007 From: magpye29 at hotmail.com (Mellanie Crowther) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:58:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Inbreeding of Witches and Wizards In-Reply-To: <4FDA1CE8F5BE43C88437A1C303BAB739@Home> References: <4FDA1CE8F5BE43C88437A1C303BAB739@Home> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176291 So regardless of who was caring for the dragons, Bill met Fleur at Hogwarts. I think it's sometimes hard for us in the States to understand how pervasive an influence school is in British society. JKR modeled Hogwarts after the British public (that would be private to us here in the US) school system. The contacts one makes during one's school career are far more lasting than here in the States, where we have a more mobile, transient society. I would think that in England, regardless of where you live or where your parents might move to, if they've made up their minds that you're going to a particular school, that's where you're going to go. And since that usually entails boarding, you're even more dependent on the people you encounter at school. We kind of have that here with our college system, or with things like Homecoming Day with our football teams. Everyone shows up to cheer on their alma mater, and it's sort of a reunion with old friends. The point I'm trying to make is that events like the tri-Wizarding Tournament are important socially, so school is still a central part of people's lives, and by bringing in students and others from the other schools, the wizards meet peers from other places, and that helps to diversify the gene pool when they hook up. Sorry this is so muddled... Mellanie My reading blog: http://booksalongtheway.blogspot.comCheck out BookCrossing: http://members.bookcrossing.com/r/af32e6a28c06102a8555 From cottell at dublin.ie Mon Aug 27 06:20:43 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 06:20:43 -0000 Subject: Inbreeding of Witches and Wizards/Statute of Secrecy and marriage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176292 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Mellanie Crowther wrote: > I think it's sometimes hard for us in the States to understand > how pervasive an influence school is in British society. Private schooling is an important factor for some British people - a small number of the titled and the wealthy. The books are enjoyable, but they are very far from an accurate portrait of education in the UK. > I would think that in England, regardless of where you live or > where your parents might move to, if they've made up their minds > that you're going to a particular school, that's where you're going > to go. And since that usually entails boarding, you're even more > dependent on the people you encounter at school. I'm curious as to where you get the notion that most British children board. They don't. 90% of secondary schools are comprehensive (state) schools (http://www.archive.official- documents.co.uk/document/ofsted/seced/chap-1.htm gives figures which cover the HP years); even among fee-paying schools, most are day schools. Of the c. 700 schools that do offer boarding places (and not all are completely boarding), a large number of boarders would be from overseas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boarding_school). Boarding schools are typically single-sex, so for most students, their peers at school are unlikely to include a future life partner. The matter of boarding status is further confounded by the fact that the term is also used for children attending special ed. schools on a residential basis. If you're a witch or wizard, there's only one school. Unless you stay single, marry a Muggle or marry a foreigner, there's an overwhelmingly high chance that you'll have met your spouse at school (along with pretty much every member of your society within seven years either side of you). British society really doesn't work like this. In 1998, there were 3,567 secondary schools in England alone (http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/VOL/v000417/schools_volume_2003.p df). One wonders, though, how your average witch or wizard meets a Muggle. The MW and the WW are shown to us as very strictly separate from each other; once you have been to Hogwarts, your chances of meeting a Muggle are probably quite limited. I wonder if the Statute of Secrecy has anything to say about disclosure during a relationshp - the only case I can think of where we get told about disclosure is Ma and Pa Finnegan, where he only found out afterwards. (The other example, Tom Snr. and Merope, I think we can put aside - though if wizarding tradition is *not* to tell until after marriage, then she is less to blame for not having done so.) One could imagine that it would be in the interests of the WW (or in the interests of keeping it secret) to stop people telling too early in a relationship. Not the sort of thing you want to happen on the third date. Better save it till after the wedding. From cottell at dublin.ie Mon Aug 27 06:25:45 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 06:25:45 -0000 Subject: Inbreeding of Witches and Wizards/Statute of Secrecy and marriage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176293 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "muscatel1988" wrote: > Private schooling is an important factor for some British people - a > small number of the titled and the wealthy. The books are enjoyable, > but they are very far from an accurate portrait of education in the > UK. I realised just after posting that I didn't mean "private" here - I meant "private boarding". And I forgot to sign the post, for which I apologise. Mus. From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Mon Aug 27 08:18:41 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:18:41 -0000 Subject: Train Station Dream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176294 Pwrmom2 wrote: > I thought your interpretation was beautiful. I am adding that to > my imagination. I waited until this weekend to read 7 for the 2nd > time and, of course, picked up a lot I missed since I wasn't just > trying to get through the story to see what happened. I've thought a > lot about Snape. Actually started rereading the whole series after > reading 7 last month and I look at Snape in a whole new light. I like > this resolution you made. > I too found that I had to re-read the earlier books to look at Snape again in the light of Book 7. I had had trouble equating the end of PoA with Snape being 'Good'. But on re-reading it, he was conistent in his actions but his actions were wholly driven by his belief that Sirius Black was the Potter's betrayer. He refused to listen to any other explanation because of his hatred of Sirius who had bullied him along with James. I find that my opinion of Sirius has changed too. He seemed a heroic figure and gets a 'heroes' death and is in some ways heroic. But he is also a shown to be a bully and unable to empathise with others 'inferior' to himself (Kreacher) or just different (Snape). That is his tragedy of course and the cause of his death by Kreacher's betrayal. allthecoolnamesgone From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 27 14:33:36 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:33:36 -0000 Subject: Foreshadowing in PoA movie. In-Reply-To: <56f2b65c0708260803s5b8c0ecbhd6cb6b0e258231a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176295 springhollowranch Wrote: > what JKR meant when she said there > was a scene in PoA that "gave her chills." I think it was the scene where Buckbeak defends Harry from werewolf Lupin, it was much like the scene in book 6 where Buckbeak defends Harry from Snape; remember movie 3 came out several years before book 6. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 14:55:48 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:55:48 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176296 Geoff wrote: > > I have to admit that I haven't had time to really look at the thread on Chapter 1 but looking at the questions set for the > OWL candidates, one has occurred to me which isn't on the list > and I wonder whether other group members might have any > theories.... > > Why did JKR create Charity Burbage, Professor of Muggle Studies, > just to be killed by Voldemort in Chapter 1? > > She is effectively a non-entity. we have no other references to her > and I have to say that it left me emotionally untouched because > she was a stranger, just another name in the long list of Voldemort's > victims.That probably sounds callous but that often happens in real > life situations. > > Had it been a name which we knew - even one of the lesser known > staff such as Professor Sinistra or Professor Vector - for me, that > would have had considerably more impact than the unfortunate > victim we briefly met here. > Carol responds: I think that her death was intended to demonstrate that Voldemort was quite literally deadly serious about his pure-blood supremacy beliefs. (Having "pruned" his only family, tree, he was a "good" as a pureblood and meant what he said about having Bellatrix prune the diseased branches from her family tree, as well.) He wasn't just using the pure-blood agenda to attract Death Eaters and keep them loyal; if loyalty were his goal, he wouldn't have treated the Malfoys so badly. Burbage's words about the desirability of pure-bloods marrying Muggle-borns and Muggles being people like wizards really are anathema to him, and he's ready to torture and kill anyone who dares to dispute the party line. Now, granted, the logical conclusion of his policies is that there will eventually be no one left except Voldie himself, anchored to the world by his Horcruxes, and a host of Muggle slaves, but he's not thinking about the future or logic, only himself and power and his loathing for Muggles like his father and Muggle-borns, whom he sees as usurpers. IOW, the purpose of the Charity Burbage episode is to show us where Voldemort was going with his agenda and what would have happened to the WW had he not been sidetracked by the Elder Wand. As it is, the Death Eaters get essentially a free hand in running the MoM, but most of them share that agenda anyway. (Yaxley seems to be the consummate loyal, ambitious DE, craving Snape's place as right-hand man. Snape himself is left to protect the students as best he can and allow a resistance movement to build, as perhaps he could not have done so effectively had Voldie been running the government behind the scenes.) We see again near the end of the book that Voldie is deadly serious about the pure-blood agenda (with powerful and talented Half-bloods like himself and the now-dead Snape having equal status, if only so that the wizarding population can reproduce). He tries to destroy the Sorting Hat and have only one House, Slytherin, perhaps intending to turn Hogwarts into a second Durmstrang. He talks about the "noble stock" from which Neville comes (a pure-blood family) and says that he'll make "a very valuable Death Eater" (DH am. ed. 751). It seems to me that many posters think that because LV is a Half-Blood, he can't possibly be serious about the Pure-Blood supremacy agenda. I think he truly believes it. He would not have murdered his grandparents along with his "filthy Muggle father" and tried to pursue "Salazar Slytherin's noble work" of rooting the Muggle-borns out of Hogwarts had he not started out believing this ideology nor would he have recruited followers who supported it if he did not believe it himself. That he still believes it is illustrated in earlier books by his sneers at Harry's "Muggle mother" (he doesn't distinguish between Muggles and Muggle-borns) and the "anger and contempt in his voice" as he talks about Charity Burbage's "impassioned defense of Mudbloods," whom he labels as "thieves of [our] knowledge and magic," and adds, "She would have us all mate with Muggles . . . or, no doubt, werewolves" (12). He wants no such beliefs taught at Hogwarts or published in the Daily Prophet, so he kills Professor Burbage in front of the DEs (including Draco) as proof that he's serious and as an example of what he wants from the DEs. The murder also tells Bellatrix exactly how seriously she is to take the orders to trim her family tree. From that moment, both Tonks and Lupin have very slim prospects for survival. I felt that "The Dark Lord Ascending" perfectly illustrated the state of affairs both among Voldie's followers (Snape as inscrutable as ever, the Malfoys humbled and fearful, the other DEs scrambling for favor or silent, Wormtail trying to be invisible) and in the WW at large (as well as making clear what happened to the bodies of LV's earlier victims and setting up Nagini as both loathsome and terrifying). Carol, who thinks that having the Muggle Studies teacher as the first victim of the book makes perfect sense but wishes that we'd seen more of Hermione's homework in the subject, which was a bit too much like Physics for my taste From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 17:48:01 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:48:01 -0000 Subject: Responses of children (Re: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176297 > Alla: > Jen, I actually find your son's reaction to be very > interesting. I do wonder if somebody else's kids > made a similar remark in any way, shape or form. > Meaning whether they took from Harry naming his kid > Albus Severus that JKR is saying that Slytherin is > now good. > > > > Sharon: > > The message my daughter (and I) got from the > epilogue was that just becuase a category of people > did some bad things in the past, that doesn't mean > that all people in that group are bad, or that the > group itself can't *change*. Similar to saying that > Germans initiated the Holocaust, and so as a nation > did a bad thing, but we don't treat Germans today as > if they're about to do it again. Times change, > people learn from their mistakes etc. That's what we > go out of it anyway. Alo, to me, Malfoys nod to > Harry signifies his acknowledgement of a truce or > even of geniality between the two. Harry did save > Draco's life a couple of times, and Draco, via that > nod, acknowledges it. Alla: Right, this is pretty much a message I got out of it, but what I am trying to figure out whether for your child ( or anybody's child of that age or a couple years older - you know) it was enough to get the message like this out of what transpired in the epilogue. That Slytherins can change and will change, etc. It is funny, I keep going back to the subplot that I consider one of the most beatifully resolved subplots in the series. I am talking about Molly and Fleur relationship. I thought that their truce in the infirmary was done **perfectly** and sweet and completely believable, etc. One can say of course that Harry and Slytherins should have had more page space than that to be believable, but should it? Was that subplot that more important than the relationship between Molly and Fleur? What did we have to point out into that direction? Um, as far as I remember one Hat song and one interview (that is if we do give attention to the interviews, which I do, but many people do not). Especially since after DH I believe that dealing with death theme seems to be the one that JKR is interested in much more than this subplot, I think that maybe JKR felt that this subplot was given exactly the page space to show the changes or future changes, it deserved in terms of its significance for the author. JMO of course. > Jen: I wanted to clarify that it was the entire conversation between > Harry and Albus Severus, not just the name alone (I didn't explain > very well). His take was Harry-as-parent said it was OK to be in > Slytherin, you know? I extrapolated from there that in his > worldview, where he's still dependent on his parents for many things, > that if a parent who seems to love his child says being in Slytherin > house is OK, then it really is OK. A parent wouldn't send a child to > spend time somewhere if it's a bad place. An older child might see > more gray area there of course, or even another 9 y.o.- don't know. Alla: You explained perfectly ? no worries, I understood it to be the whole conversation. But what you said made perfect sense, no? Maybe that is what JKR was going for? Meaning to make sure that beloved and respected parent figure tells the kid ? it is truly Okay to be in Slytherin and then the kids will take out exactly the same message your child did? I mean, Harry is beloved, respected, and all that in WW. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 18:18:06 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:18:06 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176298 > >>LesAJa: > > I favoured the idea, that there indeed was NO ironclad reason for > > Dd to trust Snape, that the ultimate point would be that there can > > never be such a proof, that you have to choose to trust someone. > > And I favoured the idea that JKR would write it in such a way that > > would make the readers wonder if Dd's trust, given without a last > > ironclad proof, Dd's faith in the goodness of Snape, maybe was the > > cause that Snape turned to or stayed on the good side. I hoped for > > that. > >>Jen: I think you are saying that Snape loving Lily made the > story you wanted impossible, because that was a concrete reason > Dumbledore trusted Snape instead of trusting him on faith? > > It's hard to imagine many leaders who are charged with the safety > and security of so many in a war-type situation would believe that > love alone was enough to make a person worthy of an offer to change > sides. > Betsy Hp: Anyone familiar with the current Battlestar Galactica (and if you're not you should be -- seriously one of the best shows on television) will see the relationship between the Cylon, Sharon, and Adm. Adama in that last sentence. Sharon changed sides (in a war were it seems genocide is the only end game) because of her love for the human, Helo. Adm. Adama eventually came to trust Sharon so much he sent her on a mission that if she were not trustworthy may well have ended with the actual annihilation of the human race. Sharon actually asks Adama, "How do you know you can trust me?" And Adama replies, "I don't. That's what trust is." The reason I bring this up is that this is how, pre-DH, I saw the relationship between Dumbledore and Snape. That Dumbledore got to know Snape well enough (his driving principles, etc.), that he trusted him in the truest sense of the word. Instead, it seems that Dumbledore trusted Snape's demons. Which is not that same thing, IMO. > >>LesAJa: > > In the end, it seems, Dd was wiser than anyone, and because of > > that, we may not understand why he does what he does...? Just > > follow the leader, be "his man", and whatever he wants you to do > > or to ignore is right, and therefore if you do what he wants > > you'll be good. I don't like that, I prefer to follow moral > > rules and not persons. It's easier to lose track of means and > > motives if you follow a person, especially if you are emotionally > > connected to this person. It hinders people thinking for > > themselves IMO. > >>Jen: Thinking about the real world for just a moment, it's > difficult to think of a moral system that exists without being > attached to a person or deity. > Betsy Hp: The US Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Those are two guiding principles set up without connection to a specific leader or a specific deity. They were purposefully written that way because the Founding Fathers *knew* how easily corrupted a personal leader could be. The odd thing, IMO, is that JKR wrote a story that both encouraged a cult-of-personality, but *also* included what can be so ugly about such organizations. She has children being forced to choose between loyalty to the designated personal leader and loyalty to their families. She has a boy unthinkingly head off to his death because his leader told him to. And she has both the "we can do *anything* because we're on the "right" side" attitude and the designated scapegoats. I know I've read stories with personal leaders that succeed in making that leader a stand-in for a certain principle. (I suppose "The Return of the King" could be an example? Maybe some King Arthur tales?) But by having the principles of Dumbledore (and therefore the Order) be so malleable JKR really does make it person *rather than* principle. Which is just... bizarre. I mean, IMO the entirety of DH was us watching Harry sit around *not* thinking. It was weird. I still don't get what JKR was going for there. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/176202 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > At first I was pretty upset that Snape had let down the Malfoys > > (especially Draco) and all of the Slytherin children placed under > > his care. Then I realized that I was expecting far too much of > > what was essentially a woefully abused and mishandled child who > > grew into a broken man. (A plant kept out of the sun, indeed.) > > > >>Carol: > Can you explain what you mean by this statement? I can't tell > whether you're talking about snape as HoH or headmaster. > > Contrast the hotbed of budding DEs under Slughorn in Severus's own > school years. > > Snape's record as HoH is much better. > Betsy Hp: I was talking about Snape as Head of House, and Snape as friend of the Malfoys (especially Draco). That none, *none* of the Slytherins stood to fight for the "right" side at the end of the year, that the Slytherin flag was not flying in the RoR told me that Snape had done nothing to instill some basic principles into his young charges. I'm not saying that doing so would have been an easy task, but it's the least I'd expect of a man of principle who realized the mistakes *he* had made. Snape was in charge of a group of exceptionally vulnerable children and he did not protect them. He also failed to pull Draco out from under Voldemort's sway (a place we see Draco didn't like being from the 1st chapter of DH) despite the fact that his parents seemed unhappy as well. Instead, despite all of Dumbledore's pretty words on the Tower, Draco was kept frozen in place. Again, it was a failure for the man who'd earlier sworn an Unbreakable Vow to keep this boy safe. *HOWEVER*... This is all predicated on HBP. A book that honestly, I'm not sure why JKR wasted time writing. Just about everything she set up in that book fell by the way-side in DH as far as I could see. And one of the things HBP set up was an intelligent and principled man in Severus Snape. So I was expecting Snape to come into his own in DH, to finally stand up and show us what he was *really* made of. Instead Snape remained under Dumbledore's boot, being dictated to by a portrait (much as Harry remained a loyal follower than a leader in his own right, thoughtlessly dependent on luck and unquestioningly following Dumbledore's orders), filled with a sense of self-loathing that I think reflected on his own house. I do agree Snape did some good. But I was expecting more. I didn't fully understand what a handicap being a Slytherin is in JKR's world. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/176210 > >>houyhnhnm: > > I don't blame Snape. It was Dumbledore with all of his > talk of "Love" who chose necromancy, blood rituals, and > prophecies over simple human love. Dumbledore with his > tragic flaw, his love of power. Betsy Hp: Yes, by taking on all the responsibility for the morality of his world, Dumbledore took on all the blame for what went wrong. That's part of the problem with personal leaders. No one is perfect enough to take on that role in RL. And JKR didn't make Dumbledore perfect enough in her invented world. Which is why the WW is still a brutal and dark place filled with bigotry and hate. (IMO, of course. ) Betsy Hp From va32h at comcast.net Mon Aug 27 18:23:46 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:23:46 -0000 Subject: Responses of children In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176299 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Right, this is pretty much a message I got out of it, but what I am > trying to figure out whether for your child ( or anybody's child of > that age or a couple years older - you know) it was enough to get the > message like this out of what transpired in the epilogue. That > Slytherins can change and will change, etc. va32h: My daughter is 11, nearly 12, and no, she didn't get that out of it. Her understanding was that Slytherins were evil from day one, and they were still evil, and Harry's just a really, really nice dad who wouldn't get mad at his kid for being stuck in the evil house. (Because he's Harry, and Harry is a great man and he might have gotten stuck in the evil house too, even though he wouldn't have deserved it). But Albus Severus wouldn't get stuck in the bad house anyway, because Harry told him that he could choose. So the whole scene just shows that Harry is really, really good. And that he forgave Snape for being so horrible. She really doesn't have any problem with that moral either - she always thought that was the point. Slytherins are bad and Gryffindors are good except for Snape who is working for Dumbledore but still a jerk. There were things in the story she didn't like, but this wasn't one of them. va32h From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 18:30:42 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:30:42 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176300 > Betsy Hp: She has a boy unthinkingly head off to his death because > his leader told him to. Alla: No, she did not do that. Canon was cited several times, if needed I will link to that again. She had a boy going off to his death, because he did not want others to die, she had a boy to do it **despite** what this boy considered to be the said leader's personal betrayal of him. Harry did not do it because of Dumbledore, he did not do it because Dumbledore told him to do it. He did it because he chose to do so. Because he, on his own appreciated Dumbledore's plan that will not let anybody else to die. Harry **thought** about that plan before he went to fulfill it. And no, this was not easy for Harry to do either. I know you did not say it was easy, but since it was brought up before, I am just saying it. Harry sacrificing himself because Dumbledore's brainwashed him is **not** in canon. And this is one of the rarest situations when I am going to say that In my opinion, all what I wrote is a fact, not even my interpretation. Alla. From tctrppr at netscape.net Mon Aug 27 18:16:42 2007 From: tctrppr at netscape.net (grouchymedic_26149) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:16:42 -0000 Subject: House elves battle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176301 I apologise in advance if this question has been answered before, and I missed it. In the final battle for Hogwarts, the house elves burst from the kitchen, and attack the forces of LV with knives and meat cleavers. Why not magic?? Numerous references in canon allude to the magic of house elves. Dobby has used magic numerous times in the books, apparating on Hogwarts grounds, jinxing the bludger during the quidditch match, the hover charm at Privet Drive, closing the barrier to platform 9 3/4, and apparating to and from Harry's house on Privet Drive. Kreacher apparates to and from 12 Grimmauld Place, and presumably used magic in the cave, as well as during Mundungus Fletcher's capture. Why not use magic at the BIG battle, when all the marbles are up for grabs. Seems kind of funny when it REALLY counts, the house elves don't use magic, but resort to close quarters armed combat instead. Thoughts, anyone?? Paul L. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 19:08:00 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:08:00 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176302 --- "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > .. > > I mean, IMO the entirety of DH was us watching Harry > sit around *not* thinking. It was weird. I still > don't get what JKR was going for there. > bboyminn: Odd that you would say that, since, and I'm sure many will agree, we saw nothing BUT Harry sitting around thinking thinking thinking. For someone who allegedly doesn't think, he certainly seemed spend a lot of his time pondering the mysteries before him, reached a lot of important conclusions, and make critical decisions. Further, he reached those conclusions, made those decisions, and chose his course of action on the scantest of information and help from Dumbledore. Harry did not blindly and unthinkingly walk to his death. It was not like Jim Jones saying 'Drink the Kool-Aid boys and girls and everything will be fine'. When Harry went to his death, we went understanding why, understanding the necessity for such action, and more importantly, agreeing with the necessity. He did what HE KNEW must be done. That is quite different from blindly following Dumbledore's alleged 'drink the Kool-Aid' orders. > > Betsy Hp: > ... Instead, despite all of Dumbledore's pretty > words on the Tower, Draco was kept frozen in place. > Again, it was a failure for the man who'd earlier > sworn an Unbreakable Vow to keep this boy safe. > bboyminn: Draco is frozen in place, but why is that? Is it because Snape or Dumbledore failed. To a degree, yes, but primarily Draco is trapped in a situation of his own making. He is trapped by his own delusional romantic notions of what it means to be a Death Eater. When he is finally confronted by the reality of the situation, he is trapped. As to whether Snape and Dumbledore failed, please note that 20 years later, Draco is still alive and well. Also, Snape didn't swear to protect Draco for all time and in all circumstances. Anyone who promises that is both a fool and delusional. It is not up to me to fix you (the metaphorical 'you'). It is up to you to realize that you to realize you need to be fixed and to reach out for help. It is then up to me to support you in fixing yourself. Anyone who has worked with alcohol and drug abusers, as well as people engaged in other self-destructive behavior, will confirm what I've said. You can't fix these people, you can only help them fix themselves. Until Draco realizes he need to be fixed, he is trapped, and no amount of intervention will help. Snape's promise to protect Draco is tied to a context, and within that context, Draco lived. So, Snape did his job. You keep mentioning that there was no Slytherin banner in the Room of Requirements. OK, by a show of hands, how many people expected there to be a Slytherin banner in the Room of Requirements? Really? How many people /hoped/ there would be a banner there? Really? Amazing how few hands were raised. Now let me ask, whose fault is that? I say it is Slytherin's fault for not having the courage to step away from the crowd and take a stand. Slytherins more than any other group are under a great deal of pressure to tow the line; the party line. That doesn't make it easy to step 'out of line'. Further, Slytherin has so alienated themselves from the other Houses, that they couldn't reasonably expect anyone out side of Slytherin to trust them. So, I don't think even Slytherins expected or hoped for a banner in the Room of Requirements. If they didn't expect it, why should you. Trust me, I was one of the biggest proponents of 'The Good Slytherin'. I expect at least one Slytherin student to step out of the pack and take a stand, even if it was a quiet behind the scene stand. But we never saw it. But I must say that because we never saw it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I find it hard to believe that ALL Slytherin students and All Slytherin citizens were uniformly behind Voldemort. I suspect that like most people in the wizard world, they were just keeping their heads down and leaving it to the authorities to straighten out. Noting of course, that any Slytherin who dissented would be in an extremely dangerous situation. Being so close to the Voldemort supporters, any resistance would have been painfully more obvious than the same resistance occurring in another House. That doesn't make it easy for an good Slytherins that might have existed. The books can only present just so much information. JKR has to stay focused on the central path of the story, and not clutter it up with distractions and diversions from the objective she knows is coming. There are dozens of side stories that fan would have like to have seen, but the story has to tread the straight and narrow path to its purpose, and that means minor threads get left out. That's just life. Steve/bboyminn From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 19:26:05 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:26:05 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176303 lupinlore: > I don't know that the fact that Snape's death at the hands of > Voldemort was perfectly foreseeable has anything at all to do with it > satisfying several karmic arcs. Many fitting things are quite > predictable and foreseeable -- that, in part, is why they are > fitting. Karmic arts have to do with a fitting price paid for a sin > or set of sins. Irony, which is what you may be speaking of, is > often not foreseeable. Now, irony can certainly be a part of karma, > but the two things are very different. I would say that Snape's > death at the hands of Voldemort and by the Dark Arts is karmic and > fitting, if not particularly ironic. His death by Nagini, however, > is much more ironic, but still karmic. > > I would agree with Zara that the backlash from Snape's decision to > join the DEs, i.e. the death of Lily, is also karmic. It is also > bitterly ironic. Once again, the two things go together in this > instance, but they aren't the same thing. > > > Lupinlore, who finds the way JKR handled abusive Snapey-poo's death > even more delightful the more he examines it lizzyben: Revenge is sweet. I totally agree with you, Lupinlore. JKR wrote Snape's death in a highly ironic way that allows people who dislike him to delight in his comeuppance. This was not so much Harry's revenge, as JKR's revenge. "Professor Snape, she said, was based on a teacher she despised: "The great thing about becoming a writer is you can get revenge on everyone." The Record, Northern NJ 14 October 1999 Students Meet the Real Wizard Behind the Harry Potter Craze By Leslie Brody "She also reported that Professor Snake is based on a chemistry teacher who hated her and made her life miserable. "The great thing about being a writer is that you have a chance to get back at those people who wronged you," she said. The Star-Ledger, Newark, NJ 16 October 1999 Harry Potter's creator meets her public "If you could be a wizard for a day what would you do and why? JKR: Oops sorry, still answering previous question... If I were a witch for a day I'd fly and probably get revenge on a few people :) http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-comicrelief-staff.htm Being a writer is sort of like being a witch, w/magical & god-like powers. In Snape, Rita Skeeter, Marietta, Lockhart, etc. JKR uses that power to get revenge on a few people. From sudeeel at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 19:47:03 2007 From: sudeeel at yahoo.com (sudeeel) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:47:03 -0000 Subject: Foreshadowing in PoA movie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176304 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "springhollowranch" wrote: > > I don't usually post, but I know there was some discussion after the > last book was read about what JKR meant when she said there was a scene > in PoA that "gave her chills." sudeeel replies: In her interview on the PoA DVD (Divination Class/Creating the Vision on Disc 2) http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/1104-poadvd.htm JKR says, "Alfonso . . . put things in the film that, without knowing it, foreshadow things that are going to happen in the final two books. So I really got goosebumps when I saw a couple of those things, and I thought people are going to look back on the film and think those were put in deliberately as clues." I always thought JKR was referring to Ron and Hermione's relationship, which comes to fruition in HBP and continues through DH. At the Hippogriff lesson in the PoA film, as Harry approaches to pet Buckbeak, Hermione, looking scared, reaches down and grabs Ron's wrist as if to hold his hand. Ron cautiously looks down, then he and Hermione look at each other, avert their glances and separate. Later, in the Hogsmeade winter scene, Hermione and Ron are looking at the Shrieking Shack. Hermione asks Ron, "Do you want to move a bit closer?" Ron replies with a very surprised "huh?!" as if she had asked him to get closer to her. She clarifies, "to the Shrieking Shack." Then, when HRH are standing on the hill above Hagrid's cottage (Hermione's in the middle) and hear the axe fall, it's Ron Hermione hugs for comfort. Before either can acknowledge the embrace, Scabbers bites Ron. sudeeel From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 27 19:49:05 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:49:05 -0000 Subject: The two good Slytherins Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176305 Before book 7 people complained that JKR gave us no good Slytherin, well now we have two, Snape and Slughorn. Snape had committed more evil than the average person but he had also committed far far more good as well. And if we use the ultimate test for virtue we would find that the world would be a far poorer place if Snape had never been born; but it must be said, the man is still very unpleasant company. Slughorn on the other hand I liked from day one. Yes he has his faults, but so do we all. I am sure the poor old man was terrified and was tempted to run away before the big Battle of Hogwarts, but the point is he did NOT run away; in fact he dueled Voldemort himself! If there were ever any doubt about where Slughorn's sympathies lie this question was definitely answered in the last book of the Potter series. Slughorn was brave not to run away, but he was not as heroic as Snape and he did not do as much good in the world; but I'd much rather spend an hour with Slughorn than a hour with Snape. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 20:04:11 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:04:11 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176306 > Betsy Hp: > The reason I bring this up is that this is how, pre-DH, I saw the > relationship between Dumbledore and Snape. That Dumbledore got to > know Snape well enough (his driving principles, etc.), that he > trusted him in the truest sense of the word. Instead, it seems that > Dumbledore trusted Snape's demons. Which is not that same thing, IMO. zgirnius: Your mileage obviously varies. What I saw in DH was Snape's driving principles forming/changing in front of Dumbledore's eyes over the course of sixteen years. When he pointed out the exact appearance of Lily Evans's eyes and Harry's possession of those same eyes to Snape, he was absolutely using on Snape's demons to manipulate him into the desired course of action. When he admitted to Snape during HBP that he had been deceived for fifteen years, and assigned him the task of telling Harry he must die, he was relying on Snape's principles. > Betsy Hp: > She has a boy unthinkingly head off to his death because > his leader told him to. zgirnius: If you mean Harry, and "The Forest Again", that is not what happens in the book. If you mean somewhere/someplace else, Harry in "The Forest Again" would have to be my counterargument, as being a far more important scene/character/moment in the book than whatever one you have in mind. Harry takes the information he has learned from Snape as a personal betrayal. He does not act out of loyalty to Dumbledore - he has no more at that point. Albus does not merit resurrection with Harry's loved ones. So why does Harry do it? To save lives, and because it makes sense, as Harry figures out for himself in the following excerpt from that chapter: > DH, "The Forest Again": > Now he saw that his life span had been determined by how long it took to eliminate all the Horcruxes. Dumbledore had passed the job of destroying them to him, and obediently he had continued to chip away at the bonds tying not only Voldemort, but himself, to life! How neat, how elegant, not to waste any more lives, but to give the dangerous task to the boy who had already been marked for slaughter, and whose death would not be a calamity, but another blow against Voldemort. > And Dumbledore had known that Harry would not duck out, that he would keep going to the end, because he had taken the trouble to get to know him, hadn't he? Dumbledore knew, as Voldemort knew, that Harry wouldn't let anyone else die for him now that he had discovered it was in his power to stop it. > Betsy Hp: > He also failed to pull Draco out from under Voldemort's sway (a place > we see Draco didn't like being from the 1st chapter of DH) despite > the fact that his parents seemed unhappy as well. Instead, despite > all of Dumbledore's pretty words on the Tower, Draco was kept frozen > in place. zgirnius: Draco was lost to Voldemort on the Tower, if not earlier. Yes, he went back to Voldemort, that is, to his home, in which his parents were virtual prisoners. Yes, he tortured on Voldemort's orders (since his only other option would appear to have been to suffer the fate of his victims, or watch his parents suffer it). No, he did not join Neville in the DA (but again, unlike Augusta Longbottom, the senior Malfoys were firmly in Voldemort's hands). The choices he made when not under immediate threat - he did not acquire Crabbe and Goyle's reputations at Hogwarts, he did not recognize Ron and Hermione when they were captured, he tried to talk Crabbe into less violent pursuits and out of killing Harry in the RoR, and he tried to save the life of Goyle when his own was at risk. > BetsyHP: > Instead Snape remained under Dumbledore's boot, being dictated to by > a portrait (much as Harry remained a loyal follower than a leader in > his own right, thoughtlessly dependent on luck and unquestioningly > following Dumbledore's orders), filled with a sense of self- loathing > that I think reflected on his own house. zgirnius: We do not have the benefit of having Snape's thought processes spelled out for us as we do Harry's, but I think you are no more correct about him than you are about Harry. And I think one place this shows is at precisely the same sticking point as for Harry. Snape objects to the idea of sacrificing Harry in order to achieve the defeat of Voldmeort. While the conversation, unseen at the time by us, occured in late March of the school year in which HBP is set, we are shown it in DH, "The Prince's Tale". Dumbledore tells Snape the big secret he has been keeping all these years - Harry has the soul bit in him and must permit himself to be killed by Voldemort before Voldemort can be defeated, and Snape is to tell Harry this as the right time. Snape expresses his horror at the plan, characterizes it as a betrayal of his trust, and makes a principled objection to it. He also does not agree to the plan, an omission I think is highlighted by the pattern throughout the DD/Snape scenes of Snape agreeing to various other, less problematic, proposals of Dumbledore. We don't even know when, finally, Snape decides to go along with this portion of Dumbledore's plans. If his decision not to go back on his agreement to kill Dumbledore at the end of HBP means that he decided to go ahead with all of it, Dumbledore felt he needed to beg Snape to do it at the end of that book. If it happened even later - well, it certainly indicates he was not being dictated to by a portrtait or its flesh-and-blood predecessor. From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Mon Aug 27 20:07:48 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:07:48 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The two good Slytherins In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <90536C29-250A-4B58-A111-339B058A79E0@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176307 On 2007, Aug 27, , at 11:49, eggplant107 wrote: > Before book 7 people complained that JKR gave us no good Slytherin, > well now we have two, Snape and Slughorn. I think we have three. I would include Narcissa Malfoy as the third good Slytherin. She has demonstrated her love for Draco over and over again - from not wanting him to go so far away to school (Durmstrang) to completely debasing herself to Snape and in the eyes of her sister to be willing to risk herself in Voldemort's eyes when she says that Harry is dead. She also demontrates her love for her husband (schmuck that he is) by encouraging him to go along with Voldemort and give him his wand and allow old Voldy to make fun of the family. She doesn't actively work for the "good" side of the wizarding world, but she does demonstrate strong love for her family. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 20:13:22 2007 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra Pan) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:13:22 -0000 Subject: House elves battle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176308 Paul L. asked: > In the final battle for Hogwarts, the house elves burst from > the kitchen, and attack the forces of LV with knives and meat > cleavers. Why not magic?? Why not use magic at the BIG > battle, when all the marbles are up for grabs. Seems kind of > funny when it REALLY counts, the house elves don't use magic, > but resort to close quarters armed combat instead. Petra asks in return: The impression I've gotten, and admittedly it's not one that's based on careful parsing of the canon text, is that the house elves' brand of magic is very much service oriented. Which makes sense within their enslavement: *if* house elves can only do magic in service to their wizarding masters, their wizard masters do not have to strictly restrict such magic, in order to protect themselves. In exchange for the kind of freedom exhibited in being able to apparate without the limits that the wizards live with, the house elves probably live with limits on the circumstances under which they can perform magic. Where wizards and witches can't freely apparate, the house elves can, probably because house elves "can be counted on" to do no harm, either because of their nature or because of wizarding magic that ensures they cannot do harm to wizards. Whereas secretly apparating witches and wizards may be sneaking around in order to do mischief, house elves are doing so in order to be that very "old world" notion of "good servants" - effective but never seen while exerting effort. I've always felt that the general notion of elves in folktales and how they astonish by magically accomplishing tasks out of sight may be referring to the phenomenon that is good servants getting things done, seemingly magically. So in terms of Paul L.'s question, I think it very likely that house elves cannot do magic to combat wizards. Why then can they do armed combat? Perhaps the wizarding magic that restricts the house elves somehow did not take into account the extra- ordinary circumstances present at the Hogwarts battle. As we've seen, instructions to house elves must be very carefully worded. Does anyone remember any details from canon that supports this impression? Or supports a completely different impression? Petra a n :) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 27 20:40:36 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:40:36 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176309 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: Carol: > It seems to me that many posters think that because LV is a > Half-Blood, he can't possibly be serious about the Pure-Blood > supremacy agenda. I think he truly believes it. Geoff: I have often thought to myself that Voldemort, being a half-blood, is comparable with Hitler who pursued his policies of pure Aryanism despite meeting the Aryan criteria himself. I haven't got the details to hand but I seem to recall he had some sort of Jewish connection as well. I was also reminded by the chapter "The Muggle-Born Registration Commission" of the similarities between Voldemort's policies and Hitler's aim to remove the Jews and Eastern European peoples whom he considered sub-human - echoed in the attitiudes towards centaurs for example, and often begun by enforced registration and the need for folk to prove their pureblood Aryan family line. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 27 20:51:17 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:51:17 -0000 Subject: The two good Slytherins In-Reply-To: <90536C29-250A-4B58-A111-339B058A79E0@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176310 Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > She [Narcissa Malfoy] doesn't actively > work for the "good" side of the wizarding > world, but she does demonstrate strong > love for her family. I agree Narcissa loved her family a great deal, in fact in book 7 we find with great surprise that the Malfoy's are a very loving family, but they'll have to do one hell of a lot better than that to receive the lofty title of "Good". Slughorn had nothing, absolutely nothing to gain personally by dueling with Voldemort, and it benefited no member of his family; he battled the Dark Lord because he thought it was the right thing to do. The best I can say for Narcissa is that she is not as despicable as most Slytherins. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 20:50:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:50:52 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176311 bboyminn wrote: > > Draco is frozen in place, but why is that? Is it because Snape or Dumbledore failed. To a degree, yes, but primarily Draco is trapped in a situation of his own making. He is trapped by his own delusional romantic notions of what it means to be a Death Eater. When he is finally confronted by the reality of the situation, he is trapped. > > As to whether Snape and Dumbledore failed, please note that 20 years later, Draco is still alive and well. Also, Snape didn't swear to protect Draco for all time and in all circumstances. Anyone who promises that is both a fool and delusional. Carol responds: Essentially, I agree with you. However, I want to add that Draco idolized his DE father for years, thinking that he could do no wrong, that his money and influence could get anything he wanted accomplished, and that his pure-blood supremacy ethic and support of the Dark Lord were, if not "right," at least the winning political philosophy. Neither Dumbledore, who had no personal contact with the majority of his students (Harry's relationship with him is unique), nor Snape, who had to maintain his pose of loyal DE waiting for the Dark Lord's return, could do much to influence him. (Snape could influence him in his students and encourage his skill in Potions and serve as role model, a Slytherin whose authority he could respect and maintain a friendly teacher/student relationship with him, but little beyond that. Once the Dark Lord had returned, he and DD may have tried to keep Draco's DE ambitions in check by making him a Prefect; unfortunately, Dolores Umbridge took over Hogwarts at about that time, and at the end of the year, Lucius Malfoy's arrest changed everything for Draco. He wanted revenge, and he was proud to be assigned the supposedly glorious mission of killing Dumbledore. Rather than viewing Snape as a mentor, he now saw him as a threat (taking his father's position as LV's right-hand man and out to steal Draco's "glory"). Snape managed to persuade him to use more caution and deter him from any more dangerous stunts like the necklace (it was too late to stop the poisoned mead, which had been ordered as a Christmas gift) and to save him from Sectumsempra. But he made his choice to become a DE over the summer, after his father's arrest and before Snape returned as DADA teacher (a position that DE!Draco held in contempt--as if *we* need to be protected from Dark magic, he sneers). The contrast between what Draco thought he was getting into (joining the winning side) and what becoming a DE really meant can be seen by contrasting his attitude from the end of GoF through the beginning of HBP (taunts, boasts, and threats) with the tears he sheds and the fears he expresses in "Sectumsempra" (HBP) as he learns that the DEs and their families are expendable tools, subject to death and torture if the fail Lord Voldemort, his hesitation on the tower when he discovers that killing is not as easy as he thought, and his terror and feeble attempts to help Harry throughout DH. As far as I can see, Snape did the best he could in both HBP and DH, but he had neither the opportunity nor the means to prevent Draco from becoming a DE at age sixteen. Draco was ripe for LV's dangled bait, with no idea that he was on a suicide mission. The best that Snape could do was report the situation to Dumbledore, who further worsened the situation by putting on the ring, making Snape promise to kill him (in part to save Draco's soul from murder through his own mercy killing), and leaving the way open for the UV. To blame Snape for Draco's decision and LV's trap as Betsy is doing is, IMO, completely unfair to Snape, who puts his own life on the line to save Draco's and thwart the Dark Lord's plan. Nor can he do much except perhaps ask Slughorn to keep an eye on Draco in DH. (At least Draco doesn't join Crabbe and Goyle in Crucioing their fellow students!) Snape can do nothing when Draco is home for the summer with LV as a guest or when Bellatrix summons him over the Easter holiday and Snape is not even present. bboyminn: > Until Draco realizes he need to be fixed, he is trapped, and no amount of intervention will help. Snape's promise to protect Draco is tied to a context, and within that context, Draco lived. So, Snape did his job. Carol responds: Not only lived but didn't commit murder, which was one of the reasons Snape agreed to kill DD in the first place. But as for joining the DEs in the first place, that had nothing to do with Snape and was beyond his control. > bboyminn: > You [BetsyHp] keep mentioning that there was no Slytherin banner in the Room of Requirements. OK, by a show of hands, how many people expected there to be a Slytherin banner in the Room of Requirements? Really? How many people /hoped/ there would be a banner there? Really? Amazing how few hands were raised. > > Now let me ask, whose fault is that? I say it is Slytherin's fault for not having the courage to step away from the crowd and take a stand. Slytherins more than any other group are under a great deal of > pressure to tow the line; the party line. That doesn't > make it easy to step 'out of line'. Further, > Slytherin has so alienated themselves from the other > Houses, that they couldn't reasonably expect anyone > out side of Slytherin to trust them. So, I don't > think even Slytherins expected or hoped for a banner > in the Room of Requirements. If they didn't expect it, > why should you. Carol: The whole reason that the Slytherin banner does not appear in the RoR is that no Slytherins seek sanctuary there. The room provides a hammock and a banner for each student who shows up there seeking to escape from the Carrows. Since Draco is not a victim of the Carrows, he doesn't show up looking for *that* version of the RoR (the place where things are hidden is a different manifestation of the room). Also, since the room is closed to Carrow supporters, it might not let anyone with a Dark Mark in. Obviously, Crabbe and Goyle, who *are* Carrow supporters, and Pansy Parkinson, who is willing to sell Harry to Voldemort (in part because of a personal grudge against him but mostly to save her own skin) would not be let in. Most likely, any former member of Umbridge's Inquisitorial Squad would be banned. But most Slytherins would be like Slughorn, trying not to stir up trouble and/or protected by their pure-blood status. Unlike the DA members, most probaly don't evn know that the RoR exists. And no Slytherin was invited to join the DA in the first place. It's simply unrealistic to expect any Slytherin to hide out from the Carrows in the RoR when only the former DA members do so. And the RoR provides banners only to the students who hide there--a lot of Gryffindors, a handful of Ravenclaws, and an even smaller number of Hufflepuffs. The banners are not there waiting for the students. At first there was only Neville's hammock and a single Gryffindor banner. Heck, he didn't even request a bathroom. It took the presence of girls to require that small item! Carol, who thinks that the absence of the Slytherin banner from the RoR proves nothing at all since no Slytherin had either the means or the motive for hiding there From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 27 21:03:19 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:03:19 -0000 Subject: The two good Slytherins In-Reply-To: <90536C29-250A-4B58-A111-339B058A79E0@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176312 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > > > On 2007, Aug 27, , at 11:49, eggplant107 wrote: > > > Before book 7 people complained that JKR gave us no good Slytherin, > > well now we have two, Snape and Slughorn. Laura: > I think we have three. I would include Narcissa Malfoy as the > third good Slytherin. She has demonstrated her love for Draco > over and over again - from not wanting him to go so far away > to school (Durmstrang) to completely debasing herself to > Snape and in the eyes of her sister to be willing to risk herself > in Voldemort's eyes when she says that Harry is dead. > > She also demontrates her love for her husband (schmuck > that he is) by encouraging him to go along with Voldemort > and give him his wand and allow old Voldy to make fun of > the family. She doesn't actively work for the "good" side of > the wizarding world, but she does demonstrate strong > love for her family. Geoff: I'd be inclined to present a case for the defence for Draco as number three and a half. OK, I know I've been wittering on about no one being beyond redemption but I have got a sneaky soft spot for the guy. You can book me into St.Mungo's later.... I still believe that the Tower scene in HBP was a tremendous epiphany for him. He suddenly discovers that killing someone isn't as simple as Voldemort seems to suggest. Perhaps his conscience is beginning to stir. Certainly in all the scenes where he is in Voldemort's presence, he is unsettled, nervous almost frightened. He seems upset at what he is involved in. We see him in a most unexpected mode, trying to save his friends in the Room of Requirement and trying to make Crabbe see sense. I would like to be able to know what happens in the succeeding years leading up to the scene at Kings Cross railway station in the epilogue. How has he got himself off the hook for his behaviour with the Death Eaters? Why do he and Harry acknowledge each other if only warily? I shall watch the fanfic listings with interest..... From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 21:20:20 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:20:20 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176313 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > She has a boy unthinkingly head off to his death because > > his leader told him to. > >>Alla: > No, she did not do that. Canon was cited several times, if needed I > will link to that again. She had a boy going off to his death, > because he did not want others to die, she had a boy to do it > **despite** what this boy considered to be the said leader's > personal betrayal of him. > > Harry **thought** about that plan before he went to fulfill it. > Betsy Hp: "Lying with his face pressed into the dusty carpet of the office where he had once thought he was learning the secrets of victory, Harry understood at last that he was not supposed to survive." [DH scholastic p.691] "He had never questioned his own assumption that Dumbledore wanted him alive. [ibid p.692] "And Dumbledore had known that Harry would not duck out, that he would going to the end, even though it was *his* end..." [ibid p.693] Harry never once questions Dumbledore's plan. His thoughts are all about how Dumbledore is right, and isn't this sad, but I'm a brave boy so here I go. It is, IMO, the very definition of *not thinking*. I would have much preferred that Harry come to the "I must die" conclusion *on his own* rather than hearing it from his dead headmaster. I'd have also preferred he face arguments *against* it than all of his dead loved ones coming round to cheer him on. There are a series of articles on DH by Daniel Hemmens that do an excellent job pointing out exactly what I had problems with, and in one of them he says this: "Having seen in the pensieve that Dumbledore intended for him to be killed by Voldemort, he [Harry] immediately decides to lay down and die. Rowling, apparently, views this as the height of courage. The act of a True Gryffindor. I view it as utterly craven." http://www.ferretbrain.com/articles/article-149.html I completely agree. Rather than making decisions on his own, Harry follows instructions. Which, IMO, means he never really becomes a man. Certainly not his own man, anyway. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > I mean, IMO the entirety of DH was us watching Harry > > sit around *not* thinking. It was weird. I still > > don't get what JKR was going for there. > >>bboyminn: > Odd that you would say that, since, and I'm sure many > will agree, we saw nothing BUT Harry sitting around > thinking thinking thinking. For someone who allegedly > doesn't think, he certainly seemed spend a lot of his > time pondering the mysteries before him, reached a lot > of important conclusions, and make critical decisions. > Betsy Hp: Yeah, I didn't get that from DH. The few times Harry did make plans they were poorly thought out and very much dependent on luck and the author making it so. The complaints that sent Ron running were truth based, IMO. Harry kind of sat around and waited for information to fall into his lap. Fortunately (or, thanks to JKR) the information did fall. But that was luck, not reason. > >>bboyminn: > > You keep mentioning that there was no Slytherin banner > in the Room of Requirements. OK, by a show of hands, > how many people expected there to be a Slytherin > banner in the Room of Requirements? Really? How many > people /hoped/ there would be a banner there? Really? > Amazing how few hands were raised. Betsy Hp: Obviously you were looking in the wrong direction. There were *plenty* of people who expected House Unity to be important to the end. Goodness, going by the number of folks doing everything possible to show how Slytherin *was* unified with the other houses based on various symbols and future possibilities, the number of people raising their hands are legion. > >>bboyminn: > Now let me ask, whose fault is that? I say it is > Slytherin's fault for not having the courage to > step away from the crowd and take a stand. > Betsy Hp: Yes, Steven, I got that. The only good Slytherin is a dead Slytherin and they're all craven and cowardly and should be beaten every day and twice on Sunday to try and drive the demons out. JKR made all of this quite clear. > >>bboyminn: > > The books can only present just so much information. > JKR has to stay focused on the central path of the > story, and not clutter it up with distractions and > diversions from the objective she knows is coming. > There are dozens of side stories that fan would > have like to have seen, but the story has to > tread the straight and narrow path to its purpose, > and that means minor threads get left out. That's > just life. Betsy Hp: Well, no that's not life, that's story-telling. Life is actually quite complex. But yes, you're right, JKR left the "unity" story on the cutting room floor. I was under the mistaken impression that the "Unity" story *was* the central objective. I was horribly wrong. This story is more about sticking it to them what cross you. Which, okay, not my cuppa. But to be fair to myself, and as you admit yourself, the "Unity" idea didn't come out of nowhere. JKR did kind of meander in that direction a time or two. (Again, I think this is why there's been such strong attempts made to sort of crow- bar a "unity" story into this one.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > The reason I bring this up is that this is how, pre-DH, I saw the > > relationship between Dumbledore and Snape. That Dumbledore got to > > know Snape well enough (his driving principles, etc.), that he > > trusted him in the truest sense of the word. Instead, it seems > > that Dumbledore trusted Snape's demons. Which is not that same > > thing, IMO. > >>zgirnius: > Your mileage obviously varies. What I saw in DH was Snape's driving > principles forming/changing in front of Dumbledore's eyes over the > course of sixteen years. > > When he admitted to Snape during HBP that he had been deceived for > fifteen years, and assigned him the task of telling Harry he must > die, he was relying on Snape's principles. Betsy Hp: Hmm, I thought it was more Dumbledore relying on Snape's inability to trust his own "disgusting" judgement. Snape was actually remarkably... obedient, IMO, in DH. Instead of relying on his own judgment he followed the orders of a portait. Again, thinking for oneself seems to go against how JKR sees her world. It's Dumbledore's cult-of-personality or you're evil. Betsy Hp (procrastinating in the *worst* way) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 21:44:07 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:44:07 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176314 > Betsy Hp: > "Lying with his face pressed into the dusty carpet of the office > where he had once thought he was learning the secrets of victory, > Harry understood at last that he was not supposed to survive." [DH > scholastic p.691] > > "He had never questioned his own assumption that Dumbledore wanted > him alive. [ibid p.692] > > "And Dumbledore had known that Harry would not duck out, that he > would going to the end, even though it was *his* end..." [ibid p.693] > > Harry never once questions Dumbledore's plan. His thoughts are all > about how Dumbledore is right, and isn't this sad, but I'm a brave > boy so here I go. It is, IMO, the very definition of *not thinking*. Alla: How do those quotes show Harry not thinking about the plan, when this is what he is doing? Thinking about it? No, seriously, his thoughts are about the plan, are they not? There is no Headmaster to force him, Headmaster is dead. How is it non-thinking if Harry comes to the same conclusion as Dumbledore? If I agree with some argument that somebody else advances, does it mean that I am not *thinking* about it, or does it mean that I just came to the same conclusion? And of course especially when it is mentioned that Harry realizes that Dumbledore betrayed him. Can't he appreciate Dumbledore's plans on his own? By the way, what **are** the arguments against it that you see? Assuming of course that you are in Harry's skin and you do not want any more people to die for him. Harry certainly does not want to die and he mentions it several times in chapter 34, but he does it anyway to save lives IMO. I mean, can't Harry evaluate Dumbledore's plan and realize that it was a **good** plan in a sense that it will save people without being Dumbledore's follower, but his own man? And with apologies to Zara for just reciting her canon: > DH, "The Forest Again": > Now he saw that his life span had been determined by how long it took to eliminate all the Horcruxes. Dumbledore had passed the job of destroying them to him, and obediently he had continued to chip away at the bonds tying not only Voldemort, but himself, to life! How neat, how elegant, not to waste any more lives, but to give the dangerous task to the boy who had already been marked for slaughter, and whose death would not be a calamity, but another blow against Voldemort. Alla: I do think that it shows Harry thinking about the plan. The fact that Harry comes to the same conclusion as Dumbledore does not IMO equal him not thinking about it. Betsy Hp: > I would have much preferred that Harry come to the "I must die" > conclusion *on his own* rather than hearing it from his dead > headmaster. I'd have also preferred he face arguments *against* it > than all of his dead loved ones coming round to cheer him on. > > There are a series of articles on DH by Daniel Hemmens that do an > excellent job pointing out exactly what I had problems with, and in > one of them he says this: > > "Having seen in the pensieve that Dumbledore intended for him to be > killed by Voldemort, he [Harry] immediately decides to lay down and > die. Rowling, apparently, views this as the height of courage. The > act of a True Gryffindor. I view it as utterly craven." > http://www.ferretbrain.com/articles/article-149.html > > I completely agree. Rather than making decisions on his own, Harry > follows instructions. Which, IMO, means he never really becomes a > man. Certainly not his own man, anyway. Alla: IMO during whole chapter 34 it had been shown that Harry does not just immediately decides to lay down and die. To me it had been clearly shown that Harry does it, against all his instincts to fight for live ? for others and for himself. Oh well, I will just recite my canon as well. "The suffocating feeling extinguished the end of the sentence, he could not go on" - p.696 "Ripples of cold undulated over Harry's skin. he wanted to shout out in the night, he wanted Ginny to know that he was there, he wanted her to know where he was going. he wanted to be stopped, to be dragged back, to be sent back home..." - p.697 "Nobody spoke. They seemed as scared as Harry, whose heart was now throwing himself against his ribs as though determined to escape the body he was about to cast aside. His hands were sweating as he pulled off the Invisibiluty Cloak and stuffed beneath his robes, with his wand. He did not want to be tempted to fight. "I was. It seems... mistaken," said Voldemort. "You weren't. Harry said it as loudly as he could, with all the force he could master. He did not want to sound afraid." - p.703. "all those times he'd thought that it was about to happen and escaped, he had never really thought of the thing itself..." From gunnclan4 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 20:46:47 2007 From: gunnclan4 at yahoo.com (Pamela) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:46:47 -0000 Subject: The two good Slytherins In-Reply-To: <90536C29-250A-4B58-A111-339B058A79E0@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176315 > eggplant107 wrote: > > Before book 7 people complained that JKR gave us no good > > Slytherin, well now we have two, Snape and Slughorn. > Laura wrote: > I think we have three. I would include Narcissa Malfoy as the > third good Slytherin. I agree Laura, she kind of saved the day at the very end, by saying that Harry was dead, and when the Malfoys did not participate in the battle also, they were just glad Draco was alive, but although Lucius is a scmuck he did not stick with Voldemort in the end. Pamela From pam_rosen at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 21:49:06 2007 From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:49:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Responses of children Message-ID: <19543.87830.qm@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176316 > Jen: I wanted to clarify that it was the entire conversation between Harry and Albus Severus, not just the name alone (I didn't explain very well). His take was Harry-as-parent said it was OK to be in Slytherin, you know? I extrapolated from there that in his worldview, where he's still dependent on his parents for many things, that if a parent who seems to love his child says being in Slytherin house is OK, then it really is OK. A parent wouldn't send a child to spend time somewhere if it's a bad place. An older child might see more gray area there of course, or even another 9 y.o.- don't know. Alla: You explained perfectly ? no worries, I understood it to be the whole conversation. But what you said made perfect sense, no? Maybe that is what JKR was going for? Meaning to make sure that beloved and respected parent figure tells the kid ? it is truly Okay to be in Slytherin and then the kids will take out exactly the same message your child did? I mean, Harry is beloved, respected, and all that in WW. Pam now: I'm sorry to chime in here, but I've been thinking about this for awhile, and I wonder if it just isn't as sinister as everyone is making it out to be? I live in an area where there are two great colleges (Stanford and UC Berkeley) within 50 miles of each other. School loyalty among alumni who still live here is very strong. Quite often many generations of the same family go to one or the other school. It's hard to imagine a family I know, who had four generations attend UC Berkeley, to suddenly produce a child who wanted to go to Stanford! It would be a blow to the family, almost, even though Stanford is also a wonderful school and the parents should be proud their child could go there. I saw that scene at the train station a little like that. All the Weasleys were Griffindors, Harry and Hermione, who joined the Weasleys, were Griffindors; we have to assume all older offspring were also Griffindors (or the subject wouldn't have come up) it is clear throughout DH that what house you were in no matter how many years it's been since Hogwarts still mattered, and here's Albus Severus thinking he doesn't have a choice and he might become a Slytherin! It's not that Slytherin is bad, per se, it's just that it would make him different from his whole family. It would be like that one red Stanford banner in a whole houseful of blue and gold Berkeley. It would make him different,that's all, not necessarily bad. Would his parents root for him as a Slytherin at Quidditch, or would they stay loyal to Griffindor? Those are the kinds of things an 11 year old thinks about. And I really think that's all that Harry was addressing. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 23:26:40 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:26:40 -0000 Subject: New Inconsistency - Shell Cottage Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176317 When Harry, Ron, Hermione, etc... arrive at Shell Cottage, Bill informs them that there is a Secret Keeper charm on the place. Yet, Ron mentions it earlier, actually mentions Shell Cottage a couple of times, and when Harry arrives with Dobby, Harry can see the cottage in the distance. Are we seeing a mistake or are we seeing a new variation of the Charm. Are there aspect of the Fidelius Charm that we are unaware of, or did JKR simply over look a few details. For the record, mistake or not, it didn't distract from my reading at all. I'm on my fourth read and just now noticed it. Steve/bboyminn From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 00:01:20 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:01:20 -0000 Subject: New Inconsistency - Shell Cottage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176318 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > When Harry, Ron, Hermione, etc... arrive at Shell > Cottage, Bill informs them that there is a Secret Keeper > charm on the place. Yet, Ron mentions it earlier, > actually mentions Shell Cottage a couple of times, > and when Harry arrives with Dobby, Harry can see the > cottage in the distance. > > Are we seeing a mistake or are we seeing a new variation > of the Charm. Are there aspect of the Fidelius Charm that > we are unaware of, or did JKR simply over look a few > details. > > For the record, mistake or not, it didn't distract > from my reading at all. I'm on my fourth read and just > now noticed it. > > Steve/bboyminn > Juli You read my mind Steve, I was just thinking of posting that same paragraph ;) I do think it's a mistake. When Ron returns to Harry & Hermione, he says that Bill and Fleur are living in the Shell Cottage. Unless Bill also made him a secret keeper, he wouldn't be able to say that, right? He would have been able to say he was at Bill and Fleur's or that he was at teh Shell Cottage, not to actually say that 'Bill and Fleur live at the Shell Cottage'. AFAWK, Harry and Hermione didn't know this, so they couldn't discuss it. And even less possible that Ollivander, Luna, and was it Dean? could have been let in on the secret. I can only come up with one explanation, not a good one, but still. Since they are apparated there by Dobby, Dobby is able to bypass the wizarding rules and get there. There are many cons to this theory: If a Fidelius-hidden place can be accessed by an Elf, Voldemort would have used any elf to get to teh Potters before Pettigrew betrayed them, also he would have been able to get to 12GP, to the Weasleys, and God knows how many other places kept hidden by the Fidelius Charm. Harry was able to tell Dobby where to apparate them, again how could he have done that if he wasn't the SK? Nothing about it makes sense. Unless the SK thing doesn't work on 'good' people. To me it's a Flinch, until I hear a better explanation than mine. Juli From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Aug 28 00:03:52 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:03:52 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176319 BetsyHp: > The US Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Those are two guiding > principles set up without connection to a specific leader or a > specific deity. They were purposefully written that way because the > Founding Fathers *knew* how easily corrupted a personal leader could > be. Jen: Dumbledore must have agreed with that reasoning about government since he continually refused the MOM position, cognizant of his own weakness. BetsyHp: > I know I've read stories with personal leaders that succeed in > making that leader a stand-in for a certain principle. (I > suppose "The Return of the King" could be an example? Maybe some > King Arthur tales?) But by having the principles of Dumbledore > (and therefore the Order) be so malleable JKR really does make it > person *rather than* principle. Which is just... bizarre. Jen: Apparently Dumbledore was one of the most incompetent cult-of- personalities ever. Dumbledore and the Order, a very small portion of the WW population, had a pretty limited goal in both wars: set out to recruit followers who were willing to oppose Voldemort and his ideology. Harry and a handful of students were part of the cause but that was pretty much it until the very end; many of the rest of the witches and wizards, werewolves, giants, centaurs, and goblins refused to join (and weren't forced to join, the tactic of the enemy). The opposition force expanded from Voldemort and the DEs to include the MOM, first by choice and then by force, the Dementors, the giants, the hangers- on who hoped to make a profit, Inferi, etc. As more and more groups were infiltrated or sided with Voldemort, the WW ground to a halt - the government was under the control of Voldemort and those who took advantage, like Umbridge; Gringotts was taken away from the Goblins; The wandmaker for the area was held hostage and tortured so no replacement wands were made for those attempting to defend friends and family....there wasn't even any *ice cream* anymore for crying out loud! Interestingly, one of the largest groups fighting at the end were the school-age children, people who'd spent a year living under Voldemort's regime and watching classmates tortured or learning to torture each other, wondering why other students disappeared. They fought for the simple reason that they'd experienced what life would be like if they didn't. Jen From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 00:06:22 2007 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:06:22 -0000 Subject: House elves battle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176320 Petra: ..snip... I think it very likely that > house elves cannot do magic to combat wizards. Why then can > they do armed combat? Perhaps the wizarding magic that restricts > the house elves somehow did not take into account the extra- > ordinary circumstances present at the Hogwarts battle. As we've > seen, instructions to house elves must be very carefully worded. > > Does anyone remember any details from canon that supports this > impression? Or supports a completely different impression? > Juli: In CoS, doesn't Dobby jinx Lucius in some way at the very end when he tries to attack Harry? Or perhaps this is movie contamination (don't have the books at hand so I can't check)? I think the knives were just to add a more dramatic effect. It does look cooler. Plus the elves are bound to serve their masters. Hogwarts is their master, so they would be almost 'forced' to protect Hogwarts. And for Kreacher, he is Harry's elf, if HArry told him to fight he would have had to. Juli From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Aug 28 00:27:13 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:27:13 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] New Inconsistency - Shell Cottage Message-ID: <20070828102713.CTG45605@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176321 Steve: > When Harry, Ron, Hermione, etc... arrive at Shell > Cottage, Bill informs them that there is a Secret > Keeper > charm on the place. Yet, Ron mentions it earlier, > actually mentions Shell Cottage a couple of times, > and when Harry arrives with Dobby, Harry can see the > cottage in the distance. > > Are we seeing a mistake or are we seeing a new > variation > of the Charm. Are there aspect of the Fidelius Charm > that > we are unaware of, or did JKR simply over look a few > details. > > For the record, mistake or not, it didn't distract > from my reading at all. I'm on my fourth read and > just > now noticed it. Sharon: The Fidelius Charm was put on the house right at the beginning of DH when the 7 Harry's were all leaving Privet Drive. I had thought all their destinations were covered by the Fidelius Charm -- or was it some other protection? If the protection WAS in the form of a Fidelius Charm then that would mean probably that all the order were in on the locations and able to go to them. However, when Lupin visits Shell Cottage with the news of his baby, he has to identify himself. Harry doesn't do that when he arrives with Dobby, but that could be because they saw him, were waiting for him, and ran out to greet him. From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Aug 28 00:47:28 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:47:28 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: Public School Series (was Inbreeding...) Message-ID: <15090731.1188262048257.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176322 From: Mellanie Crowther >I think it's sometimes hard for us in the States to understand >how pervasive an influence school is in British society. JKR >modeled Hogwarts after the British public (that would be private >to us here in the US) school system. The contacts one makes during >one's school career are far more lasting than here in the States, >where we have a more mobile, transient society. Christopher Hitchens did an interesting review of DH in the New York Times Book Review (I THINK it was the August 12th issue). One thing he points out about the novels was one of the first observations I had about PS/SS (my first observation was, "why didn't the author just use the historic term "Philosopher's Stone"?); that it uses the template of the standard British public school story, with magic added. Back in the late 60's, I lived in the Netherlands (I was about 1st Year age back then). There was a bookstore on the corner which had a LOT of books in English; virtually all British publications. And I discovered the public school novel. Apparently, they were very popular around the Depression and the 2nd World War, although Tom Brown's Schooldays could technically be said to belong to the genre. They would generally follow a group of friends, who would have small problems to solve along the way, and a major problem to solve within the book. And there were standard types: the regular guy, who was often the leader, the athletic type, up for anything at any time but prone to taking action before thinking, the brain, the faithful but somewhat incompetent one,etc. The characters could be mixed (often the brain was the foolhardy one, putting his inventions into action with a few bugs still in the system). The problems the students had to solve were often school related; one I recall, for example, had the big problem being saving the school's rugby field (and the small problems often helped solve the big one; in this case, an old trunk accidentally bought at auction in an early chapter happened to contain the long-lost original copy of the school's lease of the field, and a good chunk of the novel was made up of attempts to PROVE it was the original copy). In any case, in the HP books, at least the first few, Harry was the regular guy, Hermione was the brain, Ron was the foolhardy one, and Neville was the incompetent but faithful one. Even side characters like Luna were straight out of the Public School novels (for those who managed to get through the Harry Potter novels without knowing what a public school is, it's a privately owned, generally boarding, school where students studied in classes, as differentiated from private tutoring. As Public Schools tended to be for parents who had money, they created a fantasy of upper class living to working class children; often one of the main characters was a scholarship student, so that the lower class kids could better identify with one of the characters). The system of prefects was initially a cost-cutting measure; jobs done by students means that you don't have to pay someone to do them. Somehow, it became a means of leadership. The only thing missing were the school bullies (believe me, Draco and crew have NOTHING on the school bullies from public school novels). But there is one big difference about Hogwarts: For the most part, it's the only wheel in town. Virtually everybody in the WW in Great Britain went to Hogwarts. Therefore, they are all connected. Bart From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Aug 28 00:46:56 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:46:56 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New Inconsistency - Shell Cottage Message-ID: <20070828104656.CTG49584@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176323 Juli: And even less possible that Ollivander, Luna, and was it Dean? could have been let in on the secret . Sharon: well there goes MY theory -- LOL. I just posted that I thought the Fidelius Charm was put on Shell Cottage when they were all flying with Harry from Privet Drive. However, Ollivander, Dean and Luna couldn't have been able to get in, so you are right that it does seem to be a true inconsistency. It is possible that elves can overcome the charm, and maybe Voldemort just didn't realise it? After all, Voldemort wouldn't have had much time for house-elves, them being lesser beings and all, and so wouldn't have taken the time to learn anything about their magic. Still, it's a long shot. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Aug 28 01:08:28 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:08:28 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another inconsistency? Message-ID: <20070828110828.CTG53227@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176324 Sharon: I have recently reread HBP and noticed that neither Harry nor Ron had passed their Apparition tests by the end of the book -- Ron becuase he failed the test and Harry becuase he wasn't old enough to take the test. So neither Ron nor Harry had a lisence to Apparate. Yet in DH, we see them both Apparating all over the place. We know Harry didn't go for his lisence becuase he left on the quest for Horcruxes almost as soon as he turned seventeen. Maybe Ron did go for his test as some stage, but we never hear about it. My take is that, in the uproar surrounding Voldemort taking over the MOM and Hogwarts, etc, that the MOM wasn't being too rigid about rules. Also, in HBP, when the kids are learning to Apparate, some of them splinch themselves, and while it made them scared and uncomfortable, we don't hear anything about blood pouring out of missing limbs etc. So why does Ron almost bleed to death when he loses a bit of his arm while Apparating in DH? From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 01:43:33 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 01:43:33 -0000 Subject: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176325 OK, a disclaimer right off the bat. I still despise the Snape character that we saw for 3900 of the 4000 pages in the series. Yet, I actually liked the young Severus like I never will the adult Snape. Yeah, he was geeky in his "too short jeans, shabby, overlarge coat... and odd smocklike shirt." (p.663) But I admire the kid's spunk, he tried so hard, you just can't hate the poor kid from Spinner's End. ****Mikefic In a scene we didn't get, I pictured Eileen in the kitchen brewing up one of her regular potions. A seven-year-old Severus is sitting on a stool at the table and he has a slightly battered copy of Borage's Advanced Potion-Making open in front of him. Eileen is explaining what she's doing and Sev is trying to follow along in the book. She comes to a part where she deviates and Sev speaks up with, "But mum, it says to chop them up." Eileen answers, "Oh posh, that's old Borash mixing up his methods again. No Sev, it works much better to crush them with your pestle. C'mere, I'll show you." And of course she does. As Sev returns to his seat with a smile on his face, Eileen, without looking up, says, "Now write that down in there, dear. Next time, you can do the crushing, okay?" As Severus leans over his book to make the change, Eileen glances up at him with pride. OK, back to real canon. :) ****The Girls. The first words out of 11-year-old Tuney's mouth were "Lily, don't do it!" Is she scared of Lily's magic? Well sure, we know that attitude didn't change even as an adult. But I also think she's trying to be the protective older sister. Tuney doesn't understand how Lily can do what she can do, but Tuney knows if she were to do it she'd get hurt. I think her's is a natural reaction of the older sister. Now when Tuney told Lily, "Mummy told you not to!", that sounds more like a bossy older sis. Because I'm not sure mummy ever said any such thing to Lily. I doubt Lily ever tried her trick in front of mummy to have prompted such a rebuke. ****The meeting When young Sev steps in, he makes the classical wizard to Muggle mistake, he assumes they know in general what is obvious to him. So he calls Lily a "witch". Well of course she's going to be indignant. Hell, even after 7 books I find it hard to call the female characters "witches", it still sounds like I'm insulting them. And poor Sev, he "had been planning this moment for a while, and it had all gone wrong" (665). Ahh the angst of a pre-adolescent boy trying to make a good first impression and blowing it completely. I know from where you heart hurts, young Sev. We just aren't equipped to talk to girls until we reach the age of,... oh I'd say around 35, but maybe that's a little optimistic. ;) ****The friends Sitting together in the shade, we see how much Sev has fallen for Lily. And he's learned a lesson already. When Lily asks if being Muggleborn makes a difference, Sev hesitates... then *lies*. He knows it does to some, especially to those in the house he hopes to be picked for. But things stay bright and cheery and Lily relaxes after this *news*. When Tuney gets caught spying on this duo, she does what any good girl does... she changes the subject. :D Ahh, but it is a mistake to pick on a poor wizard about his poor clothes. Sev can't bring the wrath of God down on Tuney, but he can manage the wrath of some good English Elm. Notice the difference in what trasnspires next. Sev lies, again. This time, Lily doesn't believe him. Did Sev not deliver this lie well enough? The narrator (Harry's pov) says Sev "looked both defiant and scared." (668) So is he scared of being caught in a lie or is he scared of offending Lily again? My thought would be the latter, however, Lily won't read it that way now will she? Besides, Lily has no reason to want *this* lie to be true. That's enough from me. Anybody got a different take? Would some care to expound or expand on my take? Mike, who thought another light canon would make a nice change ;) From andie1 at earthlink.net Tue Aug 28 01:52:32 2007 From: andie1 at earthlink.net (grindieloe) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 01:52:32 -0000 Subject: Foreshadowing in PoA movie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176326 > > For me, the most outstanding unintentional foreshadowing was in the > werewolf scene, where Snape shielded the children from Werewolf! > Lupin, illustrating his ongoing protection of the innocent. > > Lisa I agree with your Snape foreshadowing idea and I have two more to add: 1) Buckbeak protecting Harry (and Hermione) from Lupin when he is a werewolf. In HBP, Buckbeak does the very same except he shields Harry from Snape in Flight of the Prince. 2) When Harry is in the hospital wing after falling from his broomstick due to dementors, Fred or George say something to Ron (I think) like "let's throw you from the top of the astronomy tower and see what you look like." Dumbledore fell from the astronomy tower after being AK'ed by Snape. grindieloe From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Aug 28 01:53:14 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:53:14 -0400 Subject: House elves battle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176327 Why didn't the House Elves use their magic in the battle? Good question. I think it is because bound elves are not allowed to use their magic against their masters, and in that most of the human combatants are present or former Hogwarts students (and faculty), they may have come under the ban. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 02:35:01 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 02:35:01 -0000 Subject: House elves battle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176328 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "grouchymedic_26149" wrote: > I apologise in advance if this question has been answered before, > and I missed it. > In the final battle for Hogwarts, the house elves burst from the > kitchen, and attack the forces of LV with knives and meat cleavers. > Why not magic?? Yes, someone came up with this question right after the last book was out. I can't say that it was answered thought :-), because very different ideas were expressed. I personally believed then, and still believe, that the house elves need to have their master's permission to use magic (I'm not talking about cooking, cleaning and laundry here). Dobby used offensive magic against Malfoy, but he was already free then, so it doesn't count. I'm not sure how reliable Weasley twins' knowledge of the house elves' customs is (after all, they don't have one :-)), but in CoS Fred told Harry that "house-elves have got powerful magic of their own, but they can't usually use it without their masters' permission". I think that during the battle of Hogwarts there was no one to give them permission, that's all (no headmaster). Just a theory, one of many :-). zanooda From ersatzharry at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 02:45:55 2007 From: ersatzharry at yahoo.com (Ersatz Harry) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 02:45:55 -0000 Subject: Death and portraits Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176329 As Snape's memories attest in DH, Dumbledore is still able to comprehend and influence events that occurred after his death. In particular, I am thinking of his telling Snape to deliver the sword to the Forest of Dean. It seems odd to call someone dead when he can still act in this way, and I don't recall any other portraits having quite that sort of ability (or if they did, they never seem to have used it). Are there others that anyone recalls, and can we truly call Dumbledore dead when he still has such a hand in the story? Ersatz Harry, who notices that people don't often append these little parenthetical comments to their signatures these days From Meliss9900 at aol.com Tue Aug 28 02:52:10 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:52:10 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New Inconsistency - Shell Cottage Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176330 In a message dated 8/27/2007 7:03:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jlnbtr at yahoo.com writes: You read my mind Steve, I was just thinking of posting that same paragraph ;) I do think it's a mistake. When Ron returns to Harry & Hermione, he says that Bill and Fleur are living in the Shell Cottage. Unless Bill also made him a secret keeper, he wouldn't be able to say that, right? He would have been able to say he was at Bill and Fleur's or that he was at teh Shell Cottage, not to actually say that 'Bill and Fleur live at the Shell Cottage' ************* My impression when I was initially reading the book was that the Fidelius Charm was placed AFTER they showed up at Shell Cottage not before. That is still my impression after just this moment re-reading it. As they are burying Dobby, Harry turns around and notices the others have all come out to the grave. Bill is noted as wearing a traveling cloak. After the burial, Harry remains to add the headstone and as he enters Shell cottage, Bill appears to be telling the others where and what he has been doing. ______________ ". . .lucky that Ginny's on holiday. If she'd been at Hogwarts, they could have taken her before we reached her. Now we know she's safe too." And "I've been getting them all out of the burrow." he explained "moved them to Muriel's. The Death Eater's know Ron's with you now, they're bound to target the family -- don't apologize, " he added at the sight of Harry's expression. "it was always a matter of time, Dad's been saying so for months. We're the biggest blood traitor family there is." "How are hey protected?" Harry asked "Fidelius Charm. Dad's Secret-Keeper. And we've done it on this cottage too; I'm Secret-Keeper here." ________ All of this IMO sounds as if it were just happening. Bill's wearing a traveling cloak and telling everyone that he's been moving the family to Muriel's and is glad that Ginny's on Holiday. He notes that the D.Es know that Ron is with Harry now, which until Malfoy Manor they didn't. (they thought he was at the burrow with Spattergroit. Arthur has been expecting something to happen for months. Also if the Fidelius had been cast before then Ron wouldn't have known how to get to Shell Cottage when he left Harry and Hermione in the woods. JMO Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mz_annethrope at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 04:22:33 2007 From: mz_annethrope at yahoo.com (mz_annethrope) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 04:22:33 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176331 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Geoff wrote: > > > > I have to admit that I haven't had time to really look at the > thread on Chapter 1 but looking at the questions set for the > > OWL candidates, one has occurred to me which isn't on the list > > and I wonder whether other group members might have any > > theories.... > > > > Why did JKR create Charity Burbage, Professor of Muggle Studies, > > just to be killed by Voldemort in Chapter 1? > > > > She is effectively a non-entity. we have no other references to her > > and I have to say that it left me emotionally untouched because > > she was a stranger, just another name in the long list of Voldemort's > > victims.That probably sounds callous but that often happens in real > > life situations. > > > > Had it been a name which we knew - even one of the lesser known > > staff such as Professor Sinistra or Professor Vector - for me, that > > would have had considerably more impact than the unfortunate > > victim we briefly met here. > > > > Carol responds: snip: > > IOW, the purpose of the Charity Burbage episode is to show us where > Voldemort was going with his agenda and what would have happened to > the WW had he not been sidetracked by the Elder Wand. As it is, the > Death Eaters get essentially a free hand in running the MoM, but most > of them share that agenda anyway. snip, snip: > > I felt that "The Dark Lord Ascending" perfectly illustrated the state > of affairs both among Voldie's followers (Snape as inscrutable as > ever, the Malfoys humbled and fearful, the other DEs scrambling for > favor or silent, Wormtail trying to be invisible) and in the WW at > large (as well as making clear what happened to the bodies of LV's > earlier victims and setting up Nagini as both loathsome and terrifying). mz_annethrope: I agree that this chapter sets up for Voldemort's agenda in the rest of the book. In particular it readies us for Magic is Might and for what happens in that chapter. I want to take the scene in a slightly different direction, i.e, Charity Burbadge who left Geoff, and me, emotionally untouched. Here are a couple of possibilities. One is that the chapter sets up Snape as ESE, while still allowing the reader to perceive Snape as trapped. What if the victim had been somebody we considered important, somebody we liked, somebody who seemed to get along with Snape, say McGonagall? It would have been much harder to "redeem" Snape at the end of the book if we had seen him watch the murder of a beloved character (though perhaps it would have made it more interesting.) The writing deliberately impersonalizes the horror of the scene. It also sets us up for the encounter with Inferius!Bathilda (Inferia?), which I found the most horrific scene in the book. In both scenes a snake desecrates a human body, but the first is offstage and so we don't care about it as much. Because of the implied distance it allows the the reader to be a bit guilty of dehumanizing the almost anonymous victim. There are other scenes that allow the reader to be guilty observers. I think especially of Harry using the Cruciatus curse against Amycus and McGonagall responding with "Imperio." I found this scene terribly funny even though I knew the actions were terrible. So I was relieved to find out that Voldemort's Chapter 1 victim was no one I cared about. I could go on enjoying the book, without being shocked out of my senses. But I don't think my reaction is supposed to be right. JKR shows us another way in the underground Wizarding Wireless scene. Here Kingsley, who acts as this book's moral compass, enjoins listeners to protect their Muggle neighbors then says this, "We're all humans, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving." [Amer. ed., 440] Chapter 1 allows for the dehumanization of a person and a people (Muggles) to foreshadow not only Voldemort's agenda, but also what may happen in the reader's heart. mz_annethrope, who wonders if Charity did a clinical presentation of Muggles in her class. From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 06:17:10 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:17:10 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176332 lizzyben quoting a newspaper acticle: > > > The Record, Northern NJ > 14 October 1999 > Students Meet the Real Wizard Behind the Harry Potter Craze > By Leslie Brody > > "She also reported that Professor Snake is based on a chemistry > teacher who hated her and made her life miserable. "The great thing > about being a writer is that you have a chance to get back at those > people who wronged you," she said. > This acticle is rubbish IMO. AFAIK Jo *never* said John Nettleship hated her, only that he was a strict teacher in a subject that the bright young Joanne had little affinity for, much like Harry and potions. The 'nasty' man turned around and gave Jo's mother a job when she sorely needed one and he and his wife became friends with her. If Snape was revenge on Nettleship, it backfired because he's by most reports gotten quite a kick out of being the model for Prof. Snape. Snape's Witch From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 06:51:09 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:51:09 -0000 Subject: Another inconsistency? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176333 "smartone564"/Toner wrote: > > I thought Fenrir had a dark mark? > > During the tower scene at the end of HBP, a group of DEs join DD, > Harry and Draco up on the top of the tower, and the rest of the OotP can't get up the stairs due to some magical wall except for Snape. At the time, the reasoning for this was that only people with Dark Marks could go through the invisible wall. > > However, in DH, Fenrir cannot enter the Malfoy Manor, even though it appeared you needed a Dark Mark to go through the gate (like Snape and Amycus in the first chapter). Also, he couldn't summon LV because he didn't have a Dark Mark and was relying on one of the Malfoys or Bellatrix to call him. From the situation and Fenrir's attitude, he certainly would've called LV if he could. *miniscule snip* Doddie here: This has been bothering me too...so I went back to look at that dreaded episode in HBP.. Upon my reread I thought that Gibbon the DE that set the dark mark off upon the tower also cast the "barrier spell"...hence in the heat of battle Neville who seemed to be hot on the tracks was immediately thrown back after Lupin tried to get through too..(so we know that the barrier doesn't work for werewolves in and of themselves). Although, it doesn't mean that one of the runners set it up behind them...but you're right we have the Fenrir herring in there. And then we learn in DH that Fenrir has no dark mark, yet is upon the tower...(has to be something more in that). Also, maybe the DE's would never consider that there was anything other than the DE's there--somehow I get the feeling that Voldie sent Fenrir along so Draco would do as he was told(which he did not) and also to back Snape into a corner to choose sides(because there is little doubt that after the episode in spinner's end that Bella ran right back to Voldemort and told him--which I love that Snape knew all about loyalties---blast wormtail away...let me play upon Bella's insecurities...sheesh I wonder how different the series would have been if Snape and Harry had been on the same page, if not necessarily liking each other..). So I'd go for a DE token to get through said barrier..and after all Fenrir didn't kill DD so he didn't achieve dark mark status.(hence Draco Malfoy's reactions whenever Fenrir is mentioned(even when he brings Fenrir up himself) the one threat Draco gave out the most, turns out to be the one he fears the most.(that Fenrir would be honored above his family who are definitely on the outs with Voldie) would only enoble him further to pursue his quest hence he even pushed Snape's offer of help away. Draco threatened Borgin with Fenrir(hence Draco knew competition for the task was there and probably upon his mother's stroke of genius he did this so that Borgin wouldn't give Fenrir any MORE info than what he gave Draco.) and of course, Borgin would never feel threatened by Fenrir because Draco told Borgin Fenrir was just helping him. Draco showed his dark mark which probably didn't frighten Borgin either...Voldie would never mess with him, I think Borgin would know too much about the Riddle that Voldemort doesn't want anyone else to know about. I'm quite sure that DD obtained a great deal of information from Tom Riddle's first employers.. Doddie, (who thinks Voldie never got most of it until Harry tossed the name of Voldemort out the window and addressed him as Riddle turns out all of his names turned out to be a ...well...joke..*snicker* and who'd also hate to parallel Occluency lessons between Harry/Snape and Bella/Draco.) From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 07:18:17 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:18:17 -0000 Subject: The two good Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176334 eggplant wrote: > > Before book 7 people complained that JKR gave us no good Slytherin, > well now we have two, Snape and Slughorn. Snape had committed more > evil than the average person but he had also committed far far more > good as well. And if we use the ultimate test for virtue we would findhat the world would be a far poorer place if Snape had never been > born; but it must be said, the man is still very unpleasant company. *Massive snip* Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald Doddie here: I'm sorry but most folks have left out one Slytherin...Narcissa Malfoy..She's no Bella, she's no Pansy, throughout DH and HBP she's a mother and wife like we never expected... Truth be told, she's one of the pureblood moms we hear about other than Molly and Seamus' mum...All of whom have the same thing in common, they protect their children...I always wondered why the Malfoy's had only one...I get it from Lucious' perspective...but not from Cissy's....just makes me wonder if they are so closely related one normal kid and they don't want to tempt genetic fate... But back to the topic...here we have a Slyterin who is not a DE..She doesn't have a dark mark according to JKR..and she may have played the most pivotal role in DH...at the least, it allowed Neville to destory Nagini..wow a foster mum to both Harry and Neville inadvertent as it was. Doddie, (who would just love Rita's post battle interviews of Cissy, Draco, Lucious and Molly--which is probably what happened seeing as none ended up in Azkaban.) From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Tue Aug 28 07:20:27 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:20:27 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The two good Slytherins In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2E7C9911-0F42-489A-8027-0C8676858618@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176335 On 2007, Aug 27, , at 13:03, Geoff Bannister wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh > wrote: >> >>> Before book 7 people complained that JKR gave us no good Slytherin, >>> well now we have two, Snape and Slughorn. > > Geoff: > I'd be inclined to present a case for the defence for Draco > as number three and a half. OK, I know I've been wittering > on about no one being beyond redemption but I have got a > sneaky soft spot for the guy. Well, if you are going to include Draco as a half good Slytherin, then you should probably also include Regulus. So that makes 2 + 1 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 4. Four "good" Slytherins. [And maybe 1/4 more with Kreecher as an honorary Slytherin. :-) ] Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 28 08:23:34 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:23:34 -0000 Subject: The 3 good Slytherins (was: The two good Slytherins) In-Reply-To: <2E7C9911-0F42-489A-8027-0C8676858618@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176336 Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > You should probably also include Regulus. Yes, I should have included Regulus, and there are no if's and's or but's about it! There are in fact 3 known good Slytherins. It's just a pity that Sirius never knew he had a brother who was a hero. It was inexcusably careless of me to forget about noble Regulus. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 10:47:28 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:47:28 -0000 Subject: "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176337 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Snape" wrote: > > lizzyben quoting a newspaper acticle: > > > > > > The Record, Northern NJ > > 14 October 1999 > > Students Meet the Real Wizard Behind the Harry Potter Craze > > By Leslie Brody > > > > "She also reported that Professor Snake is based on a chemistry > > teacher who hated her and made her life miserable. "The great thing > > about being a writer is that you have a chance to get back at those > > people who wronged you," she said. > > > > This acticle is rubbish IMO. AFAIK Jo *never* said John Nettleship > hated her, only that he was a strict teacher in a subject that the > bright young Joanne had little affinity for, much like Harry and > potions. The 'nasty' man turned around and gave Jo's mother a job > when she sorely needed one and he and his wife became friends with > her. If Snape was revenge on Nettleship, it backfired because he's > by most reports gotten quite a kick out of being the model for Prof. > Snape. > > Snape's Witch > lizzyben: Maybe, buy it is pretty consistent w/what she's said in other interviews. I should've included the link - http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-starledger-garrity2.html As for Nettleship, was he really thrilled to be the model for this character? I dunno, the BBC article says that he's just learned to deal w/it. "It was then that he discovered his friends and family had already made the connection between himself and the terrifying teacher long before the story hit the big screen. Mr Nettleship was shocked to learn that his wife, Shirley, agreed that JK Rowling had used him as a template for the character. He said: "I was rather distressed about this but Shirley said 'I'm afraid so: I realised that a long time ago but I didn't dare tell you'." But, as if by magic, he has since come to believe that his former pupil's literary work is more of a gentle, if wile, way of paying him back for ensuring that people always paid attention during his lessons. And he has a glimmer of hope that the meaner aspects of Professor Snape's character are not based on him at all. He added: "There are ways of pupils getting their revenge, but this is a much more sophisticated retaliation." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1731602.stm From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Aug 28 07:51:50 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:51:50 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The two good Slytherins Message-ID: <20070828175150.CTH10600@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176338 Laura: > Well, if you are going to include Draco as a half good > Slytherin, then you should probably also include Regulus. > So that makes 2 + 1 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 4. Four "good" > Slytherins. > > [And maybe 1/4 more with Kreecher as an honorary > Slytherin. :-) ] Sharon: I love Kreacher! he just wanted someone to show him love and affection in return for his loyalty. I do wonder though, why Harry didn't give him his freedom? Surely with Hermione there to bust his but over elfish welfare and Harry's own history of being kind to house-elves, especially setting Dobby free, he would have considered giving Kreacher his freedom? Initially I suppose in DH he needed Kreacher to help them with their plans, but surely Kreacher would have continued to help the wizard that gave him his freedom? Then again, house-elves were bred to serve and maybe that's all they know how to do? Dobby was a free elf, but he certainly was ready to serve Harry anytime anywhere. It may have been well-nigh impossible to emancipate house-elves at this stage. Anyone else got thoughts on this? Sharon, who loves Kreacher and Snape, and always believed Snape was a good guy, even when he killed DD. "well maybe he said a different spell in his mind and DD isn't really dead" LOL. From irenetsui at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 09:12:28 2007 From: irenetsui at yahoo.com (irenetsui) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:12:28 -0000 Subject: The 3 good Slytherins (was: The two good Slytherins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176339 Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > > You should probably also include Regulus. Eggplant: > Yes, I should have included Regulus, and there are no if's and's or > but's about it! There are in fact 3 known good Slytherins. It's just a > pity that Sirius never knew he had a brother who was a hero. It was > inexcusably careless of me to forget about noble Regulus. Is Andromeda Black Tonks a Slytherin? If she is, I would nominate her for the good Slytherin list. Irene From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Tue Aug 28 09:28:37 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:28:37 -0000 Subject: The two good Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176340 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Before book 7 people complained that JKR gave us no good Slytherin, > well now we have two, Snape and Slughorn. Snape had committed more > evil than the average person but he had also committed far far more > good as well. And if we use the ultimate test for virtue we would > find that the world would be a far poorer place if Snape had never > been born; but it must be said, the man is still very unpleasant > company. > I watched some of JKR's interviews on the Leaky Cauldron last night and she was astonished that people think Snape a hero! The most she would concede is that he is brave. Yet she then went on to say that the most important virtue, she felt, was courage and that she hoped she would be 'worthy' to be a Gryffindor. That has left me puzzled over her attitude to Snape (and the rest of the Slytherins) and unsure that she really understands her own creation. She gave Snape the primary Gryffindor virtue, to her it seems, his only virtue yet placed him in Slytherin, which does seem in her universe to be the House of the 'damned' which only a very very few escape. Yes he had 'love' as a virtue but JKR doesn't seem to treat love as a virtue, more a reason to be virtuous. In any case his ' love' was self centred and had to change a lot before he was finally able to 'see' Lily in Harry's eyes. I too like Slughorn, but was suprised to find him in Slytherin but then that maybe because I had accepted fully the 'Slytherin is evil' slant of the books prior to when we first met him in HBP. He does not fully act like a Slytherin but on the other hand he is not a Death Eater and every other adult Slytherin we meet is, or is married to one. I was therefore not surprised when he fought in the battle as I had not fully labelled him a Slytherin in my mind. Perhaps he 'chose' Slytherin only due to ambition and the desire to rub shoulders with 'the right sort.' A real life equivalent might be Oskar Schindler who was part of the Nazi 'War Economy' but came to the realization that his only hope of redemption was to use that position to fight it (albeit covertly) and save lives. Similar then to Slughorn's decision to hand over the 'real' memory about the Horcrux info to Harry. The Malfoys are another bunch who joined up from ambition and then found that the price was far higher than they were prepared to pay. It was their love for one another that kept them from total damnation, which is completely consistent with the books theme. Draco is the most hopeful of the Slytherins to me. Love for his parents is the sole reason he is trying to kill Dumbledore in the first place and by then he knows that Voldemort is evil and he is on the 'wrong' side. He must have been utterly terrified when the man who had just thrown his whole family a lifeline is murdered in front of him and it snatched away. I don't get any sense of Draco willingly leaving Hogwarts, Snape seems to be forcing him to leave. He is then reluctant to identify the captives at Malfoy Manor so is developing some bravery and then that is fully realised in the fire when he stays to rescue rather than saving his own skin. It was a pity I feel that we did not see a fuller resolution for them in the aftermath. I wanted Harry to go to Slughorn, Lucius and Draco in the hall and ask for their help to bring Snape's body back into the school. There should have been one body there with a Slytherin banner laid over it. Voldemort and his minions didn't earn any banners. That would have tied up a few loose ends for me. Regulus was a character who fully redeemed his Slytherin and Death Eater past. Snape reamins for me the most compelling character in the books. Undoubtedly unpleasant, but a brilliant mind, courageous with a lonely quiet bravery that went on and on and on. The thought of what the last year of his life must have been like still brings tears to my eyes. He was unpleasant to the children he taught but he had not chosen teaching as a career, he had been forced into it. He sought the post at Hogwarts first at Voldemort's bidding to be a spy and then remained there on Dumbledore's orders to retain his value as a double-agent for the future return of V. I should think he viewed most of his time in the classroom, other than that with his NEWT students, as an utter waste of his undoubted talent. I'm sure he wanted to be in his dungeon creating and refining potions and spells, not teaching dullards who melted their cauldrons at the first simple recipe. I tend to think of Stephen Hawking (I know nothing of his personlity, I merely cite him as a man at the peak of his field) being made to teach Physics to a year 7 class in a Comprehensive school, year after year. That helps me to understand Snape a little better, not justify him, just understand him. If he had had a better childhood himself and not been bullied into isolation at school perhaps he could have seen the children for their potential and then taught them accordingly. That he couldn't is part of his tragedy. His role as Dumbledore's agent in place locked him into his cover story and threw the key away. Other than brief moments with Dumbledore he was 'in cover' and only at the moment of his death and in the Prince's Tale do we see the real man. I hope he is resting in peace, he earned it. allthecoolnamesgone From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 12:03:29 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:03:29 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176341 > >>BetsyHp: > > The US Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Those are two guiding > > principles set up without connection to a specific leader or a > > specific deity. They were purposefully written that way because > > the Founding Fathers *knew* how easily corrupted a personal > > leader could be. > >>Jen: Dumbledore must have agreed with that reasoning about > government since he continually refused the MOM position, cognizant > of his own weakness. Betsy Hp: Heh. True. Though I don't give him any points because, IMO, it just meant he used his fear as an excuse to duck out of work. Working for a government body doesn't mean you're out to control the world (see the Founding Fathers, again). But it's the perfect place to challenge the status quo and set forth some new ideals. > >>Jen: Apparently Dumbledore was one of the most incompetent cult- > of- personalities ever. Betsy Hp: He got people to sacrifice their lives, the lives of their children, and their own souls for him. He also succeeded in having the children under his power form a group that encouraged members to turn on their families and viciously retaliate against any breach of loyalty. Dumbledore did all right. > >>Jen: > Dumbledore and the Order, a very small portion of the WW > population, had a pretty limited goal in both wars: set out to > recruit followers who were willing to oppose Voldemort and his > ideology. > Betsy Hp: I *know*. It was so... petty. We are gathered here today to destroy this guy. Really? That's your entire purpose of being? What an utter waste. All those books, all that time spent in Harry-agnst, and his entire purpose is to destroy Voldemort. Take down one man. I mean, the WW is exactly as it was when Voldemort came to power, so it's not like Dumbledore, Harry or the Order have achieved anything to slow down the next Evil Overlord when he or she pops up. Harry is a happy slave owner, the Houses are still ranked and at each other's throats, magical creatures are still on the bottom of the pile. Probably about the only thing that's changed is it's a bad thing to be a pure-blood (as per Ron's little remark). Which just means a change in fashion, not a change in outlook or understanding. So, yeah... petty. Betsy Hp From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 28 12:56:42 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:56:42 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... Message-ID: <565862.8226.qm@web86205.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176342 Betsy Hp: I mean, the WW is exactly as it was when Voldemort came to power, so it's not like Dumbledore, Harry or the Order have achieved anything to slow down the next Evil Overlord when he or she pops up. Harry is a happy slave owner, the Houses are still ranked and at each other's throats, magical creatures are still on the bottom of the pile. Probably about the only thing that's changed is it's a bad thing to be a pure-blood (as per Ron's little remark). Which just means a change in fashion, not a change in outlook or understanding. So, yeah... petty. Irene: I was horrified by that remark. Imagine if we had heard Draco making a similar remark in that epilogue: "don't get too friendly with that girl, grandpa Lucius will be horrified." And Ron's remark is completely symmetric, and just as rasist (or whatever your analogy to the blood issue in Potterverse). Then again, I don't know why was I surprised. Hagrid said in book 1 - Malfoys are bad blood, nothing good will ever come out of this boy. 7 books was too long to hope for a reversal, I should have realised sooner what JKR is about. There is this quote somewhere, that when a slave dreams of a better world, the dream is not about everyone being free, it's about him being slaveowner. JKR's idea of the reversal of a bad situation is another bad situation. Irene From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Aug 28 13:58:12 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:58:12 -0000 Subject: The two good Slytherins In-Reply-To: <20070828175150.CTH10600@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176343 Laura: > > Well, if you are going to include Draco as a half good > > Slytherin, then you should probably also include Regulus. > > So that makes 2 + 1 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 4. Four "good" > > Slytherins. > > > > [And maybe 1/4 more with Kreecher as an honorary > > Slytherin. :-) ] Magpie: The "Good" Slytherins: Snape--joined the DEs, accidentally got the girl he loved marked for death, vowed to protect her son forever after. Bravely spied on the DEs while being completely, loyal to Dumbledore (confining his disobedience to tormenting Harry and being unable to teach Occlumency). A key player on the good side, but consistently nasty as a person. (No effect on other Slytherins.) Regulus Black--joined the DEs, was horrified (by Voldemort's treatment of Kreacher was it?) struck a personal suicidal blow against Voldemort which, although ultimately not helpful, was an impressive thing to do. (No effect on other Slytherins.) Personality-wise we don't know, as he's not a character we ever meet in person. We're told he was bigoted- -could be one of the many who were all for Voldemort's plans until they saw what he was willing to do. (JKR compares Draco to him in being attracted and then horrified by the bad side.) Horace Slughorn--Manipulative collector of people, expresses some bigotry, but scared of DEs and allied with Dumbledore. Eventually joined the final battle on the good side towards the end after some earlier anxiety. Phineas Black--Bigoted, Harry seems to consider him obnoxious, but as a portrait he's working for the school and the headmaster. We've never met him in person. Not Good Slytherins: Lucius Malfoy--DE, desperate to get back into Voldemort's good graces, though ultimately that came in second to protecting his son. Narcissa Malfoy--DE-supporter who made a bold move to save her son (had Draco been dead, she would not have lied about Harry--tried to send Harry to Voldemort earlier). Her agenda coincided with that of the good side at a crucial moment. Draco Malfoy--Really didn't like being a DE, expresses some good impulses, but unable to make a definitive move to the good side either. Andromeda Black--We know she married a Muggle-born, but she does not appear in the book except for one scene where she looks haughty, so remains "Slytherin not appearing in this book." Not Slytherin at all: Sirius Black--Correctly Sorted into Gryffindor (see also Tonks/Hufflepuff). Kreacher--A house elf who changes sides based on who's nice to him. Not eligible for any house, as he is one of Hogwarts' many slaves. Albus Severus--Told by his father he'll love him no matter what house he's in, but also that if he doesn't want to be in Slytherin (and he doesn't) the hat will not put him there. Not in any house in canon. -m From random832 at fastmail.us Tue Aug 28 14:15:13 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:15:13 -0400 Subject: Various responses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1188310513.32707.1207671047@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176344 Misc responses - these have little in common other than having been in my Drafts folder, largely because they were individually too small to warrant wasting a message on. > Magpie: > Andromeda Black--We know she married a Muggle-born, but she does not > appear in the book except for one scene where she looks haughty, so > remains "Slytherin not appearing in this book." Random832: Also, unknown house in canon. Bruce Alan Wilson: > Personally, though, I hope she does what Katharine Kurtz does in opening > her universe to other writers. Kurtz insists that any fanfiction > commercially published be vetted by her as consistent with canon Random832: JKR doesn't vet even her own works as 'consistent with canon', why should she care if fanfic is? (and, all joking aside, this basically shuts out AU-type stories) justcarol67: > As to why Mad-eye and Harry (or maybe someone who could walk more > silently than Mad-eye, say. Lupin, didn't just walk a good distance > from 4 Privet Drive and then Apparate Why apparate at all? Just walk directly to 12GP. Or to the Tonks'. Or catch a train. -- Random832 From jemd4185 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 14:07:42 2007 From: jemd4185 at yahoo.com (Noriel C. Mercado) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:07:42 -0000 Subject: 19 years later... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176345 Why was TEDDY LUPIN still in Hogwarts? Noriel From margdean at erols.com Tue Aug 28 14:37:36 2007 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:37:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] 19 years later... References: Message-ID: <46D43330.6F2BDDAB@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176346 "Noriel C. Mercado" wrote: > > Why was TEDDY LUPIN still in Hogwarts? There's no indication that he is, is there? He's just, um, seeing Victoire off. (She's perhaps in her sixth or seventh year?) --Margaret Dean From vincent.maston.ml at free.fr Tue Aug 28 14:34:30 2007 From: vincent.maston.ml at free.fr (Vincent Maston) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:34:30 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] 19 years later... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46D43276.4050507@free.fr> No: HPFGUIDX 176347 Noriel C. Mercado a crit : > Why was TEDDY LUPIN still in Hogwarts? He's not in Hogwarts, he's on the platform next to the Hogwart's express. I think he's only there to kiss his girlfriend goodbye, as she's still in hogwarts herself. Vincent From mosu22 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 15:21:23 2007 From: mosu22 at yahoo.com (Monica) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:21:23 -0000 Subject: Harry's wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176348 Hi all, It's almost impossible for me to keep up with all the posts so if this question has already been asked, could someone refer me to it? But if not, we know Harry's wand rebounds on Voldemort because of a strange recognition of him, and attacks him on its own. Now, acknowledging that she never actually presented this as an option in DH, does anyone have any idea about why his wand wouldn't work against a horcrux? Seems to me that the part of Voldemort that Harry's wand recognized was his soul, so if it came into contact with his soul in the form of a horcrux, it would be capable of destroying it. I know it got broken before they really had a chance to test that theory, it's just a curiosity. Thanks! Monica From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 16:57:08 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:57:08 -0000 Subject: Another inconsistency? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176349 --- "smartone564" wrote: > > I thought Fenrir had a dark mark? > > During the tower scene at the end of HBP, a group > of DEs join DD, Harry and Draco up on the top of the > tower, and the rest of the OotP can't get up the > stairs due to some magical wall ... > bboyminn: Well, my philosophy is always that there IS an explanation even if we don't know what it is. Consider the possibility that while you can not pass the barrier without the Dark Mark, you can pass through if you are in physical contact with someone who has the Dark Mark. In other words, it is possible to be /escorted/ through the barrier. When Greyback reaches Malfoy Manor, it is possible that he simply doesn't know how the Gate works. It is only Harry's speculation as to how and why Greyback can't get in. I think this is referred to as 'unreliable narrator'; we can't always take Harry's thoughts and opinions as absolute fact. Again, while I don't know what the explanation is, I am confident there is one. Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 16:53:28 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:53:28 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176350 > >>Alla: > How do those quotes show Harry not thinking about the plan, when > this is what he is doing? Thinking about it? No, seriously, his > thoughts are about the plan, are they not? > Betsy Hp: Rather than Harry working through the whys and wherefores, I see those passages showing more Harry coming to grips with the fact that he's got to die. He doesn't consider other means or methods so I don't see him thinking for himself. I see it more as Harry prepping himself to take the action that's required of him. > >>Alla: > By the way, what **are** the arguments against it that you see? > Betsy Hp: Oh, there are none. It's JKR's story and this is the solution she came up with, so that's the solution that is. So it's not so much that Harry's death was needed, it's *how* Harry found that out and then how it was played out that bugged me. I didn't like that Harry didn't figure it out for himself, I didn't like that he didn't really protest (especially since this is something he's *told* not something he concludes), I didn't like that his parents and godfather are all "death is *great*!". It's not that I don't get the extreme coolness of a hero going into certain death. I *loved* the heck out of 300, and not just for the pretty, pretty men. And I'd also agreed with predictions that Harry was going to need to do some sort of death walk. It's just... I really expected Harry to grow up and figure this all out for himself, have it be *his* plan, *his* idea that he stood in the face of his friends' *protests* to do. > >>Alla: > > IMO during whole chapter 34 it had been shown that Harry does not > just immediately decides to lay down and die. To me it had been > clearly shown that Harry does it, against all his instincts to > fight for live ? for others and for himself. > Betsy Hp: Yes, Harry liked life. And chapter 34 pointed that out (though I'll say Jack London did it better ). But it didn't show Harry come to a conclusion, it showed Harry accepting what his mentor and his loved ones have told him to do. I know this won't change your mind at all, Alla. That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm just showing how this entire scene played more as a glorification of suicide to me, than a hero doing what was necessary. Obviously, YMMV. Frankly, I was just gratified someone agreed with me. Thought I was maybe a little crazy for a second or two there. Betsy Hp From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 17:27:04 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:27:04 -0000 Subject: Harry's wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176351 --- "Monica" wrote: > > Hi all, > > ... But if not, we know Harry's wand rebounds on > Voldemort because of a strange recognition of him, > and attacks him on its own. bboyminn: Sorry, though I'm sure you are asking a good question, I can't seem to decipher what it is. Which incident are you referring to above? If this is the escape in beginning of the book, then that was explained to a limited extent. When Harry and Voldemort's wands connected in the graveyard in GoF, some of Voldemort's power was transferred into Harry's wand. That transfer gave Harry special magical powers when ever his original Holly Wand faced Voldemort. > Monica: > > ... does anyone have any idea > about why his wand wouldn't work against a horcrux? > Seems to me that the part of Voldemort that Harry's > wand recognized was his soul, so if it came into > contact with his soul in the form of a horcrux, it > would be capable of destroying it. I know it got > broken before they really had a chance to test that > theory, it's just a curiosity. bboyminn: Again, I think we need more details; whose wand against which Horcrux? You seem to be implying that because of the special power that Harry's Holly wand had with regard to Voldemort, that Harry's Holly wand should have been able to destroy Horcruxes; implying that Harry would have not need for the Sword, Basilisk Fangs, Feindfire, or other special magic to destroy the Horcruxes. That's an interesting thought. A piece of Voldemort was in each Horcrux. Harry's wand had the unique ability to recognise Voldemort, and Harry's wand had extra power and ability when confronting Voldemort. So, by extension, could Harry's wand, recognizing Voldemort in the Horcrux, have then been a special weapon against the Horcrux? All I can say is 'maybe'. Sadly, Harry's wand is destroyed before he ever gets a chance to use it against a Horcrux. Since Harry and his wand, and the Horcrux were together for a significant amount of time, it seems that the Wand would not spontaneously act against the Horcrux. Possibly because the Horcrux wasn't actually attacking Harry as Voldemort was in the Escape at the beginning of the book. Since, the Wand would not spontaneously attack, Harry would have had to know how to direct his wand. He would have had to have some kind of spell, or at least a strong clear intent with which to direct the Wand to attack the Horcrux. But first and foremost, Harry would have had to realize that his wand had this special Horcrux destroying power. As much as I love him, Harry isn't the most deep thinking person. I think he would have had to convince Hermione of the Wand's special power, and let her work out how to apply it. But that never happened. Still, the idea that the special power of Harry's wand /could/ have destroyed a Horcrux is an interesting one. Steve/bboyminn From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Aug 28 17:51:04 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:51:04 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176352 > Betsy Hp: > Rather than Harry working through the whys and wherefores, I see > those passages showing more Harry coming to grips with the fact that > he's got to die. He doesn't consider other means or methods so I > don't see him thinking for himself. I see it more as Harry prepping > himself to take the action that's required of him. Magpie: The way the series is constructed throughout, there's very little of this kind of thinking--perhaps because it's plot oriented and more about puzzle-solving. For instance, Harry's alleged thinking about issues in DH isn't really thinking about issues, but rather what it usually is--going over the status of the plot and his position at that moment until it changes. I remember in GoF there's a line that always makes me laugh. It's right after Mr. Crouch disappears after his odd encounter with Harry and Victor. The next chapter begins by telling us the trio have been up late talking about Mr. Crouch, and yet their discussion begins the next morning with, "It comes down to this...either Mr Crouch attacked Viktor, or somebody else attacked both of them when Viktor wasn't looking." This is what brilliant Hermione has come up with after hours of discussion...yipes! Of course, it's not really that Hermione is stupid, it's that JKR is just telling us where we are--and where we'll be until we have new information. We're told there is a puzzle more than we solve the puzzle with anyone. Harry goes over his own emotional state a lot-- he's not thinking stuff that really illuminates his character or some idea or the theme, it's more like his thoughts are reinforcing the tension (it may tell us what to think, but we rarely, iirc, work it out on the page). When Harry begins to doubt Dumbledore after the story, for instance, he goes over how this makes him feel insecure, which adds to the tension. He doesn't start thinking interesting things about Dumbledore or the potential story, or thinking why Rita would want to write what she did, or wondering about Wizarding history and the treatment of Squibs in general, or anything like that. (Personally I love David H's line that instead of Harry realizing how he "didn't really know Dumbledore at all" the narrator ought to have said, "Suddenly Harry realized that JK Rowling was a really good writer and all her characters were very very complex!") DH is full of times when Harry suddenly "just knows" what to do next. Dobby's death "slaps him awake" and he stops wanting the Hallows and submits to what he's "supposed to do" according to Dumbledore. That's the best thing for Harry to do. Which makes me think a little of Frodo watching Gollum in the Forbidden Pool, only iirc Frodo has his own reasons for not wanting Gollum to be killed, and then is also just aware that "Gandalf wouldn't like it." Gandalf is of course here a representative of God, and not doing things because God wouldn't like it is a good basis for morality as far as Tolkien is concerned, but he still manages to make it feel to me more symbolic of literally knowing something is wrong and why and just not having verbalized it to yourself, and Gandalf is literally representing God to Tolkien. (Harry's feeling he's done something wrong is often no more than that, a passing feeling that goes away, and Dumbledore is a weird stand-in for God.) -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 17:51:36 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:51:36 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176353 > Betsy Hp: > Yes, Harry liked life. And chapter 34 pointed that out (though I'll > say Jack London did it better ). But it didn't show Harry come > to a conclusion, it showed Harry accepting what his mentor and his > loved ones have told him to do. > > I know this won't change your mind at all, Alla. That's not what I'm > trying to do. I'm just showing how this entire scene played more as > a glorification of suicide to me, than a hero doing what was > necessary. Obviously, YMMV. Frankly, I was just gratified someone > agreed with me. Thought I was maybe a little crazy for a second or > two there. Alla: Of course you won't change my mind on this one, just as I will not change yours and I am not going for it either. I am accepting in good faith that you think that this chapter showed the glorification of suicide, rather than heroic sacrifice? I mean, I do not think you are just saying it to make a debate? This is truly your reading, etc. And **this** is my problem. I mean, not problem, problem, problem is that I do not **see** it anywhere in the book. I mean, you know me, in 99.9% I am accepting that canon can be read and interpreted multiple ways. Here, I see Harry's thoughts and motivations in clear and inambiguous language and yes, I am at loss indeed. For example, you keep saying that chapter 34 did not show Harry coming to a conclusion that plan is good and necessary to save lives. I am not going to recite the part that Zara recited again. I am just going to ask you **how** it can be read other than Harry coming to a conclusion? What is an alternate reading of that paragraph Betsy? Show me, explain to me how that paragraph can be read another way? My only wish here is to understand how you arrived at your reading, because YES I am having a feeling that we are reading books written in different languages or at least that chapter 34 is written in different language. And I am not being sarcastic or anything like that. Show me where do you see glorification of the suicide. Where is Harry deciding to die is **glorified**? Where does it say that Harry is going to commit suicide, instead of sacrifice himself to save lifes? JMO, Alla From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Tue Aug 28 17:23:07 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:23:07 -0000 Subject: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176354 > houyhnhnm: > > Maybe if Dumbledore had nurtured his students and > staff instead of focusing on his secret magical plan, > seen and fostered their potential as human beings > rather than sacrificing that potential to their > usefulness as tools, Voldemort might never have come back. > That kind of proves my point. A world in which a mother > refusing to stand aside and allow her child to be murdered > is such a rare marvel as to invoke magic is a world in > dire need of "simple human love". Rowena: Of course if DD et-al had acted as you wanted - and if it had the effect you predict - there'd have been no series! ;-) BTW I really don't think self sacrifice on behalf of one's children need be rare to have magical repurcussions. From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Tue Aug 28 17:47:48 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:47:48 -0000 Subject: Appeal of the story to the reader WAS: Re: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176355 > Julie: > My expectation throughout the first six books is that the > inherent "message" in JKR's books was one of forgiveness > and love, of tolerance and the need to see and value our > commonalities rather than our differences...to love our > enemies, as it were. It's something I believe in and I > think the world needs to believe in if we are all ever > going to live together without constant violence and war. Rowena: I thought it was about good and evil, choosing between them, and fighting the latter. Julie: > And, like Houyhnhnm, I don't think this is the message > JKR delivered in the end. Which is completely her right, > BTW. There were signs in earlier books, that righteous > vengeance was a theme too (and I think someone pointed > out how DH ended more with an Old Testament vibe of smiting > evil with righteous vengeance than the forgiving and loving > your enemies message of Jesus in the New Testament). I > expected the forgiveness/tolerance/love theme to prevail > but I do feel that a more divisive righteous vengeance/ > you're with us or you're against us theme took precedence. > It wasn't what I expected, but it is what it is, so I > accept it. And I still like the books for what they are, > even if I wished they'd been a little more. Rowena: Hmmm...being Jewish I am of course an Old Testament sort of person so the 'divisive, righteous vengeance' theme didn't bother me in the leasst - though I would point out that forgiveness is not unknown to us Old Testament Types though it does require both penitence and reform, which BTW goes for Christianity too. Voldemort has of course by his own will and actions put himself beyond human forgiveness - and maybe Divine. As for Slytherins' in general, all we really know is that the competition between Gryffindor and Slytherin is still going full bore - which doesn't necessarily mean S House is 'bad' IMO anyway. From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Tue Aug 28 17:31:14 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:31:14 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176356 Betsy Hp: > I mean, the WW is exactly as it was when Voldemort came to power, so > it's not like Dumbledore, Harry or the Order have achieved anything > to slow down the next Evil Overlord when he or she pops up. Harry is > a happy slave owner, the Houses are still ranked and at each other's > throats, magical creatures are still on the bottom of the pile. > Probably about the only thing that's changed is it's a bad thing to > be a pure-blood (as per Ron's little remark). Which just means a > change in fashion, not a change in outlook or understanding. So, > yeah... petty. > Soooo...basically you're saying opposing Voldemorte wasn't worthwhile because the WW was and continues to be imperfect? Guess World War II was pretty darn pointless too.... Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch From olgakropkook at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 17:55:30 2007 From: olgakropkook at yahoo.com (olgakropkook) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:55:30 -0000 Subject: colin creevy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176357 I just want to know what you think:1)Colin Creevy is a muggle- born, and would not be at Hogwarts this year;2)he was underage and unable to apparate, I assume; so, how was he at Hogwarts during the final battle and got himself killed? olgakropkook From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Tue Aug 28 18:11:11 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:11:11 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176358 > houyhnhnm: > Look, not at this discussion group, but at the billions > of words that have been written by fans about the Harry > Potter series (not to mention fanfiction). Can anyone > deny that a great part of the appeal of these books is > the enjoyment of violence, punishment, revenge, inflicting > pain, watching other people suffer? Of course it's on > bad guys. Those who are on the receiving end of vengeance > are always "the bad guys". I find it disturbing. Rowena: That's odd - I seem to remember 'the good guys' and innocent bystanders taking quite a lot of punishment from 'the bad guys'. houyhnhnm: > I'm not interested in debating whether or not vengeance > is really a good thing. To me it is not. Between "an eye > for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and "an eye for an eye > makes the whole world blind" there is no common ground. Rowena: If you ever watched Babylon 5 you might recall Mr. Garibaldi made the perfect comeback for that pious sentiment: "No, just the bad guys." On the other hand that would be a problem for you wouldn't it? 'Eye for an Eye' is the most misunderstood principle in the Old Testament. It is in fact a mandate for proportional punishment and forbids vendettas. houyhnhnm: > But some other things, I just don't know what to make of > them. Like the miserable creature in the train station > and the injunction not to pity or comfort it. Repeated > over and over. Once might not have been so bad, but it > was just hammered in. Rowena: As I don't recall DD *EVER* saying not to pity the creature, only that it was beyond any comfort he or Harry could give - by its own actions I might add. Voldemort damned himself. houyhnmhmn: > I've been bothered by the mean-spirited > undercurrent in the books all the way along, the Appeal > to the Crowd, and trying to deny to myself that I see > what I see. Learning that an author I really admire > (who's worth twelve of Rowling) had come right out and > said it was kind of a tipping point. Rowena: Personally I thought 'mean spirited' from the author of 'Tehanu' - in which half the human race is condemned to spiritual inferiority because of its gender - was a bit rich. From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 18:23:57 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:23:57 -0000 Subject: 19 years later... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176359 Noriel: > > Why was TEDDY LUPIN still in Hogwarts? Lisa: He was only there to see Victoire off to school, according to JKR. Lisa From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 18:32:50 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:32:50 -0000 Subject: colin creevy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176360 olgakropkook: > > I just want to know what you think:1)Colin Creevy is a muggle- born, > and would not be at Hogwarts this year;2)he was underage and unable to > apparate, I assume; so, how was he at Hogwarts during the final > battle and got himself killed? Lisa: I assume he went there through the Hog's Head, like the rest of the villagers did, and was "called" via the DA coins. As for how he got there? Well, I assume he has a broom? Lisa From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Aug 28 18:41:27 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:41:27 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176361 > Betsy Hp: > Heh. True. Though I don't give him any points because, IMO, > it just meant he used his fear as an excuse to duck out of work. > Working for a government body doesn't mean you're out to control > the world (see the Founding Fathers, again). But it's the perfect > place to challenge the status quo and set forth some new ideals. Jen: Government is one place to challenge the status quo, which is why it's a good thing the better man for the job, Kingsley, took over as Minister. Running a school is also a place to set forth new ideals. So Dumbledore wasn't shirking his duties, he just didn't choose the MOM as the place to make a difference. > Betsy Hp: > He got people to sacrifice their lives, the lives of their > children, and their own souls for him. He also succeeded in having > the children under his power form a group that encouraged members > to turn on their families and viciously retaliate against any > breach of loyalty. Dumbledore did all right. Jen: How exactly did he make people do these things? I never saw any Crucios, no Unbreakable Vows, no threats against lives or families, no Veritaserum in pumpkin juice, etc. etc. Take Snape for example, he could have said no and been done with DD, left when Karkaroff did, except his life was never his own: he belonged to Voldemort, the little axiom about 'lifetime of service or death' turned out to be completely true. Severus made it longer and did much good during his borrowed time but his end was pretty much foretold unless LV was defeated before he died. Psychological or emotional manipulation is as bad as physical force, right? I'm guessing that's the next argument; might as well save a post and address it now. ;) I won't argue Dumbledore used manipulation to get what he wanted, a desire which happened to coincide with what he thought was best for the WW: Voldemort's true and final demise. Given his past, how he trumpeted the 'greater good' to defend pretty much the same message the Ministry had in DH: "Magic is Might," plus his own weakness for seeking power, Dumbledore wasn't set up as the most morally shiny individual to take on the ousting of Voldemort. However, he was also the only one who volunteered for the job in the second war (and likely the first), so sometimes the dirty jobs are left to those willing to apply instead of the morally perfect individuals who have more important things to do with their time. Where you see a man manipulatively forcing others to get his way, I see a someone who recognized the strength residing in others, "My word Severus, that I shall never reveal the best of you?"[1] Someone who manipulated circumstances in order to give people a little room to choose their own way, even if fate or life choices severely limited the options. When Snape came begging on the hill, Dumbledore had the constricted option of refusing Snape or aiding him to make more of his life while helping prolong it. Then in a role reversal, Snape's option was to allow Dumbledore to die or prolong his life to fight LV a little longer after DD foolishly put on the cursed ring. Dumbledore's the Magician in the Tarot, immensely powerful, intelligent, manipulative, with the unique aspect of revealing to others what is already inside of them, something echoed several times in DH: "Explain," said Harry. "But you already know," said Dumbledore." [2]; "He understood and yet did not understand. His instinct was telling him one thing, his brain quite another. The Dumbledore in Harry's head smiled, surveying Harry over the tips of his fingers, pressed together as if in prayer..." [3] The shadow side is what Aberforth nailed him on, when DD chooses not to reveal things - to his detriment - or makes huge mistakes by believing his intelligence and power will always win out: "My brother Albus wanted a lot of things," said Aberforth, "and people had a habit of getting hurt while he was carrying out his grand plans." [4] "I knew my brother, Potter. He learned secrecy at our mother's knee. Secrets and lies, that's how we grew up, and Albus...he was a natural." [5] In the end, I'm trying to say Dumbledore is a duality, the series is a duality, to me anyway. It's about the capacity for good and bad within each person that becomes a mirror for the good/bad in the larger world. > Betsy Hp: > I *know*. It was so... petty. We are gathered here today to > destroy this guy. Really? That's your entire purpose of being? > What an utter waste. All those books, all that time spent in Harry- > agnst, and his entire purpose is to destroy Voldemort. Take down > one man. Jen: Well yes, that *was* the story. ;) Orphan kept in the dark until he finds out he has a Real Life and destiny waiting for him, which includes an evil Lord who murdered his parents and tried to kill him for some unknown reason... let the story commence. BetsyHp: > I mean, the WW is exactly as it was when Voldemort came to power, > so it's not like Dumbledore, Harry or the Order have achieved > anything to slow down the next Evil Overlord when he or she pops > up. Harry is a happy slave owner, the Houses are still ranked and > at each other's throats, magical creatures are still on the bottom > of the pile. Probably about the only thing that's changed is it's > a bad thing to be a pure-blood (as per Ron's little remark). Which > just means a change in fashion, not a change in outlook or > understanding. So, yeah... petty. Jen: I don't get the implication that the destruction of Voldemort's version of the WW was a waste and not even worth the effort. The logical end to that conclusion is that every character who acted toward the end of Voldemort shouldn't have bothered if they couldn't bring about complete transformation. Or to say it another way, JKR shouldn't have written the story if she wasn't going to write the 'better' ending? [1] DH, chap. 33, p. 679, Am. ed. [2] DH, chap. 35, p. 708 [3] chap. 24, p. 483 [4] & [5] chap. 28, pps. 561-562 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 18:58:22 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:58:22 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176362 > Betsy Hp: > I didn't like that Harry didn't figure it out for himself, I didn't > like that he didn't really protest (especially since this is > something he's *told* not something he concludes), I didn't like that > his parents and godfather are all "death is *great*!". zgirnius: After rereading DH, I have concluded that this was the point of the Elder Wand plotline. Dumbledore had it all worked out so that all Harry ever had to do was believe him, go destroy any the Horcruxes Dumbledore had not managed to finish off with whatever assistance he could provide in portrait form through Snape, and then go to die. Not all that easy, Harry did need to think for himself to find and destroy them all (with a little help from his friends, Crabbe, and Snape) but yes, all worked out for him in advance. And Harry would go after Snape told him, and instead of dying, he would have the soul-bit removed, and Voldemort would die his final death in the rebound, leaving Harry to live happily ever after. Oops. Instead, since Harry had not finished off Nagini, both he and Voldemort survived, and regained consciousness in the Forest surrounded by Voldemort's followers. Voldemort was still protected by his final Horcrux. And from there, Harry played it by ear. He faked being dead, and (owing to a compassionate action that was purely his own idea) was able to give Cissy the right answer. His (his, noone else's) decision to confide in Neville paid off for him in a big way when Neville took out Nagini. Then Harry engaged in a battle of wits with Voldemort (on his own, though doubtless using insights gained from watching Dumbledore in OotP and his 'lessons' in HBP, figured out the Master of the Wand business, drove Voldemort to the point of making a stupid move, and won using his signature move. All on his own, yay Harry. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 19:00:51 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:00:51 -0000 Subject: Another inconsistency? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176363 I thought Fenrir had a dark mark? > > > > During the tower scene at the end of HBP, a group of DEs join DD, Harry and Draco up on the top of the tower, and the rest of the OotP can't get up the stairs due to some magical wall except for Snape. At the time, the reasoning for this was that only people with Dark Marks could go through the invisible wall. > > > > However, in DH, Fenrir cannot enter the Malfoy Manor, even though it appeared you needed a Dark Mark to go through the gate (like Snape and Amycus in the first chapter). Also, he couldn't summon LV because he didn't have a Dark Mark and was relying on one of the Malfoys or Bellatrix to call him. > Carol responds: As I wrote offlist to another poster, I'm sure that the blocking spell was cast when the DEs were already on the stairs and Draco was already on the tower. Fenrir, who was already on the stairs, would not have had to go through the barrier; only Snape did. (The Order members were blocked.) Admittedly, the spell is cast when Harry is on the tower and can't see what's happening below. However, this bit suggests that the spell was put in place by the DEs after they were on the stairs rather than by Gibbon, who cast the Dark Mark but has been dead for some time at this point: "There was a bang and shouts from below, louder than ever; it sounded as though people were fighting on the actual spiral staircase that led to where Dumbledore, Malfoy, and Harry stood" (HBP Am. ed. 590). Two pages of dialogue later, four DEs come "thundering" up the stairs (592). Since no Order members (except Snape) follow, it's clear that the barrier is in place by that point. When Harry runs down the steps, leaping the last ten, he finds that "half the ceiling seemed to have fallen in" (598). There's no mention of a barrier; he's not aware that one was erected at that point. The first reference to the barrier comes from Tonks, who says that Draco vanished and more DEs ran up after him, "but one of them blocked the stair behind them with some kind of curse" (620). The time frame is unclear, but it's after Gibbon's death and after Draco has run up the stairs. Neville and others try to break through the barrier and can't, but Snape runs right through it. Lupin tries to follow and is thrown back (620). Then the big blond DE (identified in DH as Thorfinn Rowle) causes the ceiling to fall in "and also [breaks] the curse blocking the stairs," according to Lupin (621). Snape and Draco emerge out of the dust, followed by the DEs, and the fighting starts up again. At that point, Harry himself leaps down the stairs, so we don't learn any more about the barrier, but it doesn't matter since it's no longer in place. At any rate, it seems as if the battle starts out in the corridor and the barrier is not put in place until the DEs start up the stairs. If that's correct, then neither Fenrir nor Draco ever passed through it. Only Snape does, which would seem to confirm Harry's theory that a Dark Mark is required and that a spell similar to but not identical with the one on the Malfoys' gate was cast on the stairs, probably by Yaxley rather than the Carrows. Carol, who thinks that Draco most likely has a Dark Mark but Fenrir clearly does not From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Aug 28 19:03:47 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:03:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: House Elves, again (was: The two good Slytherins) Message-ID: <28233374.1188327827983.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176364 Sharon: >Then again, house-elves were bred to serve and maybe that's all they know how >to do? Dobby was a free elf, but he certainly was ready to serve Harry anytime >anywhere. It may have been well-nigh impossible to emancipate house-elves at >this stage. Anyone else got thoughts on this? First of all, I must admit that I kind of liked Kreacher in OOP (well, felt sorry for him). He was clearly not evil, but someone he truly loved had died, and replaced by someone who hated the person he loved, and didn't particularly like him, yet he was compelled to serve him. However, in Kreacher, we get a MUCH better idea of what goes on in the minds of house elves. Now, as to how they got that way, well, we don't know. They are pretty clearly NOT a natural race; whether they were originally herd animals who form a strong and permanent loyalty to their leader, evolved to human level intelligence, or if they were a more independent race, possibly even humans, who had slavery genetically implanted into them, or an entirely artificial construct, we will never know. What we DO know however, is: 1) They love to do certain kinds of work, notably household tasks. 2) They possess a great deal of pride in their work. 3) Praise does a major number on their pleasure centers. So does being loved. 4) Failure to appreciate the work of a house elf may be even physically painful to it. 5) Dobby was so badly treated that he went insane, by house elf standards. This is why he desired his freedom. 6) One of the worst things you can do to a house elf is to put down a job that they did well. 7) Winky went to the bottle because not only did she get put down for performing her job to the best of her ability, but she got fired for it. Hogwarts, frankly, was one of the worst possible places for her. She should have been sent to a place where her "owners" would appreciate and love her; the Weasley's for example. 8) House elves generally have no concept of "good" and "evil". Once again, Dobby was, by house elf standards, insane. 9) There is not a lot that can be done about the enslavement of house elves. But laws COULD be made in the WW to ensure that they are well treated. Bart From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Aug 28 18:30:43 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:30:43 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH1, The Dark Lord Ascending References: Message-ID: <004a01c7e9a1$8b808290$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 176365 Shelley: I have read all the responses, but will just clip just a few lines: > Geoff wrote: > Why did JKR create Charity Burbage, Professor of Muggle Studies, just to > be killed by Voldemort in Chapter 1? I agreed with mz_annethrope's analysis, and wanted to add one impression that I had. When I saw the death of Hedwig, I thought "OMG, if she can kill off Hegwig, then no one is safe." The tone of the book changed for me. I became scared for every character that I loved. If she had shown us the person who held the Professor of Muggle Studies position earlier, then we would have gotten emotionally attached to that person. (We always knew that a teacher existed for that position- Hermione was taking Muggle Studies, and someone had to be teaching that class, so she didn't exactly "just" create her, we just didn't know her.) But if we knew that person, cared for that person, then the shock of it would have been so much greater. I don't think she wanted us to feel that scared that soon in the book, but rather intrieg us and draw us in before scaring the crap out of us- I think it was intentional to create an emotional buildup. I think mz_annethrope's line says it perfectly: "The writing deliberately impersonalizes the horror of the scene", and I think that is fully intentional so that the major hit to the emotions isn't right there in Chapter 1, but built up so that we don't overlook the depth of the other scenes, such as the torturing of Hermione. If she had killed, say McGonnagall, in that first scene, then the emotional high/fear would have been set up too early, and rather than fearing that JKR would kill Hermione as she was being tortured, we would be almost let down by the fact that she lived. mz_annethrope: > So I was relieved to find out that Voldemort's Chapter 1 victim was > no one I cared about. I could go on enjoying the book, without being > shocked out of my senses. But I don't think my reaction is supposed > to be right. Shelley: No, I think this reaction is right on, for the sake of the plot and emotional buildup. To have something so shocking as to have McGonagall or Flitwick begging Severus Snape to save them would have been an unforgivable sin, not only to us in the way of being able to forgive Snape later (though that line of Snape's answering Dumbledore's question- How many people have you watched die? Only those that I could not save- would have become much more pointedly aimed at our hearts and sympathy for Snape), but also on the end of my emotions towards JKR herself. I confess that in the same way that she felt that Mr. Weasley's death would be "too much", I have felt that the death of Tonks and Lupin were too much- moving the story past the necessary deaths to feeling like she was delighting in the carnage. To have McGonagall in that scene would have been "too much" for me as a reader to handle, and rather than be happy to be diving into the new book, I would have almost felt if I should just stop right there because the rest would be too ugly to handle. If it had been McGonagall, I think I would have vomited rather than been happy to have the 7th book in my hands. Thus, a teacher a Hogwarts, but one that we weren't personally attached to, sets the proper tone of the severity of the situation without overwhelming the reader with an emotional reaction that some might not have recovered from to stick with her to read the rest of the story. To have it be Charity Burbage, unknown person, allows us to get past that scene and to keep on reading. From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Aug 28 19:14:10 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:14:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The two good Slytherins Message-ID: <11086896.1188328450293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176366 From: allthecoolnamesgone >I watched some of JKR's interviews on the Leaky Cauldron >last night and she was astonished that people think Snape >a hero! The most she would concede is that he is brave. Yet >she then went on to say that the most important virtue, she >felt, was courage and that she hoped she would be 'worthy' >to be a Gryffindor. Bart: Isaac Asimov once postulated that if you brought William Shakespeare into the present, and put him into a college class on the works of Shakespeare, he would most likely flunk. A few days ago, I wrote a piece on heroism, and how many in modern society mistake the hero as one who is without flaws, causing them to try to explain away the flaws they find in their heroes. Here is Professor Snape, a HIGHLY flawed man, yet he sacrifices everything, including giving up his own life trying to help someone he deeply resented, in an attempt to make up for a great evil he had done (the famous 12 Labors of Hercules was also pennance for evil HE had done). I wonder if JKR considers Harry's Crucio to be justified. When RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK came out, I groaned over the number of critics who referred to Indiana Jones as an "anti-hero". I guess they defined an anti-hero as a hero who needed a shave. So, my question is, why would one say that Snape was NOT a hero? Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 19:54:26 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:54:26 -0000 Subject: Heroes again WAS: Re: The two good Slytherins In-Reply-To: <11086896.1188328450293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176367 > Bart: > Isaac Asimov once postulated that if you brought William Shakespeare into the present, and put him into a college class on the works of Shakespeare, he would most likely flunk. > > A few days ago, I wrote a piece on heroism, and how many in modern society mistake the hero as one who is without flaws, causing them to try to explain away the flaws they find in their heroes. Here is Professor Snape, a HIGHLY flawed man, yet he sacrifices everything, including giving up his own life trying to help someone he deeply resented, in an attempt to make up for a great evil he had done (the famous 12 Labors of Hercules was also pennance for evil HE had done). I wonder if JKR considers Harry's Crucio to be justified. > > When RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK came out, I groaned over the number of critics who referred to Indiana Jones as an "anti-hero". I guess they defined an anti-hero as a hero who needed a shave. > > So, my question is, why would one say that Snape was NOT a hero? Alla: Look, it all depends to me as to whether intentions, general personality of the person matters to you, whether hero is somebody to you who you would call a good person, or just a person who does heroic deeds, you know? Did Snape do heroic deeds? Um, several and HUGE ones if you ask me, types Alla. Is he a hero? Well, I do not know. Overall, I would still say NO, IF under Hero you mean overall a good person and Snape is not my definition of such. If you mean somebody who does heroic deeds and motivation does not matter, then sure he is a hero. But I see nothing strange if JKR does not think of him as such. Look, is Han Solo a hero to you? Because love him as I am, to me till he comes back to help Luke simply because he came to like him, he is no hero at all. Is Achilles a hero to you? Because love him as I am and despite all heroic deeds he did, he is no hero to me whatsoever. Why? because heroes to me do not humiliate the bodies of the enemies. Give me Hector any time. Hector, who went to war to defend his city. Yes, I know that Hector's brother idiocy contributed to war big time, or even started it, although I guess we should blame gods more, but give me Hector any time. He IS certainly a hero to me. Not perfect either mind you, but hero nevertheless. I see at least by comparison more nobility in his motivations than I ever see in Achilles. So, to go back to Snape. He may have sacrificed all indeed to defend Voldemort and I respect that, BUT since he did not find in his heart a kindness to spare for a boy whose life he made as is, I cannot really think of him as hero. And I do not mean that my definition of Hero includes that he has to be nice to every child, actually. But yes, I do think that Snape owed Harry some kindness, he truly did. I think he owed the boy to overcome the hatred of his father and truly see his mother in Harry, if for nothing else, but to ease his burden. That in my eyes would have been truly heroic. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 20:03:26 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:03:26 -0000 Subject: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176368 houyhnhnm wrote: A world in which a mother refusing to stand aside and allow her child to be murdered is such a rare marvel as to invoke magic is a world in dire need of "simple human love". > Rowena replied: > > Of course if DD et-al had acted as you wanted - and if it had the effect you predict - there'd have been no series! ;-) > > BTW I really don't think self sacrifice on behalf of one's children need be rare to have magical repurcussions. > Carol responds: I don't think we're meant to see a mother's self-sacrifice or her instinctive protection of her children as rare. In fact, we see the unknown German mother make the exact same gesture as Lily did, spreading her arms to protect her children. In the German mother's case, as, we must assume, in every other instance when a child has been killed with an AK (and often, in our own world, with a bullet), the gesture is futile. In Lily's case alone, the gesture saves the child's life. The only difference is that Lily (thanks to snape's request) had a chance to live. LV offers three times to spare her if she'll only stand aside. Of course, she doesn't, but he could still have spared her, merely Stunning her. He breaks his word to Snape, reneges on his implied promise to spare her, and so the Killing Curse he casts on Harry rebounds on himself. Other mothers have tried to protect their children and failed, as we see with the German mother. And other mothers have given their lives so that their children could live (Mrs. Crouch), only to have the gesture wasted (Barty Jr. returns the favor by killing his own father and ends up worse than dead). Narcissa lies to the Dark Lord (admittedly not blocking an AK and admittedly not looking into Voldie's eyes), placing her son's life above the Dark Lord's victory. Molly fights and kills Bellatrix to protect her daughter and her Boggart is the death of a family member. Even poor Merope loved her son enough to name him after the two men she loved though neither loved her and to express the hope that he looked like his father though she lacked the strength or the will to live. In fact, reading DH, I think that even Mrs. Black loved her sons and that she was heartbroken by the rebellion of the one and the mysterious death of the other, perhaps driven to insanity by her double loss. I don't think that mother love is depicted as rare. Rather, it's an important motif in the books (echoed rather oddly by one father, Xenophilius Lovegood), whose daughter means more to him than his principles. He would make an interesting comparison/contrast to Narcissa but I don't have time to explore it now). What's rare, indeed unique, about Lily is not her self-sacrificial love for her child. Most mothers in the WW and the Muggle world would do as much. (Petunia Dursley would sacrifice herself for Dudley, I'm certain.) It's the circumstances, the chance to save herself by standing aside as requested (or ordered) that distinguishes Lily's sacrifice from that of the German mother or, say, the McKinnons, whose whole family died in VW1. The German mother and her children are murdered for no reason because they're there. Marlene McKinnon, whether she tried to protect her children or not, and surely she did, would have been murdered anyway, like James. But Lily had a chance to live and rejected it. Her willing self-sacrifice (and perhaps Voldemort's broken word) activated a kind of ancient magic not involved in any other murder by Dark wizards in the history of the WW. Carol, who sees mother love as the norm in the WW but father love as weaker and rarer, exemplified primarily by Mr. Weasley and briefly by James From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Aug 28 20:30:26 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:30:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] 19 years later... Message-ID: <24703483.1188333027013.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176369 From: "Noriel C. Mercado" >Why was TEDDY LUPIN still in Hogwarts? Bart: This bears repeating every couple of months: "There are three kinds of people in this world. Those who can count, and those who can't." - J. K. Rowling. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 28 20:39:47 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:39:47 -0000 Subject: The two good Slytherins In-Reply-To: <20070828175150.CTH10600@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176370 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: > > Laura: > > Well, if you are going to include Draco as a half good > > Slytherin, then you should probably also include Regulus. > > So that makes 2 + 1 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 4. Four "good" > > Slytherins. > > > > [And maybe 1/4 more with Kreecher as an honorary > > Slytherin. :-) ] > > Sharon: > I love Kreacher! he just wanted someone to show him love and affection in > return for his loyalty. I do wonder though, why Harry didn't give him his > freedom? Surely with Hermione there to bust his but over elfish welfare and > Harry's own history of being kind to house-elves, especially setting Dobby free, > he would have considered giving Kreacher his freedom? Initially I suppose in DH > he needed Kreacher to help them with their plans, but surely Kreacher would > have continued to help the wizard that gave him his freedom? > > Then again, house-elves were bred to serve and maybe that's all they know how > to do? Dobby was a free elf, but he certainly was ready to serve Harry anytime > anywhere. It may have been well-nigh impossible to emancipate house-elves at > this stage. Anyone else got thoughts on this? Geoff: I think that you've answered your own question. Dobby is considered by the other house-elves as a maverick or even possibly a traitor. Look at the conversation Harry has with Winky in the stadium just before the Quidditch World Cup. It's rather a long quote to reproduce here but it's in the chapter "The Quidditch World Cup" , pp. 88-90 UK edition. We also know that the house elves refused to come into the Gryffindor common room when Hermione was leaving hats etc. for them because they didn't want their freedom and Dobby was handling the task on his own taking the clothes out so that Hermione thought that she was reaching them. From mosu22 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 20:53:31 2007 From: mosu22 at yahoo.com (Monica) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:53:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176371 Monica: > > ... But if not, we know Harry's wand rebounds on > > Voldemort because of a strange recognition of him, > > and attacks him on its own. bboyminn: > Which incident > are you referring to above? If this is the escape in > beginning of the book, then that was explained to > a limited extent. When Harry and Voldemort's wands > connected in the graveyard in GoF, some of Voldemort's > power was transferred into Harry's wand. That > transfer gave Harry special magical powers when ever > his original Holly Wand faced Voldemort. Maybe I should clarify; although I don't have the books on me, it seemed that the wand possessed a recognition of Voldemort the person, beyond just containing some of Voldemort's powers. I took that to mean a recognition of his soul, a fragment of which was in the Horcrux. > > > Monica: > > > > ... does anyone have any idea > > about why his wand wouldn't work against a horcrux? > > Seems to me that the part of Voldemort that Harry's > > wand recognized was his soul, so if it came into > > contact with his soul in the form of a horcrux, it > > would be capable of destroying it. I know it got > > broken before they really had a chance to test that > > theory, it's just a curiosity. > > bboyminn: > > Again, I think we need more details; whose wand against > which Horcrux? Monica: Harry's wand against any Horcrux, more specifically the locket I suppose since that was the only one he had when his wand was still functional. bboyminn: > ...Since Harry > and his wand, and the Horcrux were together for a > significant amount of time, it seems that the Wand > would not spontaneously act against the Horcrux. > Possibly because the Horcrux wasn't actually > attacking Harry as Voldemort was in the Escape at > the beginning of the book. Monica: Well, obviously this theory of mine never actually got tested. I guess really the only place where it would have happened would have been when the horcrux was opened and tormenting Ron, but obviously the wand was broken by then. bboyminn: ...As much as I love him, Harry > isn't the most deep thinking person. I think > he would have had to convince Hermione of the > Wand's special power, and let her work out how > to apply it. But that never happened. Monica: Yeah, the only thing that pops into my head offhand would be an Avada Kedavra type spell, but obviously that can't destroy souls, only body-soul connections (death), although seemingly the soul piece is dependent upon its "body" in the case of a horcrux, not the other way around as in living beings. Maybe summon a dementor to suck the soul right out of the horcrux? (Incidentally, also a possibility I suppose, albeit an unsavory one). I'm not really asking because I think it is in any way relevant to the plot, because obviously she didn't go anywhere with it and if she had it would have been boring to see every horcrux just zapped by the wand, rather than seeing how each gets destroyed in their own unique ways. I was just lying around thinking about it yesterday, and it seemed here would be the place to ask Thanks! Monica From random832 at fastmail.us Tue Aug 28 20:58:47 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:58:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1188334727.10430.1207745455@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176372 On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:23:07 -0000, "rowena_grunnionffitch" said: > > houyhnhnm: > > That kind of proves my point. A world in which a mother > > refusing to stand aside and allow her child to be murdered > > is such a rare marvel as to invoke magic is a world in > > dire need of "simple human love". > > Rowena: > BTW I really don't think self sacrifice on behalf of one's children > need be rare to have magical repurcussions. I think that it _is_ rare. How many times do you think the mother is _offered_ the chance to stand aside and let her child be killed? I think it's _very_ rare that there is someone who is not only a murderer, but is so horribly detached from basic humanity as to even believe a mother might accept such an offer, and so to sincerely offer the chance (JKR _says_ Voldemort would have let her live if she had moved). An 'ordinary' killer wouldn't even have made the offer, since anyone but Voldemort would have known such an offer was a waste of time since there was absolutely no chance it would be accepted. And, the fact that the chance to live was sincerely offered _was_ important - James' sacrifice didn't protect anyone for this reason; Voldemort was going to kill him no matter what. Incidentally, this means Snape, in effect, saved Harry's life by asking Voldemort to spare Lily. If he had not, she would never have had the chance to make that sacrifice. -- Random832 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 21:43:48 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:43:48 -0000 Subject: House elves battle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176373 --- "grouchymedic_26149" wrote: > > Paul: > ... > > In the final battle for Hogwarts, the house elves > burst from the kitchen, and attack the forces of LV > with knives and meat cleavers. Why not magic?? > ... bboyminn: Well, it seems as if the question has already been answered, but I will expand on it a bit. Others are right, Elves can't and wouldn't use magic especially against wizards without expressed permission of someone qualified to give them orders; their Master in other words. It is not enough, that a reasonable and logical conclusion would lead them to understand that Hogwarts was being attack and that they needed to defend it. Someone would specifically have to tell them 'you may use any and all magic at your disposal to defend Hogwarts'. In short, even when it is painfully obvious, permission can NOT be assumed; it must be stated. Next, I think we are dealing with an element of the nature of Elves. They would think it inconceivable to use magic against a wizard. Look at the reaction when Dobby acted against the Malfoy/Blacks at Malfoy Manor. Bella was incensed that an elf would even conceive of magically acting against or disarming a wizard. So, I think, the elves with Kreacher's encouragement knew enough to know that they were expected to defend their home and their Masters. They could conceive of attacking certain wizards in that context, but could never conceive of attacking them magically without expressed permission. As a side note, I was just reading that part of the book again, and I thought the story might have be smoother if Harry had summoned Kreacher when Ron became concerned about the fate of the House-Elves. Kreacher could have been sent to tell the elves to flee or fight. Then when they came rushing out, it would have made more sense. Not complaining, just making a comment that's all. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 21:50:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:50:20 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176374 BetsyHp wrote: > I mean, the WW is exactly as it was when Voldemort came to power, so it's not like Dumbledore, Harry or the Order have achieved anything to slow down the next Evil Overlord when he or she pops up. Harry is a happy slave owner, the Houses are still ranked and at each other's throats, magical creatures are still on the bottom of the pile. Probably about the only thing that's changed is it's a bad thing to be a pure-blood (as per Ron's little remark). Which just means a change in fashion, not a change in outlook or understanding. So, yeah... petty. Carol responds: Exactly like the pre-Voldie WW? Are you sure? Even if that were true, the WW under Fudge is better than the WW under Voldemort, with legalized oppression of Muggle-borns, who aren't even allowed to attend school, DEs in charge of the Ministry, and gangs of kidnappers and terrorists running rampant. Voldie himself has committed some dozen or so murders just since the beginning of GoF, not counting those committed by DEs, and has authorized the torturing of students and the teaching of Dark Arts to Hogwarts students. (If Snape weren't secretly working against him, allowing the old teachers to undermine the new ones, etc., matters would be much worse.) The Muggles have been suffering everything from "accidents" and "hurricanes" to Dementors running rampant since HBP. The victory over Voldemort and the DEs brings about an immediate improvement, a Ministry under Kingsley, who views Muggle lives as being as important as wizard lives--peace and stability and imprisonment of any remaining DEs and a return to order. We have to make some assumptions, of course, but with Yaxley and Umbridge and Thicknesse and their allies out of power, we can safely assume that the worst new laws, for example, those that Umbridge formulated against werewolves, have been removed from the books and that someone closer to Amanda Bones than to Barty Crouch is in charge of Magical Law. (Eventually, if an interview counts as canon, we get Hermione in charge of Magical Law and Harry in charge of Magical Law Enforcement. The Daily Prophet can now inform its readers of what is really happening rather than being the mouthpiece of a corrupt government. Naturally, there will still be an occasional Dark wizard upstart or petty criminals along the lines of Mundungus Fletcher, but the atmosphere in the epilogue makes it clear that it's now safe to send your kids to school. Probably Diagon Alley is the exciting place it once was. Life is back to normal. "All [is] well." At Hogwarts itself, Slytherin is no longer a breeding ground for DEs for the simple reason that DEs are an extinct species. We may see some Severus Snapes inventing schoolboy hexes and potions improvements, but such talented boys (with a nudge from Slughorn) are more likely to end up in the Ministry or as researchers for St. Mungo's than as members of a terrorist gang. With no more DADA curse, the students in all houses will actually be taught DADA (perhaps nonverbal skills, duelling, and even Occlumency) rather than theory (Umbridge) or Dark Curses (Fake!Moody and the Carrows). If the Sorting Hat sorts for personality rather than blood, little Sevs and little Lilys could end up in the same house. And slytherin has heroes now, reasons to be proud of its heritage and to strive for unity (or friendly rivalry) with the other houses instead of enmity. Things are *not* as they were. The James teasing his little brother about Slytherin is not the James sneering at Slytherin the way Draco sneered at Hufflepuff as a worse alternative than being sent home. Adn if Albus Severus does end up in Slytherin, his parents will still love him and he will not end up as a Death Eater. As for Harry as a happy slave owner, his "slave" is also happy--and clean and reasonably sane and quite willing to order "Master Harry" to wash his hands before coming to the table. Consider what happened to Winky when she was freed. She saw it as being fired, a deep disgrace from which she could never recover. Kreacher is in essence restored to his old position and showing exactly how valuable he can be. He voluntarily cleans the kitchen at Grimmauld Place and proudly cooks Harry's favorite meals. (Exactly where he got the food, I don't know.) Presumably, he escapes Yaxley's clutches and rejoins the elves at Hogwarts, no doubt a bit more usefully than in HBP. He willingly joins the battle, not for Harry's sake but in honor of "Master Regulus, champion of house-elves." With the DE threat ended, he'll probably be happy to return to 12 GP. which is at least as much his home as it is Harry's. Even Sirius, no friend of Kreacher's, understands that to send Kreacher away from the Black family home would destroy him (OoP). House-elves are not humans. They have a different psychology modeled on that of the brownies of folklore. They take pride in giving "good service," in making the lives of wizards better. Praise means more to them than payment. Even Dobby says that he likes being paid, but he likes work better. Hard to understand, I realize, since money is not only a necessity but a luxury to most humans and work is, for some of us, a necessary evil. But, clearly, that's not how a house-elf's mind works. Harry would be doing Kreacher no favor by freeing him. Kreacher would view himself as disgraced and homeless. He might take a job for pay at Hogwarts, assuming that the new headmaster would allow him to do so, or he might take to drinking like Winky. Most likely, he'd revert to filthy incivility and perhaps insanity, a houseless house-elf. Compassion for house-elves, treating them with kindness and respect and understanding, is one thing, and all to the good. Expecting them to think and act like humans is quite another, and entirely mistaken, as Hermione demonstrates to Harry in "Kreacher's Tale." Re your last line, my sense is that Ron is just joking, not taking an extremist view comparable to the idea that all heterosexual white males are "oppressors." (Not remotely my own view--please don't flame me, anyone!) If we look at the number of Ron's joking predictions that have come true, perhaps we can expect Rose Weasley to marry Scorpius Malfoy--a marked contrast to their grandfathers publicly fistfighting in Flourish and Blotts in CoS or their fathers duelling and insulting each other. At any rate, defeating Voldemort *is* a major accomplishment. The WW *is* better off without him and his DEs. Certainly, it needs to heal a lot of rifts and rethink its laws and improve the education of its students (starting with a useful, logically structured DADA curriculum that actually teaches how to heal bleeding wounds). Required Muggle Studies classes that actually taught Muggle culture rather than illustrating Muggle "substitutes for magic" would be helpful, too. Even if the WW is back to Square One--the WW as it was when Harry entered Hogwarts--it's far better off than it was under Voldemort. And I think that the lesson that Harry learned through Snape--Slytherins are human, too, and as capable of love and courage as Gryffindors-- will be extended to others through his influence. The WW isn't perfect in the epilogue, but the world will never be perfect. But a Harry who names his second son Albus Severus is a better Harry than the Harry who wanted revenge against a man whose loyalty and courage he could not see, and Harry's cleansed perception and freedom from vengeance and bitterness is surely symbolic of a similar change throughout the WW. Harry thought for two books (HBP and most of DH) that he would have to murder Voldemort. Instead, he defeats him through a combination of willing self-sacrifice, strategy, and luck. Yes, people died along the way, but more would have died and more would have suffered had he not done so. It's a better world, Betsy, even if it doesn't have Snape and Lupin and Colin Creevey in it. (Note that I didn't say Fred; I don't suppose you shed any tears for him though I did.) Carol, who never expected the defeat of Voldemort to result in a perfect world, just a chance to undo past mistakes a few at a time From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Aug 28 23:27:35 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:27:35 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176375 Rowena: > Personally I thought 'mean spirited' from the author > of 'Tehanu' -in which half the human race is condemned > to spiritual inferiority because of its gender - was > a bit rich. houyhnhnm: I haven't read _Tehanu_. I'm not a big fan of the Earthsea stories in general; I prefer the Hainish cycle. In what way is the author's tone mean-spirited? I get the impression it's written from kind of a feminist point of view. Are readers encouraged to laugh at the female characters, gloat over their inferior status, enjoy a sense of superiority at their expense? See that's what I would call mean spirited in an author--showing characters in pain or fear (having their tongues magically enlarged until they almost choke, faces covered with pustules, painted gold and stuck on top of a Christmas tree and so on and on) and encouraging the reader to find it funny or satisfying. That seems a very different thing to me from merely creating a world that manifests reactionary values (which I think is probably a characteristic of the fantasy genre as a whole and may be the reason I've never cared for it very much). From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 23:47:55 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:47:55 -0000 Subject: Bad blood Re: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: <565862.8226.qm@web86205.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176376 > Irene: > > I was horrified by that remark. Imagine if we had heard Draco making a similar remark in that epilogue: "don't get too friendly with that girl, grandpa Lucius will be horrified." And Ron's remark is completely symmetric, and just as rasist (or whatever your analogy to the blood issue in Potterverse). Then again, I don't know why was I surprised. Hagrid said in book 1 - Malfoys are bad blood, nothing good will ever come out of this boy. 7 books was too long to hope for a reversal, I should have realised sooner what JKR is about. lizzyben: Just what is with the blood thing? I'm serious. 1. Malfoys are "bad blood," so nothing good can come of Draco. 2. Gaunts are "bad blood" - proud of being the last descendants of Slytherin, they try to preserve Slytherin blood purity & become insane & violent. 3. Voldemort is the ultimate"bad blood" - the Heir of Slytherin, a psychopath, damned since birth. Combine this w/the fact that entire families tend to be sorted to the same House, and almost all Slytherins are bad - it's almost like saying that Slytherins have "bad blood"? And bad blood will out eventually? And then contrast that w/"good blood" 1. Lily - her blood creates the strongest protection possible for her child, indirectly saving the Wizarding World from evil. 2. Harry - according to JKR, Harry's blood contains "hope & love", and having a drop of this blood was enough to allow even Voldemort to repent. Harry's goodness is, in a sense, in his blood. Not his soul, not his mind. No, Harry has moral *blood*. Uh, OK... So, the blood of Slytherins is evil & weakness, insanity & violence. The blood of Gryffindors is hope & love, strength & protection. LV's blood is tainted, Harry's blood is pure. Then there's the happy ending - 1. Ron says his father will never forgive Rose if she marries a "pure-blood" Slytherin. 2. JKR says that Slytherin has been "diluted", and so is improved. Odd choice of words, that. The bad Slytherin blood has been "diluted" to something less evil? If you switch the labels, it almost works just as well - the "Mudblood", bad blood Slytherins vs. the "pure blood" Gryffindors. Doesn't it? From juli17 at aol.com Wed Aug 29 00:35:06 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:35:06 -0000 Subject: House Elves, again (was: The two good Slytherins) In-Reply-To: <28233374.1188327827983.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176377 > 9) There is not a lot that can be done about the enslavement of house elves. But laws COULD be made in the WW to ensure that they are well treated. > > Bart > Julie: All I can say is that if a House Elf wants to come to my house to cook and clean, I'll be very free with my sincere appreciation! Julie, who knows there's no such creatures as house elves, but who can always dream ;-) From hedwig2harry at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 21:53:30 2007 From: hedwig2harry at yahoo.com (mamo shoman) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:53:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry's wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <331404.7265.qm@web50907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176378 Monica wrote: Seems to me that the part of Voldemort that Harry's wand recognized was his soul, so if it came into contact with his soul in the form of a horcrux, it would be capable of destroying it. I know it got broken before they really had a chance to test that theory, it's just a curiosity. Hi All, Dear Monica, The Avada Kedavra cannot be done by Harry Potter because it splits the soul. And the wand is strong against the wand that Voldemort owns, not Voldemort himself. And the spells that destroy the horcrux are too dangerous to be performed by the young boys Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Thanks sharko From aceworker at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 01:09:02 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: New Inconsistency - Shell Cottage Message-ID: <64548.92044.qm@web30211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176379 <> Sharon, A few ideas in answer to this. First what we have to remember is that the Fidelius charm on Griimauld place was cast by by Dumbledore. The Fidelus charm at Shell cottage is put on by Bill. Anything done by Dumbledore is going to have more bells and whistles and be stronger than Bill's work, decent wizard thoug he is. Bills Fidelus is just not as 'secret as Dumbledore's'. We see no evidence for instance that the name of Shell cottage had to be written om paper etc. Most likely Bill's Fidelus just protects against people finding the cottage who want to do them harm; or is just a shield against certain named people. We run into a trap when we try to analyze spells cast by Dumbledore and compare them to those cast by others. JKR has made it clear, that Dumbledore is different. He's a rare genius that can do things others can', or at least can do them quicker and more spectacular. I can paint. And so can a professional artist. We can even paint the same picture of the same object. Guess whose is going to be better, more impressive? Even in real life the magic of illusion is an art. The same spell in the arms of a truly magical magician as Dumbledore is just magical even to magicians. Also in JKR's world rmagic is slightly different and unique to each caster, a prime example of this being patronus and the types of boggarts people have. Some things are going to be pretty basic. All AK are green, all stunner are red, but maybe the shade varies. Or the roaring sound of hte AK slightly. The power involved will fluctuate too. Many spells are effected by emotion state. You can't cast crucio unless you mean it. etc....I think that was a point, JKR was trying to make throughout the book. BTW do we know canon wise that is was Dumbledore that placed the Fidelus on Godrics Hollow?. I seem to remember that it was Sirius, but that might just be fan fic contamination. Lupin has to identify himself when he comes to Shell cottage, but that had nothing to do with the Fidelus charm, it is an example of the cautious approach the Weasleys take to vistors, as in HBP. As to the third point Not only were Bill and Fleur waiting for him, but it you follow the logic of the story were probably about to go to help him, since Dean and Luna had just moments before raced up to the cabin screaming for help. Bill and Fleur difinitely know who Luna is and there is a small chance the by this point Dean was already a minor member of the Order, since he was traveling with Ted Tonks, who was a member. DA Jones (Sandy) . --------------------------------- Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aceworker at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 01:17:25 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The two good Slytherins Message-ID: <502578.58157.qm@web30208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176380 <> Harry didn't give Kreacher his freedom, for the simple reason that Kreacher didn't ask. I'm not sure Dobby would have wanted his freedom either if the Malfoys hadn't treated him so badly. Also Hermione at this point has learned something. House-Elves don't want there freedom. They only want to serve. Service is how they express their love (and how Harry does too) not just to their 'owners' but to each other. Even Dobby when freed still wants to serve. There very nature is to always put others before themselves. An example of a good Christian and another one of JKR's relgious themes. As per an esaay I read yesterday on the Lexicon. DA Jones --------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Aug 29 01:20:37 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:20:37 -0400 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176381 "houyhnhnm: > But some other things, I just don't know what to make of > them. Like the miserable creature in the train station > and the injunction not to pity or comfort it. Repeated > over and over. Once might not have been so bad, but it > was just hammered in. Rowena: "As I don't recall DD *EVER* saying not to pity the creature, only that it was beyond any comfort he or Harry could give - by its own actions I might add. Voldemort damned himself." Anyone here ever read "The Divine Comedy"? When Dante starts to feel sorry for the tormented spirits in the Inferno, his guide, Virgil, tells him, "Here pity or piety must die." Or, to name a modern author, C.S. Lewis "Pilgrim's Regress", where the Guide tells John that the fixed pains of Hell are "[God's] last severe mercy for those who will let Him do nothing else for them." And DD did not say that Harry 'must' or 'should' or 'may' not do anything for the creature. He says that Harry 'cannot' do anything. Not that it is ill-advised, or even forbidden, but that it is impossible. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aceworker at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 01:35:42 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:35:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... Message-ID: <256666.44071.qm@web30213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176382 <> Ron's remark was a joke in bad taste, he was only half serious. Both Ginny and Hermione quickly make the point to Rose that he was only joking. To be honest is Scorpius were a decent bloke ron with be thrilled. All the Weasley poverty problems would be solved once and for all. LOL! This was JKr making one last joke, poking fun at her own world really. It's the father in law he might have problems with. DA Jones --------------------------------- Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Aug 29 01:08:14 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:08:14 -0400 Subject: The 3 good Slytherins (was: The two good Slytherins) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176383 Regulus Black Andromeda Tonks, nee Black Phineas Nigellius Black Horace Slughorn Severus Snape* Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Aug 29 01:10:33 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:10:33 -0400 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176384 A lot of the post on this thread remind me of the old Rabbinical saying: "Do not let 'the best' become the enemy of 'the good.'" A lot of the problems in the WW are of hundreds of years in the making. That doesn't get reversed in a decade or so. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Aug 29 01:11:53 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:11:53 -0400 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176385 Glorification of suicide? I see it as not so much that as an illustration of the text: "Greater love hath no man than he who giveth up his life for his friends." Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aceworker at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 01:59:39 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:59:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: colin creevy Message-ID: <603766.77949.qm@web30206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176386 > I just want to know what you think:1)Colin Creevy is a muggle- born, > and would not be at Hogwarts this year;2)he was underage and unable to > apparate, I assume; so, how was he at Hogwarts during the final > battle and got himself killed? Colin was hiding somewhere with Dennis (?) and had managed to avoid capture and somehow had his wand. I think. Although if he had lost his wand like Dean, that might explain how he had ended up dead. I'm sure wherever he was, he had to tie up Dennis to keep from following. My guess, is that he was at a safe house somewhere that pure-blood Order Members or old DA members had set up. If it was DA members it had to be one that graduated and you really only have the choice of the three Gryff Quidditch girls, (Alicia, Katie and Angelina or Cho.(or in theory Marietta). Oliver could have done it too I suppose. Unless Colin was hiding with the Weasley's Auntie Muriel or the Bones. My favorite is Cho though. Part of her redemtion arc. And I did find it odd that she came in right behind Fred and Geroge and Lee as if she was traveling with them. Maybe she had something to do with Potterwatch. Who knows? It's all fanfic territory though, because there is no canon answer unless JKR promised encyclopedia eventually says otherwise. Anyway Colin won't die in the move. Nigel will. LOL! I'm disapointed actually that a few more DA members didn't die. 1 or 2 more would have made it seem realisitc. Somebody unimportant like Terry Boot or Justin. Justin was a muggle born too. Wonder what happened to him. He wasn't mentioned directly as being in the final battle. LIke Colin he would not have been there. DA Jones . --------------------------------- Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 01:59:10 2007 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:59:10 -0000 Subject: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176387 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rowena_grunnionffitch" wrote: > > > houyhnhnm: > > > > Maybe if Dumbledore had nurtured his students and > > staff instead of focusing on his secret magical plan, > > seen and fostered their potential as human beings > > rather than sacrificing that potential to their > > usefulness as tools, Voldemort might never have come back. > > > That kind of proves my point. A world in which a mother > > refusing to stand aside and allow her child to be murdered > > is such a rare marvel as to invoke magic is a world in > > dire need of "simple human love". > > Rowena: > > Of course if DD et-al had acted as you wanted - and if it had the > effect you predict - there'd have been no series! ;-) > > BTW I really don't think self sacrifice on behalf of one's children > need be rare to have magical repurcussions. > Jenni from Alabama responds: I agree with you Rowena. I don't think it is rare! I think any loving mother would sacrifice her life for her child. It still doesn't lessen the impact it has. It's still beautiful. But I also think that too much emphasis is placed on Lily's sacrifice. What about James? He died trying to save Harry AND Lily. I personally would love to have seen JK put in the final book that Harry was doubly protected... not just by his mother's sacrifice but his father's as well. As far as Dumbledore preventing Voldy's return... if Fudge had listened to Dumbledore and Harry to begin with and gone after the Death Eaters and Voldemort in that graveyard as soon as Harry said Voldy was back, Voldy could have been prevented from gaining followers and could have been defeated. In the graveyard there were less than a dozen Death Eaters and Riddle. Fudge could have taken an army of Aurors and overwhelmed them. From mosu22 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 01:57:47 2007 From: mosu22 at yahoo.com (Monica) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:57:47 -0000 Subject: Harry's wand In-Reply-To: <331404.7265.qm@web50907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176388 > Monica wrote: > > Seems to me that the part of Voldemort that Harry's wand > recognized was his soul, so if it came into contact with > his soul in the form of a horcrux, it would be capable of > destroying it. Sharko wrote: > The Avada Kedavra cannot be done by Harry Potter because it > splits the soul. And the wand is strong against the wand that > Voldemort owns, not Voldemort himself. And the spells that > destroy the horcrux are too dangerous to be performed by the > young boys Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Monica again: But Harry's wand attacked Voldemort himself, using the elder Malfoy's wand. I don't doubt that Avada Kedavra would not have even been considered as a possibility, although I question whether it would have split his soul as the intent was not to take human life but to destroy a soul fragment. I'm not sure it's that curse itself that splits the soul, rather than just taking human life (canon, anyone?). I think it's possible that Voldemort's soul was split when he destroyed Snape, even though he didn't use avada kedavra. Monica From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Aug 29 02:32:04 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:32:04 -0000 Subject: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176389 Mike wrote: > OK, a disclaimer right off the bat. I still despise the Snape > character that we saw for 3900 of the 4000 pages in the series. Yet, > > I actually liked the young Severus like I never will the adult Snape. > Yeah, he was geeky in his "too short jeans, shabby, overlarge coat... > and odd smocklike shirt." (p.663) But I admire the kid's spunk, he > tried so hard, you just can't hate the poor kid from Spinner's End. >snipping post > That's enough from me. Anybody got a different take? Would some care > to expound or expand on my take? > > Mike, who thought another light canon would make a nice change ;) Potioncat: Light canon is all I can manage these days. You've made some very interesting points. For now, I'll just add two more thoughts. TUNEY!.......SEV! I can understand why Petunia may not have wanted to maintain a close relationship with Lily. How awful! And Sev...only Sevvie would be worse. To think, I used to refuse to read a fanfic that had anyone addressing Severus as Sev. Now it's canon! Has anyone's thoughts drifted back into earlier books? Want to bet the girl who laughed at the boy on the bucking broomstick was Lily? (Could be Tuney, I suppose.) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Aug 29 03:34:04 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 03:34:04 -0000 Subject: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176390 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > OK, a disclaimer right off the bat. I still despise the Snape > character that we saw for 3900 of the 4000 pages in the series. Yet, > I actually liked the young Severus like I never will the adult > Snape. Yeah, he was geeky in his "too short jeans, shabby, > overlarge coat... and odd smocklike shirt." (p.663) But I admire > the kid's spunk, he tried so hard, you just can't hate the poor kid > from Spinner's End. Jen: Hey, I'm with you, that 'smocklike shirt' did it for me, poor guy. Actually, I have to say adult Snape doesn't seem so offensive to me now that we have a reason for his actions. Give me a rationale and I'll gladly rationalize. ;) > ****Mikefic > She comes to a part where she deviates and Sev speaks up with, "But > mum, it says to chop them up." Eileen answers, "Oh posh, that's old > Borash mixing up his methods again. No Sev, it works much better to > crush them with your pestle. C'mere, I'll show you." And of course > she does. As Sev returns to his seat with a smile on his face, > Eileen, without looking up, says, "Now write that down in there, > dear. Next time, you can do the crushing, okay?" As Severus leans > over his book to make the change, Eileen glances up at him with > pride. Jen: Aw, that's sweet Mike, hehe. Unless Eileen was the one who thought it was okay to let Sev run around in the smocklike shirt, then she gets some character deductions in my book *Jen takes out her tally sheet, noting Eileen's practically blank column because her entire characterization is off-page.* > ****The Girls. > The first words out of 11-year-old Tuney's mouth were "Lily, don't > do it!" Is she scared of Lily's magic? Well sure, we know that > attitude didn't change even as an adult. But I also think she's > trying to be the protective older sister. Tuney doesn't understand > how Lily can do what she can do, but Tuney knows if she were to do > it she'd get hurt. I think her's is a natural reaction of the older > sister. Jen: Sort of the pushy older sister type, yeah, more bossy than scared I think. Also not wanting the neighbors to see, seeds of her later obsession? Mixed in with...envy. We don't get many scenes for why she wrote the letter to Dumbledore; Lily's power intrigued her on some level. Mike: > Now when Tuney told Lily, "Mummy told you not to!", that sounds > more like a bossy older sis. Because I'm not sure mummy ever said > any such thing to Lily. I doubt Lily ever tried her trick in front > of mummy to have prompted such a rebuke. Jen: And if Lily did try it in front of the parents, my guess is they praised her for her amazing abilites: "Lily glanced toward her parents, who were looking around the platform with an air of wholehearted enjoyment, drinking in the scene." (chap. 33, p. 669, US) Mike: > And poor Sev, he "had been planning this moment for a while, and it > had all gone wrong" (665). Ahh the angst of a pre-adolescent boy > trying to make a good first impression and blowing it completely. I > know from where you heart hurts, young Sev. We just aren't equipped > to talk to girls until we reach the age of,... oh I'd say around > 35, but maybe that's a little optimistic. ;) Jen: Here's a question: Was Sev mainly interested in Lily because he'd never expected to meet a fellow magical person in Spinner's End or was it that he already had a crush on Lily or a little of both? And was it a crush, definitely, because of the spying part, or was that just Sevvy's *thing* from a young age, spying? Just curious what others think. Mike > Ahh, but it is a mistake to pick on a poor wizard about his poor > clothes. Sev can't bring the wrath of God down on Tuney, but he can > manage the wrath of some good English Elm. Jen: HAHA! Potioncat: > Has anyone's thoughts drifted back into earlier books? Want to bet > the girl who laughed at the boy on the bucking broomstick was Lily? > (Could be Tuney, I suppose.) Jen: "JKR, please don't make me buy that Lily was the girl laughing at Sev on his bucking broomstick, that Harry didn't recognize his own mum. There's so much I buy already, the maths, the wisdom *cough* of the Secret Keeper ...oh, you say it is Lily? Right, okay, yes that makes sense. Of course Harry doesn't recognize his mum because he never saw a picture of her as a girl...oh, well except he so did because old school chums sent Hagrid photos from their time at Hogwarts, remember? I'll ignore that part, right..." (Jen ends imaginary conversation with JKR.) Seriously, I don't think it was Lily. The broomstick had a hex or jinx on it if it was bucking, right? Some random girl in flying class is laughing because the Marauders jinxed Snape's broom - Florence, perhaps. Jen From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Aug 29 04:13:51 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:13:51 -0000 Subject: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176391 > > Jen: "JKR, please don't make me buy that Lily was the girl laughing > at Sev on his bucking broomstick, that Harry didn't recognize his own > mum. Potioncat: Well, Harry doesn't notice a lot, especially when JKR doesn't want him too. But I have some photos of each of my parents as children, that I would never have guessed was them. At this point, it doesn't matter,really---I mean the scene itself hasn't served any special purpose. But it could have been Sev trying to show off back at the old neighborhood before they went off to Hogwarts. From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 04:22:07 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:22:07 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40708282122j3f5b136eo3548af85c40e7a5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176392 Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > > A lot of the problems in the WW are of hundreds of years in the > making. That > doesn't get reversed in a decade or so. montims: In fact. I keep reading that people are disappointed at so few changes in the epilogue - 19 years after the end of the VW. The thing I like about the Potter books is the realism (or maybe pragmatism is a better word to use about a world that takes centaurs, elves, unicorns and giants in its stride...) What was happening in our world 19 years after the end of WW2? Universal peace and harmony? Tolerance among races? Unfortunately not. Wikipedia, as ever, is our friend - unnecessary to cut and paste paragraphs - those who want to can go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964. Suffice it to say that there is still racial segregation in America, most South Africans are disenfranchised, Nelson Mandela is tried and imprisoned, Greeks and Turks begin fighting in Cyprus, the Cold War is big business, the Vietnam War is in full swing, the Moors Murderers abduct Lesley Ann Downey... Not a nice world, you could say. OK then, 19 years after WW1, the war to end all wars? Uhoh - we reach 2 years before WW2, and widespread antisemitism... But when a murderous dictator is overthrown, all citizens throw down their weapons and embrace in loving reconciliation, regardless of partisan loyalties, no? Well no, actually. All right - let's cheat - let's look at 18 years ago - 1989 - a great year for democracy: Solidarity is legalised and wins the elections, the Soviet Union leaves Kabul, Botha resigns - leading to the end of apartheid and the release of Mandela in 1990, (Salman Rushdie was placed under a fatwa, but that's a blip in my thesis...), the Tiananmen Square massacres lead to a change in Chinese thinking - don't they?, the Hungarian Republic is declared, the Berlin Wall came down, it's the beginning of the end for Eastern European communism, Brazil holds its first free presidential election since 1960, the communist government was overthrown in Czechoslovakia, the Ceausescus were executed. So less than 19 years after these momentous happenings, we must be living in a time of universal peace and tolerance, right? In Germany, it took a couple of generations before they started discussing the wartime events openly, and teaching it honestly in schools... Before that, nobody wanted to ask friends and family, because they were afraid of what they might discover... People of honour do not change their entire belief systems just because their side lost. It takes persuasion, and evidence that their beliefs are wrong. When I first started working, there were jobs that women were not considered capable of doing. When I was at school, little black children in America were forcibly prevented from going to school with white children. People's ideas didn't change overnight, and still today there are many racist and sexist bigots in the so-called civilised world. I think the WW will need longer than 19 years for ingrained beliefs and ideas to be replaced. It would be good to see forward 50 years - what have Kingsley, Harry and Hermione accomplished? The ending of LOTR was brilliant, IMO, when they showed the Shire still suffering long after the war ended, due to the actions and attitudes of the bad guys that endured. I also found the ending of DH credible and satisfying. I am a rooster - I cannnot digest suger-coated pap - I need some grit in there. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 29 04:31:03 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:31:03 -0000 Subject: The 3 good Slytherins (was: The two good Slytherins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176393 "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > Regulus Black > Andromeda Tonks, nee Black > Phineas Nigellius Black > Horace Slughorn > Severus Snape* I actually can't off the top of my head think of anything good Phineas Nigellius did. And I find it very difficult to believe that Snape would confess all his secrets to him, I wouldn't have and I'm far less secretive than Snape was; so as far as Phineas Nigellius knew Snape was a loyal Death Eater, and yet he worshiped him. Calling Hermione a Mudblood did not exactly endear him to me either. As for Andromeda Tonks, we know little about her, we can't even be certain she's a Slytherin. Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 04:35:56 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:35:56 -0000 Subject: Oldies But Goodies - Give Em a Hand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176394 Mike: I was trolling through past posts, doing a little research as it were, when I came upon some interesting older theory posts. The first one had a piece of the puzzle, though not exactly for the right reason. ************ Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:53 am http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142313 elfundeb/Debbie: I am attracted to Horcrux!Harry theories in part because I've always thought it fairly likely that Harry would be called upon to sacrifice himself. But I've never envisioned that he would have time to brood over his supposed lack of choice; it would be a sudden realization of the nature of his task. My scenario is this: The Harrycrux would not be discovered until the "final" confrontation, in which Voldemort's body would be destroyed (not necessarily by Harry) but Vapormort would escape. ************ Mike: I'll stop Deb there. Bang on with the sacrifice part of the scenario, but ya need to keep that elbow locked on the follow-through. ;)) Steve wrote this post in response to Debbie's. Now I like to give credit were it's due, but this one comes from left field. I never would have expected that Steve enjoined this specific area of theorizing. Steve will explain why. **************** Sun Oct 30, 2005 3:23 pm http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142327 Horcrux!Harry and other great mysteries. Steve/bboyminn: As difficult as it is for me to accept any logical Harry!Horcrux scenarios, let's try this one on for size. Oh so many years ago when Voldemort tried to kill Harry and the curse rebounded on him and ripped him from his body, several of Voldemort's many home-soul-pieces were released into the cosmos. In that brief moment of being ripped from their home-body the soul-pieces desperately searched for a new home before joining Vapormort. In that brief instant, one of many soul-pieces grabbed the nearest living body it could find and that body was Harry's. **************** Mike: Wow! Way to go Steve. :D I can't say for sure that yours was the first to come up with this scenario, but given how perfectly you nailed it, I doubt anyone else did it better. Mike, who still loves reading old posts, even when the theory has been exploded, if they were well written :) From Meliss9900 at aol.com Wed Aug 29 05:39:15 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:39:15 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New Inconsistency - Shell Cottage Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176395 In a message dated 8/28/2007 8:13:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time, aceworker at yahoo.com writes: First what we have to remember is that the Fidelius charm on Griimauld place was cast by by Dumbledore. The Fidelus charm at Shell cottage is put on by Bill. Anything done by Dumbledore is going to have more bells and whistles and be stronger than Bill's work, decent wizard thoug he is. Bills Fidelus is just not as 'secret as Dumbledore's'Bills Fidelus is just not as 'secret as Dumbledore's'. We see no evidence for instance th I have to disagree with this. In the 1st place the only reason that Dumbledore wrote the name of Grimmauld Place down was because he was avoiding personal contact with Harry for most of OOTP. He was afraid that LV would be able to "spy" on their conversations via the "scar connection." DD, (I feel confident in stating) would have been very worried about communicating this info to Harry verbally on the chance that LV was eavesdropping. (although why he thought he could write the name down and not worry about LV seeing through Harry's eyes is beyond me, I guess that JKR had to have a way of providing Harry the Information and this fit with the avoiding contact theme she was starting. We also have no canon showing the Fidelius Charm's potency depends on the strength of the wizard casting it. If this were the case then I doubt it would be presented as being the best manner of hiding throughout the series. We also don't know if the caster has to be the secret keeper or (if as in the unbreakable vow) a second party must cast the spell. Ex. Was Bill able to cast the spell on Shell cottage making himself the secret keeper or did Arthur have to do it to make Bill the secret keeper. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 06:02:22 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:02:22 -0000 Subject: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176396 > Jen: Unless Eileen was the one who thought it was okay to let > Sev run around in the smocklike shirt, then she gets some character > deductions in my book *Jen takes out her tally sheet, noting > Eileen's practically blank column because her entire > characterization is off-page.* Mike: This poverty issue I never quite understood. I mean, they can do magic so why don't they fix up the clothes? Why didn't Molly do some repairs and remodeling of Ron's dress robes? Why doesn't Eileen modify Sev's smock into something resembling a real shirt? They have the materials, just fix them up a little. C'mon mums! Oh yeah, it just occured to me that Snape returns to that house in Spinner's End when he's an adult. This place with all the bad memories of his father who "doesn't like anything, much." (p.667) The place of all the parental arguing that Severus can't wait to be shot of and get himself to Hogwarts. Shades of Sirius stuck in 12 GP, anyone? > Jen: Was Sev mainly interested in Lily because he'd never > expected to meet a fellow magical person in Spinner's End > or was it that he already had a crush on Lily or a little of both? > And was it a crush, definitely, because of the spying part, or was > that just Sevvy's *thing* from a young age, spying? Just curious > what others think. Mike: Good question, I'm thinking at first it was just the fascination of another magical person in his hometown. I get the impression that the Snapes don't socialized that often, Lily might be the first magical person Severus has met besides his mum. Some of it might also be that Lily seems to have control of her magic at an early age, something Sev might not have mastered yet. In fact, the only other wizard in canon this young, who we saw that could control his magic was... Tom. > Jen: > Seriously, I don't think it was Lily. The broomstick had a hex or > jinx on it if it was bucking, right? Some random girl in flying > class is laughing because the Marauders jinxed Snape's broom - > Florence, perhaps. Mike: Agreed, it can't be Lily. Can't be Tuney, either. Could be Flo. How about Mary? Might justify Sev thinking Mulciber's hex was a hoot. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 06:12:56 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:12:56 -0000 Subject: The 3 good Slytherins (was: The two good Slytherins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176397 Eggplant: > so as far as Phineas Nigellius knew Snape > was a loyal Death Eater, and yet he worshiped him. Calling Hermione a > Mudblood did not exactly endear him to me either. As for Andromeda > Tonks, we know little about her, we can't even be certain she's a > Slytherin. zgirnius: Regarding Phineas, in "The Prince's Tale" he reports to Snape that Harry and Hermione are in the Forest of Dean, and Dumbledore excitedly tells Snape to take the sword to them, without answering Snape's question about what to with it. At this point Phineas definitely knows Snape is no Death Eater. Quite possibly, however, he has also witnessed all of the scenes between Snape and Dumbledore which took place in Dumbledore's office. The former headmasters do seem to listen in and know these sorts of things. (Like knowing that Harry slew a Basilisk, e. g.). In which case he saw Snape's remorse over the death of Lily, his promise to help protect Harry, his saving of Dumbledore's life and agreement to kill him when the time comes, and any number of other conversations. I took his comment at the end of DH, about Slytherin's contribution to the victory, to mean, among other things, Snape's contribution. As for Andromeda, she is older than Sirius, and a Black. Slughorn's statement to Harry in HBP about Sirius being the first Black not in Slytherin implies that Andromeda was. Slughorn would hardly forget the sister of two girls that were in his House in the same period. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Wed Aug 29 08:43:23 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:43:23 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The 3 good Slytherins (was: The two good Slytherins) Message-ID: <20070829184323.CTI34753@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176398 Eggplant: > I actually can't off the top of my head think of > anything good Phineas > Nigellius did. And I find it very difficult to > believe that Snape > would confess all his secrets to him, I wouldn't > have and I'm far less > secretive than Snape was; so as far as Phineas > Nigellius knew Snape > was a loyal Death Eater, and yet he worshiped him. > Calling Hermione a > Mudblood did not exactly endear him to me either. As > for Andromeda > Tonks, we know little about her, we can't even be > certain she's a > Slytherin. Sharon: Phineus Nigellius tried to help Snape figure out where Harry was so he could get the Sword of Gryffindor to him. He must have been lurking in that painting a bit to have been so keen to hear what Hermione was saying when she said they were in the Forest of Dean and rush back to tell Snape about it. Then at the end he says something like "And let's not forget that Slytherin house did their bit", meaning what he did in helping them achieve their goals. I think he was at least "not bad" if that makes sense. He tried to help therefore he was supportive of DD and Snape, and by extension, Harry. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 09:07:04 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:07:04 -0000 Subject: 19 years later... In-Reply-To: <24703483.1188333027013.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176399 > Bart wrote: > This bears repeating every couple of months: > > "There are three kinds of people in this world. Those who can count, and those who can't." - J. K. Rowling. Doddie here: Too true and too funny! Also, just had to add that there is also the sheer genius of one who cannot count incoporating the "bad maths" gene into her villian who also had bad maths and inadvertently created seven horcruxes rather than six.(eight never struck me as a particularly magical number--poor Tom-LOL) Us fans have hammered JKR's bad maths so much over the years I often wonder if by the time GOF came around she changed the story so there was an additional horcrux(Harrycrux--hence the massive volume of GOF and OOP--esp. caps lock Harry) she didn't initially intend.(would explain a plot hole or two or not...just wondering.) I'd just love to correct JKR and tell her that it's not about counting, but about logic..some have it, some don't but all of humanity has a certain amount of logic that falls w/in a certain range...all IQ tests incorporate logic measurements..but that is just one aspect of many contained in an IQ test...although I think JKR gets this..there was Snape's clue in PS/SS every time I read it I just glaze over and can never be bothered to logic it out myself-- just continue to read until I get to Hermione's brilliant answer(now I know how Harry and Ron oft felt around her)...no wonder why there were so few NEWT level potions students in HBP they are still glazed over!L0L Doddie, (Who is glad that the kids go back to school tomorrow after having the summer off, and is sorry she didn't do a summer science experiment by putting a potted plant in the fridge just to prove to her kids and all their friends how long they actually keep the fridge open; and who also cannot believe that after all these years she STILL cannot sleep the day before school begins. *sigh*) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Aug 29 10:05:59 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:05:59 -0000 Subject: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176400 Jen: > Aw, that's sweet Mike, hehe. Unless Eileen was the one who thought it was okay to let Sev run around in the smocklike shirt, then she gets some character deductions in my book *Jen takes out her tally sheet, noting Eileen's practically blank column because her entire characterization is off-page.* Ceridwen: We see Eileen once, "a thin, sallow-faced, sour-looking woman" beside a "slightly hunched" Sev. This sounds to me like neither Snape wanted to be there. Eileen almost sounds like she is standing on her dignity alone, and expecting someone to attack her (verbally, of course). Sev sounds embarrassed. I think Eileen had no choice in how Sev was dressed. They were poor, this is what they had. Jen: Hey, I'm with you, that 'smocklike shirt' did it for me, poor guy. Actually, I have to say adult Snape doesn't seem so offensive to me now that we have a reason for his actions. Give me a rationale and I'll gladly rationalize. ;) Ceridwen: I have a pic of my dad in a "smocklike shirt" at the age of five. Bear in mind that would have been 1907. The rest of his clothes remind me of the clothes worn by Rip van Winkle the younger - his father's old coat and trousers. The van Winkle family was dirt poor. Mike: > And poor Sev, he "had been planning this moment for a while, and it > had all gone wrong" (665). Ahh the angst of a pre-adolescent boy > trying to make a good first impression and blowing it completely. I > know from where you heart hurts, young Sev. We just aren't equipped > to talk to girls until we reach the age of,... oh I'd say around > 35, but maybe that's a little optimistic. ;) Jen: Here's a question: Was Sev mainly interested in Lily because he'd never expected to meet a fellow magical person in Spinner's End or was it that he already had a crush on Lily or a little of both? And was it a crush, definitely, because of the spying part, or was that just Sevvy's *thing* from a young age, spying? Just curious what others think. Ceridwen: He could have been trying to get up the nerve to talk to her. Socially, he was not that proficient and there were two of them to one of him. Petunia's reaction to him gives an idea: "*I* know who *you* are. You're that Snape boy! They live down Spinner's End by the river." (US 665). She mentions the location like it was the wrong side of the tracks, which it probably was. He only popped out when Petunia asked how Lily had made the flower open and close. He scared Petunia, and he "seemed to regret his appearance." (US 664). I think he saw someone else like him, and was eager to become friends with her. Rowling uses the adjective "greedy", and a lot of people have commented about that, but the same adjective has been used by other writers to show profound desire for something a person doesn't have, like the child who looks "greedily" into a candy store window. I don't think young Sev had many friends. He might have driven them away with accidental magic, like the tree branch, or he may always have been an object of ridicule because of his clothes and his "stringy" appearance. Class comes in because of what Petunia says. Ceridwen. From rvink7 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 29 10:58:48 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:58:48 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176401 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > Betsy Hp: > > I didn't like that Harry didn't figure it out for himself, I didn't > > like that he didn't really protest (especially since this is > > something he's *told* not something he concludes), I didn't like that > > his parents and godfather are all "death is *great*!". > > zgirnius: > After rereading DH, I have concluded that this was the point of the > Elder Wand plotline. Dumbledore had it all worked out so that all Harry > ever had to do was believe him, go destroy any the Horcruxes Dumbledore > had not managed to finish off with whatever assistance he could provide > in portrait form through Snape, and then go to die. Not all that easy, > Harry did need to think for himself to find and destroy them all (with > a little help from his friends, Crabbe, and Snape) but yes, all worked > out for him in advance. And Harry would go after Snape told him, and > instead of dying, he would have the soul-bit removed, and Voldemort > would die his final death in the rebound, leaving Harry to live happily > ever after. > Renee: ?? But I thought Harry would have died together with Voldemort, if there had been no Horcrux left. IIRC it was Harry's own blood inside Voldemort that tied them together, and because Voldemort couldn't die as long as Nagini was alive, Harry survived as well. Or did I miss something here? Renee, confused From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Aug 29 11:27:49 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:27:49 -0000 Subject: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176402 > > Jen: > > Seriously, I don't think it was Lily. The broomstick had a hex or > > jinx on it if it was bucking, right? Some random girl in flying > > class is laughing because the Marauders jinxed Snape's broom - > > Florence, perhaps. > > Mike: > Agreed, it can't be Lily. Can't be Tuney, either. Could be Flo. How > about Mary? Might justify Sev thinking Mulciber's hex was a hoot. Potioncat: I always thought it was a hexed broomstick too. But if first-year Marauders could hex a broomstick, then they came to Hogwarts knowing Dark Magic. Oh, wait. Dark Magic is only bad when Slytherins do it. Nevermind. From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Wed Aug 29 07:27:25 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:27:25 -0000 Subject: Heroes again WAS: Re: The two good Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176403 Alla > But yes, I do think that Snape owed Harry some kindness, he truly > did. I think he owed the boy to overcome the hatred of his father > and truly see his mother in Harry, if for nothing else, but to ease > his burden. > > That in my eyes would have been truly heroic. Yes you are right it would, but part of Snape's tragedy is that he was not able to make it that far. He could never get past the fact that Harry looked just like his father, the root cause, in Snape's eyes, of the loss of Lily when he was a teenager and then the 'cause' of her death by fathering Harry. Add in the fact that he had told V about the prophecy to the psychological mix and I cease to be surprised at all by the way he acted. Saddened by it still, but not surprised. We know that he wanted to die the night he learned that Lily was dead; it was Dumbledore who invoked his 'duty' to protect Lily's son to prevent it. It was then that 'duty' alone that kept Snape alive at that point. But he in many ways remained a 'dead man walking.' I think you can find evidence that he did develop from there in the later memories in the Prince's Tale, especially once he discovered that Harry had to die after all. He could have given up then. 'You have used me, I have spied for you, lied for you, gone into mortal peril for you....' Well thanks Dumbledore, you could have saved me all this trouble, so I'm off to my dungeon now to drink the potion I made 16 years ago, that you wouldn't let me drink then. But of course he didn't do that, he kept going, got the sword to Harry as instructed, in fact planned how to do it himself on his own wihtout Dumbledore, who was now just a portrait. Only at his final breath did Snape finally see Harry truly as Harry, not his father, not even just as Lily but as her son, to be loved. He had also learned a more generalised kindness to other students, witness his 'protection' of Luna, Neville and Ginny, punishment with Hagrid instead of in the dungeons with the Carrows! allthecoolnamesgone From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Aug 29 13:49:50 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:49:50 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death and portraits References: Message-ID: <008101c7ea43$78580010$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 176404 Ersatz Harry: > As Snape's memories attest in DH, Dumbledore is still able to > comprehend and influence events that occurred after his death. In > particular, I am thinking of his telling Snape to deliver the sword to > the Forest of Dean. It seems odd to call someone dead when he can > still act in this way, and I don't recall any other portraits having > quite that sort of ability (or if they did, they never seem to have > used it). Are there others that anyone recalls, and can we truly call > Dumbledore dead when he still has such a hand in the story? > > Ersatz Harry, who notices that people don't often append these little > parenthetical comments to their signatures these days Shelley: I think it's because we get to see so little of the portraits in Dumbledore's office. Very little of Harry's time is spent with the portraits, and in times of emergency (Arthur's snake bite), we do see them running errands and delivering messages, but we don't get to see Dumbledore's conversations with these "great men and women" of old about the importance of it later, because Harry has been quickly shuttled off to safety. They do seem to comprehend a lot though- DD has no need to explain, for example, what Arthur was doing, where he was, what the Order of the Phoenix was, and so forth, so it seems that they have been a part of all of that beforehand. What advisory roll they played into DD's wisdom and decisions is unknown. This conversation thread makes me wonder of just how much wisdom and information the portraits in St. Mungos have, and if they give medical advice. It would seem to me that immediately upon their deaths, these healers would be very important to have around- as information on how they were currently treating a patient would be relevant, and any specialized knowledge they had about treating a certain condition would still be relevant. But, as time goes on and medicine moves on, these portraits become "outdated", as seen by the very funny comment by the portrait who told Ron that his freckles were some nasty ailment that needed to be treated when the trio and Arthur's family were visiting after St. Mungo's after Arthur's snakebite. Thus, DD's knowledge concerning Harry Potter and what he told him in life about his quest would still be useful, because that situation was still ongoing, but once Harry had killed Voldemort and life started to move on with the rebuilding of the castle and changing of wizarding laws, Dumbledore's portrait, too, would become outdated and out of touch, because the portraits aren't living reality, but rather just seeing glimpses of it through their frames, as we see Phineas complain about when a blindfold is put over him. It would really suck to be in a portrait and be stuck in a broom closet with nothing to see but spiders moving in, or to have lived months and years in an empty house. Thus, life in a portrait isn't really the same as real life, because in real life you get to move on your own, act on your own, read the newspaper, listen to the wireless news programs and absorb so much more than what a portrait is limited to see, hear and experience. The portraits seem to be very much muted, in that they can only do what the limitations of having other portraits affords them. Of course, having portraits at places of importance becomes a real asset, such as the hospital or the Ministry of Magic, but still, they are so very limited in what they get to see and hear because they remain stationary while life literally moves on around them. Thus, I wouldn't call that "living" in any real sense of the word, and since DD isn't truly living, then yes, he is dead, no matter how many portraits he would have in important places. It's the other living people around him that could ask for his advice, pick his brain for wisdom, but that's all he could ever do- give advice- it's the job of those that are truly living to go "do" the stuff that is life. Shelley From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 14:28:51 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:28:51 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176405 > Renee: > ?? But I thought Harry would have died together with Voldemort, if > there had been no Horcrux left. IIRC it was Harry's own blood inside > Voldemort that tied them together, and because Voldemort couldn't die > as long as Nagini was alive, Harry survived as well. > Or did I miss something here? zgirnius: I believe the plan was all about sequence of events. Here, as I see it, is what actually happened (Nagini is alive): 1) Voldemort sends AK at Harry, 2) Harry is hit by AK. 3) Since Voldemort is alive, this kills the soul bit but not Harry (blood protection, from the blood Voldemort took from Harry), 4) AK rebounds due to blood protection, 5) AK affects Voldemort, 6) since Nagini is alive, Voldemort does not die, 7) King's Cross, 8) Harry and Voldemort return to consciousness. Now, suppose Nagini had been dead at the time of their encounter. Here is how I believe it was supposed to play out: 1) Voldemort sends AK at Harry, 2) Harry is hit by AK, 3) Since Voldemort is alive, this kills the soul bit but not Harry (blood protection, from the blood Voldemort took from Harry), 4) AK rebounds due to blood protection, 5) AK hits Voldemort, 6) since Nagini is dead, and the soul bit in Harry is destroyed in 3), Voldemort dies, having no Horcruxes to tie him to life anymore. 7) Yay! From loptwyn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 14:03:42 2007 From: loptwyn at yahoo.com (Alice) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:03:42 -0000 Subject: The two good Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176406 allthecoolnamesgone: > Regulus was a character who fully redeemed his Slytherin and Death > Eater past. > earned it. > I was also very impressed with Regulus. I wonder how many other wizards, Slytherin or otherwise, would have chosen to drink that potion themselves when they had a perfectly biddable house elf with them to do it (I think of Slughorn's offhand comment in Book 6 about having tested his drinks on a house elf first. which probably shows the typical wizarding world view of house elves). Kreacher seems in Book 5 as having a delusional level of loyalty to the Black House, but in Book 7 we see that his loyalty to his dead master was in fact justifiable and well-deserved. (Poor Kreacher--I felt so sad thinking of what he must have felt when no one came home to eat his steak-and-kidney pie!) MadAlice >:> From claire_elise2003 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 13:43:18 2007 From: claire_elise2003 at yahoo.com (claire_elise2003) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:43:18 -0000 Subject: Wandlore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176407 Ollivander tells Harry that when a wizard disarms another (or otherwise wins his wand by force), the wand will usually recognise the new master, depending though on the wand itself. Obviously this is crucial in the case of the Elder Wand and Draco's wand. But, having just reread the series, I have lost count of the number of times Harry and co are disarmed (or disarm others), either using Expelliarmus, or otherwise. Why did Harry's wand continue to work for him when it had previously been won from him by force? Or am I missing something? claire_elise2003 From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Wed Aug 29 14:27:44 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:27:44 -0000 Subject: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series In-Reply-To: <1188334727.10430.1207745455@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176408 Random832: > Incidentally, this means Snape, in effect, saved Harry's life by asking > Voldemort to spare Lily. If he had not, she would never have had the > chance to make that sacrifice. > -- > Well reasoned Random832! I think you've hit it on the head. But somehow I doubt Snape would appreciate the fact that his attempt to save Lily saved her son instead! ;) Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 14:53:26 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:53:26 -0000 Subject: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176409 > Mike: > This poverty issue I never quite understood. I mean, they can do > magic so why don't they fix up the clothes? Why didn't Molly do some > repairs and remodeling of Ron's dress robes? Why doesn't Eileen > modify Sev's smock into something resembling a real shirt? They have > the materials, just fix them up a little. C'mon mums! Lisa: You know, Mike, I've had the same thoughts, and formed my own conclusion. You may not subscribe to it, but in "my" head, it's now canon, LOL! Muggles have various abilities and talents -- apparently wizards and witches do, too. My poor mom couldn't sew to save her life. There is no way on earth she'd've ever been able to repair or "remodel" clothing of any kind. Perhaps spells are specific talents, too. Molly might be a really talented witch when it comes to cooking spells, but just can't sufficiently master the sewing spells. We've been told that Fleur's mother was exceptionally talented in housecleaning spells and had the Burrow cleaned ina jiffy. Prior to the arrival of the Delacouers (sp?), Harry mused that he had never seen the Burrow looking so good, so Molly had obviously already done some cleaning of her own (with help of the rest of the family and Harry). But Fleur's mom was apparently just more skilled at those specific spells. Much like Harry isn't particularly adept at travel using Floo Powder, but is exceptional on a broom. Just my idea! Lisa From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Wed Aug 29 14:54:39 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:54:39 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape/ some Tehanu SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176410 Dana: I personally do not think you can blame Harry for believing Snape was DD's killer and hating Snape for it and neither was it Snape's fault. That blame lies with DD and DD alone (and the idea still makes me sick to my stomach that the author wants me to accept this as something good but never mind). It was not unjustified for Harry to hate Snape for it because he simply did not know and it is pretty hard to deny what you saw with your own eyes. Rowena: Snape *WAS* DD's kiler, but not his murderer if you follow the distinction. And in all fairness to DD he never meant for Harry to witness his death but as events unfolded he was unable to prevent it. Nor do I think it was entirely out of line for him to make the request of Severus given that they both knew he was doomed, whether from Draco or other enemy action or the curse. And SS did agree, possibly for both DD and Draco's sakes. > houyhnhnm: > > I haven't read _Tehanu_. I'm not a big fan of the Earthsea > stories in general; I prefer the Hainish cycle. In what way > is the author's tone mean-spirited? I get the impression it's > written from kind of a feminist point of view. Rowena: Now there's an understatement of cosmic proportions! I'd go so far as to call it a polemic. houyhnhnm: Are readers > encouraged to laugh at the female characters, gloat over > their inferior status, enjoy a sense of superiority at their > expense? See that's what I would call mean spirited in an > author-- Rowena: Of course not - as you said it is a feminist tract. However one *IS* subjected to agonizing accounts of nasty males abusing innocent and helpless females, (which *REALLY* turned me off) And one is indeed encouraged to enjoy a sense of superiority over males. So I guess you would consider Tehanu 'Mean spirited'. houyhnhnm: showing characters in pain or fear (having their > tongues magically enlarged until they almost choke, faces > covered with pustules, painted gold and stuck on top of a > Christmas tree and so on and on) and encouraging the reader to > find it funny or satisfying. Rowena: The female characters' pain and fear is not suspposed to be funny but it does seem intended to satisfy a rather masochistic impulse towards gender victimhood, (a common theme in modern Feminism). houyhnhnm: > That seems a very different > thing to me from merely creating a world that manifests > reactionary values (which I think is probably a characteristic > of the fantasy genre as a whole and may be the reason I've > never cared for it very much). Rowena: Women are not equals in the Earthsea cycle proper - for example they cannot become mages. However on the other hand they are normally treated with respect and cruelty towards them is clearly *NOT* condoned. 'Tehanu' on the other hand seems to glory in spiritually crippled men tormenting inherently wise and enlightened women which I call 'mean spirited' also nasty. Possibly this is not the impression Le Guin meant to convey but it's the one I got. ELFY NOTE: If somebody wishes to discuss Ursula Le Guin books without connecting them to Potterverse, please reply on OTC. Thanks guys :) From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 15:05:26 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:05:26 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death and portraits In-Reply-To: <008101c7ea43$78580010$6401a8c0@homemain> References: <008101c7ea43$78580010$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: <8ee758b40708290805s3fa8261bt6085204d63bffca9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176411 > > Shelley: But, as time goes on and medicine moves on, these portraits become > "outdated", as seen by the very funny comment by the portrait who told Ron > that his freckles were some nasty ailment that needed to be treated when > the > trio and Arthur's family were visiting after St. Mungo's after Arthur's > snakebite. montims: but what marvellous foreshadowing! As the "bad case of spattergroit" he was supposed to be suffering from was the excuse given for Ron's absence to the DEs, when the ghoul was pretending to be him... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvink7 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 29 15:21:28 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:21:28 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176412 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > zgirnius: > Here, as I see > it, is what actually happened (Nagini is alive): > > 1) Voldemort sends AK at Harry, > 2) Harry is hit by AK. > 3) Since Voldemort is alive, this kills the soul bit but not Harry > (blood protection, from the blood Voldemort took from Harry), > 4) AK rebounds due to blood protection, > 5) AK affects Voldemort, > 6) since Nagini is alive, Voldemort does not die, > 7) King's Cross, > 8) Harry and Voldemort return to consciousness. > > Now, suppose Nagini had been dead at the time of their encounter. Here > is how I believe it was supposed to play out: > > 1) Voldemort sends AK at Harry, > 2) Harry is hit by AK, > 3) Since Voldemort is alive, this kills the soul bit but not Harry > (blood protection, from the blood Voldemort took from Harry), > 4) AK rebounds due to blood protection, > 5) AK hits Voldemort, > 6) since Nagini is dead, and the soul bit in Harry is destroyed in 3), > Voldemort dies, having no Horcruxes to tie him to life anymore. > 7) Yay! > Renee: Ah, I see what you mean now. Ingenious - but didn't the blood protection expire when Harry turned 17? Also, I don't think that the AK could still have rebounded after killing the soul bit in Harry. After all, it found a mark and did its job. Moreover, this second scenario would make Harry invulnerable to Voldemort under any circumstances - which would make Dumbledore a moron for thinking Harry had to die, Snape a moron for believing him, Harry's willingness to sacrifice himself a mere misunderstanding and the entire Elder Wand business pointless, and needlessly complicated (as opposed to just complicated). So no, all considered I'm afraid I don't buy this second scenario. Renee From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 16:05:42 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:05:42 -0000 Subject: The two good Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176413 Magpie wrote: > The "Good" Slytherins: *big snip as I just have one character to discuss* > Narcissa Malfoy--DE-supporter who made a bold move to save her son > (had Draco been dead, she would not have lied about Harry--tried to send Harry to Voldemort earlier). Her agenda coincided with that of the good side at a crucial moment. *big snip again* Doddie here: If Harry/McConogal are to be forgiven for their casting of unforgivables...then why not Narcissa for saying, "that's Harry &co."...Her son did not...Draco kept her in check in this instance..and although we like to believe that Cissy would do anything to keep her family safe...she still refuses the dark mark, and better yet after all these years has not asked for one. Also, there is still something in the back of my mind as to why she asked Snape for help in HBP and better yet, why Snape accepted...Are her subtle gestures, slight nod of head, a few tears shed, a touching of the knee clues that she, like Snape is a superior leguillimens and occlumens? If so, then there is a great deal more meaning to her and Harry's episode in the forrest(or even in Madame Maulkins in HBP), and perhaps why Snape so willingly makes an UV in/at Spinner's End. I dunno, we find out in DH that Snape's initial motivations for finishing DD off on the tower was not for the safety, health, and well being of Draco but DD's request--and that Snape questions DD's request afterwards yet again. OTOH we have Snape making a UV with Cissy... Is this yet another plot hole...or is something else going on here. Did she only find out too late that Draco had already been given the dark mark, therefore Voldie could show up anytime? Was she waiting in the hopes that Lucius would escape/be released from Azkaban and plead to her husbands best friend who was also Voldie's right hand man? We see Cissy calling the shots for her family in DH, yet we never see her trying to run...in Ch.1 we see her sitting around said table, but she still has no dark mark. DD From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Aug 29 16:13:08 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:13:08 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176414 Betsy: Rather than making decisions on his own, Harry follows instructions. Which, IMO, means he never really becomes a man. Certainly not his own man, anyway. Pippin: ::splutters:: But...But...But... Harry *did* come up with his own plan! Dumbledore's plan was for Harry to destroy all the horcruxes, including Nagini, before confronting Voldemort. Harry would have had to die in battle, leaving Voldie's final demise for Snape or others (that the drop of blood might save Harry was at most a theoretical possibility, and neither Dumbledore nor Harry could count on it.) But Harry came up with another plan. He went to death without defending himself at all, *choosing* to die when, as Voldemort kept taunting him, he could have sent others to die in his stead. This is definitely *not* Dumbledore's plan, if only because Nagini was supposed to be destroyed first. But Harry was unwilling to wait. His friends were dying, Voldemort was greater and more terrible than he was during the first war, and once again wizards who were unquestionably opposed to the Dark Side are proving they can't restrain themselves from using the unforgivable curses. But by choosing to die, Harry gavem himself the rare opportunity to do as his mother did and invoke a powerful protection against Voldemort. Lily, like Narcissa, only thought of saving her son. Harry's plan was to protect *everyone* -- and he succeeded. From the moment Harry came back to the living world, no one was harmed by Voldemort's magic except Voldemort himself. I haven't got my book here to quote (I'm in Scotland --yay!) but Harry says he's protected everyone and Voldemort's spells aren't working properly. It sounds like he's bluffing, but he's not and the proof is that Neville and the Sorting Hat remained unharmed despite being engulfed in Voldemort's magical flames. (It seems to have been other people who were screaming.) Harry did become his own man, and as Dumbledore admitted, a far better man than Dumbledore was. Of course JKR didn't show us Harry thinking about this plan in advance, just like she didn't show him thinking about how he was going to trick Ron into thinking he'd drunk felix. But it's all in his speech to Voldemort. It took me a few re-readings to grasp it of course. But that's as usual. Honestly, I don't see the books as promoting a belief in suicide any more than they promote a belief in witchcraft. Harry does not choose to die because of Dumbledore's manipulation, or destiny, or because he's depressed or because his life is meaningless or because he wants people to feel sorry when he's gone. He chooses to sacrifice himself like Ron in the chess game, for the lives of others. I think looking for Slytherin students in the RoR or the final battle is missing the forest for the trees. The room of requirement was for people hiding from the Carrows, which the Slytherins shouldn't need to do (shouldn't they be cunning enough not to need extra protection?) As for not staying to fight, since when has not joining a volunteer force been some sort of litmus test for goodness? They were given a legitimate choice and they chose, as did many Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws, not to enlist. Nobody in canon says, "Good riddance" or claims that they were disloyal (except Voldemort) and yet fanon has JKR painting them as draft dodgers or deserters. Sheesh! What should the Houses united look like? Shouldn't it be each House playing to its strengths in the interest of the whole? Do Slytherin cunning, ambition, and yes, self-interest do this? Well, let's see, without them Lily, Dumbledore and Harry would have sacrificed themselves for nothing. So what if Slytherin House could not fight Voldemort? Without them Hogwarts and Harry would have been destroyed. The point is made with the way James and Sirius die. James throws his life away, "too arrogant to believe he might be mistaken" in his friends, disregarding information that can only have originated with Snape, plus showing us that some Gryffindors haven't got the self-preservation instincts of a deer in the headlights. (His death was so *useless*. Honestly, if he'd tripped over a hassock on the way to the front door, and Voldemort had found Lily first, Harry might still have a father.) Sirius died because he didn't stay behind as Snape wished him to. But Dumbledore had confidence in Snape and Draco for the same reason that he had confidence in Harry and Ron. He'd gotten to know them, despite his initial disgust and whatever preconceptions he had. Lily did the same with Snape, (and for that reason, sadly, knew when a time had come that she couldn't trust Snape any more.) That's the message about prejudice, IMO. It's not 'every life is worth the same and every life is worth saving' because anyone can be a hero. That would be expecting a lot too much of some of us (I'm no hero, for sure.) But anyone can *help* a hero. If we could all save ourselves, we wouldn't *need* heroes. Pippin From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 16:17:13 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:17:13 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The two good Slytherins In-Reply-To: References: <20070828175150.CTH10600@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: <700201d40708290917k39bee62frda70d13b7abd0602@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176415 > Magpie: > ... > Not Good Slytherins: > ... > Narcissa Malfoy--DE-supporter who made a bold move to save her son > (had Draco been dead, she would not have lied about Harry--tried to > send Harry to Voldemort earlier). Her agenda coincided with that of > the good side at a crucial moment. Kemper now: I disagree with your view of Narcissa's agenda. Mostly. My understanding is that you are saying her agenda is to make sure her son is alive and then: a: if alive, make sure he stays that way (allowing Harry to continue fighting Voldie), or b: if dead, hand Harry over to Voldie 'a' allows hope for Narcissa, but 'b' allows no gain for her that's real for her character. She could careless about Voldie's good graces. But she is obviously a protective and vengful woman, see her threats to Harry and Co. at Madam Malkin's Robes for All Occasions. So the musing of 'if Draco were dead' would lead one to wonder who Narcissa would blame for her son's death. In Spinner's End, we see Narcissa already moving away from, if not moving against, Voldemort. She must know as DD suggests to Draco in The Lightning Struck Tower, that Voldemort does not intend on Draco to live: that he will be killed in his attempt(s) to assassinate DD. So if that's the case, then Narcissa would place her vengeance upon Voldemort and do whatever it takes to see him hurting physically like she is emotionally or to see him dead like her son. Narcissa is shrewd and would want Harry alive regardless of Draco's life or death, as it would serve her needs... or, so I imagine, she would hope it to. Kemper, sorry for no actual quotes as books are far away From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Aug 29 16:18:21 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:18:21 -0000 Subject: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176416 > Ceridwen: > We see Eileen once, "a thin, sallow-faced, sour-looking woman" > beside a "slightly hunched" Sev. This sounds to me like neither > Snape wanted to be there. Eileen almost sounds like she is > standing on her dignity alone, and expecting someone to attack her > (verbally, of course). Sev sounds embarrassed. > > I think Eileen had no choice in how Sev was dressed. They were > poor, this is what they had. > I have a pic of my dad in a "smocklike shirt" at the age of five. > Bear in mind that would have been 1907. The rest of his clothes > remind me of the clothes worn by Rip van Winkle the younger - his > father's old coat and trousers. The van Winkle family was dirt> poor. Jen: My image of Eileen from the information surrounding her is the family did live in poverty, that she wasn't in a happy marriage - possibly an abusive one - and life was generally hard for her. (Poverty + abuse, wonder if her powers were sapped at all?). There's not much information about her relationship with Severus; however, since mothers loving sons is a thread throughout the series, my guess is they did have a good relationship and she nurtured Snape's intelligence. She was likely the one who equated Slytherin with brains, encouraging Snape to be in the same house. Severus seemed to have a very positive impression of Slytherin on the train when he spoke to Lily about it. About the shirt, gosh, there's so much going on with that one article of clothing. I suspect there's some shame for Snape, since he wears the coat until he gets to know Lily. It *is* a marker for his poverty, as well as a class distinction in a mill town - the worker sons wore the smocklike shirts and the management sons likely wore something else, thus one reason Petunia with her class-consciousness fingered Severus so quickly as the boy who lived by the river (wrong side of the tracks as you said later, Ceridwen). Then there's the connection to Harry as the kid who wore the oversized clothes and was laughed at or avoided by other kids; Harry didn't even attempt friendships. > Ceridwen: > I think he saw someone else like him, and was eager to become > friends with her. Rowling uses the adjective "greedy", and a lot > of people have commented about that, but the same adjective has > been used by other writers to show profound desire for something a > person doesn't have, like the child who looks "greedily" into a > candy store window. > > I don't think young Sev had many friends. He might have driven > them away with accidental magic, like the tree branch, or he may > always have been an object of ridicule because of his clothes and > his "stringy" appearance. Class comes in because of what Petunia > says. Jen: My impression was Snape was friendless prior to Lily. It doesn't say whether he was home-schooled or went to school, but either way he knew he was a wizard and wasn't part of that world. He already had a sense of being elite to Muggles as seen with Petunia, which I took to be made up of three elements: 1) Part of the WW culture passed down to him; 2) He was different from the other Muggle kids around him, which likely led to ridicule (although perhaps not his clothes if many of the boys in his neighborhood wore the same), but he also had an air of confidence about his intelligence that acted as a defense against this; and 3) Difficult relationship with his negative Muggle father. Like you, after my second read I didn't understand 'greedily' to be an obsession about Lily as a love interest so much as wanting a connection to another person his age, specifically a magical person, part of his world since he was surrounded by people he expected to leave behind in a short time. Mike: > Some of it might also be that Lily seems to have control of her > magic at an early age, something Sev might not have mastered yet. > In fact, the only other wizard in canon this young, who we saw that > could control his magic was... Tom. Twilight Zone here> Jen: Interesting observation, I didn't catch that. Severus was impressed with Lily's magical abilities, 'you've got loads of magic.' Hmm, can't think of anything else to add. > Jen: > Seriously, I don't think it was Lily. The broomstick had a hex or > jinx on it if it was bucking, right? Some random girl in flying > class is laughing because the Marauders jinxed Snape's broom - > Florence, perhaps. > Mike: > Agreed, it can't be Lily. Can't be Tuney, either. Could be Flo. How > about Mary? Might justify Sev thinking Mulciber's hex was a hoot. Potioncat: > I always thought it was a hexed broomstick too. But if first-year > Marauders could hex a broomstick, then they came to Hogwarts knowing > Dark Magic. > Oh, wait. Dark Magic is only bad when Slytherins do it. Nevermind. Jen: Doh, that's right, we found out in Book 1: "Can't nothing interfere with a broomstick except powerful Dark magic - no kid could do that to a Nimbus Two Thousand." (chap. 11, p. 190, Am. Ed.) Huh. I wonder if it was some kind of minor magic, something a kid could do if the broom wasn't flying. Since the other two memories read as negative ones to me, I imagined the laughing girl was a negative memory as well, someone laughing at Severus and not laughing with him. I suppose Harry's memories were mixed up with good/bad though when Snape called them forth; perhaps the bucking broomstick was a a fond memory, the girl laughing appreciatively at his cleverness? It does have the feel of a boy showing off a bit, pretending to ride the bucking broncho and all that. ;) If the memories were meant as clues to the later Pensieve memories, then we saw something to represent three main parts of Sev's young life: His family discord, his lonliness and magical ability from a young age, and his friendship with Lily. I don't know, Potioncat, I may have to put aside my objections about Harry not recognizing Lily! Jen From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Aug 29 16:41:41 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:41:41 -0000 Subject: The two good Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176417 > Magpie wrote: > > The "Good" Slytherins: > *big snip as I just have one character to discuss* > > > Narcissa Malfoy--DE-supporter who made a bold move to save her son > > (had Draco been dead, she would not have lied about Harry--tried > to send Harry to Voldemort earlier). Her agenda coincided with that > of the good side at a crucial moment. > > *big snip again* > > Doddie here: > > If Harry/McConogal are to be forgiven for their casting of > unforgivables...then why not Narcissa for saying, "that's Harry > &co."...Her son did not...Draco kept her in check in this > instance..and although we like to believe that Cissy would do > anything to keep her family safe...she still refuses the dark mark, > and better yet after all these years has not asked for one. Magpie: I didn't say anything about not "forgiving" her or not (nor am I talking about Harry or McGonagall). I'm just describing the character, and it seems odd to list her under "good" because of what she did. I also don't quite get what connection you're making in the last sentence--she'd do anything to keep her family safe but hasn't taken the Dark Mark? Meaning that by not asking to be marked she's not doing all she can to keep her family safe? It doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me either way. Kemper now: I disagree with your view of Narcissa's agenda. Mostly. My understanding is that you are saying her agenda is to make sure her son is alive and then: a: if alive, make sure he stays that way (allowing Harry to continue fighting Voldie), or b: if dead, hand Harry over to Voldie 'a' allows hope for Narcissa, but 'b' allows no gain for her that's real for her character. She could careless about Voldie's good graces. But she is obviously a protective and vengful woman, see her threats to Harry and Co. at Madam Malkin's Robes for All Occasions. Magpie: Where are you getting that she "couldn't care less about Voldie's good graces?" She was eager to get back into them in the Malfoy Manor chapter, and those good graces are a way of protecting her family. It seems like JKR is very clear with the Malfoys in what she's trying to say about them, and saying that they are moving away from Voldemort *to the point where they're working against him* is more than I read (in fact she seems to keep making sure *not* to say that). Harry himself even thinks when she asks about Draco how she wants to get to him inside the school and can at the head of a victorious army or something like that. Draco is the most miserable living under Voldemort as a DE, and his parents care more about him than they care about the Dark Lord. Narcissa went to Snape for the same reason, to protect Draco. Had Draco died she might have wanted vengeance against Voldemort, sure, and feel she had nothing left to lose. I still wouldn't consider that making her "good." -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 17:17:04 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:17:04 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176418 > > zgirnius: > > Now, suppose Nagini had been dead at the time of their encounter. Here > > is how I believe it was supposed to play out: > > > > 1) Voldemort sends AK at Harry, > > 2) Harry is hit by AK, > > 3) Since Voldemort is alive, this kills the soul bit but not Harry > > (blood protection, from the blood Voldemort took from Harry), > > 4) AK rebounds due to blood protection, > > 5) AK hits Voldemort, > > 6) since Nagini is dead, and the soul bit in Harry is destroyed in 3), > > Voldemort dies, having no Horcruxes to tie him to life anymore. > > 7) Yay! > > > > Renee: > Ah, I see what you mean now. Ingenious - but didn't the blood > protection expire when Harry turned 17? zgirnius: Not according to Dumbledore. The protection at Harry's house that Dumbledore set up expired at 17, but not the protection Harry derives from Voldemort having Harry's (magically altered by Lily's sacrifice) blood. > DH, "King's Cross": > "He took your blood believing it would strengthen him. He took into his body a tiny part of the enchantment your mother laid upon you when she died for you. His body keeps her sacrifice alive, and while that enchantment survives, so do you and so does Voldemort's one last hope for himself." > Renee: > Also, I don't think that the > AK could still have rebounded after killing the soul bit in Harry. > After all, it found a mark and did its job. zgirnius: In canon, the soul bit was destroyed when the AK hit Harry. In canon, Voldemort fell down senseless thereafter for some reason we did not see, since when Harry comes to, the Death Eaters are all worried about Voldemort. I think this was the AK rebounding. In other words, it did; so it would even if Nagini were not alive. > Renee: > Moreover, this second scenario would make Harry invulnerable to > Voldemort under any circumstances - which would make Dumbledore a > moron for thinking Harry had to die, zgirnius: The scenario I outline above was *Dumbledore's plan*, as I see it. So no, he was not a moron who thought Harry had to die. He was a cunning puppetmaster who thought Harry would survive if Voldemort tried to kill him, and desired to bring that about at the right time to also bring about Voldemort's destruction. > Renee: > Snape a moron for believing him, zgirnius: I don't see why this makes Snape a moron for believing Dumbledore. Snape, I presume, lacks Dumbledore's deep knowledge of ancient magic (and possibly the particulars of Voldemort's rebirthing, such as the fact that Harry's blood was used), just as Dumbledore probably can't match Snape in Occlumency, Potions, and healing Dark Curses. Snape believed the word of the expert on the subject, in other words. A reasonable choice, if he thought he had reason to trust said expert. > ReneeL > Harry's willingness to sacrifice himself a mere misunderstanding zgirnius: Harry thought it was necessary - that made his actions genuine and admirable. It was not, however, a misunderstanding, but a deception practised on him by Dumbledore with the unwitting assistance of Snape. > Renee: > and > the entire Elder Wand business pointless, and needlessly complicated > (as opposed to just complicated). zgirnius: I suppose under this scenario it provides a distraction for Voldemort so he fails to realize he is trying the same thing, yet again. Perhaps I have the wrong reason for why the AK would rebound - if that is somehow tied to the soul bit's destruction, the Elder Wand would be the mechanism for Harry to defeat Voldemort. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 17:24:25 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:24:25 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176419 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > I know this won't change your mind at all, Alla. That's not what > > I'm trying to do. I'm just showing how this entire scene played > > more as a glorification of suicide to me, than a hero doing what > > was necessary. Obviously, YMMV. > > > >>Alla: > Of course you won't change my mind on this one, just as I will not > change yours and I am not going for it either. > I am accepting in good faith that you think that this chapter > showed the glorification of suicide, rather than heroic sacrifice? > I mean, I do not think you are just saying it to make a debate? > This is truly your reading, etc. > Betsy Hp: I'm really not arguing this for the sake of argument. I really did read this scene as an utter perversion of the "give your life for your friends" thing. I actually stopped saying too much about it because I seemed a bit on my own. But then I read Daniel Hammons' articles and saw that he saw the text the same way I did. "So Harry, by blindly and unquestioningly allowing Voldemort to kill him, has shown himself to be a better man than any other. [...] "Every single man, woman, and child in Hogwarts is risking their life to defeat Voldemort. Every single one of them is confronting death (or, if you prefer, "Death") and every single one of them has accepted that there are far worse things than dying. But their sacrifice doesn't count, because they're actually fighting, which is to say, they are trying to survive. In the new morality Rowling wants us to accept, the only true way to show courage is to lie down and just accept death." http://www.ferretbrain.com/articles/article-148.html *That's* what bothered me. Well, that and the kid's mom encouraging him to die. (Apparently Lily and Bellatrix are BFF?) > >>Alla: > > Show me where do you see glorification of the suicide. Where is > Harry deciding to die is **glorified**? Betsy Hp: Harry's little cheer-leading squad glorifies his marching off to die. Dumbledore's little speech in the next chapter glorifies Harry's willingness to march off to die. That topped with the fact that Harry *never* figured this stuff out for himself but needed to be spoon-fed by Dumbledore, means I see this as a glorified look at suicide. I mean, this isn't what JKR meant to write, I grant you. But it's how I put it all together. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I mean, the WW is exactly as it was when Voldemort came to power, > > so it's not like Dumbledore, Harry or the Order have achieved > > anything to slow down the next Evil Overlord when he or she pops > > up. > > > >>Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch: > Soooo...basically you're saying opposing Voldemorte wasn't > worthwhile because the WW was and continues to be imperfect? Guess > World War II was pretty darn pointless too.... Betsy Hp: Yup. That's what I'm saying. Frankly, the WW is so twisted it might have done them some good to suffer under Voldemort until they pulled their collective heads out of their asses. It's a horrible, brutal, bigoted world. Harry and his friends are on the top of the heap, but I find it hard feeling all warm and fuzzy for them because they won. As usual. I'd say World War II would have been as pointless as Harry's sacrifice that wasn't *if* the United Nations or the Marshall Plan or the work of Gen. MacArthur hadn't occurred. Harry's defeat of Voldemort changed the WW just as the end of WWI changed Europe, IMO. IOWs, not in a good way. (Um, and *please* note I was just hoping for post-WWII success, not a utopia. That "perfect world" straw man that keeps getting propped up is getting a tiny bit old, IMO. This isn't directed to anyone in particular -- I've just seen it put forth a lot.) > >>Jen: Government is one place to challenge the status quo, which is > why it's a good thing the better man for the job, Kingsley, took > over as Minister. Running a school is also a place to set forth new > ideals. So Dumbledore wasn't shirking his duties, he just didn't > choose the MOM as the place to make a difference. Betsy Hp: Yes, but Dumbledore *did* shirk his duties there. He ignored and allowed to fall into ruin, an entire quarter of his school. He also had early warning of, and again ignored, the entrance of a very disturbed little boy into the WW. That he holed up in an office no student had hopes of entering (even the one he claimed to love) speaks to me less of a dedicated teacher and more of someone working for July and August. Though... ::sigh:: Slytherins are born bad, blah, blah, blah, Dumbledore can't save the damned. (That every argument has to end this way makes the arguments not very fun at all, IMO.) > >>Jen: > > However, he [Dumbledore] was also the only one who > volunteered for the job in the second war (and likely the first), so > sometimes the dirty jobs are left to those willing to apply instead > of the morally perfect individuals who have more important things to > do with their time. > Betsy Hp: That's not true. Crouch, Sr. was on the front lines, with his Aurors. Using curses only Harry is blessed enough to use properly, true but fighting the good fight. Crouch lost everything trying to take on Voldemort. But that wasn't quite good enough for Dumbledore for some odd reason. He needed his own private force. And then Scrimgeour was out there *begging* for Harry to work with him as he did his best to fight Voldemort. Harry, following Dumbledore's lead, refused to work with him and the Ministry fell. In many ways, the end of DH brought this quote from "Remains of the Day" to mind (as delivered by Christopher Reeves): "You are, all of you, amateurs. And international affairs should never be run by gentlemen amateurs. Do you have any idea of what sort of place the world is becoming all around you? The days when you could just act out of your noble instincts, are over. Europe has become the arena of realpolitik, the politics of reality. If you like: real politics. What you need is not gentlemen politicians, but real ones. You need professionals to run your affairs, or you're headed for disaster!" Dumbledore was the very definition of a "gentleman amateur", IMO. Which is why his success was so very WWI-like, IMO. > >>Pippin: > > I think looking for Slytherin students in the RoR or the final > battle is missing the forest for the trees. > Betsy Hp: I don't know, Pippin. It's pretty big frigging tree. > >>Pippin: > What should the Houses united look like? > Betsy Hp: I'd say it should look like members of each House working together. See, I wasn't really looking for the impossible. (Except of course... ::sigh:: Slytherins are bad, can't save the damned, blah, blah, blah.) Betsy Hp From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 19:31:06 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:31:06 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The two good Slytherins In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40708291231x3f1f703cqe74b550bdb72941f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176420 > Kemper now: > I disagree with your view of Narcissa's agenda. Mostly. > > My understanding is that you are saying her agenda is to make sure > her son is alive and then: > a: if alive, make sure he stays that way (allowing Harry to continue > fighting Voldie), or > b: if dead, hand Harry over to Voldie > > 'a' allows hope for Narcissa, but 'b' allows no gain for her that's > real for her character. She could careless about Voldie's good > graces. But she is obviously a protective and vengful woman, see her > threats to Harry and Co. at Madam Malkin's Robes for All Occasions. > > Magpie: > Where are you getting that she "couldn't care less about Voldie's > good graces?" She was eager to get back into them in the Malfoy > Manor chapter, and those good graces are a way of protecting her > family. It seems like JKR is very clear with the Malfoys in what > she's trying to say about them, and saying that they are moving away > from Voldemort *to the point where they're working against him* is > more than I read (in fact she seems to keep making sure *not* to say > that). Harry himself even thinks when she asks about Draco how she > wants to get to him inside the school and can at the head of a > victorious army or something like that. Kemper now: I can see where you were under the impression that I believed Narcissa was working against Voldemort. I meant moving away even though she is not moving against Voldemort. > M > Draco is the most miserable living under Voldemort as a DE, and his > parents care more about him than they care about the Dark Lord. > Narcissa went to Snape for the same reason, to protect Draco. Had > Draco died she might have wanted vengeance against Voldemort, sure, > and feel she had nothing left to lose. I still wouldn't consider > that making her "good." Kemper now: I did not claim that it made her 'good'. My claim is that she would have kept Harry's life a secret from Voldemort regardless to whether Draco was alive or not. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Aug 29 20:27:06 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:27:06 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708282122j3f5b136eo3548af85c40e7a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176421 montims: > > In fact. I keep reading that people are disappointed at so few changes in > the epilogue - 19 years after the end of the VW. The thing I like about the > Potter books is the realism (or maybe pragmatism is a better word to use > about a world that takes centaurs, elves, unicorns and giants in its > stride...) Magpie: I have a problem saying that "the story didn't deal with these things" means it's dealing with them "realistically." Because that's all I read in the epilogue--these things weren't important. The ending is actually very fluffy. Everybody married their high school sweetheart and their babies are already growing up to have babies with each other too. All is well, because the central problem of the happiness of Harry and his friends is solved, not any of these inequalities in the world. That was just world-building that made it look more complex. I mean, it's not like JKR gives us this detailed, realistic account of how the world becomes the way it does in DH. To me it just read like stuff that sounded like things I knew about from WWII that signaled that Harry's World Had Gotten Very Dark. In DH Hermione tells Griphook that they are the same as far as the DEs are concerned. She's a Mudblood, that's why they tortured her. I think we're supposed to take that as the truth, as if they are the same, even though it's not. Hermione isn't the same as Griphook. Hermione's part of the dominant group who is being victimized due to in-fighting within that group. After months of this she returns to her previous status at the top of the heap. Muggle-born persecution matters to the story. Goblin persecution does not. They can "take care of themselves" according to Hermione herself and they will remain part of the world-building and not part of the theme. Harry's sleeping through the Goblin Rebellion lessons is just fine. I think when somebody like Betsy says she's disappointed in this she means just that--she wishes this stuff that is sometimes brought up in the text (unity of the houses, with other races etc.) was as central as she thought it was. I don't think the Trio & Co. at the train station says anything about how unrealistic it would be for there to be progress in these areas. It just says, imo, yay, look how happy everbody is that they can go to school without Voldemort-- and Ron and Hermione and Harry and Ginny had BABIES!! -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 21:07:30 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:07:30 -0000 Subject: The 3 good Slytherins (was: The two good Slytherins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176422 Eggplant wrote: > > so as far as Phineas Nigellius knew Snape was a loyal Death Eater, and yet he worshiped him. Calling Hermione a Mudblood did not exactly endear him to me either. > zgirnius replied: > Regarding Phineas, in "The Prince's Tale" he reports to Snape that Harry and Hermione are in the Forest of Dean, and Dumbledore excitedly tells Snape to take the sword to them, without answering Snape's question about what to with it. At this point Phineas definitely knows Snape is no Death Eater. > > Quite possibly, however, he has also witnessed all of the scenes between Snape and Dumbledore which took place in Dumbledore's office. The former headmasters do seem to listen in and know these sorts of things. (Like knowing that Harry slew a Basilisk, e. g.). In which case he saw Snape's remorse over the death of Lily, his promise to help protect Harry, his saving of Dumbledore's life and agreement to kill him when the time comes, and any number of other conversations. > > I took his comment at the end of DH, about Slytherin's contribution to the victory, to mean, among other things, Snape's contribution. Carol responds: I agree with Zgirnius. I think we can safely assume that Phineas Nigellus witnessed all or almost all of the conversations between DD and Snape or DD and Harry that took place in the headmaster's office. We are only specifically told of his absence when he leaves at the end of OoP to verify the truth of his great-great-grandson's death. He appears in the portrait at 12 GP only at times when Harry is known to be staying at that house. He would have witnessed, for example, the conversation between Snape and DD in which Snape promises to kill DD should it prove necessary. His cooperation with Snape (if not his adulation of him) is foreshadowed in HBP when he twice defends Snape to Harry: First, DD informs Harry that Professor Snape has prevented the rapid spread of the curse that struck Katie Bell, and Harry interrupts with, "Why him? Why not Madam Pomfrey?" Before DD has a chance to explain that Snape "knows much more about the Dark Arts thn Madam Pomfrey," Phineas Nigellus jumps in, calling Harry "impertinent" for questioning the way Hogwarts operates, but, IMO, his real objection is to Harry's attitude toward Snape (HBP Am. ed. 259). (It would have been nice if someone had mentioned that Snape was the DADA teacher and that McGonagall had sent the cursed necklace itself to Snape as the most qualified person to deal with both curses and cursed objects, but, oh, well. We must maintain Snape's ambiguity.) Phineas Nigellus again sides with Snape after Harry tells DD about the conversation between Snape and Draco that he eavesdropped on. DD tells Harry that he's heard nothing that causes him disquiet, Harry responds with, "So, sir, you definitely still trust {Snape}?" DD says that his answer has not changed, and Phineas intercedes, "I should think not" (359). It seems clear to me that Phineas Nigellus, unlike McGonagall and Lupin, knows exactly why DD trusts Snape and approves of that trust 100 percent. As for Phineas Nigellus's use of the word "Mudblood," he's the patriarch of the Black family, which prides itself on being part of "Nature's aristocracy" and he was born in the nineteenth century. It's to his credit that he accepts Dumbledore's values to the extent that he does and that he accepts Snape's correction when Snape tells him (in "The Prince's Tale") not to use that word. I think that Phineas delights in being a sneaky, snarky Slytherin spy, maintaining the pretence that the headmaster to whom he reports is a DE and a murderer but who is really, like himself, Harry's ally. On a sidenote, Phineas' affection for his renegade Gryffindor great-great-grandson at the end of OoP is, IMO, quite touching and intended as evidence that Phineas, for all his snide comments about adolescent angst and all his Slytherin tendencies is a good guy. At any rate, I was pretty sure after reading the quoted HBP scenes that Phineas would play some sort of role in revealing Snape's loyalties to Harry. The Snape/Phineas relationship didn't work out quite as I anticipated--Headmaster Snape caught me completely off-guard--but his loyalty to the primary "good Slytherin" was clearly foreshadowed in HBP and, as Snape's ally and assistant (as well as DD's in previous books), I think he belongs on the list of good Slytherins. *I* like him, in any case. Carol, wishing that the Scholastic editions used a different typeface for the page numbers as she finds the threes and fives hard to distinguish From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 21:12:52 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:12:52 -0000 Subject: John Nettleship/Severus Snape -- was "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of .. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176423 lizzyben: > > Maybe, buy it is pretty consistent w/what she's said in other > interviews. I should've included the link - > http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-starledger- garrity2.html > > As for Nettleship, was he really thrilled to be the model for this > character? I dunno, the BBC article says that he's just learned to > deal w/it. > > "It was then that he discovered his friends and family had already > made the connection between himself and the terrifying teacher long > before the story hit the big screen. > > Mr Nettleship was shocked to learn that his wife, Shirley, agreed that > JK Rowling had used him as a template for the character. He said: "I > was rather distressed about this but Shirley said 'I'm afraid so: I > realised that a long time ago but I didn't dare tell you'." > > But, as if by magic, he has since come to believe that his former > pupil's literary work is more of a gentle, if wile, way of paying him > back for ensuring that people always paid attention during his > lessons. And he has a glimmer of hope that the meaner aspects of > Professor Snape's character are not based on him at all. > > He added: "There are ways of pupils getting their revenge, but > this is a much more sophisticated retaliation." > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1731602.stm > Snape's Witch replies: This is no doubt turning into the battle of Nettleship quotes, but here's what I was basing my earlier comments on: "J. K. Rowling: A Biography" by Sean Smith (2001), pgs 54 & 55. The preceding paragraph compared JKR's comprehensive school headmaster with Dumbledore: QUOTE: The influence of John Nettleship himself as a blueprint for Snape, the Hogwarts' Potions master, is more evident. He [Nettleship] is thoughtful, concise, sharp-eyed and with an ability to reach the kernel of a problem that must have alarmed his less confident pupils. 'Stinger', as he unaffectionately known, is **happy, even proud,** to be the role model for Harry's school master tormentor. Chemistry was not a subject in which the artistically minded Joanne Rowling would ever excel but, while she may have forgotten the periodic table, she never forgot the trauma of a Nettleship class. 'I would have this manner or style of singling out one pupil after another to ask a question,' he recalls, 'and I would pick on Joanne because she was one of the more capable pupils in the class.' . . . Nettleship accepts the fact that he might have inspired Snape with good humour: 'I think her characters are quite a clever mix but I do see bits of myself in Snape. At first I fancied myself as Albus Dumbledore. [LOL] Then, when the reporters started driving up to the house saying, "You're Snape, aren't you?" my wife Shirley said, "I have been trying to conceal this fact from you. I didn't like to tell you." I think I was seen by a lot of the pupils as very severe, especially in the 1970s. It was spare the rod and spoil the child. 'One of the key things to me is that is clearly a person who is as much as problem to himself as he is to other people and by the time we get to the end of the Harry Potter story in Book Seven, seeing as most things get explained along the way, I might pick up a few tips as how to manage the rest of my life more easily [or not!]. I might turn out good after all.' . . . John Nettleship was particularly significant to the Rowling family because, as head of the chemistry department, he interviewed Anne [JKR's mother] when she applied for a job as a laboratory assistant shortly after Di [JKR's sister] had followed Joanne to Wyedean. At first she was not successful. 'It was my call really,' admits Nettleship. 'My wife Shirley was the chief technician and we were looking for a number two. It came down to a choice between Anne and another woman who had quite a track record as a technician. I regret to say that I felt I had better offer the job to the one with experience. Shirley was pretty cross with me. She turned out to be pretty awful unfortunately. Fortunately she got fed up with the job after a quite short time and left us. We were able to send for Anne, which was lucky for us because she was absolutely excellent.' [UNQUOTE] My main objection to the newspaper article was the statement that Nettleship hated Jo. I don't believe there's any evidence anywhere that this is truly the case. And the fact that he was able to accept Jo's 'revenge' with good humor speaks much of the man's character IMO. Snape's Witch apologizing for the lengthy quote and seeing no reason to make further comment on the subject From monica.boukhalfa at verizonbusiness.com Wed Aug 29 19:10:32 2007 From: monica.boukhalfa at verizonbusiness.com (Boukhalfa, Monica M) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:10:32 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another inconsistency? In-Reply-To: <20070828110828.CTG53227@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> References: <20070828110828.CTG53227@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: <98D429A6652B1340A78E486F9E3A2448020F5DCE@ASHEVS003.mcilink.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176424 Sharon: So neither Ron nor Harry had a lisence to Apparate. Yet in DH, we see them both Apparating all over the place. We know Harry didn't go for his lisence becuase he left on the quest for Horcruxes almost as soon as he turned seventeen. Maybe Ron did go for his test as some stage, but we never hear about it. My take is that, in the uproar surrounding Voldemort taking over the MOM and Hogwarts, etc, that the MOM wasn't being too rigid about rules. Monica: I believe that Hermione was actually doing side along apparition to take the 2 of them with her where she went, which is how they all ended up in the same forest when the deatheater apperated with them to #12 grimmauld place. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 22:04:15 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:04:15 -0000 Subject: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My - C'mon mums! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176425 ---, "Mike" wrote: > > Mike: > This poverty issue I never quite understood. I mean, > they can do magic so why don't they fix up the > clothes? Why didn't Molly do some repairs and > remodeling of Ron's dress robes? Why doesn't Eileen > modify Sev's smock into something resembling a real > shirt? They have the materials, just fix them up a > little. C'mon mums! > bboyminn: Well, I've speculated many times on this aspect of magic. If a pair of jeans tears, then it could easily be magically mended - good as new. However, if you wear a hole in a pair of jeans, it is not so easy to mend. Keep in mind I'm just illustrating a point here. Torn jeans are all there, nothing has been lost so it cost nothing in terms of magic or material to repair them. However, if a hole is worn in them, then material has been lost. You can't fill that hole with magic because you need a source of real material to fill the hole. If you have a source of physical patching material, then you can probably magic the material into the hole. It all comes down to trying to create something out of nothing, and nothing of real lasting substance can be created that way. Now, if you are extremely skilled you might be able to 'magic' some raw hemp or flax plants growing in the ditch into material to patch or repair a garment. You /might/ be able to transfigure some dirt into some cloth; though that strikes me as very difficult; difficult but do-able. As to Ron's Robes, I suspect Molly didn't fix them because she is a harried housewife with too many kids and too little time. I suspect the robes were bought close to the departing time, and she was rushed to get many other things accomplished before all her kids left for school. Now, I have also said many times that Ron could have just as easily ASKED FOR HELP, instead of being a typical teenage boy and waiting until the last minute. He could have asked Hermione, he could have asked Dobby, he could have asked McGonagall. But 'BOY' that he is, he stuffed them in his trunk until the very night of the Ball then did a half-arsed job of trying to improve them himself. I'm not saying they would have ever looked great, but if Ron had asked for help, his robes could have been greatly improve, and if they couldn't, then at least he would have tried rather than moping around feeling sorry for himself. As too Snape, I can sympathize with him myself, because to some extent I've been where he was. We were poor when I was growing up. While other kids wore neat white P.F. Flyers, I wore crappy black generics. [P.F.Flyers sneakers in the old days = Converse All-Stars high tops today] That was the bane of my life - generic black high top basketball shoes. So, what does a kid do? Grins and... no... frowns and bares it. Kids are powerless in life, so they take what their parents hand out, and they endure. Thank god for their ability to endure. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Wed Aug 29 23:02:02 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:02:02 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another inconsistency? Message-ID: <20070830090202.CTI73759@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176426 > Sharon: > > So neither Ron nor Harry had a lisence to Apparate. > Yet in DH, we see them both Apparating all over the > place. We know Harry didn't go for his lisence > becuase he left on the quest for Horcruxes almost as > soon as he turned seventeen. Maybe Ron did go for > his test as some > stage, but we never hear about it. My take is that, > in the uproar > surrounding Voldemort taking over the MOM and > Hogwarts, etc, that the MOM wasn't being too rigid > about rules. > > Monica: > > I believe that Hermione was actually doing side > along apparition to take the 2 of them with her > where she went, which is how they all ended up in > the same forest when the deatheater apperated with > them to #12 grimmauld place. Sharon again: But Ron and Harry apparate separately to Shell Cottage from the Malfoy Manor, and Ron apparates a few times trying to come back after he walked out on Harry and Hermione. It's such a minor detail, but it's one of those niggly things I just wonder about. What happens if you apparate without a license (Think I spelt it right this time. LOL) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 22:25:42 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:25:42 -0000 Subject: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176427 > Jen: Doh, that's right, we found out in Book 1: "Can't nothing > interfere with a broomstick except powerful Dark magic - no kid could > do that to a Nimbus Two Thousand." (chap. 11, p. 190, Am. Ed.) > > Huh. I wonder if it was some kind of minor magic, something a kid > could do if the broom wasn't flying. zgirnius: Alternatively, if it was not a Nimbus 2000, or even its 1971 equivalent, but a beat-up old school broom that had been used (and abused) by first-years for decades, a minor hex could affect it. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 23:40:11 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:40:11 -0000 Subject: John Nettleship/Severus Snape -- was "Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of .. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176428 > > Snape's Witch replies: > > This is no doubt turning into the battle of Nettleship quotes, but > here's what I was basing my earlier comments on: "J. K. Rowling: A > Biography" by Sean Smith (2001), pgs 54 & 55. The preceding paragraph > compared JKR's comprehensive school headmaster with Dumbledore: > > My main objection to the newspaper article was the statement that > Nettleship hated Jo. I don't believe there's any evidence anywhere > that this is truly the case. And the fact that he was able to accept > Jo's 'revenge' with good humor speaks much of the man's character IMO. > > Snape's Witch > apologizing for the lengthy quote and seeing no reason to make > further comment on the subject > lizzyben: I agree w/you, Snape's Witch, I don't think Nettleship hated Jo at all, & he seems to have accepted his literary doppleganger w/good humor. (of course, what else is he going to do?) He seems to have a wry sense of humor about the whole thing. Based on the article, I like him, though I like Snape too, so that's not a surprise. However, the article actually says that JKR said that he hated her & made her miserable. And I think that's correct - JKR could well think that this teacher was hard on her because he hated her, w/o that being the real reason. JKR also has said that she despised him. So, that's her perception of him, whether that's accurate or not. It just went to my larger point of the Potterverse as an avenue for revenge. We seem to agree that Snape is Jo's "revenge" against this teacher, as he himself has said. And JKR has also said that being a writer allows you to get revenge against people who have wronged you. IMO Snape is an example of that, as is Lockhart, Rita Skeeter, etc. It's sort of like if I came up w/the "lizzyben-verse", filled it with people I truly can't stand, & then meted out various forms of karmic justice to them. That would be pretty satisfying, actually. :) And it's satisfying in the Potterverse as well as various bad guys receive their comeuppance/payback. But it does mean that this series is basically pro-revenge. lizzyben From irreality at mit.edu Wed Aug 29 23:45:06 2007 From: irreality at mit.edu (komagata_mai) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:45:06 -0000 Subject: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176429 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > Notice the difference in what trasnspires next. Sev lies, again. This > time, Lily doesn't believe him. Did Sev not deliver this lie well > enough? The narrator (Harry's pov) says Sev "looked both defiant and > scared." (668) So is he scared of being caught in a lie or is he > scared of offending Lily again? My thought would be the latter, > however, Lily won't read it that way now will she? Besides, Lily has > no reason to want *this* lie to be true. So Here is what I think. Sev probably cannot control his magic that well. He was angry at Tuney and magic happened. Just like Harry made the glass in the Boa Constrictor's cage disappear on Dudley. Snape is probably more aware of magic than Harry was, yes, that still doesn't mean he wanted to actually hurt Tuney: it was probably accidental. Even when Harry is aware of magic, he still blows up his aunt. Thus Sev said he didn't do it. Because he wouldn't have done it willingly, it was an accident. He was scared because he had hurt someone with his magic and potentially scared Lily away. But at the same time, he was really angry at Tuney and doesn't really wish it hadn't happened, and sort of wants Lily to take his side. Thus defiant and scared. Is what he said a lie? Technically, he did do it, but he probably didn't do it (entirely) on purpose. -Mariana -Mariana From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Wed Aug 29 22:11:38 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:11:38 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My Message-ID: <20070830081138.CTI69406@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176430 > Potioncat: > I always thought it was a hexed broomstick too. But > if first-year > Marauders could hex a broomstick, then they came to > Hogwarts knowing > Dark Magic. > > Oh, wait. Dark Magic is only bad when Slytherins do > it. Nevermind. Sharon: I never thought hexes were Dark Magic. Ginny is famous for her bat bogey hex and students are hexing each other all through the books, here and there. Drak Magic seems to consist of the Unforgivable Curses and other "curses" such as sectumsemptra etc. Hexes, while they cause pain and discomfort, are like pranks. The Weasley twins use a lot of hexes in their products in the last couple of books don't they? From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 02:47:19 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 02:47:19 -0000 Subject: Another inconsistency? In-Reply-To: <20070830090202.CTI73759@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176431 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: > What happens if you apparate without a license Maybe nothing happens :-). In GoF Arthur Weasley mentioned that a couple of people were heavily fined for Apparating without a license, but I think the Ministry only found out about them Apparating because they splinched themselves. Besides, even if the Ministry wanted to fine Harry and Ron, they'd have to find them first :-). zanooda From Meliss9900 at aol.com Thu Aug 30 02:56:24 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:56:24 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another inconsistency? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176432 In a message dated 8/29/2007 6:06:59 P.M. Central Daylight Time, s.hayes at qut.edu.au writes: Sharon again: But Ron and Harry apparate separately to Shell Cottage from the Malfoy Manor, and Ron apparates a few times trying to come back after he walked out on Harry and Hermione. It's such a minor detail, but it's one of those niggly things I just wonder about. What happens if you apparate without a license (Think I spelt it right this time. LOL) I seem to recall Mr Weasley mentioning in GOF(?? I think) that apparating without a license results in a heavy fine. But I don't think that the Trio are really concerned about it. Harry also initiates side-along apparation with Hermione when they are escaping Nagini/Bathilda Melissa. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Aug 30 02:58:56 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 02:58:56 -0000 Subject: help with JKR quote was Re: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: <20070830081138.CTI69406@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176433 > Sharon: > I never thought hexes were Dark Magic. snip Hexes, while they cause pain and discomfort, are like > pranks. The Weasley twins use a lot of hexes in their products in the last couple > of books don't they? Potioncat: I'll need help with this. JKR said that hexes, jinxes, curses were Dark Magic. I'm not sure if that was just before or just after HBP. At the time we were all trying to work out just what defined Dark Magic and what it was that made Dark Magic bad. Or at what point magic became gray and when it turned dark. Boy, were we coming at it from the wrong angle! From Meliss9900 at aol.com Thu Aug 30 03:29:56 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:29:56 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] help with JKR quote was Re: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176434 In a message dated 8/29/2007 10:00:59 P.M. Central Daylight Time, willsonkmom at msn.com writes: Potioncat: I'll need help with this. JKR said that hexes, jinxes, curses were Dark Magic. I'm not sure if that was just before or just after HBP. At the time we were all trying to work out just what defined Dark Magic and what it was that made Dark Magic bad. Or at what point magic became gray and when it turned dark. Boy, were we coming at it from the wrong angle! __________________________________ Which brings to mind and interesting question. IIRC we are told that Eloise Midgen tried to curse her acne off and wound up missing her nose (which was reattached by Madame Pomfrey) So if a curse is dark magic why does Eloise have her nose but poor George is still is still missing an ear? Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aceworker at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 03:59:25 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes. (Blood).. Message-ID: <576089.48504.qm@web30203.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176435 << Renee Ah, I see what you mean now. Ingenious - but didn't the blood protection expire when Harry turned 17? Also, I don't think that the AK could still have rebounded after killing the soul bit in Harry. After all, it found a mark and did its job. >>> I'm not sure that the blood protection on Privet Drive, was thought of by JKR as the same as Harry's blood protection. The first seemed a spell, powered by the blood, the second seemed to be an inherent quality of the blood. The first might have been created by Dumbledore taking advantage of the properties of the second, but the second was created solely by Lily's love. Much as matches can make fire, but inflammibility is a characterisitic of matches. In other words a possible effect of the object brought into being, by the user. Dumbledore intentionally limited the spell, for the simple reason as it's stated clearly in the book that Harry is losing out to the parasitic horcrux and will over time lose his goodness. So Harry has to defeat Voldemort as soon as possible in order to save himself. DA Jones --------------------------------- Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From teddyb14 at swbell.net Thu Aug 30 04:16:32 2007 From: teddyb14 at swbell.net (teddyb142002) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:16:32 -0000 Subject: Snape's Role Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176436 I have found the many discussions of Snape on this forum to be very interesting, and I'd like to add my two cents... There is no doubt that Professor Snape is an interesting and complex character. He is obviously a very powerful wizard, perhaps on the same plane as both Dumbledore and Voldemort. How well and how ethically he uses his power could be a very interesting debate, but I'm more interested in his role in the story, and I think that his role sheds a lot of light on why his character was written the way that it was. For me, Snape was used to demonstrate the world defining power of love. I'm not talking about love the emotion, but rather about love the defining characteristic of the Harry Potter series. Call it the essence of the world if you like. (I'm composing a MUCH longer post about love as an essence.) It is, in my view, Snape's love for Lily that allows her to make the sacrifice that gives Harry his protection. Snape's love for Lily is far from a perfect expression of love the essence. Snape's love is selfish and disregards what Lily holds dear. Let's face it, even if Voldemort had pushed Lily out of the way and killed Harry, Lily would have NEVER returned Snape's love. She may have loathed him even more. Still, Snape's love, however imperfect, is enough to start the cycle that leads to Voldemort's demise. It is his grief, a powerful and purer expression of love, that galvanizes Snape and gives him the courage to play his role. Snape's courage throughout the story is also an expression of his love for Lily. He is immensely brave, and this give a scope of the depth of his love for Lily. His bravery is the fulcrum that balances the good and evil in the story and allows the story to progress. Voldemort's relationship with Snape underscores his inability to understand love in any form. He misunderstands Snape's love for Lily allowing her sacrifice to protect Harry. Voldemort is unable to sense Snape's grief for Lily allowing him to become a double agent. Voldemort is unable to recognize Snape's courage allowing Snape to become one of his most relied upon lieutenants. I still can't see Snape heroically, but I can acknowledge his importance. It is readily apparent that he is capable of love which is an accomplishment, considering that he didn't have the happiest childhood. It is difficult to overlook his other behavior, but one should also be careful to judge too harshly one who is capable of love. After all, none of us has been able to express love perfectly. Ted From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 04:42:47 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:42:47 -0000 Subject: Clothes as Metaphor (was: Lily and Tuney and Sev) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176437 > bboyminn: > > Well, I've speculated many times on this aspect of > magic. If a pair of jeans tears, then it could > easily be magically mended - good as new. However, > if you wear a hole in a pair of jeans, it is not > so easy to mend. > > > It all comes down to trying to create something out > of nothing, and nothing of real lasting substance > can be created that way. Mike: I agree with you, Steve. This is also the way I looked at Transfiguration magic. Hermione's conjured canaries have artificial substance that will fade, causing them to dissapate into nothing over time. Likewise, if food is conjured from a real source (like Madam Rosemerta's mead that Dumbledore conjures in HBP's "Will and Won't") then it will have substance and be subsistance. If, instead, Dumbledore had conjured the tea and cakes in Hagrid's hut (GoF) from nothing, then it might taste like the real thing, but would be the epitome of empty calories. I.e. there would be no sustinance to be gained from eating/drinking that food, you would essentially be eating air transfigured to look and taste like food. The thing is, in the case Sev's smock, the substance is there. A reasonably competent witch/wizard should be able transfigure the material into a shape that resembled a descent shirt. For that matter, the coat had too much material, it should have been easy to tailor it into the proper size for Sev. Heck, she (Eileen) could have saved the extra material for patches and/or letting it out when Sev grew. > bboyminn: > > As to Ron's Robes, I suspect Molly didn't fix them > because she is a harried housewife with too many > kids and too little time. I suspect the robes > were bought close to the departing time, and she > was rushed to get many other things accomplished > before all her kids left for school. Mike: A fair assessment. Though one must ask, how long does it take to do one of these transfiguration jobs. I'd daresay less time than Molly took arguing with Ron after she handed them over. Lisa: Muggles have various abilities and talents -- apparently wizards and witches do, too. My poor mom couldn't sew to save her life. There is no way on earth she'd've ever been able to repair or "remodel" clothing of any kind. Perhaps spells are specific talents, too. Molly might be a really talented witch when it comes to cooking spells, but just can't sufficiently master the sewing spells. Mike: I definitely agree with your assessment on varying abilities with spells, Lisa. Tonks told Harry that she never got the hang of those sort of "householdy" spells. But Molly knitted the boys jumpers for Christmas every year. (I don't remember Ginny ever being stuck wearing one ) And Hermione even managed to magically knit elf hats that began to look like hats (instead of cozies) as a teenager, and she had neither a witch mother to teach her nor does she seem headed towards early domestication. LOL I would have thought that Molly would have learned these seamstress type spells, what with all the hand-me-downs she probably had to foist on her kids. The fact that the boys went from lanky to stocky and back with the next one born, would seem to make this knowledge a must in the Weasley household. > Steve/bboyminn > > As to Snape, I can sympathize with him myself, because > to some extent I've been where he was. We were poor > when I was growing up. So, what does a kid do? Grins > and... no... frowns and bares it. Kids are powerless in > life, so they take what their parents hand out, and they > endure. Thank god for their ability to endure. Jen: About the shirt, gosh, there's so much going on with that one article of clothing. I suspect there's some shame for Snape, since he wears the coat until he gets to know Lily. It *is* a marker for his poverty, as well as a class distinction in a mill town - the worker sons wore the smocklike shirts and the management sons likely wore something else, thus one reason Petunia with her class-consciousness fingered Severus so quickly as the boy who lived by the river (wrong side of the tracks as you said later, Ceridwen). Mike: I suppose that's the reason JKR had Severus wearing those clothes. Like you said, Jen, that smock spoke volumes about who and what Sev was. Had Eileen made him *good* clothes out of the rags, we would lose the texture of the scene, lose that sense of him being from Ceridwen's "wrong side of the tracks". Jen: Then there's the connection to Harry as the kid who wore the oversized clothes and was laughed at or avoided by other kids; Harry didn't even attempt friendships. Mike: Another good catch, Jen. Does anybody know what the term for this would be? There is this parallel between the two boys ill-fitting clothes. But ones clothes are too small while the others are too large, so they are ill-fitting for opposite reasons. This is the metaphor I see. Severus has outgrown his clothes/world that he is still confined to as a child. He's ready for Hogwarts long before he gets there. When we see his grey underwear, it signifies there is something foul going on underneath. Severus has already aligned himself with the DEs he will eventually join. Then as an adult his billowing, black robes give him that bat-like and/or vampiric appearance. Our clue that he should be dead, he is living on borrowed time trying to walk that tight-rope. Harry has a lot of growing up to do to fulfill his clothes/potential as the wizard that will save the world. He's already *big* in the wizarding worlds eyes, before he even steps into it. But he still feels small and insignificant, he doesn't think he'll fit in. When he crosses over into the wizarding world he has good clothes, he fits in this world. He gets handsome dress robes signifying he's wearing a man's clothes while really still a boy, competing in the same arena as those much older than himself. Then Harry is outgrowing *his* clothes, he's ready to move on from Hogwarts, his journey has outgrown the childhood of school. Mike, who's really out of his element when he starts getting into metaphors ;) From mz_annethrope at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 07:58:01 2007 From: mz_annethrope at yahoo.com (mz_annethrope) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:58:01 -0000 Subject: Another inconsistency? In-Reply-To: <20070830090202.CTI73759@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176439 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: > > > > Sharon: > > > > So neither Ron nor Harry had a lisence to Apparate. > > Yet in DH, we see them both Apparating all over the > > place. We know Harry didn't go for his lisence > > becuase he left on the quest for Horcruxes almost as > > soon as he turned seventeen. Maybe Ron did go for > > his test as some > > stage, but we never hear about it. My take is that, > > in the uproar > > surrounding Voldemort taking over the MOM and > > Hogwarts, etc, that the MOM wasn't being too rigid > > about rules. > > > > Monica: > > > > I believe that Hermione was actually doing side > > along apparition to take the 2 of them with her > > where she went, which is how they all ended up in > > the same forest when the deatheater apperated with > > them to #12 grimmauld place. > > Sharon again: > But Ron and Harry apparate separately to Shell Cottage from the Malfoy Manor, > and Ron apparates a few times trying to come back after he walked out on Harry > and Hermione. It's such a minor detail, but it's one of those niggly things I just > wonder about. What happens if you apparate without a license (Think I spelt it > right this time. LOL) > mz_annethrope: I don't see the problem. Let's put it this way, in GoF Molly tells the underage twins they can't apparate because they don't have a license. She's laying down the household rules. Then Arthur mentions a couple who apparated without a license, splinched and had to pay a heavy fine. But isn't that because they got caught? As long as the person who apparates without a license is of age the apparition shouldn't be noticed unless the person is sighted or gets splinched. It's no different from the Muggle world. People drive without a license all the time, but if they get into an accident or if they get pulled over for a moving violation they're in real trouble if they don't have a license. There's plenty of illegal magic going on in the Potterverse. James, Sirius and Rita are all unregistered Animagi and a number of people perform unforgiveable curses without getting in trouble. Then there's Sturgis who was arrested because he was put under the Imperius Curse and not because he was doing anything illegal under his own will. Sounds like the real world to me. People do all sorts of illegal things all the time and don't get caught. Goodness, I still haven't had a moving violation. mz_annethrope, who hopes this confession doesn't jinx her. From rvink7 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 30 08:54:50 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:54:50 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176440 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > Renee: > > > > the entire Elder Wand business pointless, and needlessly > complicated > > (as opposed to just complicated). > > zgirnius: > I suppose under this scenario it provides a distraction for > Voldemort so he fails to realize he is trying the same thing, yet > again. > > Perhaps I have the wrong reason for why the AK would rebound - if > that is somehow tied to the soul bit's destruction, the Elder Wand > would be the mechanism for Harry to defeat Voldemort. > Renee: A mere distraction? That would still make the whole business needlessly complicated in my book. And rereading Chapter 34 I see no other explanation for the rebounding AK at the end than Harry's mastery of the Elder Wand. "It is not love that will save you this time," said Voldemort. "You must believe that you have magic that I do not, or else a weapon more powerful than mine." "I believe both," said Harry. Mark that he doesn't gainsay Voldemort about the love. I see this as a confirmation that it is the Elder Wand that does the job at the end, not the blood protection. Renee From rvink7 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 30 09:02:44 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:02:44 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176441 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > by choosing to die, Harry gavem himself the rare opportunity > to do as his mother did and invoke a powerful protection against > Voldemort. > > Lily, like Narcissa, only thought of saving her son. Harry's plan was to > protect *everyone* -- and he succeeded. From the moment Harry came > back to the living world, no one was harmed by Voldemort's magic except > Voldemort himself. > > I haven't got my book here to quote (I'm in Scotland --yay!) but Harry > says he's protected everyone and Voldemort's spells aren't working > properly. It sounds like he's bluffing, but he's not and the proof is that > Neville and the Sorting Hat remained unharmed despite being > engulfed in Voldemort's magical flames. (It seems to > have been other people who were screaming.) > Renee: You're right, he succeeded in protecting everyone from Voldemorts spells. Neville and the Hat are the second proof, the one Harry uses to try and convince Voldemort, because it's visible to everyone that the two are unharmed. The first proof was the failed Cruciatus in the forest, though this isn't interpreted for the reader. But this must be what made Harry think and come to the conclusion Voldemort's spells have become harmless. From amylpark at comcast.net Thu Aug 30 05:56:10 2007 From: amylpark at comcast.net (rncamy1956) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:56:10 -0000 Subject: Another inconsistency? In-Reply-To: <20070830090202.CTI73759@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176442 > > Sharon: > > > > So neither Ron nor Harry had a lisence to Apparate. > > Yet in DH, we see them both Apparating all over the > > place. We know Harry didn't go for his lisence > > becuase he left on the quest for Horcruxes almost as > > soon as he turned seventeen. Maybe Ron did go for > > his test as some stage, but we never hear about it. My take is > > that, in the uproar surrounding Voldemort taking over the MOM > > and Hogwarts, etc, that the MOM wasn't being too rigid > > about rules. > Monica: > I believe that Hermione was actually doing side > along apparition to take the 2 of them with her > where she went, which is how they all ended up in > the same forest when the deatheater apperated with > them to #12 grimmauld place. Actually I think it might be a little like someone who has taken driver's education, but never gotten their license actually driving a car. Or like someone whose license has been revoked still driving. Against the law but they need to catch you. Mr. Weasly did say in GOF that you needed to pass a test to get a license, but the kids did take classes during the HBP. So they do know how to apparate, but Harry at least hasn't taken the test. Since the trace is no longer on Harry, the ministry doesn't know he is apparating. Amy From tomcogburn at earthlink.net Thu Aug 30 08:30:42 2007 From: tomcogburn at earthlink.net (Tom Cogburn) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:30:42 -0000 Subject: Another inconsistency? In-Reply-To: <20070828110828.CTG53227@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176443 I believe the issue isn't apparating without a license, but that because they were all three of age, they were allowed to practice magic without fear of being monitored by the Ministry of Magic. Throughout the whole series, wizards and witches were doing all kinds of "illegal magic" but weren't punished until their acts were discovered and they had been tried. It's not like a bell rang everytime someone cast a dark spell. No one at the Ministry would have any idea that "illegal magic" was taking place unless someone turned the offending wizard/witch in. Tom From rexsteel009 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Aug 30 10:18:38 2007 From: rexsteel009 at yahoo.co.uk (rexsteel009) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:18:38 -0000 Subject: Wandlore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176444 I think that although a wand can be won through disarming (whether physical or magical), if you then relinquish control of it back to its owner, it will revert its loyalty to its original owner. I may be wrong but my memory of just about every time someone was disarmed in the first six books, the wand was returned freely by the captor. rexsteel009 From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 12:27:52 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:27:52 -0000 Subject: Another inconsistency? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176445 - Melissa: > I seem to recall Mr Weasley mentioning in GOF(?? I think) that apparating > without a license results in a heavy fine. But I don't think that the Trio are > really concerned about it. Finwitch: Right. They're not worried about lawbreaking while they're already on the run - not since Harry got rid of his Trace. Just about not getting caught, you know... Anyway, I think that between the defeat of Voldemort and 'nineteen years later' both Harry and Ron got their licenses (Ginny, too). Maybe the Trio took their NEWTs as well, with Ginny. It's not like they had anything better to do after Voldemort was gone. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 12:40:25 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:40:25 -0000 Subject: Wandlore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176446 "rexsteel009" wrote: > I may be wrong but my memory of just about every time someone was > disarmed in the first six books, the wand was returned freely by the > captor. Finwitch: Let's see... Crouch Jr. took Harry's wand by stealth, got stunned by someone (might be Avery) while the house-elf picked it up. Avery then gave Harry the wand back. But maybe Harry defeating Crouch's Imperius counts? At least, you don't have to be Master of the wand for it to work for you - so long as you don't try it against the master... Wonder where Lockhart's wand is, though... Anyway, even Ollivander doesn't know it all, but I wonder if the wand remembers its maker. Finwitch From va32h at comcast.net Thu Aug 30 13:20:09 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:20:09 -0000 Subject: Clothes as Metaphor (was: Lily and Tuney and Sev) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176447 Sorry for not quoting anyone - the post was really complicated and I sort of forgot who said what. But what I wanted to say was that it makes sense to me that Eileen would not have bothered transforming or otherwise improving her son's ill-fitting clothing. Harry notes that his father had that air of being well-cared for -- so very unlike Snape. Eileen could have done much for her son but did not care enough to. Perhaps she was depressed (and given what seems to be a miserable home life that seems a good guess). My totally-made-up explantation is that Eileen fell madly in love with Tobias and ran off with him, to the ire of her pureblood family who then disowned her. Tobias turned out to be an abusive SOB, but Eileen is stuck - she's given up her family to be with this man. So she stays in her marriage, falling ever more depressed, which saps her ability to do magic, making it even harder for her to escape, even if she wanted to. Aside from the magic, that's a pretty common scenario in abusive relationships. va32h From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 13:49:35 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:49:35 -0000 Subject: Responses of children In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176448 > va32h: > My daughter is 11, nearly 12, and no, she didn't get that out of it. > Her understanding was that Slytherins were evil from day one, and they > were still evil, and Harry's just a really, really nice dad who > wouldn't get mad at his kid for being stuck in the evil house. (Because > he's Harry, and Harry is a great man and he might have gotten stuck in > the evil house too, even though he wouldn't have deserved it). But > Albus Severus wouldn't get stuck in the bad house anyway, because Harry > told him that he could choose. So the whole scene just shows that Harry > is really, really good. And that he forgave Snape for being so > horrible. > > She really doesn't have any problem with that moral either - she always > thought that was the point. Slytherins are bad and Gryffindors are good > except for Snape who is working for Dumbledore but still a jerk. > > There were things in the story she didn't like, but this wasn't one of > them. Alla: Heee, sorry, I thought I replied to this post. I guess I did not. I find it fascinating to learn about kids' different reactions. You are saying your daughter did not get the sense of any change for Slytherins at all? I am wondering, what did she make of Hats song in OOP? Just asking because I found this song to be the only possible sign in the books towards the unity of the houses. Was she considering that Slytherin will work together with others or not? Or did she just disregard it as insignificant or something else? Thanks :) Alla From va32h at comcast.net Thu Aug 30 14:15:36 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:15:36 -0000 Subject: Responses of children In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176449 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Heee, sorry, I thought I replied to this post. I guess I did not. I > find it fascinating to learn about kids' different reactions. You > are saying your daughter did not get the sense of any change for > Slytherins at all? > va32h: No she really didn't. She was angry that Draco came after Harry in the RoR, because she really thought he'd changed his mind after he refused to identify the trio at Malfoy Manor. She also thought Harry was being stupid saving Draco the second time at the Battle of Hogwarts, seeing as Draco didn't act very grateful the first time. She thought that Draco should have come up to Harry after Voldemort was dead and thanked him. And that Harry should have gone and thanked Narcissa. In fact, she considered the characters profoundly lacking in gratitude all around, although of course she didn't say it like that. Anyway, after the epilogue she figured everything had gone back to normal, that Harry's kids would have adventures like Harry, only without an evil lord at the end of the trail. I don't think kids take this to heart as much as we do though. I've gone on record with how I felt after reading DH - my daughter had to comfort me! "Mom, it's just a book!" She gets that the Slytherins are bad the way Umbridge is bad the way Olaf is bad in Lemony Snicket the way the Evil Queen is bad in Snow White. Alla: > I am wondering, what did she make of Hats song in OOP? Just asking > because I found this song to be the only possible sign in the books > towards the unity of the houses. Was she considering that Slytherin > will work together with others or not? Or did she just disregard it > as insignificant or something else? va32h: I don't know actually. She's never mentioned any of the Sorting Hat songs, and she's at school now so I can't ask. I'm pretty sure she skipped over big chunks of OoTP anyway (not that I blame her!) Although if you are asking me, Alla, I would say that the DA was a huge step in the direction of House unity - although of course it was abandoned long ago. I had thought, after OoTP, that Harry would keep his ties with the members of other Houses - and it would eventually help him defeat Voldemort. He would need the qualities of all houses to hatch a plan grand enough to conquer the Dark Lord - was my idea. But maybe the Sorting Hat's song was just meant to foreshadow the DA itself and nothing beyond that book. va32h From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Aug 30 14:41:01 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:41:01 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176450 > Betsy Hp: > That's not true. Crouch, Sr. was on the front lines, with his > Aurors. Using curses only Harry is blessed enough to use properly, > true but fighting the good fight. Crouch lost everything > trying to take on Voldemort. But that wasn't quite good enough for > Dumbledore for some odd reason. He needed his own private force. > > And then Scrimgeour was out there *begging* for Harry to work with > him as he did his best to fight Voldemort. Harry, following > Dumbledore's lead, refused to work with him and the Ministry fell. > Dumbledore was the very definition of a "gentleman amateur", IMO. > Which is why his success was so very WWI-like, IMO. Jen: This MOM sounds *great*, not like the one that's a walking human- rights violation when it comes to the justice system (Dementor guards? Throwing prisoners in without trials? Innocents like Morfin Gaunt, Hokey and Stan Shunpike who don't get through investigative trials because of their status?) And don't forget people like Umbridge passing through legislation undermining rights for 'half- breeds.' Aren't you saying Dumbledore needed more principles, that his ideals sucked? Here they are, Dumbledore stood up for valid reforms he believed needed to take place at the MOM in order to fully cooperate with them and the reforms never happened; in fact, things deteriorated over the 17+ years of the story. The fight with Fudge in the "Parting of the Ways" and the course of OOTP was about the differences between DD and the MOM, and why he formed the Order in the first place. There were some principled people who worked at the MOM and did some good, and people like Scrimgeour who was behind the curve before he started because he inherited the failures of Fudge's regime, but those who took advantage of their power and position flourished. Dumbledore had plenty of flaws, his secrecy and tendency to rely on himself the two biggest, and he was incapable of reforming the WW alone. So few people bought into his agenda for reforms at the MOM or the rights of anyone who wasn't a wand-carrying human when the story opened. Complacency was at the root of the first war being fought only by the MOM and the Order, at odds with each other over tactics and strategy. By the end of the second war, groups from all over the WW were working together for a common purpose, the grassroots organizing rather than the sparring leaders - students, merchants, centaurs, teachers, house elves, MOM workers, Order members... If Dumbledore did nothing else in your eyes, at least he got himself out of the way with his secrecy and planning so his vacuum could be filled with many people instead of one, eh? ;) Three of his ideals came to fruition within the scope of the story in my opinion: Differences of habit and language were put aside when groups coalesced, the Dementors were gone from Azkaban, and Kingsley was appointed to the MOM. I don't think his efforts were pointless even if his cause wasn't Slytherin house. From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Thu Aug 30 14:48:32 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:48:32 -0000 Subject: Snape's Role In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176451 Ted: > I have found the many discussions of Snape on this forum to be > very interesting, and I'd like to add my two cents... > > There is no doubt that Professor Snape is an interesting and > complex character. Absolutely and there is so much really good stuff here and elsewhere about him. >> Still, Snape's love, however imperfect, is enough to start > the cycle that leads to Voldemort's demise. It is his grief, > a powerful and purer expression of love, that galvanizes Snape > and gives him the courage to play his role. Snape's courage > throughout the story is also an expression of his love for Lily. > He is immensely brave, and this give a scope of the depth of his > love for Lily. His bravery is the fulcrum that balances the good > and evil in the story and allows the story to progress. I came across an essay on exactly this subject a few weeks ago on livejournal. The author has gone to some trouble over it and it was published by 26/7/07 which was quick work. In summary he says that an initial reaction to the end of book 7 could be 'Snape Did It All For Love. God how...trite' but he then goes on to demolish that assertion and show how Snape changed and developed throughout the series. He finishes with 'The great thing about Snape is that he struggles. Harry's a good person - there's never any doubt. Snape on the other hand is a horrible person who fights and claws his way into goodness..... Snape changes, fundamentally. Painfully. Snape healed crook and they had to break him and reset him.....that's what I love about him.' The full essay is at http://rexluscus.livejournal.com/254445.html Ted: > I still can't see Snape heroically, but I can acknowledge his > importance. It is readily apparent that he is capable of love > which is an accomplishment, considering that he didn't have > the happiest childhood. It is difficult to overlook his other > behavior, but one should also be careful to judge too harshly > one who is capable of love. After all, none of us has been able > to express love perfectly. > > Even some of his other behaviour is capable of other interpretations if it is re-examined. I don't think Snape was aware of how bad a childhood Harry had had and he could only see the face of the boy who had bullied him at age 11 and remember all that that led to. He should have been able to rise above that and be a professional teacher but he couldn't, that too is part of his tragedy. Many teachers I had when I was young were unpleasant. He was not a 'nice' person but he did the job he had been given, to protect Harry from harm and be a Spy for the Order. The Spy role 'locked' him into his cover story as there were other DE's such as Lucius Malfoy still watching how he behaved and to have 'turned' totally to the 'light' would have destroyed any hope of a return to 'Active Service' undercover at the end of GoF. I read another essay on this, 'But Snape is Just nasty, right?' only last night. It was written pre DH but it looks at Snapes behaviour through the first six books. I found it a fascinating read as it looks in some depth at how he behaved and considers what might have caused that particular behaviour at that moment in the story. I felt I could understand a lot more about why he acted the way he did when I finished reading. Not always excuse it, but understand it a little better. It is at the link below for those who wish to read the full essay http://cj_whitehound.madasafish.com/Fanfic/good_or_bad_Snape.htm Snape didn't express love in anything approaching perfection but in the words of Martin Luther he could be said to be 'simul iustus et peccator' 'At once righteous and a sinner' . allthecoolnamesgone. From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Thu Aug 30 15:02:37 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:02:37 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176452 > Betsy Hp: > Harry's little cheer-leading squad glorifies his marching off to > die. Dumbledore's little speech in the next chapter glorifies > Harry's willingness to march off to die. That topped with the fact > that Harry *never* figured this stuff out for himself but needed to > be spoon-fed by Dumbledore, means I see this as a glorified look at > suicide. > > I mean, this isn't what JKR meant to write, I grant you. But it's > how I put it all together. Rowena: I see where you're coming from but that's NOT how I put it together at all, nor as you admit is it what JKR intended to convey. Clearly this is a very debatably point. > Betsy Hp: > Yup. That's what I'm saying. Frankly, the WW is so twisted it > might have done them some good to suffer under Voldemort until they > pulled their collective heads out of their asses. It's a horrible, > brutal, bigoted world. Harry and his friends are on the top of the > heap, but I find it hard feeling all warm and fuzzy for them > because they won. As usual. Rowena: No more bigoted or horrible than our world IMO. And how much of the 'twisting' is due to Voldemort's influence? According to no less an authority than Dobby treatment of House Elves *improved* after Voldemort's defeat, hence his devotion to Harry. It therefore seems safe to assume that similar improvement will occur after his final death. Betsy Hp: > (Um, and *please* note I was just hoping for post-WWII success, not a utopia. That "perfect world" straw man that keeps getting propped up is getting a tiny bit old, IMO. This isn't directed to anyone in > particular -- I've just seen it put forth a lot.) Rowena: We really don't see enough of the post-Voldy world to know that no improvements have been made. > Betsy Hp: > Yes, but Dumbledore *did* shirk his duties there. He ignored and > allowed to fall into ruin, an entire quarter of his school. He also > had early warning of, and again ignored, the entrance of a very > disturbed little boy into the WW. That he holed up in an office no > student had hopes of entering (even the one he claimed to love) > speaks to me less of a dedicated teacher and more of someone working > for July and August. > > Though... ::sigh:: Slytherins are born bad, blah, blah, blah, > Dumbledore can't save the damned. (That every argument has to end > this way makes the arguments not very fun at all, IMO.) Rowena: I agree, that's crap. Slytherins are not only not 'born bad' they aren't bad at all in essence. The House in Harry's time has been corrupted by Voldemort and his followers, nothing DD or Snape can do can change the fact that the House is dominated by the children of DEs - in fact Snape *CAN'T* do anything about if he's to keep up his cover. Therefore I guess you can blame him and DD for putting the speculative future final defeat of Voldemort above the immediate reformation of his former House if one feels so inclined - though I wonder how effective any such attempt would have be in the face of opposition from the likes of Lucius Malfoy (btw, originally I wrote 'Luscious' Malfoy! An interesting slip don't you agree? ;). > Betsy Hp: > I'd say it should look like members of each House working together. > See, I wasn't really looking for the impossible. (Except of > course... ::sigh:: Slytherins are bad, can't save the damned, blah, > blah, blah.) Rowena: Again I don't think Slytherins are inherently bad and I do not believe that their founder was a Dark Wizard, (remember he was originally best friends with Gryffindor). Slytherin feared and distrusted Muggle-borns and given it was a time of Muggle persecution he may well have had some reason for feeling that way. IMO the Basilisk (sic?) was intended as a last ditch weapon to defend the school in case of Muggle attack. Unfortunately over the centuries his fear turned pure-blood bigotry - and I very much doubt Slytherins were the only wizards to so offend! Thus the post WWII problem is not to 'reform' or disolve Slytherin but to restore it to the valued part of the school it was originally and always meant to be. However it is going to take some time for the distrust engendered by Voldemort's control of the House to die down entirely - I doubt 19 years would be enough. Even so Albus Severus's concerns don't really indicate anything except the rivalry between Gryffindor and Slytherin is still going on and he's afraid of ending up on the 'wrong' side of it. Harry is trying to reassure him that Slytherin is not a 'wrong' side - at least that's how I read it. Everybody seems to be either forgetting or ignoring Nigellus's cry of 'And let it be noted that Slytherin House played its part! Let our contribution not be forgotten!" Personally I interpret this as JKR's attempt to make crystal clear that some Slytherins did indeed follow their head of house in the final battle as well as Snape's prominent role. Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Aug 30 15:23:52 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:23:52 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wandlore Message-ID: <13204493.1188487432473.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176453 Finwitch: >Let's see... Crouch Jr. took Harry's wand by stealth, got stunned by >someone (might be Avery) while the house-elf picked it up. Avery then >gave Harry the wand back. But maybe Harry defeating Crouch's Imperius >counts? At least, you don't have to be Master of the wand for it to >work for you - so long as you don't try it against the master... Bart: The way it appears to me is that, if you capture a wand, it develops an affinity for you, but it does not lose its affinity for its original owner immediately; if the original owner recovers it, that affinity is reinforced, and the affinity towards you fades away. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 17:05:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:05:24 -0000 Subject: Clothes as Metaphor (was: Lily and Tuney and Sev) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176454 Mike wrote: > I suppose that's the reason JKR had Severus wearing those clothes. > Like you said, Jen, that smock spoke volumes about who and what Sev > was. Had Eileen made him *good* clothes out of the rags, we would > lose the texture of the scene, lose that sense of him being from > Ceridwen's "wrong side of the tracks". There is this parallel between the two boys ill-fitting clothes. But ones clothes are too small while the others are too > large, so they are ill-fitting for opposite reasons. > > This is the metaphor I see. Severus has outgrown his clothes/world > that he is still confined to as a child. He's ready for Hogwarts long > before he gets there. When we see his grey underwear, it signifies > there is something foul going on underneath. Severus has already > aligned himself with the DEs he will eventually join. Then as an > adult his billowing, black robes give him that bat-like and/or > vampiric appearance. Our clue that he should be dead, he is living on > borrowed time trying to walk that tight-rope. > > Harry has a lot of growing up to do to fulfill his clothes/potential > as the wizard that will save the world. He's already *big* in the > wizarding worlds eyes, before he even steps into it. But he still > feels small and insignificant, he doesn't think he'll fit in. When he > crosses over into the wizarding world he has good clothes, he fits in > this world. He gets handsome dress robes signifying he's wearing a > man's clothes while really still a boy, competing in the same arena > as those much older than himself. Then Harry is outgrowing *his* > clothes, he's ready to move on from Hogwarts, his journey has > outgrown the childhood of school. > > Mike, who's really out of his element when he starts getting into > metaphors ;) > Carol responds: I agree with you about the texture of the scene being lost without the smock, etc., but the whole scene bothers me because I can't see working-class Muggle boys (or boys with working-class Muggle fathers) wearing smocks in the late 1960s or early 1970s. Surely, they would dress like other kids but maybe with second-hand clothing. Severus's clothes look like something out of Dickens. The man's coat makes me think of the Artful Dodger. So we're back to witches and wizards (Eileen and Severus) having no idea how Muggles dress even though they live in a Muggle town with a Muggle husband and father. Maybe Severus only wears these pathetic Muggle clothes when he goes outside and wears wizard's robes that fit him when he's indoors. It's just one more case of having to suspend our disbelief, like Lily's Muggle family on Platform 9 3/4 later in the same chapter. As for the symbolism you're reading into Severus's clothes, I don't see it. For one thing, they're Muggle clothes, not wizard's robes, and he hasn't grown into or out of any role yet at age nine or ten. For another, the pants, like Ron's, are too small, but the coat is too big, and the smock is just old-fashioned, working-class, and girlish (Petunia sneers that it looks like his mother's blouse, IIRC). So I don't think we can generalize about symbolism beyond the "abandoned boys" motif that Harry sees. (Harry certainly isn't waiting to grow into Dudley's clothes or shoes.) And the greying underwear in OoP doesn't suggest anything foul, IMO, just washing black and white clotes together or washing in the wrong temperature. (Underwear goes in hot water with bleach, robes in cold water or they'll fade.) Anyway, we can't judge the child Severus for decisions he has not yet made, and I don't think that even the teenage Severus of SWM has quite made up his mind since we still see him abjectly trying to apologize to Lily. I think the SWM and subsequent scene were the catalyst that caused him to choose his DE friends over Lily; he felt that he had no choice and lacked the courage at that point to choose what was right over what was easy. Anyway, I don't read anything beyond poverty and outsider status into Child!Severus's clothes, and possibly his mother's indifference to his plight when he had to pass as a Muggle. Apparently, his wizard robes looked just like anyone else's. There's no comment in either "The Prince's Tale" or SWM about their appearing to be shabby or secondhand. Maybe his mother didn't want him associating with the Muggle children and he had to scrounge for Muggle clothes to wear when he went outside. His father, who didn't like much of anything, according to Severus, might well have been as ashamed of him as the Dursleys were of Harry (or the Blacks would have been of a Squib). Carol, who thinks that JKR was not thinking beyond the specific scenes she created and the plight and personality of little Severus, with whom (IMO) she wanted the reader to empathize or sympathize From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 17:34:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:34:04 -0000 Subject: Responses of children In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176455 Alla wrote: > > Heee, sorry, I thought I replied to this post. I guess I did not. I find it fascinating to learn about kids' different reactions. You are saying your daughter did not get the sense of any change for Slytherins at all? > > I am wondering, what did she make of Hats song in OOP? Just asking because I found this song to be the only possible sign in the books towards the unity of the houses. Was she considering that Slytherin will work together with others or not? Or did she just disregard it as insignificant or something else? Carol responds: Setting aside the responses of real-life kids (though I'm interested in that, too), maybe we should consider the response of the kid protagonists, especially Harry, who rejects the idea of working with Slytherin out of hand, largely because of his enmity with Draco Malfoy. And Umbridge makes matters worse later with her Inquisitorial Squad. Harry won't even tell his own housemate Seamus what happened with Voldemort and Cedric Diggory (Wormtail having somehow fallen out of the picture) and again refuses to tell Zacharias Smith (who is probably speaking for the whole as yet unnamed DA). The presence of Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs in the DA is almost accidental, and the absence of Slytherins is quite intentional, none having been invited. So if there's little house unity at the end of DH (except for people mingling without regard to house tables and the presence of the Malfoys, who are at least not shunned or in danger), perhaps it all goes back to Harry's own prejudices against Slytherin, which are only just now being eradicated by Snape's courage, Draco's plight, and Slughorn's participation in the battle. By publicly vindicating Snape and sharing Snape's story with Ron and Hermione, and later by naming his second son Albus Severus and telling him that's it's okay to be sorted into Slytherin, Harry is taking steps toward house unity, which the Sorting Hat itself no doubt continues to advocate. And the fact that the Slytherins, even Pansy Parkinson, did not fight in the battle (Voldemort is lying to Lucius) at least makes them neutral, not the enemy, differentiated from the DEs. Slytherin is clearly no longer the House of budding Death Eaters, the house of Dark magic and blood prejudice, at the end of the book or Harry would tell his son to have no part of it. Carol, who thinks that Harry's change in perspective is significant and reflects JKR's own view of Slytherin, the one she expects the reader to share whether the reader does so or not From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Thu Aug 30 17:03:29 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:03:29 -0000 Subject: Another inconsistency? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176456 Sharon Hayes: What happens if you apparate without a license Rowena: Nothing if you don't get caught! ;). Seriously, given what was going on I think it would have been a *very* bad idea for Harry to walk into the MOM and apply for his license. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 18:00:17 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:00:17 -0000 Subject: Responses of children In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176457 > Carol responds: > > Setting aside the responses of real-life kids (though I'm interested > in that, too), maybe we should consider the response of the kid > protagonists, especially Harry, who rejects the idea of working with > Slytherin out of hand, largely because of his enmity with Draco > Malfoy. Alla: We certainly can and should if we want to, but I am specifically interested in real life children's reactions right now, you know, not to say that I want or have any right to stop anybody in discussing kids protagonists reactions, just not what I want to discuss at this moment in time. I am interested in them just because I find it fascinating to compare kids and adults' reactions, but I am also interested to find out whether JKR succeeded or not in certain areas where readers adults claim she failed or suceeded ( and Slytherin and House Unity being only one of them, actually) > va32h: > > No she really didn't. She was angry that Draco came after Harry in the > RoR, because she really thought he'd changed his mind after he refused > to identify the trio at Malfoy Manor. Alla: Hee, I take it she did not think that Draco was really saving Harry in there? va32h: > I don't think kids take this to heart as much as we do though. I've > gone on record with how I felt after reading DH - my daughter had to > comfort me! "Mom, it's just a book!" Alla: Of course it depends on individual reactions, but I actually remember quite well that when I was a bit older than your daughter, but not much, I was taking to heart the books I loved and reacting emotionally, etc. In fact to me the fact that my emotions are involved in reading the book is still one of the first signs that I will love the book. But I am saying that I do remember that it started early enough for me. So, I really do not know. va32h: > She gets that the Slytherins are bad the way Umbridge is bad the way > Olaf is bad in Lemony Snicket the way the Evil Queen is bad in Snow > White. Alla: Right, the designated House of bad guys with fairy tale allusions, I definitely see that. I guess the difference between your daughter's reaction and mine is that I did get the sign of change out of epilogue, while not being bothered at all by Slytherins' treatment through the book. > va32h: > > I don't know actually. She's never mentioned any of the Sorting Hat > songs, and she's at school now so I can't ask. I'm pretty sure she > skipped over big chunks of OoTP anyway (not that I blame her!) > > Although if you are asking me, Alla, I would say that the DA was a huge > step in the direction of House unity - although of course it was > abandoned long ago. > > I had thought, after OoTP, that Harry would keep his ties with the > members of other Houses - and it would eventually help him defeat > Voldemort. He would need the qualities of all houses to hatch a plan > grand enough to conquer the Dark Lord - was my idea. But maybe the > Sorting Hat's song was just meant to foreshadow the DA itself and > nothing beyond that book. Alla: See, I am not a big fan of OOP myself, except loving angry Harry there, but I am just wondered if Sorting Hat Song meant to foreshadow the House Unity, shouldn't that be a big enough sign for child reader - that is since I do believe that younger audience is a primary target of the books. I don't know. I think you are probably right about Song being DA foreshadowing and that's about it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 18:37:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:37:37 -0000 Subject: Responses of children In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176458 Carol earlier: > > > > Setting aside the responses of real-life kids (though I'm interested in that, too), maybe we should consider the response of the kid protagonists, especially Harry, who rejects the idea of working with Slytherin out of hand, largely because of his enmity with Draco Malfoy. > Alla replied: > > We certainly can and should if we want to, but I am specifically interested in real life children's reactions right now, > > I am interested in them just because I find it fascinating to compare kids and adults' reactions, but I am also interested to find out whether JKR succeeded or not in certain areas where readers adults claim she failed or suceeded (and Slytherin and House Unity being only one of them, actually) Carol responds: But that was my point. Kids' expectations, like adult expectations, are based on the text, but they're more likely than adult expectations to be shaped by Harry's reactions to, say, the Sorting Hat's speech in OoP than by the speech itself. House unity is never a goal of the protagonists, especially Harry and Ron; they ignore the Sorting Hat's plea and retain the prejudice against Slytherin (and Snape) that began in SS/PS. We as adult readers should have picked up on Harry's rejection of House unity (which at first extends to Ravenclaw and to any students who believe the Daily Prophet regardless of House). Many kid readers probably accept his views unthinkingly (those who reject Harry's version of events, which he never even reveals until the Rita Skeeter interview, must be "bad" because Harry is "good"). I doubt that we'll find many kids upset that no Slytherins joined the DA (why would they and how could they when Harry and his friends didn't trust them?) or that Slytherin is still the rival house, and if they are, at least we can reassure them that it has its heroes now and it's no longer the house of budding Death Eaters. Most child readers, I'm willing to bet, will take their cue from Harry. IOW, we can't separate readers' reactions from the text itself, nor can we expect most kids to spot the flaws in Harry's thinking (for example, assuming that Seamus's open mouth means that Seamus intends to provoke him when, after the scene in Umbridge's class, it's just as likely that Seamus intends to apologize). I agree that kids' reactions are interesting and I look forward to reading more of them, but I think we should examine what they're reacting *to*. What are their expectations, what shaped those expectations, and how do they differ from adult expectations? I see little reason, based on the text itself, for kid readers to anticipate House unity, however much the Hat and Dumbledore seem to have advocated it, because it was never *Harry's* goal. We as adult readers are lucky to get Harry's cleansed perception of Slytherin and Snape. That's more, I think, than most readers under seventeen or so would have expected or wanted. Carol, trying to add a new perspective to this discussion, not shift away from the topic From monica.boukhalfa at verizonbusiness.com Thu Aug 30 19:01:22 2007 From: monica.boukhalfa at verizonbusiness.com (Boukhalfa, Monica M) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:01:22 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another inconsistency? In-Reply-To: <20070830090202.CTI73759@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> References: <20070830090202.CTI73759@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: <98D429A6652B1340A78E486F9E3A24480216C20E@ASHEVS003.mcilink.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176459 Sharon again: But Ron and Harry apparate separately to Shell Cottage from the Malfoy Manor, and Ron apparates a few times trying to come back after he walked out on Harry and Hermione. It's such a minor detail, but it's one of those niggly things I just wonder about. What happens if you apparate without a license (Think I spelt it right this time. LOL) Monica again: Actually Dobby was apparating everyone from the Malfoy Manner to the Shell Cottage... From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Aug 30 20:29:12 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:29:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another inconsistency? In-Reply-To: <98D429A6652B1340A78E486F9E3A24480216C20E@ASHEVS003.mcilink.com> References: <20070830090202.CTI73759@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> <98D429A6652B1340A78E486F9E3A24480216C20E@ASHEVS003.mcilink.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40708301329r7122386cx15f3fef43d03885f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176460 > > Sharon again: > But Ron and Harry apparate separately to Shell Cottage from the Malfoy > Manor, and Ron apparates a few times trying to come back after he walked > out on Harry and Hermione. It's such a minor detail, but it's one of those > niggly things I just wonder about. What happens if you apparate without a > license (Think I spelt it right this time. LOL) > > > Monica again: > > Actually Dobby was apparating everyone from the Malfoy Manner to the > Shell Cottage... montims: However, the Trio apparated daily from GP to the Ministry at the beginning of DH, when they were trying to find a way to get back the locket... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 20:38:58 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:38:58 -0000 Subject: Responses of children In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176461 > Alla: > I am interested in them just because I find it fascinating to > compare > kids and adults' reactions, but I am also interested to find out > whether JKR succeeded or not in certain areas where readers adults > claim she failed or suceeded ( and Slytherin and House Unity being > only one of them, actually) Oh, in that case I will share my experiences. It seemed slightly OT in the original discussion of children's views on House Unity. But they are definitely kids' reactions regarding contentious issues in HP. I have two nephews, ages 9 and 10, who are readers of the HP series, and I vacationed with them in August shortly after we had all read DH. My sister, my son (not yet old enough to read, but has seen a couple of the movies) and I were discussing Snape as a mean teacher when the 9 year old interrupted me indignantly mid-sentence to say, 'but he's very, very good!'. The ten year old nodded agreement. I think that kids, like adults, probably have a variety of responses to the books based on what interests them and what they value. --zgirnius, who will be careful not to badmouth Sev around her fierce nephew in the future. From deepam at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 20:52:53 2007 From: deepam at yahoo.com (deepam) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:52:53 -0000 Subject: DH: Hermione's wand during the last few chapters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176462 While rereading DH, I found it curious that Hermione lost her wand when the trio gets caught and taken to Malfoy Manor. She never recovers it and does not get a replacement wand which is loyal to her (Bellatrix' wand is won by Ron and given to her). In fact she detests the Bella wand. Does she still go on to fight the final battle with that wand? Ron, who also loses his wand at the Manor, uses Wormtail's wand, since he has "won" it, just like Harry uses Draco's. Finally, I found the acute shortage of wands a realistic touch to the aftermath of Voldie's rule of terror. -Deepa From adanabbett at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 22:00:17 2007 From: adanabbett at yahoo.com (Adan) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:00:17 -0000 Subject: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176463 > Potioncat: > > Has anyone's thoughts drifted back into earlier books? Want to bet > > the girl who laughed at the boy on the bucking broomstick was Lily? > > (Could be Tuney, I suppose.) > > Jen: "JKR, please don't make me buy that Lily was the girl laughing > at Sev on his bucking broomstick, that Harry didn't recognize his own > mum. There's so much I buy already, the maths, the wisdom *cough* of > the Secret Keeper ...oh, you say it is Lily? Right, okay, yes that > makes sense. Of course Harry doesn't recognize his mum because he > never saw a picture of her as a girl...oh, well except he so did > because old school chums sent Hagrid photos from their time at > Hogwarts, remember? I'll ignore that part, right..." (Jen ends > imaginary conversation with JKR.) > > Seriously, I don't think it was Lily. The broomstick had a hex or > jinx on it if it was bucking, right? Some random girl in flying > class is laughing because the Marauders jinxed Snape's broom - > Florence, perhaps. Adan: It doesn't have to have been hexed, does it? Maybe that broom was just rebellious. Or the person on the broom just didn't quite have to hang of it yet and the broom got away from him. It happened to Neville, too. Maybe it was the same broom. Hogwarts doesn't seem to update equipment too often I don't think. Adan, who'd probably have to have training wheels on her broom From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 22:10:19 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:10:19 -0000 Subject: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176464 > zgirnius: > Alternatively, if it was not a Nimbus 2000, or even its 1971 > equivalent, but a beat-up old school broom that had been used (and > abused) by first-years for decades, a minor hex could affect it. > Lisa: And we also need to remember that it was Hagrid who said that about the "powerful dark magic." He's not always right on the mark, is he? Lisa From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Aug 30 22:54:03 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:54:03 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176465 magpie: > In DH Hermione tells Griphook that they are the same as far as the > DEs are concerned. She's a Mudblood, that's why they tortured her. > I think we're supposed to take that as the truth, as if they are > the same, even though it's not. Hermione isn't the same as > Griphook. Hermione's part of the dominant group who is being > victimized due to in-fighting within that group. After months of > this she returns to her previous status at the top of the heap. > Muggle-born persecution matters to the story. Goblin persecution > does not. They can "take are of themselves" according to Hermione > herself and they will remain part of the world-building and not > part of the theme. Harry's sleeping through the Goblin Rebellion > lessons is just fine. Jen: I read this scene a different way because of the prior context. Griphook asserts that the war is about wand-carriers vs. magical creatures: "As the Dark Lord becomes even more powerful, your race is set still more firmly above mine! Gringotts falls under Wizarding rule, house elves are slaughtered, and who amongst the wand- carriers protests?"* Griphook considers the wizarding race as a whole to be gaining power, whether they work directly with Voldemort or merely benefit by not opposing his actions. Hermione protests this view of affairs, noting there are humans actively opposing Voldemort's takeover and how some of them, Muggleborns like her, have also lost rights in the process. Jen *(DH, chap. 24, pps. 488-489, Am. Ed.) From dreadr at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 23:55:42 2007 From: dreadr at yahoo.com (dreadr) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:55:42 -0000 Subject: Lily and Petunia Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176466 Does anyone besides me wonder at how Lily and Petunia grew up? Obviously, if they were in a position to interact with Sev as children on a regular basis then one would assume (oh help, there's that word) that they were far from affluent. One doesn't get the picture from the few comments that I remember that they were abused (as Snape apparently was), but if they lived near Spinner's End, then possibly they were a mill family and had very little. I find it somewhat curious that nothing was ever said about their parents and I don't recall anyone asking JKR. If this was their background, then it might explain a lot of Petunia's attitudes -- i.e. her jealously of her sister (after all, Lily apparently married into money), her obsession with status, and even her almost paranoid attitude about cleanliness. Thoughts? Debbie From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Fri Aug 31 00:36:45 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:36:45 -0000 Subject: The 3 good Slytherins (was: The two good Slytherins) In-Reply-To: <46D67243.000009.02164@MOMS> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176467 > Debi: > I always saw Phineas as a "good Slytherin" > Yes he was arrogant and believed that pure bloods were above half > bloods and muggle borns, BUT, however, I belive he had nothing > really against the halves and muggle borns. I think his derogatory > remark about Hermione, 'mudblood' was more or less his veiw that > she was attempting great magic that he belived only purebloods > were capable of. Maybe he belived purblood magic was better than > half or muggle born, but I do belive he wouldnt have stopped them > from learning or had wanted them to be eradiacted, as the DE > belived. Rowena: No hate mail from me. There are degrees to prejudice and some are definitely worse than others. Looking down on Muggles or Muggle-borns while wrong of course is not quite as wrong as wanting deprive them of their wands or kill them. Canon suggests that a good many bigoted wizards and witches parted company with Voldemort when they realized the full extent of his program, re: Sirius' remarks about his own highly bigoted family. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Aug 31 01:03:54 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:03:54 -0000 Subject: Lily and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176468 Debbie: > Does anyone besides me wonder at how Lily and Petunia grew up? > > If this was their background, then it might explain a lot of > Petunia's attitudes -- i.e. her jealously of her sister (after > all, Lily apparently married into money), her obsession with > status, and even her almost paranoid attitude about cleanliness. > Thoughts? Ceridwen: The Evanses don't seem to live in the same neighborhood as Snape, though they do apparently live in the same town. Petunia makes a disparaging remark about where Snape lives, like he lives in the worst neighborhood possible. They don't seem to be dressed poorly, while Snape is. They may have had a struggle to make ends meet all the same. Having more than the Snapes doesn't mean the Evanses were rich, or even that well-off. And buying all the things people want and see as rewards for their labor can eat up the extra money. The Evanses may have been in the race to "keep up with the Joneses", as a lot of families were back then. Petunia's notice of things like where Snape lives and the sort of clothes he wears could be an indication of that. And maybe Petunia got the keeping up bug and never let go of it. Maybe she mistook having to pay for the new color console TV monthly as being poor. Maybe richer kids taunted her the same way she taunted Snape. Or, she could have been so soured on the magical world, and afraid of suddenly having WW neighbors, that she spied on the neighbors and hoped they didn't spy back. Ceridwen, offering a few alternatives. From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 01:06:25 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:06:25 -0000 Subject: Lily and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176469 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dreadr" wrote: >Debbie: > Does anyone besides me wonder at how Lily and Petunia grew up? > Obviously, if they were in a position to interact with Sev as > children on a regular basis then one would assume (oh help, > there's that word) that they were far from affluent. One doesn't > get the picture from the few comments that I remember that they > were abused (as Snape apparently was), but if they lived near > Spinner's End, then possibly they were a mill family and had > very little. I find it somewhat curious that nothing was ever > said about their parents and I don't recall anyone asking JKR. > > If this was their background, then it might explain a lot of > Petunia's attitudes -- i.e. her jealously of her sister (after > all, Lily apparently married into money), her obsession with > status, and even her almost paranoid attitude about cleanliness. > Thoughts? Lisa: Debbie, I've thought about this and been on the fence for quite some time. First, I've considered the same points you did about explaining Petunia's attitudes. On the other hand, I think her jealousy was Lily's magic, something she could never aspire to have; her obsession with status simply a desire to have as much or more than her parents, no matter what their status; and her clean-freak- ism simply a touch of OCD! I'd be interested in hearing what JKR would have to say about this! Lisa From juli17 at aol.com Fri Aug 31 01:22:53 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:22:53 -0000 Subject: help with JKR quote was Re: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176470 > > Sharon: > > I never thought hexes were Dark Magic. > snip > Hexes, while they cause pain and discomfort, are like > > pranks. The Weasley twins use a lot of hexes in their products in the > last couple > > of books don't they? > > > Potioncat: > I'll need help with this. JKR said that hexes, jinxes, curses were Dark > Magic. I'm not sure if that was just before or just after HBP. At the > time we were all trying to work out just what defined Dark Magic and > what it was that made Dark Magic bad. Or at what point magic became > gray and when it turned dark. Boy, were we coming at it from the wrong > angle! > Julie: I have never heard this quote from JKR, but if she did say it, then I'm really confused! After all, when Severus complained to Lily that James and his friends weren't as wonderful as everyone thought they were, Lily says "They don't use Dark Magic though." Yet James and Sirius hexed other students in the hallways just for fun. Fred and George certainly hexed plenty of people. Hermione jinxed the DA parchwment which eventually gave Marietta long-lasting pustule eruptions and permanent scarring. And Ginny is a master at jinxes... So which is it? If all hexes, jinxes and curses are Dark Magic, then why did Lily differentiate between the magic performed by Severus's Slytherin friends and the magic performed by James and Co, when both were at least on the level of hexes meant *specifically* to cause pain and/or humiliation, however minor. And if all of it is Dark Magic, why does the Hogwarts staff allow this continual practice of Dark Magic by students against students to go on year after year? (Though it does explain why the students all need to take DADA, since they need that knowledge simply to survive their daily lives!) I think there must be some dividing line between the usual hexes and jinxes students perform on each other at school on a regular basis (such as the twins hexes, Ginny's jinxes, etc), and that which Lily referred to as something of a more sinister variety, "Dark Magic." I just don't have the least idea where that dividing line lies--and perhaps neither does JKR! Julie From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Aug 31 01:36:56 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:36:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] help with JKR quote was Re: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: References: <20070830081138.CTI69406@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: <8ee758b40708301836y53d467b7mbe220f1e2b8fd5b8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176471 > > Potioncat: > I'll need help with this. JKR said that hexes, jinxes, curses were Dark > Magic. I'm not sure if that was just before or just after HBP. At the > time we were all trying to work out just what defined Dark Magic and > what it was that made Dark Magic bad. Or at what point magic became > gray and when it turned dark. Boy, were we coming at it from the wrong > angle! montims: from her website: Section: Extra Stuff Spell Definitions Every now and then somebody asks me for the difference between a spell, a charm and a hex. Within the Potter world, the boundaries are flexible, and I imagine that wizards may have their own ideas. Hermione-ish, however, I've always had a working theory: Spell: The generic term for a piece of magic. Charm: Does not fundamentally alter the properties of the subject of the spell, but adds, or changes, properties. Turning a teacup into a rat would be a spell, whereas making a teacup dance would be a charm. The grey area comes with things like 'Stunning Spells', which on balance I think are Charms, but which I call spells for alliterative effect. Hexes: Has a connotation of dark magic, as do jinxes, but of a minor sort. I see 'hex' as slightly worse. I usually use 'jinx' for spells whose effects are irritating but amusing. Curses: Reserved for the worst kinds of dark magic. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 01:38:28 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:38:28 -0000 Subject: help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176472 > > Julie: > I have never heard this quote from JKR, but if she did say it, > then I'm really confused! After all, when Severus complained > to Lily that James and his friends weren't as wonderful as > everyone thought they were, Lily says "They don't use Dark > Magic though." Yet James and Sirius hexed other students in > the hallways just for fun. Fred and George certainly hexed > plenty of people. Hermione jinxed the DA parchwment which > eventually gave Marietta long-lasting pustule eruptions and > permanent scarring. And Ginny is a master at jinxes... > > So which is it? If all hexes, jinxes and curses are Dark > Magic, then why did Lily differentiate between the magic > performed by Severus's Slytherin friends and the magic > performed by James and Co, when both were at least on the > level of hexes meant *specifically* to cause pain and/or > humiliation, however minor. And if all of it is Dark Magic, > why does the Hogwarts staff allow this continual practice > of Dark Magic by students against students to go on year > after year? (Though it does explain why the students all > need to take DADA, since they need that knowledge simply > to survive their daily lives!) > > I think there must be some dividing line between the usual > hexes and jinxes students perform on each other at school > on a regular basis (such as the twins hexes, Ginny's jinxes, > etc), and that which Lily referred to as something of a > more sinister variety, "Dark Magic." I just don't have the > least idea where that dividing line lies--and perhaps neither > does JKR! > >From the website: Section: Extra Stuff Spell Definitions Every now and then somebody asks me for the difference between a spell, a charm and a hex. Within the Potter world, the boundaries are flexible, and I imagine that wizards may have their own ideas. Hermione-ish, however, I've always had a working theory: Spell: The generic term for a piece of magic. Charm: Does not fundamentally alter the properties of the subject of the spell, but adds, or changes, properties. Turning a teacup into a rat would be a spell, whereas making a teacup dance would be a charm. The grey area comes with things like 'Stunning Spells', which on balance I think are Charms, but which I call spells for alliterative effect. Hexes: Has a connotation of dark magic, as do jinxes, but of a minor sort. I see 'hex' as slightly worse. I usually use 'jinx' for spells whose effects are irritating but amusing. Curses: Reserved for the worst kinds of dark magic. Alla: I think this is a quote Potioncat was talking about, and if it is then I have no problem accepting that Lily was differentiating between what Sev's friends did and Marauders did. But of course I agree that JKR's definition of dark magic is how to put it? Not very precise IMO. Hexes have connotation of dark magic and so do jinxes, yes? The curses are supposedly the worst ( my guess is that is what Muliciber did), BUT just read what JKR wrote about jinxes - those effects are irritating but amusing. Sooooo, minor Dark magic **can** be amusing? --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: >> I have two nephews, ages 9 and 10, who are readers of the HP series, > and I vacationed with them in August shortly after we had all read > DH. My sister, my son (not yet old enough to read, but has seen a > couple of the movies) and I were discussing Snape as a mean teacher > when the 9 year old interrupted me indignantly mid-sentence to > say, 'but he's very, very good!'. The ten year old nodded agreement. Alla: Fascinating Zara, thanks for sharing. I have to say though that from the children reactions I heard about and again this is NOT by any means statistics, I heard from several people here ( on list) I mean, and asked couple colleagues, so it probably comes to no more than seven or eight kids all together, your nephew is the first one to express liking of Snape. Truly, it is not like I even asked those kids myself, as I could influence them or something, with my, you know, extreme dislike of Snape. This is the first time I hear of young reader being sympathetic towards Snape. Again, maybe there are hundred kids who love him, it is just first experience for me. Ever. I am not talking about sixteen seventeen year olds by the way, I am cutting off my imaginary research say fourteen years old :) zgirnius: > I think that kids, like adults, probably have a variety of responses > to the books based on what interests them and what they value. Alla: Well, of course, but I was thinking that some similarities on some issues may show up, maybe I was completely wrong, you know? Like I was thinking that young readers so far ( those whose reactions I heard) do not like Snape :) > --zgirnius, who will be careful not to badmouth Sev around her fierce > nephew in the future. > Alla: Heeee. I wonder, did your nephew like Snape before DH as well? Carol: > I agree that kids' reactions are interesting and I look forward to > reading more of them, but I think we should examine what they're > reacting *to*. What are their expectations, what shaped those > expectations, and how do they differ from adult expectations? Alla: Oh, I see what you are saying. Makes sense, yes. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 01:41:07 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:41:07 -0000 Subject: help with JKR quote was Re: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176473 > I think there must be some dividing line between the usual > hexes and jinxes students perform on each other at school > on a regular basis (such as the twins hexes, Ginny's jinxes, > etc), and that which Lily referred to as something of a > more sinister variety, "Dark Magic." I just don't have the > least idea where that dividing line lies--and perhaps neither > does JKR! > > Julie > lizzyben: It's Dark Magic when Slytherins do it. That's the dividing line. If Gryffindors use Unforgiveable Curses or hexes, it's totally OK. So, here's the ultimate Snape apologist. :) What's so bad about "Dark Magic", anyway? What's so bad about being a "Dark Wizard?" I'm serious. Sirius says that he comes from a long line of "Dark Wizards", and there's no indication that any of his ancestors were involved in hurting Muggles, taking over the Wizarding World, becoming evil overlords. I guess they had some odd customs, some creepy furnishings in the house, but - so what? It's like the Addams Family. Durmstrang has taught "Dark Magic" throughout the series, and again there's no indication of Voldemorts coming out of that school. Victor Krum is learning "Dark Magic", and he's a nice guy. He shows no signs of prejudice at all, and he doesn't show any signs of being evil, either. And we never get a definition of what exactly constitutes "Dark Magic", or why it's so awful. We're supposed to think Snape was bad for being into the "Dark Arts", but it's the Marauders who we see using hexes & jinxes for fun, becoming Animagi, & creating a magical map that's full of Dark Magic. But then Lily says that James & co. don't use Dark Magic. It's a puzzle. It starts to seem almost like a cultural thing - Those weird people w/their weird customs & weird magic that isn't like the normal magic we use at all. lizzyben From teddyb14 at swbell.net Fri Aug 31 01:35:57 2007 From: teddyb14 at swbell.net (teddyb142002) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:35:57 -0000 Subject: Snape's Role In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176474 > > allthecoolnamesgone: > Even some of his other behaviour is capable of other interpretations > if it is re-examined. I don't think Snape was aware of how bad a > childhood Harry had had and he could only see the face of the boy who > had bullied him at age 11 and remember all that that led to. He > should have been able to rise above that and be a professional > teacher but he couldn't, that too is part of his tragedy. Many > teachers I had when I was young were unpleasant. He was not a 'nice' > person but he did the job he had been given, to protect Harry from > harm and be a Spy for the Order. The Spy role 'locked' him into his > cover story as there were other DE's such as Lucius Malfoy still > watching how he behaved and to have 'turned' totally to the 'light' > would have destroyed any hope of a return to 'Active Service' > undercover at the end of GoF. Ted: I totally agree with that there are many ways to interpret many of Snape's behaviors. It would be awfully hard to be kind to the son of your most despised enemy. Even more so if the mother was the woman you loved and lost. Harry's behavior toward Snape certainly didn't make it any easier. Both Harry and Ron learned with Kreacher that sometimes you reap what you sow when you treat people badly. It is also certainly necessary for Snape to keep up his image with the death eaters as well, but I never got the feeling that Snape truly got past his own selfishness and bitterness toward James and Harry. That's what makes it hard for me to see Snape heroically. Still, I agree with many of your points. I also think that Snape, more than any other character, helps demonstrate the power of love in this story. Ted From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 01:53:46 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:53:46 -0000 Subject: Snape's Role/ dark magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176475 > Ted: > I totally agree with that there are many ways to interpret many of > Snape's behaviors. It would be awfully hard to be kind to the son of > your most despised enemy. Even more so if the mother was the woman > you loved and lost. Harry's behavior toward Snape certainly didn't > make it any easier. Both Harry and Ron learned with Kreacher that > sometimes you reap what you sow when you treat people badly. Alla: So, what did Harry reap when he showed up on that first lesson? When he has not seen Snape before in his life? > It is also certainly necessary for Snape to keep up his image with the > death eaters as well, Alla: Except we **know** now that Snape was not maintaining any image with the death eaters when he mistreated Harry, no? He was doing just that ? mistreating Harry because he wanted to, no? Ted: ...but I never got the feeling that Snape truly got > past his own selfishness and bitterness toward James and Harry. > That's what makes it hard for me to see Snape heroically. Still, I > agree with many of your points. I also think that Snape, more than > any other character, helps demonstrate the power of love in this story. Alla: Exactly. I do not even care if he never got past his bitterness towards James, although one would think that Snape helping to make James dead should sort of satisfy his revenge for the school years, but whatever - they were enemies in school. If Snape wants to continue hating dead man, that's his legitimate choice. But do I think Snape owed Harry to see Lily in him? To try no matter how freaking hard it was for him do so. Oh yes. Partially because of you Snape this boy has no mother and no father. Grow up and treat him decently, says me :) Because you see, before book 7 I kept saying that to believe Snape's remorse I need to hear it from him. Well, I see that he was remorseful for Lily, but what makes it so very hard to respect him all together is that I saw **zero** remorse for what Snape made Harry's life into, for what he shaped him to be. As far as I mknow Snape was perfectly fine with Harry being marked, his sufferings because of that, etc. I find it despicable. And I refuse to cut Snape any slack for that. IMO of course. > > lizzyben: >> And we never get a definition of what exactly constitutes "Dark > Magic", or why it's so awful. We're supposed to think Snape was bad > for being into the "Dark Arts", but it's the Marauders who we see > using hexes & jinxes for fun, becoming Animagi, & creating a magical > map that's full of Dark Magic. But then Lily says that James & co. > don't use Dark Magic. It's a puzzle. It starts to seem almost like a > cultural thing - Those weird people w/their weird customs & weird > magic that isn't like the normal magic we use at all. Alla: Well, if we go by that quote, curses are much worse than hexes and jinxes, imprecise as it is. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 02:05:06 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:05:06 -0000 Subject: Snape's Role/ dark magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176476 Alla: > Well, if we go by that quote, curses are much worse than hexes and > jinxes, imprecise as it is. > lizzyben: OK... so when Hermione used the "Body-Bind Curse" against Neville in PS, she was using dangerous "Dark Magic?" Even though that curse actually didn't hurt Neville at all? And when James used a "scourgify" jinx to choke Snape, that wasn't dark at all? Ginny's jinxes & hexes against Zacharias Smith are cool & funny, even though they are "minor Dark magic?" It doesn't make any sense. From cottell at dublin.ie Fri Aug 31 02:09:32 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:09:32 -0000 Subject: help with JKR quote was Re: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708301836y53d467b7mbe220f1e2b8fd5b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176477 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > Curses: > Reserved for the worst kinds of dark magic. Mus responds: Oh dear. I've just been to the Lexicon (http://www.hp- lexicon.org/magic/spells/spells_c.html). The following spells are known as curses. Babbling Curse Blasting Curse * Body-Bind Curse * Cruciatus Curse * Curse of the Bogies Entrail-Expelling Curse Fiendfyre Flagrante Curse Gemino Curse Impediment Curse * Imperius Curse * Jelly-Fingers curse Killing Curse Leg-Locker Curse Reductor Curse * Sponge-Knees Curse Thief's Curse Unforgivable Curses (*) Those I've marked with * are used by White Hats, almost always with success (Harry's Reductor in GoF doesn't work). If JKR is to be taken at her word, then we've seen Dark Magic being liberally used right through the series. If she's not, then her answer makes little sense (nd it's not as if she gave it in an absent-minded moment in an interview. I wish I was able to see a coherent moral universe in her work. I can't, any more. Mus. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 02:11:13 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:11:13 -0000 Subject: Snape's Role/ dark magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176478 > Alla: > > Well, if we go by that quote, curses are much worse than hexes and > > jinxes, imprecise as it is. > > > > lizzyben: > > OK... so when Hermione used the "Body-Bind Curse" against Neville in > PS, she was using dangerous "Dark Magic?" Even though that curse > actually didn't hurt Neville at all? And when James used a "scourgify" > jinx to choke Snape, that wasn't dark at all? Ginny's jinxes & hexes > against Zacharias Smith are cool & funny, even though they are "minor > Dark magic?" It doesn't make any sense. > Alla: Eh, as I said upthread I agree that JKR definition of dark magic is not very precise, but no I do not agree that it makes no sense. I say sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. Sometimes I have to fill in the gapes for myself. I am assuming that not all curses for example are dark magic, only those that actually hurt you. There are plenty of inconsistensies as I said upthread the fact that she views jinxes as minor dark magic and still amusing is not very clear to me either. BUT when it matters, I in my head know what dark magic is and NO, the distinction is now when Gryffindors or Slytherins use it, my distinction I mean. I believe it has more to do with intent of the caster, more often than not and I used to believe that some curses are dark by definition like unforgivables, now I am not so sure. From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Fri Aug 31 01:28:22 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:28:22 -0000 Subject: hi-tech, lo-tech, no-tech Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176479 HRH are fleeing Gringotts. They fly over London and the U.K. No airplanes to check them out! Giants (big giants, Gwarp is a small giant) are fighting at Hogwarts. How did they get there without being spotted? No computers at Hogwarts? No mention of computers. Ron does listen to the radio. Sort of WW11 resistance stuff. Wand battles are very similar to lightswords in Star Wars. Wands in HP seem very much like voice-activated lightswords. As I've said before, all the magic in HP is very token magic, more a sort of wishing that works. What I find more accurate is the politics of the WW. It captures so well the disinformation that characterises the war on terror. Barry From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 02:54:59 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:54:59 -0000 Subject: Snape's Role/ dark magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176480 > Alla: > > Eh, as I said upthread I agree that JKR definition of dark magic is > not very precise, but no I do not agree that it makes no sense. I say > sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. lizzyben: If categories sometimes make sense & sometimes don't, it doesn't make sense. They aren't valid categories. Alla: > Sometimes I have to fill in the gapes for myself. I am assuming that > not all curses for example are dark magic, only those that actually > hurt you. lizzyben: But that's not what JKR says. We shouldn't have to make up new categories to explain the fact that the ones she made don't work. It says - "Curses: *Reserved* for the worst kinds of dark magic." Reserved is an exclusive term - meaning *only* the worst kinds of dark magic are called curses. So, by this definition, Hermione used the "worst kind of dark magic" against Neville in her first year. She came to Hogwarts knowing more curses than most seventh-years! Who knew Hermione was a dangerous Dark Wizard at eleven years old. Alla: > There are plenty of inconsistensies as I said upthread the fact that > she views jinxes as minor dark magic and still amusing is not very > clear to me either. lizzyben: Oh, it's pretty clear to me. It's funny when Our Heros use jinxes to torment & harass people they don't like. It's amusing when the heroes use dark magic to cause physical pain to other people - just a laugh, really. I'm actually thinking that there's a definite sadistic streak throughout these novels. Alla: > BUT when it matters, I in my head know what dark magic is and NO, the > distinction is now when Gryffindors or Slytherins use it, my > distinction I mean. lizzyben: But, Alla, that distinction actually *works*. That's how the novels seem to categorize these spells. That's why Lily can say that Snape's Slytherin friends are using Dark Magic, while Gryffindor James is not. That's why it's not Dark Magic when Hermione or James uses a Body-Binding Curse, or Ginny uses a Bat-Bogey hex. That's why Harry isn't a "Dark Wizard", even though he uses Unforgiveable Curses. But Sirius' Slytherin ancestors *are* Dark Wizards, even though there's no indication they ever used those curses. These curses/hexes/spells are characterized as "Dark" when a Slytherin does it, but are not Dark when a Gryffindor does the same thing. Alla: > I believe it has more to do with intent of the caster, more often than > not and I used to believe that some curses are dark by definition > like unforgivables, now I am not so sure. > lizzyben: If even the Unforgiveables Curses aren't Dark, the term "Dark Magic" has no meaning. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Aug 31 03:15:21 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:15:21 -0000 Subject: Lily and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176481 "dreadr" wrote: > > Does anyone besides me wonder at how Lily and Petunia grew up? > Obviously, if they were in a position to interact with Sev as > children on a regular basis then one would assume (oh help, > there's that word) that they were far from affluent. One doesn't > get the picture from the few comments that I remember that they > were abused (as Snape apparently was), but if they lived near > Spinner's End, then possibly they were a mill family and had > very little. I find it somewhat curious that nothing was ever > said about their parents and I don't recall anyone asking JKR. > > If this was their background, then it might explain a lot of > Petunia's attitudes -- i.e. her jealously of her sister (after > all, Lily apparently married into money), her obsession with > status, and even her almost paranoid attitude about cleanliness. > Thoughts? Potioncat: I grew up in a Southern (US) town that had many textile mills. Often the mills built housing for the workers. So that the common workers had small houses, the foremen had nicer homes and the managers had even better accomodations. I imagine it was similar in British mill villages. (Does anyone know?) So here's my best guess. Mr Evans was either a manager or an executive for the mill. Mr. Snape was a regular laborer. The Evans's house would have been farther away from the chimney, in a better area. But all of the children may have used the same playground. Whether the children of the managers would be allowed to play with the working children might depend on the parents or on the customs of the community. Now, I'm not sure if the factory in Spinner's End would have been a textile mill or how dirty it would have been. That big chimney put out something! I can imagine it was hard to keep the houses and laundry clean. You hang the wash out on the line, and it gets all gray and sooty from the smoke. (grey underpants). So we have Petunia, vexed by frog spawn, and soot all over the place and she's constantly cleaning to hide the traces of mill life and magic. I'm not sure if this sort of mill would really have been functioning at this time---or if JKR gave any thought to that detail. Obviously the community that Tuney, Sev and Lily played in has changed quite a bit by the time we see it in HBP. But, that's my take, again based on Southern mill villages and stories I've heard. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 03:20:33 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:20:33 -0000 Subject: Snape's Role/ dark magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176482 > > Alla: > > Eh, as I said upthread I agree that JKR definition of dark magic is > not very precise, but no I do not agree that it makes no sense. I say > sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. > Prep0strus: As I read through the books, I think I kept an idea in the back of my head of the Piers Anthony series, 'Incarnation of Immortality'. In it there was dark and light magic - and the dark came from Satan, and using it accrued evil on your soul, and the light came from god and did not. You get the feeling the dark magic is seductive - maybe a little easier, sometimes more powerful, or able to accomplish things light magic couldn't. 'Good' characters certainly used dark magic to achieve 'good' goals - but they did pay for it with evil tallied to their souls. Not being conscious of it, the way we can be when we have previous feelings from another source, I think that's how I felt throughout the books. The dark magic actually came from a different source, that it actually was 'evil' inherently. That minor jinxes and the junk the twins pulled were just twists within the system of good magic, and the dark stuff was scarier - and cost you something, the way murdering someone tears your soul. At least, that's how I felt until book 7. And after that... it just doesn't make sense to me. Just as it doesn't make sense that every book we can see Harry struggle over and over to turn a new small animal into a new household object, but he can perform an Imperius curse on a battle-tested Death Eater never having been taught how and never having practiced it. Aside from the moral implications that I felt were implied by the previous books with unforgiveable curses, I did feel that performing magic that was 'dark' would have some legitimate impact as well. Perhaps I even thought we'd see the difference in this book - how Dumbledore's magic was good, and Voldemorte's was bad, and what the difference really was. The lines were blurred in this book, and I don't think in a good way. Sometimes moral greyness is wonderful, and the world becomes more complex. But with this issue, like so many others, I think JKR set something up to be a certain way, changed it without explanation, and has left many of us either disappointed or just scratching our heads. ~Adam, who's desperately trying to keep up with posts, but not usually doing a good enough job to have time left over to post himself From teddyb14 at swbell.net Fri Aug 31 04:34:04 2007 From: teddyb14 at swbell.net (teddyb142002) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:34:04 -0000 Subject: Snape's Role/ dark magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176483 > Alla: > So, what did Harry reap when he showed up on that first lesson? > When he has not seen Snape before in his life? Ted: I certainly wouldn't deny that Snape drew first blood. A reprehensible thing for any teacher to do for sure. However, as the story progresses, Harry is no saint in the relationship either. I simply think that holding a grudge for the sake of the grudge is unproductive. Would showing the professor a little respect has caused a great reconciliation? Most likely not, but holding a grudge certainly didn't get him any closer to a man who knew and loved his mother and could tell him about her. That is truly a loss in my opinion, and that is truly the tragedy of this relationship. > > It is also certainly necessary for Snape to keep up his image > > with the death eaters as well, > Alla: > Except we **know** now that Snape was not maintaining any image > with the death eaters when he mistreated Harry, no? > He was doing just that ? mistreating Harry because he wanted to, > no? Ted: Why does he not have to maintain an image with the death eaters? Doesn't his treatment of Harry help him to return to Voldemort and gain his confidence which is essential to the plan? But I still don't believe that image is his main motivation. Certainly he mistreats Harry for his own pleasure. This is part of his selfishness that I can't get past. If he REALLY loves Lily in a truly selfless way, shouldn't he make a better effort with her son? It seems to me that Snape is taking out his frustrations for his own past failure on Harry. > Alla: > Exactly. I do not even care if he never got past his bitterness > towards James, although one would think that Snape helping to > make James dead should sort of satisfy his revenge for the school > years, but whatever - they were enemies in school. If Snape wants > to continue hating dead man, that's his legitimate choice. > But do I think Snape owed Harry to see Lily in him? To try no > matter how freaking hard it was for him do so. Oh yes. Partially > because of you Snape this boy has no mother and no father. Grow > up and treat him decently, says me :) Ted: I think growing up and treating Harry decently is beyond Snape. Emotionally, he just isn't capable of that kind of maturity. Yet his love for Lily was still powerful enough to begin Voldemort's defeat. > Because you see, before book 7 I kept saying that to believe > Snape's remorse I need to hear it from him. Well, I see that > he was remorseful for Lily, but what makes it so very hard to > respect him all together is that I saw **zero** remorse for > what Snape made Harry's life into, for what he shaped him to > be. As far as I mknow Snape was perfectly fine with Harry > being marked, his sufferings because of that, etc. I find it > despicable. And I refuse to cut Snape any slack for that. IMO > of course. Ted: Snape can't see past himself to see what he did to Harry's life, but selfishness doesn't make you evil in my book. Selfishness is ignorance of love. Evil is attempting to abolish love. Ted From claire_elise2003 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 06:14:09 2007 From: claire_elise2003 at yahoo.com (claire_elise2003) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:14:09 -0000 Subject: Lily Evans and the Half Blood Prince - what a team Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176484 Just had a thought. Hogwarts is a school steeped in tradition. If Harry's class had potions with Slytherin, I wonder if they had Gryffindor-Slytherin Potions classes when Lily and Snape were at school? What a formidable team those two would have been in class. If they started from first year in a combined class, I assume that they would have sat together. With Lily's natural talent and Sev's prodigious skill in lateral potions-thinking, they would have been quite intimidating. I feel sorry for all other Gryffindor or Slytherin students in their year. I would like to think that Snape is particularly hard on Harry in Potions as he knows what Harry's mum was capable of and is disappointed not to find her son as capable at brewing potions; but I am forced to accept the sad fact that Snape picked on Harry in class because Harry was the living reminder that Lily loved James, the arrogant berk who bullied him at school, and not Severus Snape. He may have been an incredibly brave man who truly loved Lily, but he was still a nasty, jealous man who held a long grudge. Claire From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 07:13:08 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:13:08 -0000 Subject: Responses of children (Re: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176485 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > > Jen, I actually find your son's reaction to be very > > interesting. I do wonder if somebody else's kids > > made a similar remark in any way, shape or form. > > Meaning whether they took from Harry naming his kid > > Albus Severus that JKR is saying that Slytherin is > > now good. Montavilla47: I have two nephews, one ten and one fourteen. The fourteen-year-old basically made fun of the book, although he's read them since he was seven or so. His big complaint was about Harry. "He never learns any magic!" he said. But it was mostly kidding-in-fun. He doesn't take any of this as seriously as we grown- ups do. (His assessment of the OotP movie was mostly based on the "hotness" of the girls in it. Tonks: Hot, but she doesn't do anything. Cho: Not. Hermione: Hot, but she's stuck with Ron so it's pretty much a waste of time.) I do remember that he was certain that Snape was "good" and happy to find out that he was right about that. My younger nephew was positive that Snape was evil after HBP. He thought I was crazy to think otherwise. A long time ago--perhaps a year ago-- I went through my reasons for thinking that Snape was following Dumbledore's orders and he agreed that it was possible, but he was far from convinced. Like the older nephew and me, he raced through DH in a couple of days. He didn't say much afterwards, and I didn't want to press him. But a few days ago, I found him rereading the series and he said that he was finding himself liking the "bad" characters more than the heroes. I feel very proud of him. Montavilla47 From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Aug 31 09:36:26 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:36:26 -0000 Subject: Responses of children (Re: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176486 Alla: > > > Jen, I actually find your son's reaction to be very > > > interesting. I do wonder if somebody else's kids > > > made a similar remark in any way, shape or form. > > > Meaning whether they took from Harry naming his kid > > > Albus Severus that JKR is saying that Slytherin is > > > now good. > > Montavilla47: > I have two nephews, one ten and one fourteen. The > fourteen-year-old basically made fun of the book, > although he's read them since he was seven or so. His > big complaint was about Harry. "He never learns any > magic!" he said. But it was mostly kidding-in-fun. > He doesn't take any of this as seriously as we grown- > ups do. Ceridwen: My fifteen year old, when pressed, said she thought it was implied that the houses were closer after ninteen years, that the houses were not closer after ninteen years, that... "Meh. I'm going to have breakfast." Her other opinions of DH were that the Hallows confused her, she didn't know what was going on with them; and the book was boring when they were camping. Ceridwen. From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Aug 31 12:01:27 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:01:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lily and Petunia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40708310501s768ac54awdb1b1dea0bdf708a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176487 > > Potioncat: > I grew up in a Southern (US) town that had many textile mills. Often > the mills built housing for the workers. So that the common workers > had small houses, the foremen had nicer homes and the managers had > even better accomodations. I imagine it was similar in British mill > villages. (Does anyone know?) montims: oh gosh, hard to explain to a non Brit, but I lived in Derbyshire or a time, and all around were these streets and streets and streets of little dingy terraced houses, stretching for ever - originally (150 years ago?) of red brick, now grimy and dreary. Has anyone seen Coronation Street? Does this long link work? http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/a/a4/Coronationstreetlogo1960.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.answers.com/topic/coronationstreetlogo1960-jpg&h=240&w=360&sz=48&hl=en&start=27&um=1&tbnid=erIYhsEN8VxTZM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=140&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcoronation%2Bstreet%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26svnum%3D100%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN My grandmother lived in one of these tiny blackened houses (not a Coronation Street one...) and it was literally 2 up 2 down - the front door (never opened) into the parlour, which opened into the kitchen with its back door that everybody used, and two bedrooms upstairs. There was a shared walled yard for her and some dozen neighbours, with the wash house in it, and the outhouses in a long line. Everything you touched outside was grimy, despite the women compulsively scrubbing and washing to keep everything clean. Has anyone read DH Lawrence? I have always seen Petunia as a Gertrude Morel type (Sons and Lovers), except that she married well, and lived with Vernon in Little Whinging. If, due to circumstances, she has married as Gertrude did, I think her bitterness and resentments would have come out the same way... England had its cotton mills too, but I see Spinners End and Snape's upbringing in a pit town - coal mines - with its accompanying filth and squalour and misery... YMMV... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 12:31:31 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:31:31 -0000 Subject: hi-tech, lo-tech, no-tech In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176488 Barry: > > HRH are fleeing Gringotts. They fly over London and the U.K. No > airplanes to check them out! > Giants (big giants, Gwarp is a small giant) are fighting at Hogwarts. > How did they get there without being spotted? > No computers at Hogwarts? No mention of computers. > Ron does listen to the radio. Sort of WW11 resistance stuff. > Wand battles are very similar to lightswords in Star Wars. Wands in HP > seem very much like voice-activated lightswords. As I've said before, > all the magic in HP is very token magic, more a sort of wishing that > works. What I find more accurate is the politics of the WW. It captures > so well the disinformation that characterises the war on terror. Lisa: I think we don't hear much of what is noticed in the Muggle world -- espespecially now that the Dursleys are out of the picture, we have no one's eyes to see through. There have always been times when Muggles noticed the use (or misuse) of magic, and we've seen that the Ministry of Magic has a department to modify the memories of the Muggles when this happens. While the scale of the giants' involvement was sure to be noticed by Muggles, the flight wasn't. They flew very high over London, and one would assume they'd be smart enough to avoid other air traffic. If they were seen, I'm sure pilots/passengers would think they saw a large bird. Lisa From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Aug 31 13:39:20 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:39:20 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176489 > magpie: > > > In DH Hermione tells Griphook that they are the same as far as the > > DEs are concerned. She's a Mudblood, that's why they tortured her. > > I think we're supposed to take that as the truth, as if they are > > the same, even though it's not. Hermione isn't the same as > > Griphook. Hermione's part of the dominant group who is being > > victimized due to in-fighting within that group. After months of > > this she returns to her previous status at the top of the heap. > > Muggle-born persecution matters to the story. Goblin persecution > > does not. They can "take are of themselves" according to Hermione > > herself and they will remain part of the world-building and not > > part of the theme. Harry's sleeping through the Goblin Rebellion > > lessons is just fine. > > Jen: I read this scene a different way because of the prior > context. Griphook asserts that the war is about wand-carriers vs. > magical creatures: "As the Dark Lord becomes even more powerful, your > race is set still more firmly above mine! Gringotts falls under > Wizarding rule, house elves are slaughtered, and who amongst the wand- > carriers protests?"* Griphook considers the wizarding race as a > whole to be gaining power, whether they work directly with Voldemort > or merely benefit by not opposing his actions. Hermione protests > this view of affairs, noting there are humans actively opposing > Voldemort's takeover and how some of them, Muggleborns like her, have > also lost rights in the process. Magpie: But I think Hermione's view as opposed to Griphook's is the one the book takes. Griphook has every reason to see the wand-carriers gaining power in general and not make distinctions between Muggle- borns and Pure-bloods. The book is concerned with the injustices done to the wand-carriers who are opposing their own rights taken away. Griphook's pov as a non-human, his different perspective, is simply wrong, just as is his idea that the sword was stolen. -m From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 13:43:49 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:43:49 -0000 Subject: hi-tech, lo-tech, no-tech In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176490 > Barry: > > No computers at Hogwarts? No mention of computers. > > Ron does listen to the radio. Sort of WW11 resistance stuff. Lisa: Darn, hit "send" too soon with my last post! Anyway -- JKR has said that wizards can't use electronic stuff at Hogwarts because all the magic and enchantments interfere with the signals and electrical impulses. Since it's not something they ever learned to rely on, and probably isn't very reliable anyway, depending on the level of magic being used and enchantments at home. I figured Ron's radio was of the magical sort, since he needed a password to listen to the show. Lisa From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Aug 31 13:42:22 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:42:22 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lily and Petunia Message-ID: <6233476.1188567742161.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176491 Bart: >And maybe Petunia got the keeping up bug and never let go of it. >Maybe she mistook having to pay for the new color console TV monthly >as being poor. Maybe richer kids taunted her the same way she >taunted Snape. Or, she could have been so soured on the magical >world, and afraid of suddenly having WW neighbors, that she spied on >the neighbors and hoped they didn't spy back. Bart: I asked a question during the DH flood that kind of got lost. I think that this is a good place to bring it up again. The Dursley's were VERY big on "keeping up with the Joneses" (or, more precisely, BEING the Joneses). It was not good enough to be well-to-do (well, upper middle class). They had to SHOW everybody that they were better than everybody else. That was part of why they kept Harry in hiding. My question is, why did they allow Harry out in such shabby, ill-fitting clothes, especially going to school? What did they think people would think of them treating an orphaned nephew that shabbily? And I KNOW that isn't a custom in England; as I mentioned in my earlier piece, I had contact with a wealthy family in Britain who took in a lower-middle class girl to be a playmate for their own daughter, and, from simple observation of the way they treated the girls, you would never know which was the companion, and which was the natural daughter. I was told at the time that this was not an uncommon practice. To summarize, why would people like the Dursley's, who seem to be so incredibly conscious of what people think of them, publicly treat their nephew so badly? Bart From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Aug 31 12:48:53 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:48:53 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lily and Petunia References: <8ee758b40708310501s768ac54awdb1b1dea0bdf708a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002201c7ebcd$49a21310$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 176492 > montims: > oh gosh, hard to explain to a non Brit, but I lived in Derbyshire or a > time, > and all around were these streets and streets and streets of little dingy > terraced houses, stretching for ever - originally (150 years ago?) of red > brick, now grimy and dreary. Has anyone seen Coronation Street? Does > this > long link work? > http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/a/a4/Coronationstreetlogo1960.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.answers.com/topic/coronationstreetlogo1960-jpg&h=240&w=360&sz=48&hl=en&start=27&um=1&tbnid=erIYhsEN8VxTZM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=140&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcoronation%2Bstreet%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26svnum%3D100%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN > England had its cotton mills too, but I see Spinners End and Snape's > upbringing in a pit town - coal mines - with its accompanying filth and > squalour and misery... > > YMMV... Shelley: Montims, your link does work. I've visited coal mining towns, and in areas around the coal mines the dust gets into everything. It's like living on a dry dirt road, where every car that goes by stirs up the dust, except that in coal processing areas that dust is black coal dust. Areas along the railroad tracks that carried car loads of coal, the same black trail of dust could be seen. In other areas, different industries pollute the air, and what settles out of that air ends up in the dust on your homes. I had visited a friend whose local industry left a yellowish dust that had the accompanying sulfur smell to it, and it would work it's way into your clothing and unexpected places just because it was everywhere and you couldn't help tracking it as you moved, and the wind was blowing it around. I'd rather have coal smell than sulfur smell any day. Back to canon, I agree that I could see Snape coming from a coal mining area. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Aug 31 13:51:31 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:51:31 -0000 Subject: Snape's Role/ dark magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176493 Adam: > Perhaps I even thought we'd see the difference in this book - how > Dumbledore's magic was good, and Voldemorte's was bad, and what the > difference really was. The lines were blurred in this book, and I > don't think in a good way. Sometimes moral greyness is wonderful, > and the world becomes more complex. But with this issue, like so > many others, I think JKR set something up to be a certain way, > changed it without explanation, and has left many of us either > disappointed or just scratching our heads. Jen: You've summed up my impression of dark/light magic by DH, the greyness and imprecision. Here's another quote to add to the confusion: "Because [a] wand, in my world, is merely a vehicle, a vessel for what lies inside the person. There is a very close relationship -- as you know -- between the wand that each wizard uses and themselves." (An evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp, 2006) So all magic really comes down to intent then?? That works for things like the Unforgiveables - having to mean them - or a happy memory infusing a person with the ability to cast a Patronus. I'm not sure it holds up for each and every spell cast in the series though (and I don't have it in me to research it ). Jen From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 31 14:06:14 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:06:14 -0000 Subject: Lily and Petunia In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40708310501s768ac54awdb1b1dea0bdf708a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176494 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > montims: > England had its cotton mills too, but I see Spinners End and Snape's > upbringing in a pit town - coal mines - with its accompanying filth and > squalour and misery... Geoff: I made a similar comparison way back when HBP first came out. I grew up in Burnley in East Lancashire which was both a cotton weaving and coal mining town and the descriptions reminded me so much of the houses we lived in at that time. I *could* empathise with Snape over that.... From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Aug 31 14:38:23 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:38:23 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176495 > Magpie: > But I think Hermione's view as opposed to Griphook's is the one the > book takes. Griphook has every reason to see the wand-carriers > gaining power in general and not make distinctions between Muggle- > borns and Pure-bloods. The book is concerned with the injustices > done to the wand-carriers who are opposing their own rights taken > away. Griphook's pov as a non-human, his different perspective, is > simply wrong, just as is his idea that the sword was stolen. Jen: The book also makes the point that the power the goblins hold, ownership of Gringotts, was taken away from them by Voldemort. Griphook has a vested interest in any wand-carriers who are opposing LV. Goblins do have power in the WW, more than house-elves, centaurs, werewolves or some of the other beings/beasts, because they're in a position of authority when overseeing the currency. That's not a petty right to have in any world. Griphook isn't servile to the Trio, he has his own agenda just as they do and he's sticking with it. He finds the Trio 'curious' wand-carriers but nothing more - not right, not trustworthy, possibly useful. Had the intention been to show how wrong Griphook was, I believe the story would have made that point by Griphook changing his own views somewhat. Bill, unlike Hermione (part of her characterization), has taken the time to understand goblins from their own POV. From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Aug 31 14:40:02 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:40:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lily and Petunia In-Reply-To: <6233476.1188567742161.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <6233476.1188567742161.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <8ee758b40708310740g117aa2a7o420d417821ed24a4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176496 > > Bart: > I asked a question during the DH flood that kind of got lost. I think that > this is a good place to bring it up again. > > The Dursley's were VERY big on "keeping up with the Joneses" (or, more > precisely, BEING the Joneses). It was not good enough to be well-to-do > (well, upper middle class). They had to SHOW everybody that they were better > than everybody else. That was part of why they kept Harry in hiding. > > My question is, why did they allow Harry out in such shabby, ill-fitting > clothes, especially going to school? What did they think people would think > of them treating an orphaned nephew that shabbily? And I KNOW that isn't a > custom in England; as I mentioned in my earlier piece, I had contact with a > wealthy family in Britain who took in a lower-middle class girl to be a > playmate for their own daughter, and, from simple observation of the way > they treated the girls, you would never know which was the companion, and > which was the natural daughter. I was told at the time that this was not an > uncommon practice. > > To summarize, why would people like the Dursley's, who seem to be so > incredibly conscious of what people think of them, publicly treat their > nephew so badly? montims: to make it obvious that he WASN'T their child, or connected to them in any way other than being dumped upon them by his feckless parents having died? He wasn't allowed out, as I recall, other than to go to school, and Petunia could blame Harry as well for his poor appearance - they give him nice clothes but he treats them really badly and deliberately looks a mess to spite them, as he did with his hair? Poor Harry... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Aug 31 14:37:48 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:37:48 -0400 Subject: help with JKR quote/ Message-ID: <000901c7ebdc$813bc960$9cc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 176497 Alla said: >>BUT just read what JKR wrote about jinxes - those effects are irritating but amusing. Sooooo, minor Dark magic **can** be amusing?<< CathyD now: Just one that sounds *really* amusing to me, from the HP-Lexicon: "finger-removing jinx: Removes the target person's fingers. Goodwin Kneen's wife, Gunhilda, hit him with this jinx after he came home a bit late from celebrating Ilkley's win in Quidditch (QA3). " I imagine Goodwin Kneen found it quite irritating....to say the least. And as to the Hurling Hex, which I think has already been mentioned by someone, being 'of a minor sort' of Dark Magic; being hurled off a broomstick at even 50 feet (the height of the Quidditch goalposts) would most likely be somewhat more than irritating and not at all amusing to the person being hurled. As Adam said: >>Sometimes moral greyness is wonderful, and the world becomes more complex. But with this issue, like so many others, I think JKR set something up to be a certain way, changed it without explanation, and has left many of us either disappointed or just scratching our heads.<< CathyD again: Personally, I'm not entirely sure she set it up to be a certain way, then changed it. I'm beginning to think it wasn't well thought out, beforehand, at all. Quite like the wand-allegience tripe we find in book 7. From graynavarre at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 14:40:30 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:40:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <578435.8581.qm@web30114.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176498 > From JKR's website: snip > > Hexes: > Has a connotation of dark magic, as do jinxes, but > of a minor sort. > I see 'hex' as slightly worse. I usually use 'jinx' > for spells whose > effects are irritating but amusing. Amusing to whom. While I am sure the casters (James and Sirius) are rolling around laughing, I doubt very much if the child that found his head swollen to twice its size (HBP) got a good chuckle out of it. Barbara From hallows57-groups at yahoo.co.uk Fri Aug 31 14:02:41 2007 From: hallows57-groups at yahoo.co.uk (godrics hollow) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:02:41 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lily and Petunia References: <8ee758b40708310501s768ac54awdb1b1dea0bdf708a@mail.gmail.com> <002201c7ebcd$49a21310$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: <001c01c7ebd7$d5824990$ab096551@Desktop> No: HPFGUIDX 176499 montims > England had its cotton mills too, but I see Spinners End and Snape's > upbringing in a pit town - coal mines - with its accompanying filth and > squalour and misery... > > YMMV... godrics hollow: Lots of factories have chimneys. Foundries are the worst. Where I work, until two years or so ago, there was another factory - a foundry -across the road, that when the chimney's 'smoked' at night, the resulting 'fall-out' ruined the paintwork on your car. Before it was forced to clean up its act (ie send the stuff out at night when it thought no-one noticed), during the 1970s it used to blot out the sun during the day in the summer. That's some pollution. From margdean at erols.com Fri Aug 31 14:54:10 2007 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:54:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's Role/ dark magic References: Message-ID: <46D82B92.533242B7@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176500 Jen Reese wrote: > So all magic really comes down to intent then?? That works for > things like the Unforgiveables - having to mean them - or a happy > memory infusing a person with the ability to cast a Patronus. I'm not > sure it holds up for each and every spell cast in the series though > (and I don't have it in me to research it ). All through this thread a quote from Randall Garrett's "Lord Darcy" series (basically, an alternate history detective series in which magic works) has been running through my mind: "Black Magic is a matter of symbolism and intent." Of course, in that setting wizards customarily use a lot more paraphernalia than JKR's do. They don't just carry wands, they carry carpetbags and steamer trunks ... so if you open up a wizard's trunk and find it full of stuff like mummy dust and Hands of Glory and wands made of human thighbones, you've got him dead to rights at least as far as his symbolism goes. Then you look at what he's actually been attempting with this stuff, to determine intent. With JKR's wizards I think perhaps the symbolism lies in the =effect= of a spell. Let's take the Full Body-Bind as an example. The symbolism of this is somewhat dark because it renders the target helpless against his/her will, though it doesn't actually inflict harm. However, I'd say the caster's intent has an effect too. When Hermione uses this against Neville, she doesn't wish to harm him -- more to keep him from harming himself or anyone else. I can see a Death Eater, OTOH, using this same spell on Neville and then attacking or killing or imprisoning him while he was helpless. As a side note, I tend to think that the classification of "Unforgivable" Curses is a legal one, kind of the equivalent of a Zero Tolerance policy in the "war on drugs." It doesn't necessarily have any deeper meaning than "getting caught using these without specific official sanction will land you in Azkaban." --Margaret Dean From mosu22 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 14:48:23 2007 From: mosu22 at yahoo.com (Monica) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:48:23 -0000 Subject: Another inconsistency? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176501 Sharon again: > But Ron and Harry apparate separately to Shell Cottage from the Malfoy > Manor, > and Ron apparates a few times trying to come back after he walked out on > Harry > and Hermione. It's such a minor detail, but it's one of those niggly things > I just > wonder about. What happens if you apparate without a license (Think I spelt > it > right this time. LOL) Monica#2 Ron had been trained in apparition even if he hadn't passed his test, but it seemed to me that when Harry and Dobby are apparating out of Malfoy manor, Harry's concentration and the way it was written told me that this was his first time apparating. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but he wanted Dobby to take over, and really didn't seem to know what he was doing. When he landed, he was unsure if he was in the right place. Maybe emotional, but I think it was because he was very inexperienced at apparition. Wish it had been made clear if this was in fact his first time or if he had been trained in it previously. Oh well, what's done is done The other Monica From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Aug 31 15:08:54 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:08:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lily and Petunia In-Reply-To: References: <8ee758b40708310501s768ac54awdb1b1dea0bdf708a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40708310808w6de323d0saa1730541205afb9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176502 > > Geoff: > I made a similar comparison way back when HBP first came out. I grew > up in Burnley in East Lancashire which was both a cotton weaving and > coal mining town and the descriptions reminded me so much of the > houses we lived in at that time. I *could* empathise with Snape over > that.... montims: this interested me so much that I looked it up on the fabulous Lexicon - http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-spinners-end.html and read this, which puts a new slant to Snape's perceived personality, and also to Petunia's snappishness. I can testify to Northerners' "bluntness": Snape's words and actions are those of one from the industrial north of England. Snape uses the expression "dunderhead," which is quite often heard in the north of England but rare elsewhere, and he describes Mundungus Fletcher as "smelly" ? a word common among children all over Britain, but rarely used by adults ? unless they are from the Manchester/Derby area. Finally, the fact that Snape probably comes from the industrial north of England defuses a lot of his apparent harshness and nastiness, because it means much of it is just cultural. In that area "surly and antisocial" is rather admired, and rudeness (known as "being blunt") is regarded as a sign of honesty and is cultivated as a virtue. Indeed, one can say that Snape's probably from a northern English industrial area, rather than Lanarkshire or Derry, precisely because he is so brusque and sarcastic. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Aug 31 15:25:20 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:25:20 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176503 > Jen: The book also makes the point that the power the goblins hold, > ownership of Gringotts, was taken away from them by Voldemort. > Griphook has a vested interest in any wand-carriers who are opposing > LV. Goblins do have power in the WW, more than house-elves, centaurs, > werewolves or some of the other beings/beasts, because they're in a > position of authority when overseeing the currency. That's not a petty > right to have in any world. Griphook isn't servile to the Trio, he has > his own agenda just as they do and he's sticking with it. He finds the > Trio 'curious' wand-carriers but nothing more - not right, not > trustworthy, possibly useful. Had the intention been to show how wrong > Griphook was, I believe the story would have made that point by > Griphook changing his own views somewhat. Bill, unlike Hermione (part > of her characterization), has taken the time to understand goblins from > their own POV. Magpie: I don't think Goblins are important enough to even get into him changing his views. My point isn't that Griphook doesn't have his own agenda, it's that his agenda is there for the WW to be "complex" and not as something that shakes up the Trio's view of the world or how to defeat Voldemort. Goblins having control of the bank might not be a petty power, but it's obviously one that can be taken away (since it is here) and it doesn't put them on the level of Wizards. I think if the Trio held a view similar to Griphook's here it would come across as the right view, and that Hermione's explanation here is the one we need for the story. -m From graynavarre at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 15:13:13 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:13:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Lily and Petunia In-Reply-To: <6233476.1188567742161.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <38847.2549.qm@web30110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176504 Bart: > My question is, why did they allow Harry out in such > shabby, ill-fitting clothes, especially going to > school? What did they think people would think of > them treating an orphaned nephew that shabbily? And > I KNOW that isn't a custom in England; as I > mentioned in my earlier piece, I had contact with a > wealthy family in Britain who took in a lower-middle > class girl to be a playmate for their own daughter, > and, from simple observation of the way they treated > the girls, you would never know which was the > companion, and which was the natural daughter. I was > told at the time that this was not an uncommon > practice. > > To summarize, why would people like the Dursley's, > who seem to be so incredibly conscious of what > people think of them, publicly treat their nephew so > badly? My thoughts on this have always been that at this point in time, the story is a fairy tale. Harry is Cinderella and all the other poor relations that are misused. We adults and the children are quickly lured into liking them and disliking anyone whom they dislike because we feel empathy for the "poor little boy." Barbara From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 18:31:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:31:37 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176505 Magpie: > But I think Hermione's view as opposed to Griphook's is the one the > book takes. Griphook has every reason to see the wand-carriers > gaining power in general and not make distinctions between Muggle- > borns and Pure-bloods. The book is concerned with the injustices > done to the wand-carriers who are opposing their own rights taken > away. Griphook's pov as a non-human, his different perspective, is > simply wrong, just as is his idea that the sword was stolen. Carol responds: Goblins' rights aside, Griphook *is* wrong--as in mistaken--about the ownership of the Sword of Gryffindor. It was made by a long-dead goblin for Godric Gryffindor, who paid a large amount of gold for it. Griphook's wanting it back for the gobins in general makes no sense. What are they going to do with it, keep it in Gringotts? That won't work because it's enchanted to come out of the Sorting Hat for any Gryffindor who needs it. (Of course, in the two instances we've seen, the Sorting Hat *happened* to be right there, delivered by Fawkes in the one instance and summoned by Voldemort himself in the other. Complicated logistics, part of the "help will always come at Hogwarts to those who ask for it" idea, I suppose.) At any rate, as I see it, goblin-made swords, armor, tiaras, etc., do belong to the wizards who paid for them, just as my car belongs to me and not to the Ford workers who manufactured it. It may be a "human" idea of ownership, but it makes much more sense than returning a sword or tiara or whatever to the goblin who made it on the death of the wizard who *bought*, not *leased* it. Should wands made by Ollivander return to him on the death of the wizard who made them? *He* doesn't expect that to happpen. Neither, IMO, should the goblins. With regard to employment opportunities, the right to carry wand (which they don't need), and their right to live in peace, Griphook and the goblins have more legitimate grievances, but Griphook's idea that he was retrieving goblin property by seizing the Sword of Gryffindor (willed to Harry by DD, who was presumably its legitimate owner as headmaster of Hogwarts, and made available to Harry and Ron by another headmaster, Severus Snape, who makes sure that the sword is retrieved under circumstances involving valor and chivalry as required by its internal magic) is, IMO, just absurd. An artifact can't belong to a group. The only goblin with a hint of a legitimate claim would be a descendant of the original maker, and even then the descendant or heir of the original buyer would have a better claim. Carol, who does not consider her legally purchased copy of DH to belong to JK Rowling even though Rowling created it, property rights being different from copyright protection From cottell at dublin.ie Fri Aug 31 19:51:43 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:51:43 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176506 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Carol responds: > > Goblins' rights aside, Griphook *is* wrong--as in mistaken--about > the ownership of the Sword of Gryffindor. Mus responds: I agree entirely with you that in RL Western law, the goblins wouldn't have a chance at satisfaction, but I don't think it's entirely right to say that the entire notion is absurd. Native American views of land ownership come to mind, where the notion of owning land makes as much sense as owning the sky, together with the tradition that such views facilitated treaties with European settlers - a treaty transferring ownership of something it's not possible to own is meaningless, and it's not hard to imagine how this might sound like a very good deal, rather like a successful sale of the Brooklyn Bridge. It's absolutely clear from the text that the author intends us to regard the Western view of property as the correct one, not least because the sword answers a needful Gryffindor. But the issue of the sword so obviously recalls that of "tribal" artefacts and their ownership and return that I can't help wondering why the author included this thread. It's hard not to think "Actually, from the goblin point of view...". Triggering that thought made sense earlier in the series - it makes less now, and I don't know why it's still there. For this reader, it was one bit of incoherence (or we really were supposed to take the original statue in the Minstry fountain seriously. Surely not). In reponse to which goblin could be the rightful owner of the sword now, it's interesting that Bill uses the word "master" of the maker of a piece of goblin work, not "owner" [DH, UK hb: 418]. The book is riddled with references to the "master" of an object - the use of the word here makes me think that from the goblin's point of view, there's more to it than simply ownership. I'm afraid, Carol, that I don't understand what you mean by: > An artifact can't belong to a group. The group that bought the Damien Hirst skull might disagree. :-) Whether something can belong to a group depends on how that group is constituted, but it can't be true to say that group ownership is impossible even in the Western Muggle world, can it? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 20:20:01 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:20:01 -0000 Subject: Ownership (was... The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176507 --- "Carol" wrote: > > Carol responds: > > Goblins' rights aside, Griphook *is* wrong--as in > mistaken--about the ownership of the Sword of > Gryffindor. It was made by a long-dead goblin for > Godric Gryffindor, who paid a large amount of gold > for it. (But)... it's enchanted to come out of the > Sorting Hat for any Gryffindor who needs it. > > At any rate, as I see it, goblin-made swords, armor, > tiaras, etc., do belong to the wizards who paid for > them, just as my car belongs to me and not to the > Ford workers who manufactured it. .... bboyminn: Here is an aspect of the Goblin/Wizard's transactions that I think we need to consider. Now, we know Goblins think the the manufacturer/crafter of an object retains ownership. Yet, without question, Goblins also know that wizards don't see it that way. So why do they continue to sell objects to wizards when they know the is contention over the nature of the transaction? If Goblins truly felt this way, they could introduce a Sales Contract that dictated the terms of ownership, and wizards could either take it or leave it, but notice they don't. They don't enter into a sales agreement in which both parties agree. The continue to sell objects under contentious circumstances. They continue to sell under one frame of mind knowing full well that the purchasing party does not have the same frame of mind, AND they have continued along this path for many many centuries. So... what's up with that? I think the thing that Goblins most object to is the idea that wizards dictate the terms of everything. That somehow wizards have deemed themselves Lords and Masters of the Universe. That when ever any problem arises, wizard somehow feel the need to step in and resolve the problem. I think this applies to wandlore as well. The Goblins don't object to the fact that wizards have wandlore, they object to the fact that wizards feel they have a right to control the knowledge. It's not even about a willingness to exchange, say Goblin metal crafting knowledge for wandlore knowledge. It is about the absolute right to knowledge and information, and the right to choose for yourself what you do or don't get to use. Goblins through out history seem to have done everything in their power to dispute the nature of Wizards to solve and control all things. When wizards were trying to categorize everyone one into Beast, Being, or spirit, Goblins did everything they could to subvert the process. Not because the didn't like the result, but because they didn't think it was up to wizards to make that decision. I think in a subtle way, this is JKR's 'dig' into Western civilization. Some how the arrogance of Western Europe and now the United States is, historically, beyond the pale. Christopher Columbus discovered 'America' and despite the fact that 'America' has it own people, its own civilization and its own religion, ol'Chris assumed because he found it, it belong to him. The same is true of India and China. Despite both having far more complex and much older civilizations that Europe, some how Europe thought it owned those places simply because they set foot them. I think that is how Goblins see wizards, as the height of arrogance to presume that it is up to them to decide anything for anyone. But back to the main point, by selling objects knowing the conditions wizards attached to the transactions, like it or not, Goblins gave de facto approval to those conditions, and as such have no right to claim Goblin made objects from the heirs of the original purchaser UNLESS they have written documentation supporting their alternate position. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 21:10:32 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:10:32 -0000 Subject: help with JKR quote was Re: Lily and Tuney and Sev, Oh My In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176508 muscatel1988 wrote: > Oh dear. I've just been to the Lexicon (http://www.hp- > lexicon.org/magic/spells/spells_c.html). > > The following spells are known as curses. > > Babbling Curse > Blasting Curse * > Body-Bind Curse * > Cruciatus Curse * > Curse of the Bogies > Entrail-Expelling Curse > Fiendfyre > Flagrante Curse > Gemino Curse > Impediment Curse * > Imperius Curse * > Jelly-Fingers curse > Killing Curse > Leg-Locker Curse > Reductor Curse * > Sponge-Knees Curse > Thief's Curse > Unforgivable Curses (*) > > Those I've marked with * are used by White Hats, almost always with success (Harry's Reductor in GoF doesn't work). If JKR is to be taken at her word, then we've seen Dark Magic being liberally used right through the series. If she's not, then her answer makes little sense (and it's not as if she gave it in an absent-minded moment in an interview. > > I wish I was able to see a coherent moral universe in her work. I can't, any more. > > Mus. > Carol responds: Yes, I've made a similar list in other posts and developed the point regarding her inconsistency at length in message 160791, which I'll quote in part here: "The Lexicon lists the following hexes: Bat-Bogey Hex, canary transfiguration hex, Hurling Hex, knee-reversing hex, Stinging Hex, Twitchy Ears Hex, and toenail-growing hex, some of which I don't recall encountering in canon and most of which sound no more dangerous than the so-called jinxes (some of which I don't recall from canon, either): Anti-Disapparation Jinx, Backfiring Jinx, finger-removing jinx, Impediment Jinx, Jelly-Brain Jinx, Jelly-Legs Jinx, snitch jinx, Stretching jinx, and Trip Jinx. The finger-removing jinx sounds a bit more than irritating, and amusing only if you're Bellatrix Lestrange. The distinction between jinxes and hexes is unclear from these examples. Is Hermione's Snitch Jinx really less Dark than twitchy ears or long toenails, both of which appear to be temporary (or easily reversed by Madam Pomfrey)? IMO, the only logical reason to call it a jinx rather than a hex is that Hermione jinxed the parchment rather than the person, but that doesn't appear to be JKR's line of thinking. "As for spells labeled as curses, is the Conjunctivitis Curse (which Viktor Krum used on his dragon and Sirius Black intended to advise Harry to use on his) really that much Darker than the Bat-Bogey Hex or the Confundus Charm (not to mention our much-hated Memory Charm)? What about the Babbling Curse, the Impediment Curse (Impedimenta?), the Leg-Locker Curse, and the Jelly-Fingers Curse (listed in the Lexicon)? Those seem to fit JKR's definition of *jinxes* (irritating but amusing--to the spectator, anyway), yet they're labeled curses. Now granted, the Entrail-Expelling Curse really does sound Dark (and gruesome), and Sectumsempra can be deadly and is likely to be classified as a curse, along with the unquestionably Dark Unforgiveables. But the Sponge-Knees Curse (again from the Lexicon)? How is that Darker than Jelly Legs? "It seems to me that most if not all of these spells, even the Confundus Charm, are really curses, ranging from minor (and amusing, if you're JKR) to fatal. I suppose that they're also Charms since they change the properties rather than the essence of the victim, usually temporarily (except for the AK and the innocent-sounding Memory Charm). So does Hogwarts teach (or allow its students to teach each other) minor Dark Magic? Just what are the Dark Arts that Durmstrang teaches, then? (How to kill your friends and turn them into Inferi?) "If JKR's explanation were valid, the only actual curses listed in this post would be the Unforgiveables, the Entrail-Expelling Curse, Sectumsempra, and possibly the euphemistically titled Memory Charm. The Conjunctivitis Curse (so-called because it alliterates, IMO) would be a hex and the Twitchy Ears Hex a jinx. "Nope. She simply hasn't thought it out. Maybe the current definition was a work in progress when she was writing OoP, which would explain why the students start jinxing rather than hexing each other (most of the time), but as I see it, she chose the names chiefly for their sound, particularly in the case of those few that alliterate (Conjuntivitis Curse, Hurling Hex, Jelly-Legs Jinx). "If the curse that's on the DADA position is a jinx by JKR's definition, I'll eat slugs." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160791 To return to Mus's list from the Lexicon, it's clear that most of the so-called curses are not Dark (Fiendfyre and the Unforgiveables excepted). Interestingly, Sectumsempra, surely a curse since it's a Dark spell that can kill and causes permanent harm (unless Snape is there to chant the elaborate countercurse) is not listed. It bothers me that JKR uses "hex" for most minor curses until OoP, when she suddenly and temporarily switches to "jinx" for most of the spells that the students use against each other in the DA meetings and in unfriendly encounters between Gryffindors and Slytherins. The curse on the DADA position, which has led to everything from a simple firing to death (and soul-sucking, if you count Barty Jr. as a DADA teacher) has been labeled as a jinx since it was first mentioned, though I very much doubt that its victims found it merely annoying. As I stated before, she seems to use "curse" very loosely for everything from the hexes and jinxes that the kids throw at each other in the corridors to purely defensive spells like Impedimenta to anti-acne charms like the one that Eloise Midgen tried to use on herself. I would say that JKR is right (according to the evidence of her own text) in stating that "spell" is a generic term for any magic requiring a wand and that a "charm" merely changes the properties of an object rather than altering its nature or chemical structure (so we have Summoning and Banishing and Hover *Charms* but Vanishing and Conjuring *Spells*, which are forms of Transfiguration). The spells used for DADA (or duelling in the corridors) are all some sort of curse, usually a hex or jinx (either of which may involve either a charm or transfiguration, but let's not muddy the waters any further). The defensive spells, such as Expelliarmus, Impedimenta, and Protego, appear to be what Hermione calls "counterjinxes" in OoP, but the term isn't used anywhere else, IIRC. The term "countercurse," which does appear rather frequently, seems to apply both to specific counterspells such as Liberacorpus (the countercurse for Levicorpus) and the unnamed and elaborate countercurse for Sectumsempra and to the generalized counterspell "Finite Incantatem," which seems to work for most jinxes and hexes not invented by Severus Snape. The term "countercurse" is not, however, used for defensive spells like those I listed: Expelliarmus, Impedimenta, and Protego. Looking just at these three basic DADA spells (which, except for SWM, are primarily used in self-defense), Impedimenta is referred to either as the Impediment *Curse* or the Impediment *Jinx*; Expelliarmus is merely the Disarming *Spell* (or "disarm"); Protego is the Shield *Charm.* Not an iota of consistency in naming those defensive spells, yet all are used in similar situations. Other primarily defensive spells include Expecto Patronum, a charm effective only against Dementors; Stupefy, the Stunning Spell or Stupefying Charm; and Riddikulus, the Boggart-Banishing Spell, which appears to be a charm. However, the Stinging Hex also appears to be used defensively (Harry accidentally casts one against Snape in the Occlumency lessons), as does Reducto, the Reductor Curse, which blasts solid objects out of the way. Of these spells, the purely defensive ones (Expelliarmus, Protego, and Expecto Patronum) appear to be the least dark, with the jinx/curse Impedimenta less dark than many spells casually used in the corridors by kids from rival houses. How the toenail hex invented by the HBP is darker than Stupefy or the Jelly-Legs Jinx is unclear to me. I think that JKR was not paying attention to the type of curse or degree of darkness at all in naming her spells and curses (though she did pay attention, in some cases, to whether the spell was a charm or a form of transfiguration). She was primarily interested in the sound of the name, and in alliteration where applicable. I would make more sense *to me* if jinxes were placed on objects (brooms, pieces of parchment) or intangible entities (the DADA position) and hexes on people, with "curses" reserved for the Unforgiveables, Sectumsempra, and anything potentially deadly, disabling, or permanent. But neither logic nor consistency is discoverable in JKR's naming system, and her website explanation is only partially applicable to her actual practice within the books. Carol, wondering whether JKR gave Hermione an excellent memory as a form of wishful thinking From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 21:28:54 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:28:54 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176509 Mus wrote: > I'm afraid, Carol, that I don't understand what you mean by: > > > An artifact can't belong to a group. > > The group that bought the Damien Hirst skull might disagree. :-) > Whether something can belong to a group depends on how that group is > constituted, but it can't be true to say that group ownership is > impossible even in the Western Muggle world, can it? > Carol responds: I meant that an object, whether it's a sword or a tiara, can only be worn or wielded by one person--or goblin--at a time. Group ownership of land is entirely different from group ownership of an object, in which possession means everything. Grindelwald and Dumbledore thought that they could own, and wield, the three Hallows together. They would have found out differently. Such objects cannot be shared. Even the Invisibility Cloak has one rightful owner. Possibly the term "master" is more applicable than "owner" here. Nevertheless, I don't see how the goblins in general can "own" the Sword of Gryffindor, nor what good it would do them to have it in their collective possession. A sword is meant to be wielded, and I doubt that any goblin, even a giant of a goblin who stood four feet tall, could wield that sword. It was made for a specific wizard, and its powers are specific to him and his legal heirs, whether they are his descendants or the headmasters of Hogwarts. Carol, who doubts that the Native Americans who sell their pottery and necklaces at roadside stands believe that their works are cultural artifacts that ought to be handed back to their makers on the death of the purchasers From dreadr at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 21:51:34 2007 From: dreadr at yahoo.com (dreadr) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:51:34 -0000 Subject: Lily and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176510 > Lisa: > Debbie, I've thought about this and been on the fence for quite > some time. First, I've considered the same points you did about > explaining Petunia's attitudes. On the other hand, I think her > jealousy was Lily's magic, something she could never aspire to > have; her obsession with status simply a desire to have as much or > more than her parents, no matter what their status; and her clean- > freak-ism simply a touch of OCD! I'd be interested in hearing what > JKR would have to say about this! Lisa, I grew up in an area that was formerly dominated by a cotton mill. It was still known as "Cotton Hill" and there was a stigma attached to living there. You really were labeled, so much so that when I was a teenager I told people I lived off an Avenue that bordered it but then went on to an affluent area. I do find it interesting that with all of JKR's interviews and Q&A sessions, apparently, no one has asked for more info on Lily's family. In some ways, (only some), I find Petunia to be a rather tragic figure who has strove her entire life to escape her background. Her sister (Younger?) managed to leave it behind completely, because of the fact that she was a witch. THEN, she had the audacity to marry money and not only that but into an apparently well-respected, very old wizarding family. If their parents were not wealthy, then boarding school would have probably been out of the question for Petunia once she was turned down at Hogwarts. It is very hard to live in someone else's shadow, especially when that someone is given opportunities that you can never have. Do I like or excuse Petunia for her attitudes and treatment of Harry. NO! I do, however, somewhat understand it if our scenarios are accurate. I hope JKR addresses this. Debbie From Meliss9900 at aol.com Fri Aug 31 22:56:22 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:56:22 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Another inconsistency? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176511 In a message dated 8/31/2007 10:04:44 A.M. Central Daylight Time, mosu22 at yahoo.com writes: Harry's concentration and the way it was written told me that this was his first time apparating. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but he wanted Dobby to take over, and really didn't seem to know what he was doing. When he landed, he was unsure if he was in the right place. _______________________ Harry had apparated in the class right before Hermione and Ron took the extra practices in Hogsmeade. It was during that practice that Ron managed to apparate for the first time. (Hermione had, of course, managed it first. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 23:32:09 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 23:32:09 -0000 Subject: Another inconsistency? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176512 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Monica" wrote: > it seemed to me that when Harry and Dobby are apparating out of > Malfoy manor, Harry's concentration and the way it was written told me > that this was his first time apparating. It was not his first time Apparating :-). He Apparated himself and Dumbledore after the cave back to Hogsmeade in HBP. I really think that in DH Hermione is "in charge" of their Apparations not because Harry and Ron can't do it, but because they want to get to the same place and not to get lost. zanooda